RON: Hey Barn. Let's sneak off and fire up a fat one.
BARN: Sounds great, then we can smoke some weed...
Posted on 06/22/2011 1:23:14 PM PDT by Second Amendment First
A bipartisan team of Reps. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Ron Paul, R-Texas, will introduce federal legislation that would permit states to legalize, regulate, tax and control marijuana without federal interference.
The legislation will be unveiled Thursday by Frank, an outspoken liberal Democrat, and the libertarian Paul, who is running for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.
The bill would limit the U.S. government role in marijuana enforcement to interdiction of cross-border or inter-state smuggling. Citizens would be able to legally grow, use or sell cannabis in states which have legalized the forbidden weed.
The legislation is the first bill to be introduced in Congress that would end federal marijuana prohibition.
In a preview of the legislation, the Marijuana Policy Project noted that last week marked the 40th Anniversary of when President Nixon declared that the federal government was at war with marijuana and other drugs.
Nixon had rejected recommendations by a presidential panel that the country move toward decriminalization and an education and treatment-based drug policy.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.seattlepi.com ...
Next you want to legalize cocaine and then what?
______________________________________
Hookers, of course. Ron Paul has already come out in favor of legal prostitution. And Barney? Hell, he has male whores doing it in his own home.
I was wondering the same thing. Lived in Southern California nearly all my life and have never seen anything like the MM99 described.
RON: Hey Barn. Let's sneak off and fire up a fat one.
BARN: Sounds great, then we can smoke some weed...
I suppose you have a link to support that? You're attempting to misdirect.
The question at hand is legalization, but of leaving the decision to the States, and his views on the federal governments abuse of the Commerce Clause should be well known to you.
Of course! I don’t want my tax dollars to fund prisons wher the lives of teen are permanently destroyed (gang rapes, ladder to criminal careers, etc) for selling this product. How about you?
just repeal the tax act of 1937 and that would end the debate...
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/mjtaxact.htm
This from someone living thousands of miles away...
What a pack of lies.
Lived in S. Cal my entire life, and never once has that occurred.
Gezzz..
You live in Massachusetts...
Here's some crime stats for your major city compared to LA.
Ya got more substantially more crime per capita, right in your own backyard...lol
Boston and Los Angeles Comparative Crime Ratios per 100,000 People
Latest 2006 Crimes per 100,000 People: Latest 2006 Crimes per 100,000 People:
| Boston, MA | Los Angeles, CA | National | |
| Murder: | 13.3 | 12.4 | 7 |
| Forcible Rape: | 48.9 | 27.3 | 32.2 |
| Robbery: | 479.7 | 370 | 205.8 |
| Aggravated Assault: | 797.5 | 377.2 | 336.5 |
| Burglary: | 732.8 | 524.8 | 813.2 |
| Larceny Theft: | 3004.5 | 1539.2 | 2601.7 |
| Vehicle Theft: | 724.8 | 654.4 | 501.5 |
I recognize a distinction in use, and acknowlege that drugs have been used recreationally throughout recorded history, and drugs like alcohol, caffeine, and nicotine are commonly used "recreationally". That they are legal doesn't change that.
If so, the founders, who lived in a world where hard drugs were legal, lived in the same “mythical world.” I’ll chos that over your non-mythical world where thousands of teens are sent to prison and begin lives of crime for selling these poduces.
:-)
Wow, I feel wierd agreeing with Barney Frank.
But a broken watch is still right twice a day.
LOL. I agree. decriminalize it and tax it.
But a broken watch is still right twice a day.
Any conservative agreement with him on this is purely superficial. Yes, the States should be able to legalize it if they want, but not because Congress gave them permission. It is and always has been their decision to make.
The authority Congress claims over the issue was never granted to them by the States, and by any reasonable, honest attempt at interpreting the original intent of the Commerce Clause, that decision is still theirs to make.
The Marijuana Tax Act was found unconstitutional by the USSC back in the 70's, and replaced by the Controlled Substances Act during the Nixon Administration. He also gave us the EPA, authorized under the same claim of authority - the New Deal "substantial effects" interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
Not sure where you get your facts from but they’re outdated and completely wrong. Boston os one of the safest cities in the country and Massachusetts is clean, safe and English speaking, the Dems are trying to destroy it but they havent yet. Also, LA was a decrepit pit when I visited a few months ago. It used to be fun. It’s like Tiajuana now.
“He also gave us the EPA, authorized under the same claim of authority - the New Deal “substantial effects” interpretation of the Commerce Clause.”
And removing us from the silver standard in ‘73... Man, he was one busy prez...
Not *my* facts sweetheart. Their based on the FBI Crime Statistics.
Looks like I logged into Libertarian Republic.
look at it this way... if pot were legal and free(if you grew it) prolly a half a billion dollars would go into the US economy instead of going to the pot growers in mexco
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.