Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Politics: Paul-Barney Bill Would Legalize Marijuana Federally

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the states-left-holding-the-nanny-hammer dept.

United States 688

shafty023 writes "It would appear Ron Paul (R-TX) and Barney Frank (D-MA) are going to be presenting a bill to legalize marijuana and thus end the failed war on drugs finally if it gets passed. What chances do you all think this bill has in the Senate and House or even surviving the president's veto pen?" Note that there would still be plenty of drug war left to go around, even if (as this bill sets out to accomplish) the Federal government stops chasing marijuana.

cancel ×

688 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

4 20 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36546568)

first post...just missed 4:20, darn it.

In any other universe this is not illegal, tobacco is.

Obama's too conservative (3, Insightful)

DogDude (805747) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546580)

Obama's simply too conservative to sign a bill like this. He should, but he won't. The fact that marijuana is 100% safe isn't enough to sway the screaming, mindless Christians, and Obama needs at least some of their votes.

"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ?? (1, Insightful)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546630)

uhhh, what?

Oh, yeah, I forgot: Christian-Bashing is the last acceptable and politically-correct form of prejudice and ignorant hatred.

Carry on.

Re:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ?? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36546676)

Gay nigger christian

Re:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ?? (5, Insightful)

darien.train (1752510) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546698)

I believe you've neglected to consider Muslim bashing when stating your claim. Kind of tops out Christians for the top spot of politically-correct hatred by a wide margin.

Look! Is that a Sharia Law behind you? [ducks out]

Re:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ?? (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546708)

Christians are very good at that sort of thing too, as are a lot of the other sky fairy cultists. But in any case if you're referring to the US is it not the case that being a God botherer is a huge electoral advantage?

Re:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ?? (5, Insightful)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546738)

Oh for fucks sake. Quit feeling persecuted. To be an American president you at least have to pay lip service to Jesus.

It's infuriating to be always be associated with whiny self righteous Christians constantly bitching about how much everyone discriminates against them and how hard it is to be a christian.

Get some damn perspective.

Re:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ?? (4, Insightful)

Flyerman (1728812) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546904)

To be fair, the "Religious Right" votes for the same people as those who want to do away with all social programs.

So much for loving thy neighbor.

Re:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ?? (3, Insightful)

RoccamOccam (953524) | more than 3 years ago | (#36547122)

Are you saying that the decision to not force other people to cough up money to support social programs means "not loving thy neighbor"? That's absurd. Conservatives (and the Religious Right) are far more likely than liberals to give of their **own** money to support "love thy neighbor" programs.

Re:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ?? (3, Insightful)

Grizzley9 (1407005) | more than 3 years ago | (#36547136)

To be fair, the "Religious Right" votes for the same people as those who want to do away with all social programs.

So much for loving thy neighbor.

When the bible talks about "loving thy neighbor" it's talking about the person actually doing it. Not some proxy, government pawn issuing coupons for cheese. Keep "loving thy neighbor" where it should be, in the hands of the populace close to the need, else the government will get to determine what "loving thy neighbor" means.

Re:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ?? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36546914)

I'm sure that while some are probably nice people you have to be somewhat mindless to believe in talking snakes, virgin births the invisible sky fairy - need I go on? I think what the originally poster was trying to say was these meta-physical dreamers have WAY too much influence on modern day society. - cheers

Re:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ?? (4, Insightful)

justaguylikeme (963377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36547094)

uhhh, what?

Oh, yeah, I forgot: Christian-Bashing is the last acceptable and politically-correct form of prejudice and ignorant hatred.

Carry on.

Fat people. Don't forget the fatties. You can slam us... er... them too all you want.

Re:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ?? (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#36547108)

No, it's pot smokers who are politically acceptable targets of prejudice and ignorant hatred. Come back when you can get thrown in jail if you're caught with a cross.

Re:Obama's too conservative (1)

Radres (776901) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546648)

I doubt it would even get to the President.

Re:Obama's too conservative (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36546700)

I would say tobacco and alcohol is 100% safe, when taken in moderation. Anything in excess, even marijuana has its side effects.

Re:Obama's too conservative (2)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546766)

Besides the fact that you're an ignorant troll, it isn't "100% safe". Maybe 90%... you wouldn't want to operate machinery, and I'm sure there are impurities in the smoke that would be harmful to a lesser extent than tobacco.

Re:Obama's too conservative (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546878)

Maybe 90%... you wouldn't want to operate machinery

I can tell you've never hung out with machinists. Smoking pot doesn't affect your ability to operate machinery any more than it affects your ability to play Street Fighter or Call of Duty.

Re:Obama's too conservative (3, Insightful)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 3 years ago | (#36547002)

Maybe 90%... you wouldn't want to operate machinery

I can tell you've never hung out with machinists. Smoking pot doesn't affect your ability to operate machinery any more than it affects your ability to play Street Fighter or Call of Duty.

The few potheads I've seen who have been smoking pot more-or-less on a daily basis for several years are themselves rather definite proof that smoking pot DOES affect your ability to, well, do almost anything.

Re:Obama's too conservative (4, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#36547038)

Most of the responsible ones are still closeted. There is a war on them, you know.

Re:Obama's too conservative (2)

Servaas (1050156) | more than 3 years ago | (#36547016)

I can tell you've never hung out with machinists. Smoking pot doesn't affect your ability to operate machinery any more than it affects your ability to play Street Fighter or Call of Duty.

Coming from a 3 year marijuana bend I can tell you that it depends on the person and the amount of pot you have had. Speaking from a dutch perspective, where marijuana is very much legal to smoke in doors, yet illegal to grow in any amount for oneself, I find it ironic that our politicians are trying to put some of the stronger flavors under the hard drugs illegal section. I mean honestly, who better then to look for marijuana advice then the ol' cheese kingdom.

Re:Obama's too conservative (1)

BluBrick (1924) | more than 3 years ago | (#36547134)

Maybe 90%... you wouldn't want to operate machinery

I can tell you've never hung out with machinists. Smoking pot doesn't affect your ability to operate machinery any more than it affects your ability to play Street Fighter or Call of Duty.

Maybe so, maybe not - but it sure does affect the desire to operate machinery (isn't that what operagost said?).

Re:Obama's too conservative (4, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546838)

Obama's simply too conservative to sign a bill like this. He should, but he won't. The fact that marijuana is 100% safe isn't enough to sway the screaming, mindless Christians, and Obama needs at least some of their votes.

Take a hard honest look at the world and you'll find that those who wish to control others come in all stripes and operate under all banners. Every person who ever gets offended at anything and responds not by no longer watching/viewing/reading/listening to that thing, but by seeking to have it banned, is also part of the problem. Every person who thinks they know what is best for you and that their recommendations for how you live should have the force of law behind them are also part of the problem.

Anyone who would ever tell consenting adults what they may do with their bodies, in the privacy of their homes, with their money, or what they may read, watch, and think is quite plainly an abomination. So long as force or fraud is not used to harm an unwilling participant, we are and should be free to live our lives as we see fit and then bear the consequences.

If some Christians were the only ones who failed to understand that, it would be a drastic improvement. You have to get over your religious bigotry if you are to actually understand the scope of the problem. No, I'm not offended by it -- why would I bother handling it in such an immature and cowardly fashion when I can meet it head-on and explain exactly what is wrong with it, secure that my reason is sound? I have no reason to get offended and look for a way to punish you for engaging in this kind of bigotry. The fact that you will never understand the nature of the problem until you get over that means you're doing a great job of punishing yourself.

Wallowing in the darkness of ignorance and feeling powerless to effect any meaningful change is worse than anything I would hypothetically do to you (emphasis on hypothetically, just to be clear). That's something the childish people who scream about how offended they are will never understand: the built-in justice of being harmed or edified not for what you do, but by it. They haven't the understanding or the dispassion. They're too busy serving an impulse to control that will never be satisfied.

Re:Obama's too conservative (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546852)

He won't have to. There is no chance of this ever getting to the president.

Re:Obama's too conservative (3, Interesting)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546894)

The fact that marijuana is 100% safe

100% safe, huh? Not if you have a genetic predisposition to schizophrenia, it can increase your chances of developing it by 10x. There are also some other correlations, but then again correlation != causation. Really all I'm getting at is lets not call it a wonder drug with no downsides.
http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/streetdrugs.html [schizophrenia.com]

BTW I am in favor of legalizing it

Re:Obama's too conservative (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36547126)

Indeed, correlation is NOT causation! Several studies have found that people with schizophrenia have a higher likelihood of using A WIDE VARIETY of drugs, especially in the early stages of their illness, prior to diagnosis.

Which is more believable:
* marijuana causes schizophrenia (somehow?)
or
* schizophrenics are more likely to use drugs in general than the rest of the population (in an attempt to self medicate?)

Follow the pork. And the power. (5, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 3 years ago | (#36547032)

The reason that Obama reneged on his promises w/r/t the drug war, is that the drug war is an enormous pork-barrel scheme. It provides a pretext for billions of dollars of spending, as well as providing bribe money at all levels of local and state government, from cops on the beat to mayors, to state legislators.

Besides that, the drug war amounts to universal criminalization: cops can get away with breaking into anyone's home and killing them if they pretend to have done so on the basis of an anonymous tip that there were drugs in the house in question.

I'm not surprised that Dr. Paul is in favor of ending the drug war, but I didn't think Barney Frank had the guts. Good for them.

-jcr

Re:Obama's too conservative (2)

squidflakes (905524) | more than 3 years ago | (#36547090)

100% Safe? Really? I guess there is some magical property of marijuana smoke that heals your lungs as you inhale it. Awesome.

Legalize the weed! (-1, Troll)

dottback (2301316) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546582)

Look, even senators were caught [aeonity.com] smoking it on several occasions.
Lets end that fallacy.

Re:Legalize the weed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36546654)

Gross. Mod down.

Re:Legalize the weed! (1)

anjrober (150253) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546684)

really? still same old jokes???
lame....

Moving to LSD. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36546584)

Legalization will take all the fun out of it. I'll have to just start using more LSD I guess.

Right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36546712)

Yeah, why don't you go and do just that.
Let us know how well it works out for you.

Re:Right. (1)

endymion.nz (1093595) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546836)

Worked out pretty well for silicon valley.

Re:Moving to LSD. (5, Funny)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546768)

Or you could start doing LDS, but that'd just be mormonic.

Re:Moving to LSD. (1)

LinksAwakener (1081617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546868)

Heh, I see what you did there.

Re:Moving to LSD. (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546876)

Dunno, it didn't do that much damage to Spock [youtube.com] .

Re:Moving to LSD. (2)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546940)

Great... first it was Hercules, then CGA, EGA, VGA, DVI, HDMI, DisplayPort, mini-DisplayPort, Thunderbolt... screw that, I'm done. I'm not switching to LSD.

How is this news for nerds? (1)

SeeSp0tRun (1270464) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546586)

I understand it may be something that matters to some of /.
But how... exactly... is this "News for Nerds?"

Re:How is this news for nerds? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546616)

Maybe this is more news for "turned on nerds". Here's a hint, though. Coca cola and Warcraft are not a mind-altering substances.

Re:How is this news for nerds? (1)

dev.null.matt (2020578) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546936)

Mt Dew and Warcraft are not a mind-altering substances.

FTFY

Contact your representative! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36546590)

The chances of this bill passing are fairly remote, but it's still important to contact your senator and express your support if you think this is a good idea. Congress should hear that punishing people for marijuana use is a waste of time and money.

Re:Contact your representative! (1)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546794)

The chances of this bill leaving committee, coming up for a vote, passing in the House, coming up for a vote in the Senate, passing in the Senate, and being signed into law are so incredibly dim that I wouldn't get excited just yet.

Re:Contact your representative! (2, Interesting)

Nikkos (544004) | more than 3 years ago | (#36547170)

However you can increase the odds by contacting your Senators and Representatives and telling them unequivocally that if they don't support this legislation, then you don't support them.

George Clinton has their number (-1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546594)

The bigger the headache the bigger the pill.
Take your medicine Âcause you gonna be ill when I tell you the deal on dope.

ThereÂs more profit in pretending that weÂre stopping it, than selling it.
Selling out, weÂre in for the shock of a lifetime.
Stop and we might find faces in primetime.
The faces of yours and mine.
Over the counter, under the counter.
On account a the drugs, itÂs not the drugs that drag you through the mud.
ItÂs the money.
It ainÂt funny.

Not legalize (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36546606)

But rather decriminalize at the Federal Level.

Distinct difference.

Still up to the states to act.

Also, hope we free the thousands of prisoners.

Smart (big) money on NO (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36546622)

There is way too many people making way too much money off of prohibition for this law to pass.

Re:Smart (big) money on NO (1)

LinksAwakener (1081617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546946)

I disagree. In fact, it's incredibly taxing on our economy to keep up the prohibition. Unless the government has a hand in selling marijuana (I doubt that marijuana would be their illegal narcotic of choice) then all they're doing is shoveling millions of dollars into the prisons to pay for the prisoners in jail for selling/possessing it.

However, if they legalize and tax it, marijuana would bring in millions of dollars.

Paul-Barney? (3, Funny)

bigjarom (950328) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546624)

Shouldn't the heading read Paul-Frank? Or is Barney just that much more fun to say?

Re:Paul-Barney? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36546718)

Smoke enough green demon and Rep Frank will look and sound like the hellish beast Barney.[7]

Re:Paul-Barney? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36546866)

Too bad the bill wasn't co-sponsored by Congressman Lamar Smith of Texas. Then it could have been the Smith-Barney Bill. ("We use pot the old-fashioned way... we smoke it!")

Re:Paul-Barney? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36547012)

Sock monkeys do not support this kind of chicanery!

Re:Paul-Barney? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#36547142)

They both have two first names, it can get confusing.

As usual, summary is wrong (4, Informative)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546632)

This would NOT legalize marijuana. It would allow states to determine if marijuana COULD be legalized or controlled (as in medical marijuana).

This bill, the "Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011," is broader and bolder than the medical marijuana bills that Congressman Frank has introduced in every Congress since 1995. The bill introduced today would allow states to determine their own marijuana laws -- not just medical marijuana laws -- without federal interference.

Source [alternet.org] (and others).

Let's try for some accuracy here. It's not all that hard. You'd think the editors were stoned or something.

Re:As usual, summary is wrong (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546724)

In other words, it helps restore the proper function of the Constitution. Fortunately, it WOULD immediately make marijuana legal in several states that already have laws on the books explicitly making it legal (or have never had any making it illegal).

Re:As usual, summary is wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36546732)

It says "legalize Marijuana federally."

Re:As usual, summary is wrong (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36546734)

So it removes the federal laws against marijuana, legalizing marijuana federally. Got it.

Re:As usual, summary is wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36546742)

So really the only news is he's got a second Congressman to co-sponsor his bill this time? Still a long way to even getting a vote.

Re:As usual, summary is wrong (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36546786)

This would NOT legalize marijuana. It would allow states to determine if marijuana COULD be legalized or controlled (as in medical marijuana).

This bill, the "Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011," is broader and bolder than the medical marijuana bills that Congressman Frank has introduced in every Congress since 1995. The bill introduced today would allow states to determine their own marijuana laws -- not just medical marijuana laws -- without federal interference.

Source [alternet.org] (and others). Let's try for some accuracy here. It's not all that hard. You'd think the editors were stoned or something.

The summary is perfectly accurate. It said it would legalize marijuana federally. The federal government doesn't have the authority to stop states from prohibiting something, so I don't know why your additional clarification would be needed.

Re:As usual, summary is wrong (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#36547060)

The federal government doesn't have the authority to stop states from prohibiting something

It does - e.g. it can stop states from prohibiting free speech (outside of a few narrowly constrained cases).

In this particular case, though, you're right.

Re:As usual, summary is wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36546872)

Good enough for government work, now go back to your usual nitpicking.

End the war? (1)

BradleyUffner (103496) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546650)

How is this going to "End the failed war on drugs finally"? The "war" is over more than just marijuana.

Re:End the war? (2)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546688)

I suspect it's because the part of the war that most people support ending is the part about marijuana. Most people really don't care if heroin, cocaine or amphetamine are illegal. It's also a big step toward saner drug laws.

Re:End the war? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36546990)

It might not end the war, but the focus of the war has been cannabis for a very long time. It is by far the number one way via the WoD to end up with a prison sentence and criminal record. The DEA seems to have a special fetish for going after potheads. It is, after all, still classified as a Schedule I substance, giving it higher precedence than other substances that are quite obviously far more dangerous.

It would also be a massive blow to cartels and gangs, as it is often claimed (don't know if it's true) that smuggling and selling marijuana accounts for more of their revenue than any other criminal enterprise.

Re:End the war? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36547120)

Even if it is just marijuana, it will do a ton of good for the US:

1: It will empty the prisons of nonviolent inmates. The more people working, the better the economy, and more IRS revenue.

2: It will allow LEOs to spend time prosecuting crimes against property and crimes against people. Mala in se crimes.

3: It would deal a blow to the cartels. Yes, they still have cocaine and other hard drugs, but most of their biz is weed.

4: Taxing the stuff will fill up the coffers of state and Federal agencies.

Of course, I don't really care for marijuana (it makes people stupid and turns them into uncaring assholes) but it is that person's right to smoke.

Not a complete solution (2, Informative)

daedae (1089329) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546652)

I guess it depends on what the states do, then. Removing it from federal schedules just pushes down to the states. Some states will probably legalize it, but some states that were relying on the federal categorization will probably locally criminalize it. (This is based on the fact that salvia is currently not listed on any federal schedule but has been individually criminalized in several states.)

Re:Not a complete solution (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546722)

This is based on the fact that salvia is currently not listed on any federal schedule but has been individually criminalized in several states.

I'm curious. Which states have criminalized saliva?

And, do you smoke it or what?

Re:Not a complete solution (1)

woob (939992) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546806)

Here in the backwoods of Oklahoma, it has been criminalized for 6 months or longer.....

Re:Not a complete solution (1)

daedae (1089329) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546820)

I'd never even heard of it until there was announcement that Virginia was criminalizing it.

Re:Not a complete solution (2)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546828)

Actually, when you smoke the sativa, your saliva dries up.

Re:Not a complete solution (1)

Hawke666 (260367) | more than 3 years ago | (#36547062)

Salvia Divinorum != Cannabis Sativa. Also != saliva.

Re:Not a complete solution (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36546924)

This is based on the fact that salvia is currently not listed on any federal schedule but has been individually criminalized in several states.

I'm curious. Which states have criminalized saliva?

And, do you smoke it or what?

Alabama (goes into effect July 1, 2011), Delaware ,Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana (goes into effect July 1, 2011), Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Virginia.
 

Re:Not a complete solution (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 3 years ago | (#36547096)

Florida has. Some stupid kid decided to kill himself the day after he smoked some salvia & within a week our knee-jerking, moron legislators had passed a bill making it illegal.

Re:Not a complete solution (1)

Necroman (61604) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546842)

It would stop the DEA from raiding medical pot shops in California.

Re:Not a complete solution (5, Insightful)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546956)

And if this passed, everything would go swimmingly until someone inserted a provision in the next budget denying highway funding to states that allow recreational marijuana.

This is why we can't have nice things, America.

Re:Not a complete solution (1)

kawabago (551139) | more than 3 years ago | (#36547154)

Salvia is a common garden plant found everywhere. They might as well outlaw dandelions.

Like all good legislation (5, Insightful)

hsjserver (1826682) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546666)

This one will die before it leaves committee.

Agreed (1)

jfengel (409917) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546800)

Not a chance in hell. The Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act that Frank has been submitting for a decade never gets out of committee, and it's much less broad-minded than this bill.

It's nice to see that somebody is at least trying, but we're not even close to have to worry about a veto.

Re:Agreed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36546976)

Indeed. Why has this one made the news, though?

Re:Like all good legislation (1)

proverbialcow (177020) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546954)

It depends how they frame the question. If they point out, as I believe they will, that the prohibition of marijuana at the federal level puts an undue fiscal burden on the states, it might make the floor. At the very least, they're hoping to open up a national discussion by attaching two high-profile names to the bill.

Show your support here.... (4, Insightful)

gQuigs (913879) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546704)

Re:Show your support here.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36547046)

And what if I don't support it?

Tip of the Iceberg (1)

six025 (714064) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546716)

and thus end the failed war on drugs finally if it gets passed.

It's a beautiful dream, but sadly there are many other "drugs" that need to be legalised, besides marijuana, before the war on drugs can be declared over:

Cocaine
Heroin
LSD
Ecstasy
DMT
Amphetamines

Of course, if this bill did pass (which I seriously doubt), it would be a very welcome step in the right direction.

Peace,
Andy.

Still up to the states ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36546730)

Our Founding Fathers saw the United States as an "experiment in democracy". The original idea was to allow states to try different things and the best ideas would rise to the surface. Lately, we seem to want to run everything on a federal level including health care instead of letting the different states come up with their own plans and letting them learn from each others experiences.

This bill gets back to our roots as it would allow the various states to regulate marijuana as each state sees fit. I'm all for it. I do not want marijuana legalized in my state but I'm perfectly willing to accept that I may be wrong in my judgment/s and if another state would like to try legalizing it, that is their choice and I'd love to see how it works out.

How about making cigarettes illegal instead? (3, Interesting)

dicobalt (1536225) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546754)

Not a high enough cancer rate to be illegal?

Re:How about making cigarettes illegal instead? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36547114)

Because the federal and state governments make 4 to 5 dollars per pack I smoke a day.

Admissions (1)

U8MyData (1281010) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546760)

Let's not forget that our illustrious leader had admitted to partaking in such forbiden activity as a youth (tongue in cheek). Seriously, I would like to see something legal go head to head with alchohol as a recreational substance and judge then whether it is a positive or not.

I won't hold my breath (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546762)

Here in California, we just voted on a referendum to legalize pot.

It failed. I didn't bother to look at the breakdown of the votes, but I do know that some in the stoner community were dead set against it. Why? Because laws against pot weren't enforced where they were, so they weren't seeing any direct benefit, while legalizing it would make it taxable and open up competition. Nevermind that people elsewhere in the state were being arrested for it, nevermind that kids were losing their ability to get financial aid, nevermind that they have a responsibility to pay taxes. Those dumb fucks voted against it.

I can only conclude that pot smokers are too dumb to get pot legalized. Meanwhile, the voters were too stupid to realize that California's biggest crop being taxed AND law enforcement not having to regulate a victimless crime could probably go a decent way toward sorting out the budget woes. Several law enforcement groups came out in favor of it for logical reasons. But the voters just said no.

Re:I won't hold my breath (3, Informative)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546882)

Way to completely miss the point. It failed because the people running the medicinal marijuana stores (and their associated pet doctors) are making WAY too much money from it to allow it to be legalized. They spent a metric fuckton of money to make sure it got defeated so they could keep their monopoly.

Re:I won't hold my breath (1)

bashibazouk (582054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546988)

The other problem with EVERY attempt to legalize pot in California is it's never on the ballot in November during a year that we are electing the president. It's always some off year cycle that generally has a higher proportion of conservative voters. Makes me think these people are stoned or something...

Highly unlikely to pass (2)

Lord Jester (88423) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546778)

Too many out there that have demonized it and more still that have bought in to that propaganda.

If passed, it could very well see an increase in tax revenue and a decrease in crime.

If passed, it would no longer be as expensive, there by reducing some of the crime that is said to be from people committing the crimes to pay for their pot. The states would get a revenue boost as it would likely be taxed like tobacco.

We'll see.

As a non-smoker (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36546796)

just legalize it already!

And, NO! I'm not going to go right out and buy it even if it is decriminalized, OR, even legalized. This despite the availability of it whilst it is presently illegal. And to boot, 95% of the people I work worth will probably won't go out and buy it either if status does change. However, I would like the RIGHT to if its available.

He'd sign. He just wouldn't fight for it. (1)

jdbannon (1620995) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546886)

From his comments I don't think Obama would have a problem signing this. My impression of his opinion is "Yeah. It shouldn't be illegal, but it's not worth spending political capital to make that happen." If it didn't cost him anything, he'd approve.

Anti-Jobs Measure! Creates Crime! (1)

unil_1005 (1790334) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546926)

Puts cops out of work....

...then they'll turn to crime ( what else do they know )

A long shot, but Kudos for Ron Paul (1)

notKevinJohn (2218940) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546944)

I have always like Ron Paul, even though I usually vote Democrat. I think he deserves Kudos for consistently extending ideas like personal liberty, small government, and fiscal responsibility to areas that most other Republicans decide not to, like drug usage and military spending.

Re:A long shot, but Kudos for Ron Paul (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36547156)

Completely agree. As a long time Republican I first heard of Ron Paul in his debate with Rudy. Since then the more I learn about him the more I like him. His knowledge of Austrian economics is amazing. He has the most consistent and clearly thought out philosophy of any of the candidates and he has stayed true to them over 30 years of office. Don't take my word for it, watch some of this speeches or read one of his books. He will make you rethink what the role of government should be and what freedom really means. Go Ron Paul!

It won't stop the feds from seizing and more (0)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36546950)

I'm not a toker. Did it a little during high school years and I'm guessing I never got "the good stuff" because it never really did anything for me or to me. (Then again, I don't get an "energy burst" from caffeine either... a lot of stuff doesn't seem to affect me as it does others.) And frankly, marijuana stinks to high heaven when smoked. But I support its legalization... making it illegal is just plain stupid.

I have heard that marijuana is often laced with other drugs, however and that alone would be enough for cops/feds to want to seize and test any marijuana discovered. The only hope it could have (if it's any hope at all) would be for the government to license the sale of marijuana the same way cigarettes are licensed so at least there would be some indication that it is a "legitimate" and inspected product less likely to have been tampered with.

I know, you can still buy tobacco and roll your own cigarettes... and lace the tobacco if you really wanted to, but cops wouldn't suspect tobacco so much.

I think they don't get it (1)

Flipstylee (1932884) | more than 3 years ago | (#36547048)

I was going to post with insight from my teenage years of coughing and eating brownies,
how i'm older now and yadayadayada, fuck that, pot is nothing for the amount of money and time we waste to it, i say let california legalize it and watch pot dealers go out of buisness, problem solved, now we can get back to the war on "DRUGS". Pot makes you slow and lazy, go after cocaine, heroin, pcp etc. Those kill people and get people killed. Society would do the same as it does now when met face-to-face with pot: laugh.

Re:I think they don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36547110)

Pot makes you slow and lazy, go after cocaine, heroin, pcp etc. Those kill people and get people killed.

No, they don't.

If pot - the green lifeblood of the Mexican cartels and their paramilitary thugs - doesn't 'kill' people, then no, cocaine, heroin, pcp, et cetera also do not kill people.

Sadly it has no chance... (3)

grapeape (137008) | more than 3 years ago | (#36547106)

This wont go anywhere even though the wording of the Bill should actually be attractive to states like Texas, Missouri, etc that are decidedly conservative but are currently suing over "obamacare" on the basis of states rights. This simply lifts federal law and puts the issue in the states hands as it should be...but there is far too much money in the "war on drugs". The prison industry and law enforcement agencies at both the state and federal level rely on the war on drugs far to heavily to just let it go without a major fight. People tend to forget that the US has the largest prison population per capita of any country in the world (including all the govt's considered oppressive and anti-human rights) that simply isn't sustainable without the endless war going on.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>