A group of US representatives plan to introduce legislation that will legalize marijuana and allow states to legislate its use, pro-marijuana groups said Wednesday.Posted on 06/22/2011 5:21:01 PM PDT by hamboy
A group of US representatives plan to introduce legislation that will legalize marijuana and allow states to legislate its use, pro-marijuana groups said Wednesday.
The legislation would limit the federal government's role in marijuana enforcement to cross-border or inter-state smuggling, and allow people to legally grow, use or sell marijuana in states where it is legal.
The bill, which is expected to be introduced on Thursday by Republican Representative Ron Paul and Democratic Representative Barney Frank, would be the first ever legislation designed to end the federal ban on marijuana.
(Excerpt) Read more at ca.news.yahoo.com ...
This bill is about allowing the people of the States to decide whether or not to legalize marijuana in their state. It’s a transfer of power from the Feds to the States and therefore a good (and Conservative) thing. I’m sorry if you can’t understand that.
Sorry, I must be in the wrong place.
You can have you war on drugs and take responsibility for the consequences, costs in $$$ and liberty lost.
Obviously TRUE conservatives require no support from those of us who do not agree with you 100%.
I’ll just consider myself an independent who supports the constitution, personal responsibility and liberty.
Completely agree. One would have thought we’d have learned from prohibition.
Had a border agent, whom I personally trust, tell me last year that 75% of the working capital drug gangs have comes from marijuana. It’s their bread and butter. It finances the bribes, the guns, the war. Drug gangs LOVE marijuana prohibition.
Alcohol prohibition was touted as the cure for crime as well as poverty and any number of societal ills. It failed miserably because it creating an artificial shortage while demand was still high, precisely what we’re doing with pot.
I understand the social fears of many of the conservatives here but after billions of dollars and countless lives all we’ve done is make it more scarce and therefore more expensive and consequently more attractive to the cartels.
This can be done by bringing back that old American custom ~ the DUEL.
Those ol'boys'd been doing their stuff with or without a govenrment subsidy!
Does that mean everyone has to march to the beat of your drum?
Contrary to the popular propaganda, use is not abuse.
Sorry, I was using “created” in a more general sense. I probably should have said that it was bootleg alcohol that created the environment which Capone is figuratively symbolic.
When one state jacks up their cigarette taxes, people who saw no profit in selling cigarettes begin to smuggle product from lower taxed border states. The government of one state creates a profit incentive to break the law in border states.
Yes, of course, bad people do bad things without government subsidy. But to ignore the incentive created by government in the pot trade is short-sighted.
As I say, use is not abuse. A lot of people can drink without getting drunk and obnoxious.
Without fear of prosecution or civil suit.
How about a special law just for me that says that I'm allowed to beat down a sober muawiyah when I encounter him on the street without fear of prosecution or civil suit?
Don't we have enough animals in the barnyard that are "more equal", already?
Make the price very high for going outdoors when drunk.
It's already illegal to be drunk in public, or to drive while intoxicated.
And lots of people are obnoxious without even having a drink.
In fact, in my time as an alcohol and drug counseler, the most obnoxious folks I've met are recovering alcoholics. They're clean and sober and are real a$$holes.
I'm not. It's the whole, "I'm more moral than the next guy, so I have the right to make him live his life the way I think is best."
In reality, they're no different than the liberals. The only difference is what aspect of everyone else's life they want to control.
It does say, doesn't it TO WIT: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
That right there is clearly a call for optimization of liberty ~ and if one man has a right to use substances that allow him to create a nuisance of himself, then another man must necessarily have the right to respond to that misuse of those substances.
The debate is between PERSONAL LIBERTY and GOVERNMENT OPPRESSION. Telling me that the states should have a power and the federales not does not resolve the issue.
If you want the government out of the MJ racket then you must take government out of the mix and leave everything pertaining thereto exclusively to the people ~ free of prosecutorial misadventure.
It's the same with abortion. People want to be free of government regulatory involvement they must also exist without government protection as well. The disputes, then, become personal matters.
BTW, that'd give your typical abortionist a 10 second half-life, but that's another issue.
Currently there's a dispute over access to the American MJ trade ~ so they are killing each other with 50 caliber weapons sent down there by ATF.
If you want to live in a Mexican culture, it's available just over the border.
Still waiting to find that one guy that might apply to. Guess you guys have no idea what your behavior is like.
Welcome to any suggestions how we might get one set up and running. There are a lot of grievances in this country to deal with in something more nuanced than abusive government action through general prohibitory laws.
Not sure how this relates to our fabulously successful war on drugs. Prohibition created short supply does not lead to increased trafficking? Help me out.
Like all prohibitionists, you think the problem is the substance.
As a rational thinker I recognize the problem is with the person abusing the substance.
You can ban the substance, but it won't change the personality of the person. All that banning does is deprive everyone else of their liberty.
Gun control does exactly the same thing as the WOsD. It blames the gun for crime instead of the person holding the gun.
So, when Jesus drank wine at the last supper was he using or abusing?
Or, do you think he's the only one in the entire history of mankind who could have a glass of wine with dinner and not become a nuisance?
So, all we have to do is ban all guns and crime will magically go away.
That's what you're saying. If we ban all drugs, (alcohol included), then all bad behavior will go away.
As I wrote, the prohibitionist blames the inanimate object for the behavior of the person.
In reality, you're no different than Sarah Brady and Handgun Control, Inc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.