Bill would lessen punishment for marijuana possession

News 8 Austin ^ | 2/18/2003

[new cruelty]

A state lawmaker from Houston wants to change the punishment for possession of marijuana.

Right now it's a Class B misdemeanor in Texas, punishable by a fine not to exceed $2,000 and/or confinement for a maximum of 180 days.

Rep. Harold Dutton, D-Houston has written a bill that makes possession of less than an ounce of marijuana a Class C misdemeanor.

It would also be the equivalent of a traffic ticket.

"You wouldn't lose your drivers license, you don't lose any of these other things that you do in a Class B setting," Dutton said.

Dutton doesn't condone marijuana use, but he says his bill would provide many people a second chance.

[William Terrell]

Actually, one of the tenets of sobriety in the 12 step program is to replace the 'god' of addiction with a 'higher' power.

But that has to be done within the heart of the individual and can't be coerced by law. Tell me, what Biblical evidence is there against smoking a herb created by God and grows wild all over the Earth (except in artic regions)?

[Hemingway's Ghost]

If I felt like the pro-dopes (you or aforementioned obsessives) had a cogent argument to make;

if I felt that there was any intellectual honesty in this point of view ("medical marijuana" is a joke, and your inability to admit the obvious consequences of your postition renders your arguments moot);

if I felt like the pro-dope stance was anything more than petulant wanna-be's demanding their right to what is-- at its core-- nothing but self indulgence, I might be persuaded to agree with you.

For a conservative, you certainly feel a lot, and you certainly seem to have no problem creating or supporting legislation based on what you feel. I don't know about you, but basing legislation on feelings gives me the willies, because I know there are liberals out there who are more than willing to create legislation based on their feelings.

I'd rather base legislation on principle and law, wouldn't you?

[Hemingway's Ghost]

It stuns me that much of the gun crowd doesn't look at the WOsD and realize that they are next.

. . . or the tobacco-smoking crowd . . .

[THEUPMAN]

Reread the discussion. The poster was trying to equate 'drug rights' (not specifically enumerated in the Constitution)

I'm not really interested in joining in the fray;
I just thought perhaps you had overlooked a constitutional point.
I see however that you seem to have a rather distorted view of the text.
"rights" need not be enumerated,
9th Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

My point is .... When we allow anyone licence to distort the powers conferred on the federal gov. by the constitution, we set the stage for the very acts of gov. that the founders feared.
The 2nd amendment was "enumerated" as protection from those who would violate the "unenumerated" rights.

If issues that should be decided at the state and local levels were not usurped by the federal gov. I think we would see less porkbarreling and boondogeling.

[TightSqueeze]

Your mother must be proud of you.

Your mother must wear army boots!

[Durus]

RE #84
Very well said. Don't be surprised if you don't get a response though. Some people just don't like the idea of liberty and they aren't going to let the pesky constitution get in their way.

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...And even if it is, so what?

After all, its for the Children /sarcasm

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...It has nothing to do with "Smoking dope".

I have yet to see one of the "defense of the Constitution" posts that did not have smoking dope as the central idea.

[FreeTally]

I have yet to see one of the "defense of the Constitution" posts that did not have smoking dope as the central idea.

You "See" what your biased view allows you to. Freedom entails each individual determining for themself what they will or will not ingest, among hundreds of other decisions that do not invlolve the violation of another's rights. I'm sorry that simple concept is blurred by your biased authoritarian views.

[IncPen]

I'd rather base legislation on principle and law, wouldn't you?

Yes. My 'feelings' are my principles. The things I think and observe. Nice try with the semantics, though.

And we have laws in place.

We're going around in circles here.

[new cruelty]

Do what you want, william, you don't need me to tell you what is ok.

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...Freedom entails each individual determining for themself what they will or will not ingest...

After all, its for the children, you know.

[eno_]

The "smoking dope" part is the least of it.

Are you ready to get rid of the EPA on constitutional grounds?

Are you ready to get rid of the Department of Education?

Are you ready to get rid of the ATF?

All these are at least as high a priority as ending the Drug War. As I recall from other posts, the Drug War costs somewhere between $35 billion and $70 billion per year, depending on if you count state and local costs. ATF, EPA, Ed, etc. probably cost at least as much. They are ALL a waste of my money, and I want them all stopped. They are ALL unconstitutional and anti-constitutional in their actions. Are you ready to step forward are say "Fire all the ATF JBTs?" Or are they your brothers?

So there you have it. "Smoking dope" is NOT the central issue. Are you ready to step and say which of your union brothers you want fired first?

[FreeTally]

Your inane responses make absolutely no sense.

Your socialistic babble and Hillary references have nothing to do with Freedom.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

And we have laws in place.

We're going around in circles here.

Laws in place that on a federal level are quite nebulous in their constitutionality, and laws in place, like the CSA, that the feds don't even follow when it doesn't suit their agenda.

We're going around in circles because certain conservatives here really don't have a problem with big government at all. When it suits their agenda, big government is just fine and dandy.

[William Terrell]

Do what you want, william, you don't need me to tell you what is ok.

I want to know if you think that if one is well-heeled enough to pay the fine, it's ok for them to smoke cannabis.

[William Terrell]

After all, its for the Children /sarcasm

Yes, but even if someone is for constitutional protections because they want to smoke cannabis, so what?

[new cruelty]

lol, are you asking me permission to get stoned, william? do what you want. if you can afford the penalty, given the current law, puff away.

[William Terrell]

You're evading the question. The intent of the question is to explore your concept of why it is wrong to smoke cannabis, and why constitutional liberties don't apply.

[new cruelty]

Explore this- I've never said it was wrong. You're seeking an argument where there is none. Move along, william.