Barney Frank to propose marijuana decriminalization?
posted at 9:36 am on March 23, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Can anyone take a statement on Bill Maher’s HBO show seriously? Barney Frank told Maher on Real Time that he would introduce legislation in Congress to decriminalize small amounts of pot, asserting that its illegal status is out of step with the American public. When asked, an aide had heard nothing of it until Frank’s HBO appearance:
Rep. Barney Frank will soon introduce legislation to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana, the Massachusetts Democrat said during an appearance on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher.” …
Frank has introduced legislation in previous years to allow the use of “medical marijuana,” although the bills never made it out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Asked by Maher as to why he would push a pot decriminalization bill now, Frank said the American public has already decided that personal use of marijuana is not a problem.
Frank claimed he would call it the “Make Room for Serious Criminals” bill. The intent would be to take the burden of marijuana investigations, arrests, trials, and encarceration off of an overtaxed justice system and allow resources to go after more serious crimes. Frank called incarceration for smoking marijuana “silly” and that lawmakers had to catch up to public sensibilities on marijuana.
I’m not necessarily opposed to legalization, but even with that, Frank oversells the concept. Most people caught smoking marijuana don’t serve any jail time at all. In most places, it’s not even a serious misdemeanor, and in many jurisdictions it’s more of an infraction. Convictions for personal use usually result in fines and sometimes in compulsory rehab, but it’s been decades since individual users have been jailed for simply smoking a joint.
The big drain on law enforcement resources come from interdicting the larger traffic in marijuana, at the border and in the interior. It doesn’t sound as though Frank will propose that marijuana becomes completely legal, and so it will do very little to “make room for serious criminals”. It also imposes a forced legalization on states and communities that the federal government has no business mandating. In fact, the only action Congress can take is to remove the federal bans on marijuana, including importation, so that states can make their own decisions on legalization.
Should Congress take that kind of action? The decades of prohibition on marijuana have done little to stem its popularity and abuse. In terms of intoxication, it has no worse effects than alcohol, and some argue considerably less impairment. A regulated marijuana industry could dry up the gang economics in its trade and ensure some safety for the users. It would also free resources to fight the distribution of far worse substances, such as heroin and cocaine. On the other hand, its status as a gateway drug could drive up other forms of abuse, and federal decriminalization could call into question the rest of the war on drugs that has thus far been a failure that has incarcerated large numbers of Americans and driven violent behavior between rival “distributors” in their markets.
We know that what we’ve been doing hasn’t worked. Is it time to acknowledge a new paradigm on marijuana? Perhaps — but what Frank proposed will have no effect at all.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »
It should certainly be legalized but decriminalization is better than nothing. The problem is that the government and anti-drug organizations have been spreading their propaganda for a multitude of decades and when their lies have been discovered they simply switch tactics and invents a new set of lies. As a result there are still an awful lot of people who think Marijuana is the “demon weed” that causes people to murder, rape and commit suicide, but they seem to be in the minority now even if they’re still a sizable group.
I believe that in the next few decades MJ will be legalized as a result of voter attrition. The oldest voters who were exposed to the vilest anti-MJ propaganda will be gone and over time the tide will inevitably turn to legalization.
FloatingRock on March 23, 2008 at 12:27 PM
It’ll never happen. The current pot laws are a cash cow for law enforcement, and their powerful lobby will ensure the cow keeps giving milk.
Add the equally powerful pharmaceutical lobby, which is deathly afraid that legal pot will reduce their profits. Anyone can grow the stuff, so they can’t make any money off of it.
Del Dolemonte on March 23, 2008 at 12:28 PM
Just jerking your chain, bro.
I hope your medical situation improves. Puff, puff, give!
omnipotent on March 23, 2008 at 12:28 PM
I’ve spent years working in the bar business and I’ve been to several Dead shows. I am, shall we say, familiar with the alcohol vs. pot compare and contrast thing. Legalize it, tax it, let the farmers grow it. For anyone who thinks that pot will be more available to children if it is decriminalized, I’m not sure it could possibly be more available than it already is. Even though I’m rapidly approaching old fartdom, I remember being in school when I had a far easier time getting a bag of weed than a case of beer. I needed fake ID for the beer. Nobody is saying bus drivers and brain surgeons should be stoned beyond words. The individual places of employment and industries will regulate or be regulated based on potential liability and public safety. All things being equal, I’d much rather work next to someone who was stoned out of their mind last night than someone who was drunk out of their mind.
trubble on March 23, 2008 at 12:31 PM
I know you are omnipotent, thanks for the well wishes. Sadly there is no way to actually fix me, here’s to hoping that one day Americans wake up to reality and give people in my situation an alternative.
Ciannaky on March 23, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Please legalize the weed so pot smokers can be then be shamed just as white trash cig smokers are. For some reason this sissy drug has some hip factor still for all the nerds that worship it and still giggle when someone slips in a 420 reference.
I have more respect for the meth freaks and crack heads that actually go all out in their drug use vs. the little boys that use drugs with training wheels.
ClassicCon on March 23, 2008 at 12:40 PM
I’ve talked with several cops in my old hometown of Portland, Oregon and they say they don’t even bother with marijuana, because it’s a waste of their time when there are people getting seriously jacked up on heroin or meth.
Decriminalize it federally and then leave it up to the states. In my state I’ll vote for legalization. Private businesses are free to require drug-tests if they want.
Tzetzes on March 23, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Or eat.
ChenZhen on March 23, 2008 at 12:44 PM
“The current pot laws are a cash cow for law enforcement”
I always love comments like this. Yeah, law enforcement is concerned about increasing it’s “take”. How come none of that every showed up in my pocket?
In 30 years as a cop, I saw these laws go from being a felony for just ONE marijuana seed, to a traffic ticket for possession of less than an ounce.
The PEOPLE decide with their votes what they want. If they elect dumbasses, they get dumb laws. Go figure.
In Kalifornia, they bitch because the prison guard union has supported and pushed state legislators to get pay raises. Funny, when other unions push for better wages and working conditons that’s considered OK.
GarandFan on March 23, 2008 at 12:48 PM
ClassicCon on March 23, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Can’t you just feel the shame?
…
deesine on March 23, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Self indulgent behavior causes no harm to society. What kind of Parent are you?
rockhauler on March 23, 2008 at 12:50 PM
LOL. Ricin is also a “natural” derivative. Those broad brush strokes are messy.
a capella on March 23, 2008 at 12:56 PM
If medical marijuana were a real thing, big pharma would have patented, refined, packaged, and sold mass amounts in PHD approved pill doses.
- The Cat
MirCat on March 23, 2008 at 1:12 PM
Dude, where can I score some castor beans?
Oh, here.
See Marinol. Thing is, most people report that the natural cannabinoid works better than the synthetic cannabinoid.
Pablo on March 23, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Also see Sativex, which is currently unavailable to US residents, except those participating in ongoing clinical trials, but is on the market in the UK and Canada.
Pablo on March 23, 2008 at 1:24 PM
I agree with those who say: Legalize it.
The reason it became illegal has it’s root in racism anyway. And, being the second-largest cash crop in this country…imagine the tax $$$ that could be added to the government pot. (no pun intended)
For cripes sake, cigarettes are legal…and the deaths caused by tobacco smoking are immense. No one has ever gotten cancer from smoking doobies.
JetBoy on March 23, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Brownies? Alice B Tolkas, Gertrude Stein’s lover, has a wonderful recipe I tried in college.
thuja on March 23, 2008 at 1:38 PM
Not to mention Hash Fudge…mmmmmmmm!!!!
Ciannaky on March 23, 2008 at 1:52 PM
@ Ciannaky on March 23, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Or use a vaporizer. All of the high, none of the smoke.
muyoso on March 23, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Legalize and Tax. Employers can regulate its use among employees. So many people get their first stint for possession and then cant get a job after being a convicted felon. Thne you get a reoffender.
Squid Shark on March 23, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Right on Tzetzes!
aside.
J_Gocht on March 23, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Except that they would barely make any money off of it because it would be a low margin drug.
Criminalizing pot ranks up there in stupidity.
A Axe on March 23, 2008 at 2:37 PM
Yes. We are spending law enforcement dollars to create a revenue stream for criminals.
dedalus on March 23, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Paka Lolo ia Kakou!!!
Kini on March 23, 2008 at 2:57 PM
Alcohol is the gateway drug.
manfriend on March 23, 2008 at 2:59 PM
David Toma:
http://www.answers.com/topic/david-toma?cat=entertainment
manfriend on March 23, 2008 at 3:16 PM
I disagree, tobacco (nicotine) is the “gateway” drug.
How many people got drunk for the first time and NEVER tried a cigarette prior?
omnipotent on March 23, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Prohibition didn’t work before and doesn’t work now.
We have eviscerated the 4th Amendment. If you told the Founders that we’d have laws against what people choose to ingest they’d be just as horrified as if you told them no one could own guns anymore.
Should people abuse drugs? No. But people are going to do stupid things. They smoke cigarettes and die from alcohol poisoning all the time. All making that illegal does is give the gift of huge profit margins to drug dealers and give terrorists and Marxists am unlimited source of cash.
TallDave on March 23, 2008 at 3:50 PM
omnipotent,My bother and best friend were both heavy drinkers,neither ever tried tobacco.You can tell the people on here that have tried pot and those that haven’t.Those that haven’t make dumb comments about it being a gateway drug and other asinine comments.While those that have no it’s total Bull hockey.I’ve known people that have smoked pot and wouldn’t dream of doing other drugs.And I’ve known hard core drug users that wouldn’t touch pot.As far as a gateway drug it’s like saying if you drink beer you’re gonna have to move up to whiskey cause the beer want satisfy you. Now thats Stupid.Isn’t it!
E.Tex on March 23, 2008 at 3:57 PM
Would that include the meth freaks in Hawaii who murder their girlfriends in public or drop their kids from highway overpasses?
Compare the laws of my state, New Hampshire, to the state next door, Maine. Maine is much more liberal than NH in this regard. In New Hampshire, growing any amount of pot is a felony. In Maine growing up to 100 plants is a misdemeanor.
Just a few days ago, a new New Hampshire law decriminalizing possession of a small amount of pot passed the House by a wide margin. It was co-sponsored by a Democrat and a Republican.
But our Democrat Governor, John Lynch, promptly promised to veto it.
Only 12 out of 50 states have decrminalized pot. That’s not very many.
Del Dolemonte on March 23, 2008 at 4:42 PM
All you hemp-clothes advocates are clueless. A shirt made from HEMP would feel like a burlap sack on your skin. Yeah, REAL comfortable guys. Other uses? Maybe. However we aren’t talking about smoking hemp.
You dope smokers better come up with a better argument for it than you want to weave your own clothing out of it.
tx2654 on March 23, 2008 at 4:45 PM
Yeah I’ve never seen a ‘cut’ from the dope smokers I’ve put in jail either, what the heck! After 5 years on the street, I think my H.R. department messed up, I want my back pay!!
tx2654 on March 23, 2008 at 4:49 PM
( I hope this isint a double post )
I get a kick out of this nonsense. SURE, LE agencies like mine obtain asset forfeiture cash from dope-dealers. We don’t, however from people who are caught with a few ounces of Marijuana.
If we are getting a ‘cut’ of the profits here, then in the 5 years I’ve been on the street, I need to contact my H.R. because they owe me a buuuunch of back-pay!
Again, just as retarded as the ‘clothing’ argument for legalized drug use.
GarandFan,
join us on the forum. I like your style.
tx2654 on March 23, 2008 at 4:59 PM
I actually have a few hemp shirts I got in Spain, they are quite confortable. Even better than cotton.
Squid Shark on March 23, 2008 at 5:02 PM
Even if you think so, it still is a weak argument for drug legalization.
tx2654 on March 23, 2008 at 5:16 PM
Is this thing working? I’ve had to post this like three times. I hope this isint a triple post.
After 5 years on the job, the city owes me a lot of back pay if this claim is right.
tx2654 on March 23, 2008 at 5:18 PM
Since Barney is going libertarian, why doesn’t he push to decriminalize prostitution? Then Barney’s boyfriend could reopen the brothel they had in Barney’s home in the late 80s.
jgapinoy on March 23, 2008 at 5:26 PM
Frank was running a homosexual bordello out of his home. I’m sure the pot vending machines are in place in his home lobby just waiting for the bill to pass.
Frank is the allegorical figure of what happens when radical Liberal ideology is put into practice and office. He is a disgrace to his State, and the house that he serves.
Hening on March 23, 2008 at 5:37 PM
ear… bogart.
christophercube on March 23, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Since when does increased money for the local gov translate into more money for the beat cop. Come on…
Squid Shark on March 23, 2008 at 5:39 PM
It looks like this is precisely what they are trying to NOT do.
They want to make it so that one ounce is legal, but two ounces isn’t. How in the Hell does that make sense? It’s like they want to make the market stronger than ever, but punish the “evil” people who make and distribute an otherwise perfectly legal product.
This will keep the police and courts more tied up than ever with useless laws that are impossible to enforce. Apparenlty, the real end goal is to stigmatize and criminalize the only part of any activity liberals think should be ever punished: running a business.
logis on March 23, 2008 at 5:42 PM
It not an argument for legalization and I never said it was.
The amazing amount of money we waste along with prison space in order to embolden and enrich criminal enterprises is the argument.
Squid Shark on March 23, 2008 at 5:42 PM
In other news… Snack Food futures climbed to record levels.
Fires1 on March 23, 2008 at 5:44 PM
Castor beans are not illegal. Ricin is an understandably controlled hazardous substance. That was an even more ridiculous strawman than the ‘murder’ attempt earlier.
I would say that our ‘zero state’ is legality, in that that which is not expressly criminalised is legal. At one point in time (not so long ago) cannabis was perfectly legal. It then became prohibited, and it is this argument supporting prohibition that is weak-to-non-existent.
A bad law has been allowed to exist for far too long without scrutiny. We should scrutinise it now, and repeal a stupid law.
LimeyGeek on March 23, 2008 at 5:44 PM
Think of how many more things we will have to worry about. Did our pilot, engineer or bus driver get drunk or loaded before we boarded?
Johan Klaus on March 23, 2008 at 5:46 PM
Never said it did. I guess something got lost in the quote system.
tx2654 on March 23, 2008 at 5:47 PM
I worry about that now, ever seen those pilots in the airport tying one on and wondering if they are the ones flying your plane?
Squid Shark on March 23, 2008 at 5:48 PM
Now, now… To pick nits, it was Barney’s boyfriend who ran the prostituti0on ring out of Barney’s apartment. Barney sez he didn’t know about it.
GeneSmith on March 23, 2008 at 5:49 PM
Well I am sorry I assumed you were a local cop the way you were complaining about back pay.
Squid Shark on March 23, 2008 at 5:49 PM
Squid Shark on March 23, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Once it is legalized it will be hard for an employer to fire an employee. After all, it will be considered an illness.
Johan Klaus on March 23, 2008 at 5:51 PM
I used to think this way, before I got into police work and I’ve never used any drug. You think DWI-Alcohol death’s are bad now? Throw in ‘legal’ pot smoking. It’s already a time consuming mess to process a drunk driver. Are you also going to advocate law to let us in L.E. pluck people’s pubic hair for DWI prosecutions becuase theres no breath test or SFST ( HGN to some extent with vertical ) to obtain evidence to prosecute offenders who are high?
People need to think about more than just ” it’s a dumb law “.
tx2654 on March 23, 2008 at 5:53 PM
Do you have good reason to suspect a person of acting so recklessly? Probable cause? Methinks not.
So, why should your irrational supposition become the foundation for preempting an innocent persons liberty?
You might rape someone, let’s chemically castrate you.
You might steal, let’s biochip you.
You might lie, let’s vet all communications through a central clearing agency.
Do you really think that an unfounded and unprovable suspicion of ‘bad behaviour’ should become a standard for crafting prohibitive law?
Two words - Police State
LimeyGeek on March 23, 2008 at 5:54 PM
I was being a smart-ass and making a joke. And I am a “local cop”. Small town of 15,000.
tx2654 on March 23, 2008 at 5:55 PM
OK then, My original point remains.
Anyways, I am sure your towns income isnt from drugs, I bet you guys are a speed trap :)
Squid Shark on March 23, 2008 at 5:59 PM
Tell me, how bad are they really? Relative to all the millions of journeys undertaken each day by people that do not involve DWI. Alcohol is perfectly legal, and I could drive around smashed whenever I want. I don’t. Just like millions of others.
It doesn’t have to be public hair. There is also a forehead secretion test. Short answer - yes, of course I would support laws enforcing the concept of prosecuting reckless endangerment.
I happen to think the penalties for drunk/stoned driving should be far greater.
LimeyGeek on March 23, 2008 at 6:00 PM
Two more words… - Tin hat -
People flying planes, driving trains and big 10 ton trucks and carrying guns for a living need to be drug tested. If you disagree, thats fine dont work in a field where you control the life or death of innocent people and drug screening policies are in place. You can smoke all the dope you want in that case as long as you walk to work and aren’t operating a motor vehicle.
tx2654 on March 23, 2008 at 6:03 PM
PS. My theory is that you wouldn’t see an appreciable increase in ‘impaired’ (DWI) offences. The same subset of reckless yobs that currently drink (or get high/tweaked) would be the same source of offences.
LimeyGeek on March 23, 2008 at 6:03 PM
You are beginning to sound like the kind of cop that I believe should be unemployed.
LimeyGeek on March 23, 2008 at 6:05 PM
Our town seizes countless dollars( not my job to keep track ) in asset forfeiture funds and merchandise, there’s a lot more that goes on than you are aware of especially when you consider my city is within a county of 1.7 Million residents. With 250,000+ vehicles traveling down the interstate that cuts through my city daily, yes you could say we generate some traffic stops with that and we sieze lots of dope at the same time. We don’t make people violate the posted speed limit.
tx2654 on March 23, 2008 at 6:12 PM
You sound like a dope smoker. Who’s right?
tx2654 on March 23, 2008 at 6:14 PM
Well you can do that now, at least in my state. However, I would much rather take hair off the head, or some urine which is just as effective for this purpose (up to 30 days). But if you want to go rooting around in some perps pants, perhaps you are working in the wrong division.
Indeed there is no breath test, but urine is pretty good. A FSE is a test of ANY impairment so it is not drug-booze specific (at least in Florida).
The question is, would you want to enforce the law, or complain about how much of you time it takes to do so.
Squid Shark on March 23, 2008 at 6:20 PM
Sorry I was making a joke about small towns here in FL, like Waldo and Lawtey.
Believe me I know alot about this too. My wife is a lawyer in the Murder capital of Florida. I work in an operation center where we process all of the East Coast FL drug busts from the Coasties.
Squid Shark on March 23, 2008 at 6:24 PM
I agree with screening, just not illegalization. Whatever companies do is their own damn business.
Squid Shark on March 23, 2008 at 6:27 PM
You have your work cut out then also.
Maybe Florida is a better state for DWI enforcement. In TX it’s a joke. Half the jury shows up drunk as it is.
tx2654 on March 23, 2008 at 6:28 PM
Fair enough, most of the Juries here in Jacksonville are just stupid.
Squid Shark on March 23, 2008 at 6:38 PM
LimeyGeek on March 23, 2008 at 5:54 PM
In this state it is already illegal for a pilot, bus driver, or truck driver, ect., to drink before boarding.
Remember the Exxon Valdez? at least no one was killed in that accident.
Johan Klaus on March 23, 2008 at 6:45 PM
Just alot of fishies and cute penguins and seals.
Squid Shark on March 23, 2008 at 6:48 PM
As a social con with an occasional libertarian streak (who has smoked all of 4 times), questions like this leave me on both sides of the issue…
Legalizing leads to a practical problem that I haven’t seen anybody resolve - who shall grow it?
If the individual is allowed to grow, then there will never be meaningful tax revenue from it. Is the IRS just going to ask you to fill out a form? And if pot plants are all over people’s yards and attics, what keeps the kids out of it? Will it come down to putting a grow light in your gun safe? We are agreed, I hope, that there should be an age restriction. I know kids already swipe beers from dad’s fridge, but at least beers are discreet units that can be counted to see if any are missing. Not as easily done with weed.
Lisenced farmers could be an answer. But then you have acres of bud that need to be defended from passers-by. A kid on his bike is probably not so tempted by an ear of corn growing on the other side of the fence, but a big sticky bud will get his attention. The crop would have to be grown under very secure conditions to keep John Edwards-type lawyers from suing the snot out of growers whose crop might fall into the wrong hands.
I just don’t see a viable solution yet.
innominatus on March 23, 2008 at 7:09 PM
I had beer 4 years before I tried pot and 4 years later I started smoking cigarettes.
manfriend on March 23, 2008 at 7:22 PM
We need to remember the sensationalism that surrounded making pot illegal in the first place. Social hysteria, racism, etc., as well as some law enforcement officials and legislators getting too big for their britches.
Hemp, its sister plant (non-psychoactive), would be an excellent renewable resource and renewable fuel.
Send law enforcement on another path; have them interdict the real dangerous drugs, and police the border for any drugs coming in. Allow Americans to cultivate marijuana for personal use, and tax the sale of it when it’s sold in the market.
frode on March 23, 2008 at 7:36 PM
Innominatus: Actually the cigarette companies purchased the “rights” to certain names years ago, on the off chance the laws would change. Mellow Yellow, Maui Wowie, etc are already spoken for. If legalized, I imagine that the current distribution system (tobacco growers, tobacco companies) would be used. Why create a duplicate system?
Back to law enforcement as a “money maker”.
Hate to burst your bubble, follow along. Once in a while a local agency might score a big bust. Property will be seized, money (cash) will be seized. Most dopers learned a long time ago, you don’t buy a car outright. You don’t buy a house outright. You never put money in a bank. You rent. Dopers are not dumb. They’ve seen that money can be tracked, some of course still try to launder it into clean businesses (more income), but buy and large, they just spend or try and get it out of the country. My favorite is traffic tickets as ‘money makers’. Let’s see, average $65 dollar fine (my point of ref is several years ago). State gets 1/3, the court gets 1/3, the local city gets 1/3 (at least that’s how it works in Kalifornia). Let’s say the cop who wrote the ticket had to go to court on his day off, not unusal. He/she’s there at time-and-a-half with probably a 2 hour minimum. On average that means he/she is getting paid probably $72 bucks. Do the math, how much did the city “make”? Here’s a goody. VC16028 of the California vehicle code says that you will show proof of auto insurance when stopped. The fine last time I looked was $65. Here’e the kicker. The State wanted 1/2 of that fine before the violator ever showed up in court! Normally, if the violator was smart, they’d get insurance, go to court, show proof and the nice judge would dismiss that violation “in the interests of justice”. The city that generated the ticket still had to pay the state 1/2 of the $65 fine that they never got! Now ain’t that a great ‘money maker’. Wasn’t long after, our chief told us in no uncertain terms that we were not to write tickets for that violation. Don’t even mention Red Light Cameras. Remember the 1/3 rule? Add in the company that installs and maintains the cameras. They usually get 50-60% of the fine….factor that into the 1/3 rule. But don’t worry, if law enforcement ever gets out of the “money making business” they’ll still be around. You’d be surprised at the number of things that law enforcement no longer does just to keep pace with what is happening now. Example: Used to be, knowingly write a bad check, you’d end up in court. Not now. The DA’s office upped the amount to $200 before any action would be taken. Then $400….when I left you could write up to $1199.00 in bad paper all over town and never see the inside of a court room.
The issue of legalization of drugs? Don’t know, don’t have a dog in the fight either way. Will make one observation, the legalization law better have a provision that says I can shoot your dumb ass if you try to hurt me or mine while your experiencing your own version of nirvana. The law would exempt me from having to deal with lawsuits from your grieving money-hungry relatives. I think that’s what the guru’s call a win-win situation. You get to alter space and time, I get to cover my ass. :o)
GarandFan on March 23, 2008 at 7:44 PM
Always love a whiff of sanity and commonsense.
JiangxiDad on March 23, 2008 at 7:48 PM
In(Tongue in cheek),I hope Barneys not going
to run this operation to legalization out of
his basement?
canopfor on March 23, 2008 at 8:11 PM
Innominatus.
GarandFan on March 23,2008 at 7:44PM
GarandFan:
Thats quite an eye opener,here in Ontario,Canada if your
stopped and have no insurance.The car is towed,impounded
untill you have insurace proof.So towing charges$75.00,
impounded charges $100-$200.00.Court fees $200-$2000.00
for failure to prove you had any insurance period!
Getting caught with up to 1oz.of marijuana in possession
your arrested,sign a form to promise to appear before a
judge,1 to 3 week period,after form signed,promise to
appear your free to go.You could get a Lawyer but if its
your pot,skip the lawyer,pay the fine $200.00-$2000.00.
canopfor on March 23, 2008 at 8:30 PM
Roll a spinner, Boats!
dingbat on March 23, 2008 at 8:32 PM
Coming from Barney Frank, it makes perfect sense. Decriminalizing marijuana is an assanine proposition.
Marijuana isn’t the weak old seedy Mexican stuff of years gone by. The marijuana of today is a cross-bred, cultivated for intensity, ultra-potent mind altering substance. Aside from making you barely able to form an intelligible thought, much less sentence, it alco causes intense paranoia and anxiety, it also causes horrific states of mind in Schizophrenics, and if they’re on their meds, it’s actually worse. For some who are already pre-disposed to psychological problems, and may not know it, marijuana use can bring on early onset. For even others, it causes toxic psychosis.
Marijuana drastically affects memory, judgment and perception. The side affects, whatever degree of tangibility, become permanent over a relatively short period of time with regular use. Children born to mothers who used marijuana during pregnancy show increased behavioral problems during infancy and preschool years. Later in school, these children are more likely to have problems with decision making, memory, and the ability to remain attentive. Marijuana use during pregnancy is thought to even cause permanent ADD in children, but more studies are needed to verify that particular severity of damage to unborn children of marijuana using mothers.
I could go on and on.
Individuals and groups who are for decriminilization of marijuana, like NORML and so on, will lie to you through their teeth and claim every detrimental scientifically proven fact about marijuana use is actually a myth. They want their weed and they want to get high, legally. They’ll outright lie, argue, and make completely false claims in their effort to counter what is known about regular marijuana use.
The fact is that marijuana stays in your body for about 3 months, even after just one puff and inhale. THC is not fat soluable and it takes the body a long time to filter it out. The more you use, the more that courses through your body and your brain, 24/7, for months, without the high if you stop. It does permanent irrepairable damage to regular users in time. Not to mention, the productivity of pot heads is next to nil. It would affect the entire country, even those who don’t use, economically, public saftey wise, and health wise.
I grew up in Los Angeles. I’ve been a cop for 20 years. I’ve known and met many many pot heads who use regularly and have for long periods of time. I’ve never met a productive pot head. They’re lazy, unkempt, live in slovenly homes, and are often unemployed or “between jobs” often, or employed in menial jobs that require little thought, little effort, and little motivation in keeping with what marijuana does to a persons psyche.
SilverStar830 on March 23, 2008 at 8:37 PM
TYPO: meant to say Marinuana IS fat soluable. It stays in your body, affecting every organ including your brain, for up to 3 months.
SilverStar830 on March 23, 2008 at 8:41 PM
canopfor:
Here the car cannot be impounded (owner pays the impound, tow and storage fees) unless DMV records show that you knowingly drove on a suspended or revoked license. Most folks are notified of the suspension via mail. The kicker is that they have to send back the little stub that acknowledges the suspension. Only the stupid ones do that. The real scream is that lawyers out here then scream if you tow the car; depriving the car owner of their property without “due process”. Huh? The idiot did something to get their license suspended, they acknowledged the suspension, now they want a court hearing? As for simple possession of marijuana? You get a traffic ticket with a date and time to appear in court. On a BAD day (the judge didn’t get laid the night before) you may get fined $100.
Here’s a real screamer. Several years ago I could arrest you and take you forthwith to court (normal daylight weekday hours) if I stopped you and found you had an outstanding warrant for failure to appear on a prior traffic citation. If after court hours, you went to jail. Well a State Senator’s son got arrested for 4 prior failures to appear. Sonny-boy sort of forgot that he signed four separate promises to appear on a certain date and time. Court wasn’t open, so Sonny-boy was taken to jail pending the next court date. That night Sonny-boy met Bubba. The State Senator was outraged that the authorities “allowed” such liberties with his son. No comments about Sonny-boy’s poor memory that got him there in the first place. So a state law was passed that says if I can’t take you to court forthwith, I’m PROHIBITTED from taking you to jail UNLESS you have 3 or MORE prior failure’s to appear pending against you. So here I am, writing you a ticket that you will sign, giving your written promise to appear, when I already know via DMV computer, you already have TWO prior failures to appear. Gotta love those liberal state senators.
GarandFan on March 23, 2008 at 8:59 PM
State gets
1/31/2, the court gets1/31/2, the local city gets1/31/2 (at least that’s how it works in Kalifornia).Fixed it for ya dude….. um, that’s one, right?>…. where’s my lighter……?
Seven Percent Solution on March 23, 2008 at 9:05 PM
Thanks for the information, SilverStar830, but I learned all of the anti-Marijuana propaganda when I was in school. However, I would suggest that for the sake of argument we limit this conversation to reality. For example, you talk about MJ being fat-soluble as though it’s a bad thing that “affects every organ including your brain.” Yet all of the available science indicates that MJ is FAR safer than alcohol, which is NOT fat-soluble. In other words there is no evidence that fat-soluble necessarily = more harmful, and in fact the scientific evidence, (not propaganda), clearly shows that, at least in the case of MJ verses alcohol, fat-soluble is vastly preferable.
Deceitful propaganda like you’ve regurgitated above is no longer welcome in this debate. If you can’t win the argument on it’s merits then you should reconcile yourself to the fact that you’ve lost the debate.
FloatingRock on March 23, 2008 at 9:35 PM
….By which I mean the larger national debate… you’re welcome to copy and paste all of the deceitful anti-MJ propaganda here you’d like as far as I’m concerned. Unlike 50 years ago, these days most people recognize it for what it is.
FloatingRock on March 23, 2008 at 9:39 PM
Agreed on all of that. I would legalize. Ed’s argument that “smokers” are almost never jailed belies the point that if you are inclined to smoke, first you need to find some pot. There’s the rub.
He has the right idea with legalization, and regulation. Defund the gangs, and get pot users out of jail. Make room for more violent offenders, who too often see no jail time, or get out far to easily, a la Soliah.
Jaibones on March 23, 2008 at 9:40 PM
I remember a saying when I was younger that my Father, with four teenagers in the 70’s in Southern California said to me when smoking pot was cool……..
I never forgot that, and stopped smoking pot a few years later when I had to pay my own way through college……..
Then I find this:
That is, unless you are driving home after a long day at work and have your children in your car with you, ……..
But, the car behind you is traveling at 70 MPH on the freeway…….., and is checking out the waves,…….. or catching the ‘killer’ sunset,……. and doesn’t realize the brake lights of the hundreds of cars……. that they ……. are…….. now…….. fast……. approaching…….. and only……… have seconds……… to…….. react.
Last thing you see in your rear veiw mirror.
Dude…
Seven Percent Solution on March 23, 2008 at 9:52 PM
Well, we know what Barney’s probably doing in his spare time!!
jeanie on March 23, 2008 at 10:00 PM
Idiot arguement. Think the prisons are filled with innocent people?
1) We are a country of laws and safer for it.
2) Ask the Falun Gong about the secret police and incarceration in China.
I can make a million statements that are true when standing alone that support no other logical arguement. There are about 2000 of them in this debate on legalizing pot.
Move to Amsterdam, smoke away, start voting socialist and in 25 years convert to islam.
peacenprosperity on March 23, 2008 at 10:14 PM
Truer words have never been spoken. The whole “War on Drugs” is more of a managing it thing than a ending it thing.
Pot is too easy to grow to make legal.
TheSitRep on March 23, 2008 at 10:15 PM
Why would you have to…………….?
Seven Percent Solution on March 23, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Here the car..
GarandFan on March 23,2008 at 8:59PM.
GarandFan:If you have an outstanding traffic violation
same story,but if you failed to appear in court
for a criminal offence,then your going straight
to jail untill your hearing.
If your to be in court on said day,and your not
a bench warrant will be issued,and when they find
you,you’ll be sitting in jail untill court date!
So,America and Canada are pretty close in the law!
canopfor on March 23, 2008 at 10:30 PM
@ peacenprosperity on March 23, 2008 at 10:14 PM
Or how about the government stay the hell out of my private life and stopped being concerned with what I do in the privacy of my own home. Its completely retarded that a person smoking marijuana in the privacy of his own home, can be arrested and taken to jail.
muyoso on March 23, 2008 at 10:34 PM
*raises hand*
Then I moved on to cigarettes. Then Pot. Then other stuff. Of them all, only the cigarettes keep their claws dug deeply into me to this day.
I can keep my federally approved addiction, pay the ridiculous taxes, and drive at the same time! PROFIT!
Ugly on March 23, 2008 at 10:37 PM
@ SilverStar830 on March 23, 2008 at 8:41 PM
BS. It stays in your system for about 1 month, during which, it is not affecting any of your organs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_issues_and_the_effects_of_cannabis#Biochemical_effects
muyoso on March 23, 2008 at 10:39 PM
It is all about the meaning of the word “little”.
I think “little” is larger than you think.
The same reasoning that you apply here to marijuana can be applied to meth or cocaine with equal justification.
Ed, consider the Little Admiral. Now consider the Little Admiral on drugs — imagine that she hates you and wants nothing more than to get that next toke. What you imagine is what I had to endure. I’d shoot my son’s dealer if I could find him. ‘Nuf said.
unclesmrgol on March 23, 2008 at 10:49 PM
I’m against it. Look at Thailand. Drugs were legal. Now they hang you on the docks if they catch you. Why the extreme change? Because drugs are bad.
Or in happy Amsterdam. They are none too thrilled with the stoners who loiter about. Apparently they don’t have jobs and commit petty crimes to stay high.
tlynch001 on March 23, 2008 at 11:14 PM
@ unclesmrgol on March 23, 2008 at 10:49 PM
Having an addictive personality is completely independent of drug use. Someone who “wants nothing more than to get that next toke” would “want nothing more than that next drink”, would “want nothing more than that next poker game”, etc. You don’t solve the problem by making anything that could be abused illegal, you solve the problem by teaching your kids moderation and showing them that excesses are never healthy.
muyoso on March 23, 2008 at 11:46 PM
@ tlynch001 on March 23, 2008 at 11:14 PM
Im sorry, but that is the dumbest correlation that I have ever heard. I am going to make one myself right now to show your how wrong I think yours was. Germany 1940 - “Look at Germany. Jews were people. Now they hang you on the docks if they catch you. Why the extreme change? Because Jews are bad.” I could of course make a much better analogy with prohibition, but who passes up a good ole nazi germany comparison?
Also, your thoughts on stoners are funny to say the least. People who smoke pot generally don’t go and commit crimes to get the next high. Marijuana isnt addictive like many harder drugs, so there isnt a “need” to get high, and there isnt a need to risk jail to get your next toke. I’m guessing you have never tried Marijuana, or you would also know that a majority of it leads to a stoned feeling, where you don’t really want to move. I could go into the different kinds, etc, but seriously if you are interested, wikipedia is awesome.
muyoso on March 23, 2008 at 11:52 PM
“The United States now has more people under lock and key than any other country in the world,Including China And Russia.”
Just for info, this argument started years ago when the US prison population was steadily rising. Then it started to level off. Well the bean counters where not happy with this turn of events. I don’t recall the year, but suddenly they started counting not just the numbers in prison, but also those serving time in COUNTY JAILS and JUVENILE DETENTION.
But I digress. If 10% of the population is composed of screw-ups, and the population keeps rising; guess what? The number of prisoners will also go up! Is that such a complicated process to understand?
Are there innocent people in jail? YES! Since when did man suddenly become perfect in his wisdom. Should we let all “non-violent” criminals out of jail? Sure, why not. Then don’t come screaming to me when your insurance rates go up, when your house is broken into, or when your car is stolen. From personal experience, there’s roughly 10% of our population that is exploitive and munipulative, don’t “play well with others” and don’t give a rat’s ass about you or anyone else. It may cost to keep them in prison, but it will be more costly in the long run to let them out. Can’t any be “rehabilitated”? Sure, but how do you pick which one’s will? We have a 3 strikes law for violent felonies. I sometimes wonder why we don’t have a similar law for “non-violent” felonies. I don’t claim to know how these people got into prison in the first place. I do know that many committed one heck of a lot of felonies BEFORE they ended up in prison. You really have to screw up in Kalifornia to go to prison for a 1st felony offense. Talk to the guys in prison. They’ll tell you any number of reasons about why they are there. None of those reasons will be because of anything they did. It will all be someone else’s fault. Can’t argue with them. We’ve become a “no-fault” nation. You’re an alcoholic? Not your fault. You’re a drug addict? Not your fault. You can’t get a job? Not your fault. You can’t read or write? Not your fault.
Mediocrity is the name of the game today. Got to put all the kids in the same classroom. If you make too much money, you’ve obviously taken from someone else. Personal responsibility for your actions? Only suckers do that.
I had a wonderful retired US Marine for a US History teacher in my junion year of high school. The 1st day of class he gave what was known as his standard “greetings speech” (he was a hard taskmaster and kids avoided his class if at all possible). It went something like this: ‘Most of you are or shortly will be 17 years old. In another year you will be for most legal intents and purposes considered an adult. In a few short years you will be able to vote. I intend to treat you as adults during the course of this school year. I will expect you to be on time for classes. I will expect that you will have read previously assigned materials. I expect you to be prepared. I expect that you will be appropriately dresses. I expect that you will sit up straight in your seats and keep your feet off the chair in front of you. This is not a lounge. I expect everyone to participate in this classs in some fashion. I will address you as Mister or Miss, you will address me as Mr. Flesher. I am not interested in having you reguritate dates and places to prove you have a good memory, but I do expect you to analyse past events - and in the eyes of those who experienced those events - UNDERSTAND why they acted as they did. We, today, may not like the decisions made by those who came before us, but right or wrong, we should be able to UNDERSTAND the WHY of their behavior. Condemnation might make us feel good and superior about ourselves today, but the condemned won’t feel anything, they’re dead! Why then, waste the time doing so? History has a nasty way of repeating itself, as you will find this year. This country has had it’s high points and it’s low points. You can learn from both, and in the end, not repeat mistakes of the past. If anyone here has a problem with being treated like an adult, there’s the door; you know where your guidance counselor’s office is.’
I can just imagine what the reponse would be from the local school board if such a “greetings speech” were made today!
GarandFan on March 23, 2008 at 11:57 PM
Seriously, where can I get some of that?
Nonfactor on March 24, 2008 at 12:17 AM
@ SilverStar830 on March 23, 2008 at 8:37 PM
You speak like there is one type of marijuana. There are hundreds. And “mind altering substance”, what is that? Which strain of the hundreds out there are you speaking of? You seriously sound like you are repeating some government propaganda. Why don’t you tell us how when teenagers smoke, they will find our guns and commit suicide with them.
muyoso on March 24, 2008 at 12:32 AM
Since Muyoso brought up the same point I did about fat-solubility and I have a few minutes, I’m going to dispute a couple more points from the propaganda piece above.
I’m aware of the non-scientific statistical “study” from some months back which the MSM headlines boldly declared demonstrated a link between Marijuana use and Schizophrenia, however aside from the sensational headlines the study made no such determination. It doesn’t even “suggest” that MJ elevates the risk of schizophrenia. It showed that people who smoke Marijuana are statistically slightly more prone to schizophrenia than those that don’t but it did not in any way indicate that Marijuana was actually a cause or even a factor. In fact, in all probability the same study is likely to have found other behaviors that are also linked to a slightly elevated risk of schizophrenia, such as being a chocoholic or not getting enough sleep or exorcise.
In other words, to carry the example a bit further, while chocoholics probably do not have a significantly elevated risk of schizophrenia, schizophrenics might have a somewhat higher than average fondness for chocolate. What does this tell us about chocolate? Nothing.
That’s great because people don’t have to smoke as much to achieve the desired affect, which results in less harm to their lungs. This is one thing that we have the War on Drugs to thank for, actually, because without the black market Marijuana wouldn’t be as potent as it is today. The more potent the MJ the easier it is to smuggle and grow, thus the higher the profits, and this is the chief reason for the increase in potency, but a beneficial side affect is that people don’t have to ingest as much particulate matter into their lungs. Regardless of the potency, if people smoke too much they simply get tired and fall asleep, so increased potency doesn’t drastically alter the affect of the drug; or at least not to the degree that you’ve stated.
FloatingRock on March 24, 2008 at 1:13 AM
Garandfan,We have the highest percentage of the population incarcerated in our history.As far as locking up all screwups I guess it would be alright with you if lock up anybody that runs a redlight or speeds.I think its far more dangerous for somebody operating a two ton missile down the road unsafely,than it is if I’m sitting in my house smoking a joint.Here in Texas we have spent more money building prisons in the last twenty years than we have on schools.Almost half the people locked total in city,county,and state facilities are non violent crimes. And I don’t care what the hell your position is that is just crazy.I haven’t smoked pot or drank in almost ten years,But I can recongnize a stupid law when I see one.The reasons cops don’t want it legal it’s an easy bust.I’ve haven’t heard one good argument yet about why it should remain illegal.Other than suppostion and quoting arcane reports that anybody who has ever smoked know is B.S.
E.Tex on March 24, 2008 at 1:36 AM
Comment pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »