The main story on CNN today is that Rep. Barney Frank has proposed decriminalizing the possession of fewer than 100 grams of marijuana.
Any chance of this passing?
No.
No chance. And if, by some miracle, it did, Bush would veto it. I suspect Obama would, too. And McCain.
Too many politicians built their careers being ‘tough on drugs’ to back down on that reefer madness.
I personally don’t do drugs, but I don’t care if you do them as long as you don’t do any of the ‘public intoxication’ no-nos, such as driving stoned or buggering stuffed sheep in a mall, or whatever.
OK, scratch that, go ahead and bugger stuffed animals at the mall. I wanna see the youtube video of when the mall cops show up.
While on the subject of wrongs, rights, etc., I can’t help recommend this site (and its video is on youtube someplace) about how not to get busted, and if busted anyway, how not to go to prison.
I’m wondering if this is a somewhat smart attempt by the Dems to run interference for Obama while he gets ready to announce his running mate. Make the news talk about LA earthquakes and marijuana while getting McCain off the news. Then, right before the Olympics, Obama announces his running mate. Force McCain to compete with girl gymnasts when he announces his running mate.
The bill has a Republican co-sponsor. Ron Paul. No surprise there.
This happens in one way or another every once in a while. I have no hopes for legalization. Personally,[ no surprise] I’m all for it. The research that is out there and readily available supports it’s legalization - people know it, but politics will quell this issue for a long, long time. Perhaps even in my own lifetime I won’t see it. I don’t partake anymore, but I’ve seen much worse happen from abusing perfectly legal substances [alcohol] - much worse than anything I’ve seen anyone do whilst a little high - that’s for sure.
Hm…I actually think that eventually it WILL be legalized. Will it happen with this? Not a chance. But I really think that eventually it WILL happen. We just need to flush the Reefer Madness™ hysteria out of our collective systems…
-XT
I agree with Xtisme . Certainly not this year or this decade, but it will be legalized. I’m thinking 25 years is the over/under.
I concur. Sooner or later (probably later), government is going to see the legalization of marijuana as a source of tax revenue as opposed to a constant drain on our economy (as criminalization makes it) and wise up and legalize it.
I won’t look for legalization of anything other than pot during my lifetime. But I think the pot thing will happen in the next 20 years or so.
Just so we’re clear where I’m at: I used to be a recreational user. Now, my hubby’s job depends on security clearance. I wouldn’t risk it for anything so silly as getting stoned. But if it were legal? I’d be doing it when it was safe, say on a Friday night when I didn’t have to go anywhere. I think it’s ridiculous that we’re still wasting tax dollars on the illegalization of pot.
I tend to agree that it (decriminalization of personal possession laws at the Federal level, at least) will happen within between 10 and 30 years.
Meanwhile…
IMO, introducing bills such as this one–even though Franks and everyone else knows it will never pass–is a necessary part of the arduous but accelerating process of decriminalization/legalization. The “Reefer Madness”-type philosophy the Feds cling to looks dumber than ever (even to dumb people) now that everyone and anyone has access to unlimited (and potentially unbiased) information at the click of a clicking-thingie.
Golly gee-- on edit, I feel like I sort of just said a lot of what norinew just added.
I have a theory about why some drugs are legal in American society and some are not. Apparently the dividing line is whether they encourage or discourage people from working. I’m serious. Let’s look at a short list:[ul][]caffeine, in various forms: mild stimulant, helps boost energy. Legal[]Nicotine: stimulant, suppresses hunger, helps users deal with stress. Legal, at least until it’s unfortunate association with lung disease came to light.[]Alcohol: Technically a depressant, though can have a disinhibiting effect. Used in moderation, helps relax and de-stress. Legal, with restrictions to discourage abuse.[]Cocaine: Stimulant, was legal until drawbacks of excessive use became apparent. Now illegal.[]Opiates: Depressive, users typically become lethargic. Illegal[]Marijuana: soporific, long-term users typically display apathy, lack of ambition. Illegal.[]Amphetamines: Stimulant, originally legal until severe drawbacks of long-term use became apparent. Illegal. []Tranquilizers: originally legal and widely used, until drawbacks of overuse became apparent. Legal only with strong restrictions. LSD, etc.: Hallucinogens, users incapacitated while using, potential for mental derangement. Illegal [/ul]
Wonder no more. How much time in the news is this getting? Hint: next to none.
Also, if anything it hurts Obama. Especially considering his admitted drug use in the past.
Yep, just as soon as those pesky Baby Boomers are gone.
(Where’s Jackmannii? 
)
Quite plausible. Marijuana is a direct threat to our consumer culture. If people are content chilling around on the couch, they aren’t fulfilling their expected role of worker bee/spender. Can’t have people being happy without buying things!
Lotsa people smoke dope and work.
I think in the future it will probably be decriminalized at the federal level and then its legality left up to the states. However, I don’t see this happening as long as the legalization of marijuana (or any other illicit drug) is viewed as too much of a political third rail. It will likely take some sort of “Nixon goes to China” action by an influential conservative (NOT libertarian) politician for any serious decriminalization or legalization effort to have traction.
Hell, that’s the only way I ever get my workshop cleaned up.
Another question for the room that just occurred to me:
If the Senate somehow manages a veto-proof approval of the bill to hand tobacco regulation over to the FDA, will that help or hinder the pro-marijuana movement?
.
[QUOTE=Lumpy]
I have a theory about why some drugs are legal in American society and some are not. Apparently the dividing line is whether they encourage or discourage people from working. I’m serious. Let’s look at a short list:[ul][li]Alcohol: Technically a depressant, though can have a disinhibiting effect. Used in moderation, helps relax and de-stress. Legal, with restrictions to discourage abuse[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
It’s worth pointing out, though, that the impact on worker productivity was one of the justifications for outlawing it in the early 20th century. Pro-“dry” articles and other literature of the era make it clear that the increase in productivity would be just wonderful, just like the ‘peace dividend’ we were all expecting in the early 1990s. Judging by contemporary literature, it seems that many in the upper classes voted “dry” but they didn’t stop using alcohol themselves. Or, if we go by Will Rogers’ famous quip,
it may have had less to do with class than with the idea that “I can drink responsibly, but I don’t trust others to do so.”
While I seriously doubt that Prohibition will make a comeback, it’s a little unsettling to think about how much more successful it would probably be than the first time around. Governments now have much greater capability of monitoring the activities of private citizens than anyone in the 1920s could have dreamed of.
In the same vein, there are stories from the era about how employees got fired for drinking off the job, Ford Motor Company being the most famous for this. Other employers presumably had varying levels of determination on this regard, but in any event someone would have to catch the employee drinking in public in order to take any action. In 2008 that isn’t the case–your hair can be tested to determine whether you’ve consumed any alcohol since the hair shaft first saw the light of day. One’s employer usually can’t put you in jail for breaking a law, but one can certainly be fired for violating company policies, whether the forbidden behavior is illicit or not.
Prohibition never left us, just moved on to different drugs and got a new name.
Organized crime never left us, either, once we limited supply on substances with nearly infinite demand.
There are nearly infinite profit to be made, and that’s what builds gangs and keeps them replaced at a rate higher than they can be busted.