Representative Nancy Mace Introduces Bill To End Federal Cannabis Prohibition

Forbes.com ^ | 11/15/2021 | Will Yakowicz

[wastedyears]

Rep. Nancy Mace, a first-year Republican from South Carolina, introduced a bill on Monday that proposes to end the federal prohibition on cannabis.

[Hammerhead]

About damn time. And the whole illegallity of marijuana is absolutely ludicrous.

[eastexsteve]

The stoned, like the ignorant, are far easier to rule.

You bet they are. And, another issue to consider here. My wife was a diagnostician for the juvenile justice system here in Texas for 10 years. She dealt with the violent offenders. In every one of her cases - I repeat - EVERY ONE of her cases - the perps were high when they committed the crime. And, their common drug of choice was weed.

[HartleyMBaldwin]

Whether or not a field sobriety test is conducted under suspicion is irrelevant. It’s still, pretty much by definition, an assessment of an individual’s ability to handle an altered state of awareness, no?

When I was young, I never needed any form of government licensing to drink, smoke, and drive all at the same time, anyway. Glad I lived through it, and never harmed anyone else either.

In any case, I don’t think your idea of government testing and licensing to allow impaired driving is all that good. What forms of testing would permit what degree of what type of impairment? What about other factors at a given time, that weren’t considered in the testing, such as illness, distraction, emotional distress? Those can impair one’s driving also.

[ridesthemiles]

40% of trucks are NOT on the highway each day due to drivers who CAN NOT pass the drug tests.

Think Supple Chain is an issue NOW? Wait for this to grow.....

[Chode]

field sobriety tests... if you pass, good to go

[zeugma]

at this point, they might as well. I’m sure the usual drug warrior suspects will telling us the sky will fall.

I think pot should have been legalized decades ago. Either way, it really doesn’t matter to me. I don’t smoke it now, and won’t smoke legal weed either.

[zeugma]

# The more jurisprudence focuses upon the potential to commit offenses (”your so high you might hurt someone”) instead of actual offenses (”you hurt someone”), we can expect a deepening morass with liberty (and its attendant responsibilities) sinking into the same.

Indeed. Laws should be based on actual harm rather than potential harm.

I also do not support DWI laws. That gets you in trouble here with the nannty-staters.

[zeugma]

# No, the field sobriety test is conducted under suspicion, a refusal bringing punishment.

In direct violation of the 5th amendment. Not that anyone cares about such things any more.

[nathanbedford]

Indeed. Laws should be based on actual harm rather than potential harm.

Agreed, providing potential harm to third parties does not come into play. In other words the pesky libertarian streak to which I confess opposes laws of nanny-staters such as gambling, prostitution, drug usage that have no third party victim, potential or actual. But when there is obvious and clear potential harm to a third-party, such as an infant in the womb, the Christian conservative in me takes over and opposes abortion.

The potential harm to a school bus full of children by an intoxicated school bus driver is clear and grave and might well be irreparable. We identify the crime before the accident to prevent the accident.

Similarly, I might shoot a shotgun into a crowd of people and by luck miss hitting a single soul but, nevertheless, because of the potential lethality I have committed a crime and the no harm no foul rule simply does not apply, nor should it.

I oppose laws against simple intoxication whether public or otherwise but believe that behavior done while intoxicated should be prosecuted. The first has no third-party potential victim, the second presumably does.

[zeugma]

Well said sir. For the most part, we are pretty much in agreement. In a nutshell, it boils down to “Without a victim, there should be no law”

[Perseverando]

Palmetto State ping, please.

[bert]

Many states and cities have effectively seceded from the union by abrogating the cannabis prohibition.

[upchuck]

Thanks for the ping Perseverando.

South Carolina Ping   

If you'd like to be on or off the South Carolina ping list, just click Private Reply below and drop me a FReepmail.

[wastedyears]

Many states and cities have effectively seceded from the union by abrogating the cannabis prohibition.

That's not at all close to seceding.