Rep. Barney Frank Files Bill to Decriminalize Pot (Federally)

I suspect a lot more folks could be brought along if the public were made more aware of the economic benefits of growing hemp and marijuana, esp. in the southern states. It might take a few years, but a lot of legislators and farmers will suddenly discover their libertarian views on drugs when they see the budget opportunities.

Just based on prison populations alone.

regard for others. That's the "right" of the dictator. Regulation is a direct challenge his authority. Taxes are theft in his eyes. In the case of the prison industry, legalizing a behavior is taking food off their table.

Can't remember the numbers of course and they were just estimates but I think every state facing a budget crunch would turn their fiscal woes right around with taxing marijuana.

People aren't puffing up in malls or on the highways, the world hasn't stopped turning. Funny how Mass keeps passing these so-called controversial laws (healthcare, gay rights, and now this one) and as soon as they pass it's like they were in place all along. The opponents of all of these predicted the end of the Commonwealth, but it didn't come to pass.

it's destroying your state budget.

Healthcare issues are greatly exaggerated. The biggest problem with it is simply it is underfunded for a small percentage of this state's citizens. However, more people than ever before have health care, and lines are not "drastically worse off" or "catastrophic" or anything of those rethug lines either.

:)

Happens to me every time.

:rofl: :rofl:

:smoke:

of the American People, Congressman Frank.:patriot:

That won't sit well with many of our "representatives"; they think with their wallets and their knees.

Only LGBT and atheist politicians give a damn about civil liberties any more; I've felt that for years.

does good things.

Yay, Barney!
:kick: & R

But that old cliche about the journey of a thousand miles beginning with a small step does seem to apply here though.

I'd bet that over the next decade, pro-legalization of cannabis is going to become a more politically safe position to hold.

So, please don't say "I don't really see this going anywhere anytime soon" instead, please be thankful for this wonderful news and continue to think possitive! Hey, I think it works!

I'm just trying to say that this is a marathon and not a sprint, so don't get too frustrated if we don't see much movement on this in the next couple of years. Things are slowly but surely going in the right direction.

I'm not much of a pot enthusiast these days, but I find the misallocation of law enforcement and penal resources to be appalling.

Prohibition of marijuana is ridiculous.

We've discussed this before, and a lot of people think 20 or 30 grams would be plenty. That sounds good, right? Thirty grams is basically a full lid. I have always thought that if you were going to just decriminalize weed, and not totally legalize it, the cutoff had to be at least 100 grams. This, of course, because if the cutoff was 30 grams, the cops are going to raid every pot party they can and bring scales. They'll weigh all the pot on the premises, and if there just so happen to be 31 grams at the party it's all going to belong to the homeowner...who would shortly not BE a homeowner thanks to anti-pot paranoia. Somewhere between 100 and 115 grams (115 grams is a quarter-pound) is the right amount; you would have to throw the pot party of the year to have that much weed in the house.

This still doesn't change my opinion that we need a scientific test that can prove someone's stoned when the test is performed (vice "you smoked sometime in the last ten days so you're fucked up now" which the current test gives you), but it's a decent start.

Standard tests for impairment are adequate testing. If a person isn't impaired what the hell difference does it make if they are stoned or not?

Assume, just for assumption, that we had Legal Pot and no scientific pot intoxication test--which wouldn't have to be chemical, but WOULD have to be something that could put a number on a display. After enough people who were driving stoned got off by using lawyers skilled in the art of impeaching testimony ("and how did you KNOW he was stoned? What PROOF did you have he was stoned? You DON'T have proof he was stoned. Your intuition isn't enough to know he was stoned. Just because he smelled like pot is no reason to suspect he was stoned. Your observations were colored by the fact the defendant had long hair on the night in question.") the cops are going to go right back to piss tests.

I have no illusions as to what that will lead to: Driving While Long Haired stops. There's a Mexican guy. He's driving 3mph over the speed limit. "We all know" those evil Mexicans are all Pot Fiends so he must have been driving while he was stoned. If the guy smells like a pot smoker, he's fucking screwed.

You guys may want to google Tenaha, Texas--where they've been DWBing people coming out of the Louisiana casinos--to see just how low cops will stoop if they think there's money in it for their departments.

You can do roadside impairment tests as well, the same ones they use for alcohol.

The only thing that's admissible is an "evidentiary blood alcohol tester." There's a list of the machines that will stand up in court. The patrol officer's testimony won't stand up. Only the number on that little box.

Here's a real worrisome one: Ethyl Gluconoride testing. EtG is an ethanol metabolite, which stays in the system for up to five days. You know how sometimes an alcoholic who is a trained healthcare provider can get a special waiver to practice if she agrees to random alcohol testing? This is the test they use--it makes sure those folks don't have a little nip after work at night. The problem is, it's so incredibly sensitive it goes positive with alcohol-based products applied to the skin. Hand sanitizer is infamous for making this test show positive.

Our government thrives on chaos and delusion. Straw men are absolutely vital in the kind of government we have. A government for the corporations, by the corporations and of the corporations.

I don't want my pilot flying stoned, or the subway operator, or the guy driving the car on the street.

We are our own worst judge of impaired.

as are saliva tests. Both detect pot usage within the past 1-2 days.

namely, that the tests that "prove" someone got stoned sometime in the recent past can't "prove" the person was stoned while he was driving.

Alcohol's easy. If you have more than a certain percentage of alcohol in your bloodstream, you're drunk. When you drop below that, you're not drunk. But with weed, you can show up hotter than a pistol and not be stoned at all.

It's, like, as if one law, could change other laws, and we're all bound by universal laws, and those laws make smaller and bigger laws! Dig?

:fistbump:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

First, welcome to DU, enjoy your stay.

Second, you can drop the offensive "Rep Frank wouldn't mind being forcibly sodomized" crap. It has no place here.

Third, addressing the problem of posession is completely separate from addressing the problem of commercial cultivation. You can't reasonably expect congress to attempt to right all past wrongs simultaneously.

The comment about Frank is pretty douchy, but you seem to support changing pot laws.

Either way, your post makes little sense.

... for cryin out loud - legalize the stuff already. Sheeesh.

go Barney!:smoke:

I hope he succeeds and our prisoners that have done no harm to others can be set free and re-united with their families and friends.
Once this is legalized then perhaps we can go on to reap all the many benifits of the legal growing of hemp..starting with JOBS!!!!

Make it so.

that would convince out legislators to pass it and work on getting the info to our own senators/representatives. I suspect most of them understand the problem but are afraid to pass it for fear of blowback. Info on taxes, savings from prisons, etc. would help them.

I had hope this would happen in my lifetime.

:thumbsup:

Nice try, but half measures avail us nothing. We want complete legalization, and single payer, and we want them now.

From an article by Business Services Industry:

"Similarly, the cost of bringing the 1991 5.09-9.09 billion dollar marijuana crop to consumers would be 2.82 million dollars, leaving 5.09-9.09 billion dollars as possible tax revenue."

"A much different picture of potential tax revenue emerges when the supply side figures are examined. Using the 13,567 metric tons of supply estimated from extrapolation of 1982 DEA seizure totals, potential tax revenue ranges from 23.32 to 66.40 billion dollars."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0254/is_n4_v53/ai_16433984/?tag=content;col1

Or neither?

Just sayin'.

Even though I support both.