Frank talk about legalizing marijuana -->>

[nashville_brook]

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/13763

It is time for some frank talk about legalizing marijuana
by Ed Kociela | March 29, 2008 - 7:15pm


Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank is proposing a bill that would remove federal penalties for possession and use of small amounts of marijuana. Why do we need a federal bill?

Because the rest of the country is far behind Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio and Oregon in decriminalizing the herb, with Michigan on the verge of approving a similar bill.

(snip)

Frank's proposal would eliminate all federal penalties prohibiting the personal use and possession of up to 3 1/2 ounces of marijuana. Adults who consume marijuana would no longer face arrest, prison or even the threat of a civil fine. In addition, the bill would eliminate all penalties prohibiting the not-for-profit transfers of up to one ounce of cannabis between adults.

This bill is based on the 1972 National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse study commissioned by then-President Richard Nixon, which reported that "the use of drugs for pleasure or other non-medical purposes is not inherently irresponsible; alcohol is widely used as an acceptable part of social activities," and added, "the actual and potential harm of use of the drug is not great enough to justify intrusion by the criminal law into private behavior."


(more at link)

[Botany]

1. Wow Frank has free pot?

:smoke:

[Forkboy]

2. Barney is by far my favorite politician, even before this.

Smart, funny, no nonsense...my type of person.

[RainDog]

3. about damn time

two videos about the use of medicinal mj

(just posted these in the Lounge earlier today)

Waiting To Inhale
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-929296011661546965

In Pot We Trust
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2200160322729097762

-the change in stuttering with the woman with cerebral palsy is amazing.

[nashville_brook]

5. thanks for these...

i heard a story on NPR years ago about how during childbirth, the body makes use of caniboid-type substances as a natural pain reliever...that they help us forget the pain later. before that i really didn't "get" the use for pain. i always thought it was just good for writing term papers -- :evilgrin:

[tridim]

7. Thanks so much for those links. I'm watching the second one now.

I'm so fuming mad right now.

[nashville_brook]

39. the woman with cerebal palsy is just heartbreaking. she needs to get the hell out of Missouri!

[John Q. Citizen]

4. Finally, a tiny ray of sanity into the federal drug industrial complex.

[nashville_brook]

6. hard to imagine! isn't it amazing though that so many states have already decriminalized?!

i mean, mississippi??!! wtf? if mississippi can do it, anyone can.

[Echo In Light]

34. :)

[dysfunctional press]

8. why stop at 3.5 ounces???

i usually buy a quarter pound at a time- 4 ounces.

[tridim]

9. Baby steps, I would guess.

I really want personal-use cultivation to be legal as well, but it's probably a bit too much to demand initially.

[nashville_brook]

10. seems to me that gardening would be less controversial than any kind of sale/resale situation

but...i'd be using reason on this, and that's not allowed when it comes to these discussions. :)

[FatDave]

25. Can you keep a plant under 3.5 oz.?

I've never grown it, so I don't know how hard that would be.

Or, you could just give away your excess to your friends each time you harvest. Bet you'd have a lot of friends! There'd be a few days where you had > 3.5 ozes, but I doubt anybody would care. If they've decriminalized simple possession there won't be as much call to go looking for individual growers and kicking in doors.

[Lance_Boyle]

45. Not really, since they weigh the entire plant (including roots!) as

contraband, not just the buds. You could grow a plant with 3 ounces of buds, but the total plant weight would make it a felony.

[tridim]

50. It varies greatly, but one plant will usually produce well under 3.5 oz.

The real problem is even personal growers need several ancillary plants (mothers, clones, etc) to sustain even one flowering plant. Those all count as far as the feds are concerned, even though they aren't consumed. It's also very energy inefficient to grow only one plant in an indoor garden.

Every time I talk to someone who brews their own beer I get extremely depressed that I can't do the same with my drug of choice. It's just wrong.. and cruel, and extremely unAmerican.

[Kare]

52. Think on this....

If an adult can have 3.5 ounces in their possession why can't EACH adult in the household have 3.5 ounces?

Nodody said you could grow pot anyway darlin, so I think yer question is beside the point.
I think growing would be a little more money than a penny pinching wife would like invested in that particular hobby of her husbands don't you? :p


:loveya:

[FatDave]

76. Well...

I'll share with the kids, dear.

[dysfunctional press]

78. growing ultimately pays for itself...and then some.

nt

[EOTE]

42. Seriously, man...

Whatcha gonna roll with 3.5 ounces, a toothpick? It does seem odd that they'd stop just shy of a QP. I mean, I suppose if it were some really good stuff it would suffice...

[Voice for Peace]

11. OK if possession of 3.5 ounces is ok, how do you buy it? Are people allowed to sell it?

[nashville_brook]

12. "not-for-profit transfers" are okay under this proposal. selling, no.

[Voice for Peace]

14. ¿ I'm mystified. where does the pot come from that it's ok to possess 3.5 oz of?

[nashville_brook]

18. from the POT FAIRY!

[Lance_Boyle]

31. I think that's the absynthe fairy.

The pot fairy looks much happier, and frequently reeks of patchouli.

[Voice for Peace]

43. LOL... but this question seriously confuses me.

Is there a proposal of some kind of legal pot outlets? Otherwise, anybody who's selling it is breaking the law, and even if they're giving it away, they'd be in possession of more than 3.5 oz., so ... WTF? or HTF?

[annabanana]

91. homegrown?. . . . n/t

[Fumesucker]

16. Not-for-profit-transfers..

Now if that isn't some weasel wording, I've never heard it.

Does that mean you have to give it away?

Or does it mean that you cannot charge more than you have invested in it?

Funny ain't it, how in this capitalist utopia it is fine to give something away but not make a profit on it.

I'll have what the legislator laying on the floor is having..

[nashville_brook]

36. hmmm -- so like 501c3 dispensaries?

[kitfalbo]

13. Hmm

I'm the rebel in my family, haven't touched err tried the stuff. Never will. One of my homeschooling books was "the emperor wears no clothes."

Breathing ash into your lungs is sick.

still...
It should be legalized, the amount of people in jail in the US is stupid high and this can help put a dent in it and bring in tax money for the number one cash crop in the U S of A.

[roody]

17. You can eat it. You don't have to smoke it.

[pleah]

96. Brownies anyone?!

:smoke:

[OnionPatch]

87. Or vaporize.

I know some health-conscious people who would never smoke but use a vaporizer.

[crimsonblue]

15. 3 1/2 ounces? Hot Damn!

That's way more than I usually keep on me now, so that would be awesome... :sarcasm:. Isn't 3 1/2 ounces a little much? I mean, it's gonna take someone atleast 3 months to smoke it all (assuming an 8th a week). But if used for cooking, I spose it makes some sense. Either way, I hope this makes it through, but me thinks its chances are less than the chance that Bush will be impeached.

[FatDave]

26. 8th a week?

Lightweight.

:P

(I'm joking, haven't smoked in a long time)

[struggle4progress]

19. Tax reform: repeal the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 and all its progeny

[alfredo]

20. Where I lived in Ethiopia it was legal to possess, but illegal to sell.

It was good stuff too. It looked like real good Jamaican.

[kaj1234]

21. I saw this on Real Time I think.

It's about time we move toward a sensible drug policy.
I'd like to see stronger legislation, but the sad fact is that even this probably doesn't have much of a shot as far as I can see.

[nashville_brook]

37. welcome to DU! -- pardon me while i ramble with my morning coffee...

i share your pessimism. i watched the videos posted upthread and was amazed at the first one, with the reform lobbyist where he was laying out their strategy and actually seeing a way for the bill to pass. i wished they had broken that out more and shown where they thought the votes would come from.

i had a philosophy prof who used drug laws to teach logic/critical thinking. up until then i had always thought that the laws were bad just b/c pot is way less harmful than alcohol in terms of usage. i had never thought about the criminal economy produced...didn't know about the history of prohibition, or anything about the use of drug laws for social control. armed with a more robust understanding i now see prohibitionists as crooks and profiteers. sure, there's the garden variety authoritarian -- but where the rubber meets the road, we're in profiteer territory with the "Just Say No" crowd. they've grown an economy around the prohibition.

decriminalization is a great baby step to remove the profit motive both from the standpoint of "drug dealer" and prohibitionist. i believe that only reason decriminalization is getting any traction is b/c *we're already THERE" with removing the institutionalized profit motive on the side of prohibition. the DEA doesn't give a flip about cannabis until there's giant amounts of weed at issue. it's not "worth their time."

reform of marijuana law is happening only b/c our social situation has evolved beyond the point where going after the user is just not worth the effort.

[Oldenuff]

22. It's way past time this issue was dealt with...

I'd really like to see Cannabis legalized,but I don't have much faith in our legislators to do the right thing.

Now,cocaine legalization wouldn't have a chance in hell of passing.The CIA wouldn't be able to fund their black opps anymore.

[Occulus]

23. We also need to add employers to the list.

No firing. No pot testing. Period.

[MagickMuffin]

24. Does anyone know what the HR number is?.?.?

If not, then I will contact his office to find out.

I also wonder if someone started a petition for people to sign so he has a list to add to his bill, and if that would have any additional benefits to get it passed.

[nashville_brook]

41. since the bill hasn't been introduced yet, it doesn't have a number

interesting...guess there will be even more discussion/debate when it is introduced.

[FatDave]

27. No opposition on this thread?

Nobody for the status quo? Nobody's pro-prohibition?

AT LAST! A topic to unite DU! Sweet stanky buds for everyone!

[orleans]

28. yes, let's legalize it so we can all shut the hell up about it

and move on.

(plus...i haven't gotten stoned in years--i keep waiting for it to be legal so i can get high again!) :7 :evilgrin: :smoke:

[chelaque liberal]

75. But....how could you have smoked it years ago and not become

an addict? The evil weed has been in your body. You are supposed to have been forever altered--depraved-a murderer--a fiend--unfit for society! Have I been lied to? Say it isn't so.

[nashville_brook]

38. shhhh -- they're all in GD-P. lets not wake them.

:evilgrin:

[EOTE]

46. Destroy the evil demon weed!!! Yay for status quo!!!

Damn kids with their marijuana cigarettes, Chuck Taylor shoes and posting their LOLs and OMGFQs on the internets. What happened to sock hops and strawberry soda? Please god bring me back to the 40s when this country had some semblance of order.

Is that better?

[nashville_brook]

64. here you go...

[FatDave]

84. You kids!

[Kare]

55. I'll step on that....

"It's evil, wicked, mean, and nasty."

"It will hook your Sue and Johnny."

"All will pay who disagree with me!"

-Steppenwolf

[nashville_brook]

63. she traded her body for DRUGS and KICKS!

http://www.popartuk.com/g/l/lg3517+marijuana-girl-reefer-madness-poster.jpg

[kimmylavin]

73. I oppose.

Its a gateway drug!!!
Think of the children!!!

:hi:
(How was that?)

[Prophet 451]

29. Hoo-bloody-rah!

About time too. Doesn't go far enough but I can understand the need for baby steps.

As far as I'm concerned, pot should be entirely legal and subject to the same regulations as booze. I.e. age limits and a prohibition on driving under the influence. If you sell drugs to kids, expect to go to jail but if you're enjoying a spliff in the privacy of your home or with a few friends, it's none of the state's business.

And I haven't smoked pot in years.

[Fumesucker]

30. If you sell drugs to kids, expect to go to jail

Alcohol is a drug and people who sell alcohol to minors generally do not do any prison time.

Nicotine is also a drug and those who sell cigarettes to minors do not do prison time either.

[Prophet 451]

35. No, but they should

Uniformity of punishment dictates that if someone would go to jail for knowingly selling pot to kids, they would also go to jail for knowingly selling booze or smokes to kids.

[Fumesucker]

47. The point being though...

That they don't and they won't..

And everyone knows it.

[Prophet 451]

61. Sorry, what point as you trying to make?

I think we're at cross-purposes here.

[Fumesucker]

89. You wrote..

Uniformity of punishment dictates that if someone would go to jail for knowingly selling pot to kids, they would also go to jail for knowingly selling booze or smokes to kids.

And I said that it has not, does not and will not work that way.

People who sell tobacco and alcohol to minors almost never do any time for it.

What commonly happens is that the business' license for tobacco or alcohol is suspended for a while.

[Prophet 451]

90. OK, fair enough

In that case and appointing myself BDFL (Benevolent Dictator For Life), I say we apply the same punishment to people selling pot to the underaged. Since I'm proposing that pot and booze go on the same license, the offenses would be treated the same. Yes, that's a climbdown from the "go to jail" thing but the BDFL doesn't claim to be infallible, just open to reasonable arguement.

[EOTE]

48. How does one test for driving under the influence?

I'm 100% for legalization of bud, but this one issue has concerned me. With alcohol, in addition to the field sobriety test, you can perform a breathalyzer which will tell you at the moment, the concentration of alcohol in your blood. With marijuana, there is no such test. You can determine if your urine contains metabolytes from marijuana, but that only informs the tester if the tested had marijuana within the past 14 to 30 days or so, not if he/she is currently high. I've yet to hear a good resolution on how driving while high would be treated as a legal issue.

As a side note, I'm not terribly sure that if marijuana were legalized, it should be treated the same way as alcohol when it comes to driving. There's this British automotive show called "Top Gear" that performed a driving test administered to people under the influence of alcohol, marijuana and lack of sleep. The group who were sleep deprived performed the worst by far. Next up was the group under the influence of alcohol. Coming in second place was the control group who were under the influence of nothing. First place in the group? The pot smokers. Most of them said it was due to the paranoia that they tried a little harder. So I'm not convinced that bud really negatively effects driving ability at all. I choose not to drive under the influence regardless, but my video game skills certainly increase when I toke.

[Prophet 451]

60. There are ways

I am British, btw.

According to an article in the Independant (from last year, admittedly), there were about half as many road accidents caused by people being under the influence of drugs (mainly pot) as by being drunk. According to this, there is currently a tongue-strip being worked on. Apparently, because most people smoke or eat their pot, traces of it remain in the saliva for several hours. It's an interesting idea anyway. Personally, I'm of the opinion that anything which affects your perceptions and reaction times (which pot does, that's why people smoke it) shouldn't be combined with an automobile.

[EOTE]

65. Sounds promising, but I still see some holes.

If traces remain on your tongue for several hours, what if you smoked earlier in the morning and you begin to drive at night? Once again, will this test be able to determined if you're stoned, or if you were simply stoned that same day? I mean, while there's some bud that will provide a 4+ hour stone, some of the crap out there is only good for an hour or two. Would this test be able to be applied equitably?

Also, you note that article from the Independant says that about half as many road accidents are caused by people being under the influence of drugs (primarily pot) than from alcohol. Well, I'd surmise that the number of road accidents caused by pot are actually a far good deal less than half that of those caused by alcohol. Once again, the current tests only can detect if the person used within 2 to 4 weeks. The great bulk of people who are being cited for driving under the influence of marijuana are not people who were driving stoned. And another note, caffeine affects your perception and reaction times as well. Most people wouldn't think twice about driving under the influence of diet coke.

[Prophet 451]

71. Point well taken regarding caffeine

And this is another good reason why I don't and shouldn't drive (I get through 20-30 cups of coffee every day).

Honest truth regarding the tongue-strip idea is that I don't know. The article doesn't go into many details since it's mainly about the alarming rise in general incidents of driving under the influence (of various things).

Also, it must be said, having a decent public transport system would sort this whole thing out (and my own country is only marginally better on this one). I maintain that no-one should drive drunk or stoned but being quietly under the influence on the bus home doesn't do anyone any harm.

[EOTE]

81. Having decent public transportation would solve a LOT of problems. NT

[nashville_brook]

88. AMEN to that!

[High Plains]

70. Easy: Test for actual impairment, not the presence of metabolites

Remember, the issue is driving while impaired. Can you pass a field sobriety test? That's what should count, not whether you have metabolites in your blood.

[EOTE]

77. I would definitely agree with that method.

However, why isn't such a method used currently? Why do they continue to issue breathalizers and such if the sobriety test is the bulk of what matters?

I remember getting stopped at a check point late one night and not fretting at all because I had just had a couple of drinks, and it was hours ago. I knew that someone of my size would be well below the legal limit when I was stopped at the check point. So, they had me get out of my car and perform the field sobriety test. Now, I can't tell you whether I passed the test or not, but I told the officers when I got out of my car that I had been dancing the bulk of the night, so my legs were very tired. Also, I'm just naturally a pretty clumsy guy and I've got pretty bad balance. So I did everything the officers asked me to, albeit fairly clumsily. I remember I forgot the number that they asked me to count to because I was fairly nervous at the time, so I had to ask for that again. They were obviously interested in my state of inebriation enough to give me a breathalyzer test. So, they gave me the test and I blew a .00 . They couldn't believe that I have absolutely no BAC, so they gave me the test again, and this time they asked me to blow into the tube 'with all my might' or something very similar to that. I blew absolutely as hard as I could, and I still blew a .00 . The officers gave me all kinds of dirty looks and then gave me a pamphlet on the dangers of driving intoxicated. Then one officer asked me where I was going. Not that it was any of his business, but I told him that I was heading home. Then the guy asked me how far away I was from home. Like if my home was too far away, what, he wasn't going to let me drive there? Ferchristsake, I just blew a .00!! So eventually he decides to let me go and tells me to head directly home with no stops, wtf?!? So in this one particular instance, I don't know if I would have or would have not passed the field sobriety test, but I definitely wasn't intoxicated that night.

[Fumesucker]

92. Why impairment testing is not popular..

Because it will take a lot of drivers off the road who are not under the influence of anything and it will leave some drivers on the road who *are* under the influence of something.

I have a family member who really doesn't belong behind the wheel of a car at all, drunk, stoned or sober as a judge. She has literally rear ended a school bus before without the benefit of any drugs whatsoever, basically she is just a terrible driver who is incapable of paying sufficient attention to the road to keep from making gross driving errors on a fairly regular basis. She is not stupid by any means, quite intelligent actually, but she just does not belong behind the wheel of a car.

On the other hand, there are quite a few people who would be able to pass an impairment test while well over the legal limit for alcohol or pot. Not everyone starts out with the same level of driving ability and not everyone reacts the same way to any drug.

[Lance_Boyle]

32. decriminalized in NC? Really?

First I've heard of it.

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?wtm_view=&Group_ID=4555

1/2 ounce or less is a misdemeanor carrying a $200 fine and potentially 30 days in jail. 1.5 ounces or more is a felony.

Possession of paraphernalia nets up to 6 months.

That's no decriminalization.

[nashville_brook]

40. looks like the NC law focuses on decriminalizing growing for personal use.

Manufacture, Cultivation, sale or delivery of less than five grams, for no remuneration (payment, barter, or exchange of any kind) is considered possession and not sale. For amounts of ten pounds or less, the penalty is up to 12 months in jail.

[Lance_Boyle]

44. Depending on how that's read and applied,

it could be intended to decriminalize small-time dealing, but not cultivation. To which of those terms does the five gram limit apply? Only to the sale or delivery for no remuneration? Or to the manufacture (whatever that is) and cultivation parts, too? Since they weigh the entire plant as contraband, not just the consumables, the five gram limit would kill a grower. It is impossible to grow a 5-or-fewer-gram marijuana plant.

And either way, I don't consider a year in jail for cultivation to be much of a decriminalization.

[EnviroBat]

33. I don't smoke very much, but this is great,, er, what are we talking about?

Oh yeah, I remember... Yeah that global warming thing man, they should pass some kinda laws or something...

[Wizard777]

49. If you use marijuana or other drugs for religious purposes. It's already legal.

Even on federal property. The first amendment is bolstered by the religious freedoms restoration act, which basically says government may not place a burden on religion. I can't think of a bigger burden than getting arrested.

[Kitty Herder]

69. Is that true? I know people who used for religious purposes and were

arrested. And if we had true religious freedom, none of the drugs used for shamanic purposes would be illegal. People claim to derive spiritual benefit from the responsible use of those drugs whether they belong to a specific religion that promotes their use or not. You shouldn't have to join an organized religion to use drugs for religious(i.e. spiritual) reasons. Spiritual freedom is, to me, just as important as religious freedom. Indeed, it is the very essence of spiritual freedom.
But we Americans have been denied our religious/spiritual freedom for a long time.

[Prophet 451]

83. Five bucks says that won't hold up in court

I agree that logically and legally, it should but judges will often twist the law into pretzels to avoid outcomes they dislike (perfect example: Bush v. Gore).

[Wizard777]

51. There is one problem with this. SCOTUS continually upholds employers rights for firing people

that use drugs. Even if the use is legal. Such as medical marijuana or religious uses. This applies to every job in America except a select few. Like President, Senator, Congressman, or any other elected position. You can't even require them to take a piss test.

[ensho]

53. kick

nt

[BB1]

54. How many grams is that?

And what would it cost?

Here the usual selling price is 'round 6 - 10 euro/gram. That'd be about $10 - $15.
THC-level at 12-16%

Any thoughts?
(apart from where 'here' is - it's the Netherlands)

[EOTE]

56. 3.5 oz = 98 grams.

At 28 grams per ounce. That's quite a bit of bud. When I visited the Amsterdam, I remember that I could pick up 2 gram bags of the cheap stuff (which would actually be really good stuff, like low level KB in the U.S.) for around 12 Euro (at the time around 11 bucks). I so miss Amsterdam.

[nashville_brook]

57. nevermind -- :)

i'm no good at math...

[EOTE]

58. And in terms of cost, at least in the U.S.

I've seen everything from $60 an ounce for dirt schwag to around $500 an ounce for the best of the KB. Most stuff falls in between those two extremes.

[Romulox]

59. No offense, but why would you think we'd be buying it in Euros?

The price in Euros is immaterial to what it would cost here. If it were legalized, it would cost considerably less than $10/gram, I can assure you of that.

[nashville_brook]

62. i think the poster was just offering a measure they're familiar with.

[BB1]

93. Correct. I only coverted the currencies.

I'm not so sure that you'd be paying less then 10 bucks. Sooner or later you'll find yourselves in Zimbabwian Inflation. You might be tempted to draw extra zeroes on your one dollar bills:)

[DS1]

66. 3.5 ounces would last me half a year

I don't know why people are complaining.

[dysfunctional press]

80. it would last me 3 1/2 weeks.

:hippie:

[Kitty Herder]

67. Legalizing marijuana is just common sense. The problem is that few

people use common sense when thinking about the issue. They have knee-jerk, emotional responses to the issue and won't open their minds to think about it any further.

[Kitty Herder]

72. Have to add, if it were legal even for medical purposes, in my state, I wouldn't

suffer so badly from nerve pain. Marijuana works better for that than anything. But I don't use it because the risks outweigh the benefits.

[Prophet 451]

74. It's worked for that since the dawn of civilisation

Cannabis has a pain-relief record going back to the very, very earliest human civilisations, it's cheap, easy to produce and the side-effects are minimal. This is why Big Pharma hates it so much.

All the same, sorry for your troubles.

[Kitty Herder]

79. Cannibis is far less addictive or dangerous(by a loooong shot) as the opiates frequently

prescribed for pain.

I have a beloved aunt who is truly one of the most loving, kind, and just plain good, people I've ever known. She has become addicted to every kind of pain pill imaginable in an attempt to treat chronic migraines and back pain. I don't even know her anymore. Every time I see her, she is completely out-of-it. It breaks my heart. She is still as kind as ever, concerned far more about my (and everyone else's) little problems than her significantly worse ones. But she seems to be on another planet, her eyes are glazed over, she can't follow conversations, and her thinking is illogical. And I don't hold it against her one bit. She's been fighting this pain all my life and long before that. She avoided becoming addicted to these drugs for years and years. But in order for them to remain effective, a person has to take more and more. And she has finally succumbed to addiction.

There is anecdotal evidence from doctors who prescribe cannabis for pain that people who get pain relief from cannabis have a much easier time getting off their opiate painkillers because they need them less for pain. If that could help my aunt, even a little, I would be so happy. But it's completely illegal in my state and we have some of the harsher punishments for owning small amounts of pot.

[Prophet 451]

82. Been there

In my younger life, I was a semi-pro wrestler. Well, wrestling is a really good way to screw your body up quickly and yeah, I ended up hooked on opiate-based painkillers as well. Took me ages to get off them (now been clean for seven years).

I know at least one doctor here who, when asked about using cannabis as a painkiller, will loudly say he knows nothing about it and he especially doesn't know that you should call this number and tell them said to call them but that's here and although cannabis is still technically illegal here, the penalties for personal use tend to be fairly mild (generally, a small fine) and to be entirely honest, a lot of coppers will just look the other way to a small amount of personal stash. The US just beggers belief though. A "War on Drugs"? I'm with Bill Hicks on this one, the US government never just deals with something, they have to have a "War" on it. And is it just me or is the metaphor of "War on X" really overused? It's almost as bad as "cancer of X", it's one of those handy buzzwords that speechwriters and tabloid reporters use that doesn't actually mean anything concrete but looks really good in a write-up.

[ms liberty]

68. Barney Frank is one awesome Rep. K&R n/t

[Uncle Joe]

85. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, nashville_brook.

[nashville_brook]

86. yer welcome -- at first i didn't want to pay attention to it, b/c it's exhausting to

keep imagining all the common sense ways we could really improve life that keep getting shot down by ugly authoritarianism. irrational prohibitions will eventually collapse from the weight of their irrelevance.

i think healthcare is tipping point here -- as the healthcare industry is increasingly hostile to dealing with pain issues...and as fewer people even have access healthcare... we are coming to the conclusion that the govt needs to step aside here. check out those video posted upthread. wow.

[joanski0]

94. kick n/t

[SammyWinstonJack]

95. Legalize it and legalize industrial hemp! A win on all counts!

[pleah]

97. K&R

:smoke:

[bamacrat]

98. I saw him announce it on Real Time, this is great.

It will be hard but if it were passed there would be so much money to prosecute the actual drug offender and violent criminals.