Sure thing. If say, 100 grams of Marijuana were to spontaneously spring into existance in your possession, you’re cool.
(Seriously, the real net effect is that they aren’t going to be able to pressure you to reveal your dealer, offering to cut a deal on your prosecution, because your possession is not criminal.)
The Feds will and have busted medical MJ shops but it’s not a priority for them. There are several medical MJ dispensaries in Santa Barbara and I only know of one recent bust. Apparently, there were other problems associated with the clientele at this particular place and neighboring businesses complained. The other ones keep a lower profile and aren’t harassed.
In those places that industrial hemp is grown, I don’t believe it has any significant effect on petroleum production. I think industrial hemp suffers in the US because of marajuana’s use as a recreational drug, not the other way around.
Never underestimate the scumminess of the Bush Administration, and the fanatically anti drug DoJ (from even before Bush.)
From here (Business Week, not High Times.)
That’s July 2007.So the bill is useful, especially if it can be sold as a way of letting cancer patients have their treatment when the states allow it.
As for more general decriminalization - anyone have poll numbers? Given the number of people my age and younger who have used it, you’d think that it wouldn’t be such a demon anymore. I’m one of the few people I know who hasn’t, and that’s from lack of interest, not lack of opportunity.
So, you think Bush (or whatever president) should selectively enforce certain laws and not others? Lets say he chose not to enforce laws about human trafficking. Is that OK? I like to order up an Asian prostitute from time to time, and I don’t want those scummy feds interfering with that!
Seriously, you can’t blame the DoJ for doing its job, and you can’t expect to personally be the arbiter of which laws get enforced and which don’t. Blame the scummy Congresscritters for making the laws in the first place and/or the scummy SCOTUS justices for upholding them.
But guys, all you’re showing me are *dispensary *busts - not the sort of thing that this bill would change were it made into law. What I asked was if the feds have prosecuted anyone (recently) for a simple possession charge of personal amounts of marijuana, let’s say under 100 grams (3.5 ounces - that’s a hefty stash!) Has the crime this bill proposes to decriminalize been enforced in recent history?
The MPP guy in the article doesn’t think so. His stance is that Frank is simply trying to bring the law in line with the practice, not the other way 'round. I think that’s a polite way of saying that this bill wouldn’t change anything, were it to become law.
If the laws in question don’t offend the Constitution, the justices are hardly scummy for upholding them.
Hopefully, this is the vanguard of sanity on the issue. I’m sure it will sink without a trace this time, and probably next time, too. But the time after that, or the time after that…
At least it’s a first step.
And Stalin loved his mother. With limited resources, the fact that the DoJ chooses to devote a good bit of effort going after dispensaries in a state where the people by initiative chose to legalize it shows that they are not reluctantly doing their job. My comment was a reflection that those people who thought that the DoJ couldn’t possibly be targeting cancer patients were naive. My Googling revealed that right after the initiative passed - during the Clinton administration, threats were being made. Then it seemed to be quiet for a while, but now they’re back.
Bricker if non-profit sales are decriminalized the dispensaries, which are non-profit I believe, would be in the clear.
And I do blame Congress, but not the justices. Marijuana as a constitutional right is too far out there even for me.
My point was that it’s fair to consider those guys scummy if you think they’re wrong, but the cops gotta do their jobs. Calling them (or a president) scummy for raiding a medicinal marijuana joint is, I believe, unfair.
Would they? How, when they still can’t grow or import their product, and they’d have to stock more than 3 and a half ounces at a time?
It can be illegal to sell it, but not to buy it (if for a legal use). Or, the state could grow it.
This bill is not enough. Marijuana should be regulated at the state level in totality. However, it needs to be passed, because it’s better than what we have.
A constitutional amendment is overkill.
When did that happen? When I lived there (until 2003), it was very much illegal. A half-ounce was a felony. I’m surprised none of my stoner friends have mentioned this to me.
Ahh, according to this, possession of less than 1/2 ounce in North Carolina is still a misdemeanor which carries a 30 day suspended jail sentence and $200 fine for the first offense.
On what planet is that considered “decriminalized”?
They do define their terms: “Decriminalization: The state has decriminalized marijuana to some degree. Typically, decriminalization means no prison time or criminal record for first-time possession of a small amount for personal consumption. The conduct is treated like a minor traffic violation.” http://norml.org/index.cfm?wtm_view=&Group_ID=4555#decriminalized
That’s in line with what most of my hypothetical friends mean when they say “decriminalize”. It’s not doing away with all penalties, it’s making it about on par with a traffic ticket.
From here:
Annual Causes of Death in the United States
**
*Tobacco: 435,000
*Alcohol: 85,000
Marijuana: 0*
Based on the data above, I would recommend the use of marijuana for all suicide attempts. Instead of the ER they’ll end-up in White Castle.
And then they’ll wind up on the toilet, wishing they were dead.
Sorry, I meant to add: when they talk about making it completely legal with no penalties at all, the word used is usually “legalize” it.
I don’t know if those are legal definitions or not, but they’re what are used for two different things in pro-marijuana culture.