Frank, Paul Legislation Would End Federal Ban On Pot

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Triumph

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,031
14
81
State and local law enforcement wouldn't lose because of this bill. If anything, they could use the passage of this bill as a justification to increase their budgets.

Although you are correct that they could still enforce state laws, the "war on drugs" is a huge cash cow for the law enforcement industry, and they will do their best to fight anything that threatens it.

The key to legalizing marijuana and ending the war on drugs is to decriminalize marijuana slowly. First decriminalize MJ for medicinal purposes at the federal level. Then reduce federal penalties for nonviolent drug offenses such as possession or distribution. The slippery slope can be used to promote good policy as well as bad.
 
Last edited:

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
I hope it passes as well. Reduces prison population and reduces the court backhauls that criminalizes these people.
 

Anubis

No Lifer
Aug 31, 2001
78,712
427
126
tbqhwy.com
Although you are correct that they could still enforce state laws, the "war on drugs" is a huge cash cow for the law enforcement industry, and they will do their best to fight anything that threatens it.

The key to legalizing marijuana and ending the war on drugs is to decriminalize marijuana slowly. First decriminalize MJ for medicinal purposes at the federal level. Then reduce federal penalties for nonviolent drug offenses such as possession or distribution. The slippery slope can be used to promote good policy as well as bad.

pretty sure the war on drugs loses billions of dollars every single year
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
This bill would be a huge reduction in the budget by eliminating the expenses of arresting, prosecuting and jailing pot offenders. But it will never get out of committee as "law and order" as well as imposition of legislated morality are bedrock principles of the GOP.

It would be funny to see the Republican and Tea-tard Congressmen having to make a choice between saving money by legalizing marijuana at the federal level or choosing to keep it illegal (while unwittingly supporting big government).
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
31,730
48,549
136
Obama will veto it, and there is no way in Hell 2/3 of any Congress since 1861 would override a veto on leaving marijuana up to the states. A majority of people don't want it to be left up to the states anyway. Even if a majority of people did want it to be legal, the drug cartels' individual members would lobby against its passage.


Having a hard time reconciling the bolded portion with Obama's already established position of not wanting to spend Federal dollars undermining state's rights, irt to states that have legalized MM and decriminalized small amounts. It's why he directed the Justice Dept to not fund raids by the DEA. Although some raids have still occurred, from what I've heard they were due to tax evasions and other issues, not the actual sale of MM.

I wasn't aware the Mexican cartels had their own DC lobbyists, link?
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
State and local law enforcement wouldn't lose because of this bill. If anything, they could use the passage of this bill as a justification to increase their budgets.

The bottom line with state and local lae enforcement is...many top official in local law enforcement have complained that we need to be spending our resources catching true criminals and not prosecuting somebody for smoking or even selling weed..
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
It won't pass but I hope it does come to a general vote in the House. I want to see how many votes it can get. If it is just Paul and Frank in favor of it then we're eons away.

I agree that it would be interesting to see an actual vote on this.

I also hopes it gets a fair amount of debate in the House.

Fern
 

Generator

Senior member
Mar 4, 2005
793
0
0
Those who want to smoke pot already do... those who don't (myself included) aren't going to start just because it became legal.

So what the fuck is your point?

Anyway...time to end this farce of putting people in prison over this one particular plant. That the bill is even being offered is progress, hopefully more support can be rallied and see if this country's people really do have sway over these legislators.
 

Zedtom

Platinum Member
Nov 23, 2001
2,146
0
0
Law enforcement and the war on drugs crowd have a lot of clout on capitol hill but the two groups I'm concerned about are the liquor and tobacco lobbyists. They stand to lose "market share" with a new legal competitor and they will pull out all the political IOU's to stop this idea and discredit the supporters.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
The bottom line with state and local lae enforcement is...many top official in local law enforcement have complained that we need to be spending our resources catching true criminals and not prosecuting somebody for smoking or even selling weed..

You won't get any disagreement from me on this. I've been posting for years on the insanity of the war on drugs.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
I agree that this problem is best solved at the State level and the Federal government ought stay out of it but I see no benefit to having more stupid people running around.

Well you dont smoke weed and you are absolutely the dumbest fuck I've ever seen online.
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
14,050
11,771
136
Law enforcement and the war on drugs crowd have a lot of clout on capitol hill but the two groups I'm concerned about are the liquor and tobacco lobbyists. They stand to lose "market share" with a new legal competitor and they will pull out all the political IOU's to stop this idea and discredit the supporters.

Third group, prison industry. Big $$$.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
It won't pass but I hope it does come to a general vote in the House. I want to see how many votes it can get. If it is just Paul and Frank in favor of it then we're eons away.

If the economy gets much worse, it may have a chance. I can imagine an ad campaign that presents stark contrasts:

You have $60,000 and a choice:

Keep a marijuana dealer incarcerated for the next two years.

Save the life of a man dying of heart disease.
America can't afford bad choices anymore.
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
Wow... Frank & Paul? There's an odd couple. But I agree completely. It's nice to see the Fed attempting to return power back to the states. Hopefully this is the start of many powers released by the Fed.



Edit: Two guys... four first names. :awe:
 
Last edited:

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
Wow... Frank & Paul? There's an odd couple. But I agree completely. It's nice to see the Fed attempting to return power back to the states. Hopefully this is the start of many powers released by the Fed.

People forget that libertarians and progressives do overlap on many issues in both foreign and social policy. Even Paul himself has stated many times that he usually agrees with the progressive caucus on foreign policy. The identification of libertarianism with conservative is highly problematic IMO, since the one area where they overlap - "small government" - is something the GOP endorses more in word than in deed.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
People forget that libertarians and progressives do overlap on many issues in both foreign and social policy. Even Paul himself has stated many times that he usually agrees with the progressive caucus on foreign policy. The identification of libertarianism with conservative is highly problematic IMO, since the one area where they overlap - "small government" - is something the GOP endorses more in word than in deed.

You can talk about the groups' *marketing*, or about their policies.

Libertarians are considered mostly 'conservative' because they overlap so well on saying basically 'let business do anything it wants, and don't worry about the people'.

Now, the reasons might be different - just as they are different for progressives and libertarians on foreign policy even if they agree on the policy - Republicans might have the reason of 'because that helps the rich owners get more money', while the Libertarians do it because of an ideology that it's somehow 'freedom' - but the effects are the same.

It's pretty pointless to compare the marketing - as you noted on Republican 'small government'. For Republicans that's a nice popular phrase - applied to cuts they want.
 

Generator

Senior member
Mar 4, 2005
793
0
0
Seems to me that the cigarette companies could make a joint just as addictive as their cigarettes. Alchohol will always have a place.

No the real obstacle to marijuana is those small government Republicans and Pharma. As much as the Republican expouses their hooey, they just can't help but tell you how you will fuck your wife, how you will pray, and how you will think. These people are invasive radicals. A million little popes.
 

dali71

Golden Member
Oct 1, 2003
1,117
21
81
Having a hard time reconciling the bolded portion with Obama's already established position of not wanting to spend Federal dollars undermining state's rights, irt to states that have legalized MM and decriminalized small amounts. It's why he directed the Justice Dept to not fund raids by the DEA. Although some raids have still occurred, from what I've heard they were due to tax evasions and other issues, not the actual sale of MM.

I wasn't aware the Mexican cartels had their own DC lobbyists, link?

Obama's Sudden, Senseless Assault on Medical Marijuana:

When Attorney General Eric Holder announced in October 2009 that the Dept. of Justice would respect state medical marijuana laws, the nation breathed a collective sigh of relief. By that time, any lingering support for aggressive federal raids on medical marijuana providers had dwindled into invisibility. The American people wanted to see patients protected, and Obama's pledge to do so earned him nothing but praise from both the press and the public.

Unfortunately, recent months have brought about what can only be described as the rapid collapse of the Obama Administration's support for medical marijuana. Following dozens of aggressive DEA raids, along with some unusual IRS audits, the Dept. of Justice has now begun openly endeavoring to destroy carefully regulated state programs before they get off the ground:

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Several states have started reassessing their medical marijuana laws after stern warnings from the federal government that everyone from licensed growers to regulators could be subjected to prosecution.

The ominous-sounding letters from U.S. attorneys in recent weeks have directly injected the federal government back into a debate that has for years been progressing at the state level. Warnings in Washington state led Gov. Chris Gregoire to veto a proposal that would have created licensed marijuana dispensaries.
--
Letters with various cautions have also gone to officials in California, Colorado, Montana and Rhode Island.

It's a sweeping intervention that instantly divorces the Obama Administration from its stated policy of not focusing resources on individuals who are clearly compliant with state law. Unlike the numerous recent dispensary raids, which could theoretically result from competing interpretations of state law, this new incursion constitutes a direct threat of arrest against state employees acting in good faith to administer perfectly lawful state programs.

The mindlessness of all this operates on multiple levels, beginning with the fact that no state employee or state-licensed business has ever actually been prosecuted for involvement with medical marijuana. The suggestion that they'd do such a thing is nothing more than a cynical scare tactic aimed at stalling the numerous state programs moving forward this year.

The notion that DOJ would indict state regulators shouldn't even be entertained, let alone held up as a prohibitive obstacle to implementing tightly controlled programs. Think about how ridiculous that is. Would they prosecute Health Dept. staffers in Rhode Island, which only allows three non-profit dispensaries, even though DOJ took no action against officials in states like Colorado and California with fewer restrictions and far more marijuana businesses? The damage to DOJ's credibility would be so extraordinary, one almost wishes they were foolish enough to try it.

The federal agenda is obviously to avoid allowing state regulation to further legitimize the industry, and they're willing to keep things messier than necessary just so they can continue citing that messiness as evidence that this can't work. They're protecting the argument that medical marijuana is out of control by interfering with efforts to control it. It's a slippery and typical drug war propaganda tactic that, once understood and exposed, should begin to lose its potency.

For 15 years now, opponents of medical marijuana have been saying this can't be done because it's illegal under federal law. Yet today, medical marijuana is a $1.7 billion industry that is helping sick people, creating jobs, generating substantial tax revenue, and even taking money away from murderous cartels in Mexico. There is no reason, old or new, legal or practical, that this important progress can't continue.

The forward momentum of the marijuana reform movement now depends on the willingness of state officials to take a stand against federal interference and reveal these empty threats for what they are. But beyond that, the time has come for the American public to send a message to the President who promised more compassionate policies than his predecessor. If Obama hasn't yet figured out how the American public feels about the war on medical marijuana, then let us each take a moment to politely remind him.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
You can talk about the groups' *marketing*, or about their policies.

Libertarians are considered mostly 'conservative' because they overlap so well on saying basically 'let business do anything it wants, and don't worry about the people'.

Now, the reasons might be different - just as they are different for progressives and libertarians on foreign policy even if they agree on the policy - Republicans might have the reason of 'because that helps the rich owners get more money', while the Libertarians do it because of an ideology that it's somehow 'freedom' - but the effects are the same.

It's pretty pointless to compare the marketing - as you noted on Republican 'small government'. For Republicans that's a nice popular phrase - applied to cuts they want.

Libertarianism and even anarchy used to be considered species up leftism, really up until about the 1960's. Check your history. To some extent, libertarianism changed, but so too did garden variety leftism.

The fact remains, liberals and libertarians have shared values on *some* issues. Ron Paul votes almost 100% of the time with the progressive caucus on foreign policy issues, the Patriot Act, etc. Maddow has had Paul on several times to discuss his overlaps with progressive ideology.

- wolf
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
You can talk about the groups' *marketing*, or about their policies.

Libertarians are considered mostly 'conservative' because they overlap so well on saying basically 'let business do anything it wants, and don't worry about the people'.

Now, the reasons might be different - just as they are different for progressives and libertarians on foreign policy even if they agree on the policy - Republicans might have the reason of 'because that helps the rich owners get more money', while the Libertarians do it because of an ideology that it's somehow 'freedom' - but the effects are the same.

It's pretty pointless to compare the marketing - as you noted on Republican 'small government'. For Republicans that's a nice popular phrase - applied to cuts they want.

Serious question ...is it possible for you to not be such a partisan tool?


I seriously doubt this will go anywhere, but it's good to see that it is at least being tried.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
36,422
10,723
136
I'm betting this is one of those things that unites P&N, at least a solid majority, but will never pass the chicken !@#$% in Congress.
 

Freshgeardude

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2006
4,506
0
76
legalizing and taxing marijuana is smart.

let people decide for themselves what they want in their body.

keep the restrictions like alcohol is nowadays.


maybe it will slowly kill (pun intended) the drug cartels in mexico.





The media should pick this up. If the issue gets a lot of salience, congressmen/women wouldnt vote it down
 
Last edited: