Posted on 06/25/2011 1:50:46 AM PDT by danielmryan
The federal war on drugs is coming under attack from multiple angles, most recently with the introduction of a bill in Congress by conservative Rep. Ron Paul and liberal Rep. Barney Frank that would end the national prohibition on marijuana and allow states to set their own policies.
The “Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011,” or HR 2306, would not “legalize” marijuana. If passed, the legislation would simply remove the plant from the federal list of “controlled substances.” States would then be free to regulate, tax, or prohibit it without U.S. government interference.
One of the important issues the bill would remedy is an ongoing conflict between federal authorities and numerous states that have nullified U.S. statutes by decriminalizing the possession of marijuana or legalizing it for medicinal purposes.
The legal medical-marijuana industry has flourished in over a dozen states in recent years in spite of the federal prohibition. But despite promising not to squander taxpayer money pursuing the issue, the Obama administration has actually increased federal bullying of state officials and the industry as a whole.
The new legislation, said to be the first of its kind introduced in Congress, also touches on several important questions beyond whether or not marijuana should be criminalized. And it puts conservatives in Congress who support federal drug prohibition while claiming to support the Constitution in an awkward position.
As opponents of the federal drug war point out, the U.S. government does not have any authority under the Constitution to ban substances, harmful or otherwise. That’s why alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment. So, under the Tenth Amendment, regulation of drugs necessarily falls under the purview of the states or the people.
But beyond the obvious constitutional problems with the federal war, supporters of the new legislation also argue that the policies have been an expensive failure with atrocious consequences.
“The war against marijuana causes so much hardship and accomplishes nothing,” Rep. Paul said during an interview about the proposal, noting that marijuana is helpful to many cancer patients. “We knew prohibition of alcohol was very bad, so this is just getting back to a sensible position on how we handle difficult problems.”
The 2012 GOP presidential candidate also said a trillion dollars had already been spent to fight the war on drugs. “And it’s a catastrophe, just as prohibition of alcohol was a catastrophe,” he explained. “Kids today have an easier time finding marijuana than they can alcohol.”
Liberal Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who introduced the bill with Paul, also blasted federal policies on the substance. "Criminally prosecuting adults for making the choice to smoke marijuana is a waste of law enforcement resources and an intrusion on personal freedom," he told reporters.
"I do not advocate urging people to smoke marijuana. Neither do I urge them to drink alcoholic beverages or smoke tobacco,” Frank added. “But in none of these cases do I think prohibition enforced by criminal sanctions is good public policy.”
Introduced on June 23, the bill has already attracted several cosponsors including Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), and Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.). “The human cost of the failed drug war has been enormous — egregious racial disparities, shattered families, poverty, public health crises, prohibition-related violence, and the erosion of civil liberties,” said cosponsor Rep. Lee of California, a state that has already used nullification to legalize medical marijuana. And outside of Congress, a broad coalition of supporters is also rallying around the bill.
“I don't have to tell you how historic and important this bill has the potential to be,” said executive director Neill Franklin of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), an organization of current and former law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and judges that advocates ending drug prohibition. In a message urging people to contact their congressional representatives in support of the bill, Franklin noted that, among other benefits, the legislation would free up law enforcers to “focus on solving violent crime rather than wasting their time on nonviolent marijuana offenses.”
The Marijuana Policy Project also encouraged Americans to support the bill and urge their Representatives to do so as well. “Hundreds of billions of dollars have been wasted on marijuana prohibition over the past forty years. And for what? Usage rates don't change. The price of marijuana doesn't change,” the organization said. “All prohibition has done is ensure that profits have remained underground while marijuana itself has been unregulated and less safe.”
But several opponents of the bill — particularly among government officials and others dependent on the federal drug war for employment — are lining up to attack it. The Office of National Drug Control Policy, for example, issued a statement blasting the proposal. “Legalization remains a nonstarter in the Obama administration,” it said, despite the fact that the President himself publicly admitted to smoking and inhaling marijuana “frequently.”
Similarly, Chairman Lamar Smith of the House Judiciary Committee said he would not even consider the proposal. Rep. Smith’s refusal to address the legislation could prevent it from coming up for a vote in the House of Representatives.
But despite opposition, pressure is building nationwide to address the problems caused by the federal war on drugs. The U.S. Conference of Mayors, for example, recently adopted a resolution unanimously blasting the war as a “failure.”
Especially troublesome, the resolution noted, is the fact that the United States imprisons more people per capita than any other nation in the world — with just five percent of the global population, American prisons house a full 25 percent of the world’s prisoners. The majority of them are in jail for non-violent drug offenses.
Earlier this month, the Global Commission on Drug Policy, consisting of prominent world leaders, outlined the failure of the global drug war and called for an end to prohibition. The worldwide anti-drug regime, including the 40-year-old “War on Drugs” in America, was originally sparked by the UN “Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs” treaty forcing governments to ban drugs.
Of course, many countries around the world have defied the UN drug treaty and approached the problem of substance abuse from other angles. Portugal and the Czech Republic, for instance, have both legalized all drugs. And studies show that the efforts have actually decreased problems such as addiction and use of drugs among minors — not to mention crime.
As The New American reported earlier this year, a coalition of top officials and lawmakers in the U.K. is also seeking to decriminalize drugs and treat the problem as a public health concern instead of a criminal matter. Around the world, the trend is similar.
The Associated Press predicted that the Paul-Frank bill to end the federal war on marijuana has “no chance of passing the Republican-controlled House.” But supporters of the legislation expect that it will — at the very least — spark a much-needed public debate about the issue.
Correct. I tend to slip into sarcasm more as I enter my cynical old age. It’s almost always about the money in everything. The drug war is just another business model.
Obviously ol’ Lamar is an idiot studying to be a cretin (or the other way ‘round... headed DOWN the food chain, anyway). I bet if I were to call his office, NOT ONE of his people could tell me where fedgov finds the legitimate Constitutional authority for the war on some drugs.
I dont think you know as much about YOUR marines association with the murder investigation as you claim. Ill leave it at that.
Second, the Constitution ALLOWS the states to make their own rules regarding warrants as long as pre-requests are met.
No knocks FYI are for the safety of everyone involved and have developed through the supreme courts as dictated by the constitution because the destruction of evidence can be completed so quickly now a days and the levels of violence that did not exist before.
The CONSTITUTION gave the COURTS the power. GET A GRIP!
That is only one drug czar in mexico. I guarantee you that 14 billion is NOTHING to the cocaine cartels.
First, your scurrilous attack on a murdered Marine, while I personally may not have known him, his former senior NCO in the Marine Corps did and PERSONALLY brought over the dress blue uniform he was buried in. The sheriff’s office finally copped to the facts that a.) He never took his weapon off safe, let alone fired it at them; b.) NO EVIDENCE OF ANY SORT of wrongdoing was found in the home, NOT EVEN JAYWALKING; and c.) His wife’s family lost someone to a home invasion murder. That you overlook all the above PLUS the OATHKEEPERS rally at his home on Memorial Day strongly implies that your head is so far up some cop’s butt you can’t see daylight. Not that I’d ever say that aloud; for all I know you’re a cop yourself and an apologist for the scumbags who murdered him.
“No knocks” are the worst part of law enforcement personified. They serve NO LEGAL purpose of any sort and are anathema to a free society. Anyone who advocates them should immediately be subject to one. My only consolation with them is that one day these scumbags will come up against a combat vet who, realistically, KNOWS that Officer Friendly is dead and cops ain’t our friends anymore, if they ever were. I truly believe that this miscarriage will end when it’s cops carried off in bodybags. Ending the unconstitutional war on some drugs will also go a good way to ending these abuses.
By the way, which department do YOU work for?
I said he was the subject of a homicide case. HE WAS.
DEAL WITH IT.
As far as no legal authority, they have it despite your misguided attempts to dictate to the world that cops deserve to be dead.
Many cops are COMBAT vets you twit.
1. He was AFFECTED BY a homicide case. HE was not the subject of one. BIG difference.
2. There is NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY GRANTED for either the war on some drugs OR no-knock raids. Not. A. Bit. Such raids are totally unreasonable and indefensible. Remember, the Brits conducted such atrocities on the Colonists. Do you suppose they could just FORGET that and say, “No,no, it’s OK. It’s our people doing it to themselves”??? Get real.
3. Nor do I necessarily want cops dead gratuitously. If they keep on killing the very folks who hire them for protection, however, and keep getting away with it through sham self-investigations, then it’s going to take dead COPS to get them to rethink their evil, extra-legal ways, isn’t it?
4. I know there are combat vets on PDs. A good friend is retired from the Marine Corps and now retired from that same sheriff’s department. Let me just say he’s less than pleased with what his former colleagues did in this case.
We ended our conversation when you advocated killing Police Officers nut job
Awwwww... No, it ended when you ran out of Barbra Striesand to fling.
You know. While the rest of us are trying to curb DHS from marking returning servicemen as nutjobs.
You give them all the ammo they need.
“Where in the constitution” .. like some unstable kid. Prove it prove it prove it. READ YOU DUMB STICK.
Im a marine and AI advocate killing cops.
YOUR the left wings wet dream.
If government at all levels is not held to account BY ITS BOSSES, We, the People, it won’t ever stop its evil ways. This means asking government to justify its actions against the grant of authority for each action as contained in the Constitution and recognizing the limits on governments described in the PRIMARY Founding Document, the Declaration of Independence, and codified in the Constitution.
The DoI talks about government by and with the “...consent of the governed.” In order to give consent to having something done by your agent, in your name and on your behalf, YOU MUST HOLD LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY TO PERFORM THAT ACT FOR YOURSELF. Otherwise, you’re just as lawless as the person or government you have do the evil deed. Remember, we were handed a REPUBLIC, with a Constitution which places limits on GOVERNMENT, NOT on We, the People. And we are the final line of defense of our Republic, not the government, for were it government’s place, we’d be where we are and more so. So don’t try giving me your “holier than thou” bull bleep and try to imply that an illegitimate regime can legitimately designate veterans as terrorists, while YOUR ilk sits idly by their OTHER depradations. If folks like me don’t speak out against evil, it’s for sure YOU won’t. Then where would we be?
I swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution from ALL its enemies. After the second or third time, I began to read, study and compare the clear words of that marvelous document with what government was doing in its name. What an eye opener that was... and remains to this day. I suggest you do the same. Maybe YOU’D learn to ask questions as well. And start to believe that it might just take the deaths of some of its agents of evil for government to change its ways. NO ONE ADVOCATES such an outcome. Sadly, some of us feel it will be needful. BUT, as always, we give government the first shot. We will NOT INITIATE violence. We WILL RESPOND to violence initiated against US, no matter the source.
Didn’t bother reading it.
You can’t make yourself right in this.
DEAL with facts. get some psychiatric help. You REALLY need it.
Ok, keep your head in the sand. It’s only liberty and the Constitution we’re talking about, no biggie...
Thomas Jefferson and George Washington disagree, morality that is man made is not morality. reality belongs to the creator, thou shalt not smoke pot is not one of the ten commandments...
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.