Here's to Congressman Frank!

[hifigator]

Massachusettes congressman, Barney Frank is sponsoring a bill to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. But the first part decriminalizes possession of less than 100 grams of weed. Personally, I think it might have a better chance at passing with a lower number. 112 grams is a quarter pound. A lot of people will probably not view that as a "small" amount. The bill also would decriminalize the non-profit transportation of an ounce or less of marijuana. His main point is not to endorse marijuana but to clarify that it isn't a criminal offense. I don't think it will pass, but I'm glad the conversation is even coming up.

In related news, just a couple of weeks ago the WHO (World Health Organization) released numbers that in spite of our strict laws against weed, the number of Americans who have used marijuana or continue to is 42.6%, which is the highest number "in the world." I put that in quotes, because I'm not exactly sure how they determined that. In any case, the point is that if deterance is the goal, it isn't working.

I know we have had similar discussions in the past, but what does everyone think of this?

Again, Frank's point is that when you speed you are given a ticket which isn't a criminal offense. He sees smoking weed in a similar light. I didn't hear him say specifically that he thinks you should be given a ticket, just that those who smoke shouldn't be viewed as criminals.

Thoughts?

[Coast2CoastHoya]

Frank's bills seems very sensimilla.

[theexorcist]

Once again I love the ads on this board.

Doesn't someone who chairs the House FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE have more important bills to work on?

[TBird41]

Jul 30, 2008 14:36:45 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

Once again I love the ads on this board.

Doesn't someone who chairs the House FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE have more important bills to work on?

Yes. And I'm sure Frank is working on them. Doesn't mean he can't have one of his many staffers (probably from his personal office and who handles these issues for him) draft a bill on an issue that he believes should be addressed.

[Bando]

There's really no reason for marijuana to be illegal, or non-violent users of other drugs to be in jail. The war on drugs has been an expensive joke, and completely non-effective, as HiFi points out.

[hifigator]

Given that state ammendments have been for the most part voted down consistently, his bill seems a bit outlandish on the surface. But when you dig into it, even though it appears to be asking for "a bit much," I'm not so sure that he might not be onto something ... he's probably "on" something as well, but that is another issue entirely. In any case, while decriminalizing up to almost a quarter pound seems a bit much, he isn't trying to legalize it. I think that is a major issue here, and might be a good way to get a foot in the door approach.

If you think about it, why should possession of weed or smoking a joint be any "more" illegal than having an open container of alcohol? Why should it be more of a "crime" than driving 100 mph? One could easily argue that the societal costs of an open container of alcohol in a vehicle exceeds that of a person standing on the corner smoking a joint. The same could be said of the reckless driver going 100 mph. Yet in those cases, the perpetrator is issued a ticket and sent on his merry way, whereas the modern day hippie is cuffed and taken to jail.

The costs related to the officer, the booking staff at the jail, the jail itself and finally the paper trail following the culprit seem a bit excessive and unnecessary for the "crime."

[Boz]

If bando and hifi are agreeing, then I know it's a bad idea.
;D

Kudos to the Pineapple Express banner ad though.

[kchoya]

What's the point of the bill? It's not going to stop my local constable from arresting me for violating a state statute against PODD.

[Jack]

Jul 30, 2008 17:09:25 GMT -5 kchoya said:

What's the point of the bill? It's not going to stop my local constable from arresting me for violating a state statute against PODD.

Well it might stop the DEA from cracking down on medical marijuana users and distributors in the states that allow it (e.g. California).

[Bando]

Jul 30, 2008 16:02:50 GMT -5 Boz said:

If bando and hifi are agreeing, then I know it's a bad idea.
;D

Kudos to the Pineapple Express banner ad though.

I was disturbed by that too, but I feel if we both agree on something, it just must be the obviously correct choice.

[AustinHoya03]

Jul 30, 2008 17:12:06 GMT -5 Jack said:

Well it might stop the DEA from cracking down on medical marijuana users and distributors in the states that allow it (e.g. California).

Good to see someone else read the New Yorker last week:

www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/28/080728fa_fact_samuels

But kc has it right -- this bill (which probably has no chance in hell of passing, IMO) would have very little effect on the average American. Gainesville PD will continue to bust hifi for POM for his quarter-ounce. (BTW, PODD in Utah? Really? Does that statute encompass all drugs in Utah -- including alcohol and caffeine?)

[strummer8526]

Even in theory, I can't possibly be more opposed to something than I am opposed to legalizing drug use. I have far far too many friends (and former-friends) who started with the "recreational," "small-time," "occassional" use and then ended up in some really bad places. None of them were caught for weed, so there's no way to blame the criminalization of marijuana for their situations. Their problems all stemmed from escalating use and graduating to different substances. They ended up surrounded by terrible people, making terrible choices, and squandering a lot of money they didn't have to squander. At least where I'm from and with the people I know/knew, the culture and habits of users are terrible and potentially life-ruining. That applies even to those who started out as occassional marijuana users.

I guess it's just too much bad history for me, but I'm not a fan of anything that conveys to people that drug use at any level is ok.

[Jack]

Jul 31, 2008 8:09:35 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

Even in theory, I can't possibly be more opposed to something than I am opposed to legalizing drug use. I have far far too many friends (and former-friends) who started with the "recreational," "small-time," "occassional" use and then ended up in some really bad places. None of them were caught for weed, so there's no way to blame the criminalization of marijuana for their situations. Their problems all stemmed from escalating use and graduating to different substances. They ended up surrounded by terrible people, making terrible choices, and squandering a lot of money they didn't have to squander. At least where I'm from and with the people I know/knew, the culture and habits of users are terrible and potentially life-ruining. That applies even to those who started out as occassional marijuana users.

I guess it's just too much bad history for me, but I'm not a fan of anything that conveys to people that drug use at any level is ok.

Ah yes, the "Gateway Drug" argument. If I said I knew hundreds of people who used marijuana and none of them ever "graduated" to more serious habitual drug use, would that be an effective counter-argument? Did any of these drug abusers also use alcohol, or smoke cigarettes, or, say, eat pizza? Let's ban pizza- it is a gateway food. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, ya know?

[strummer8526]

To make clear, I'm not talking about every person who's ever touched weed. I'm talking about the massive, large-scale trend I noticed in the people around me and why I personally hate the drug and consider it dangerous.

This is not a post hoc argument at all. There are dozens of reasons that I think the usage of marijuana causes a person to experiment with, and in many cases become routine users of, more elicit drugs. Whether it's a desire to achieve a different or better high, a boredom with the same old weed, or something else, I believe there is a causation.

I also believe that once a person accepts that they're willing to do something illegal in order to feel different and feel good, it opens a door that it very difficult--arguably impossible--to close. Virtually every person I know who started smoking also began with the mentality "Weed is natural. I'll only do a drug that comes from the Earth, blah blah, bullEdited, blah." But they came to accept the fact that putting a substance in their bodies to get high was ok. Very quickly, that line between marijuana and other drugs began to blur and ultimately disappear. Now, for the most part, they're into a lot more. And there's nothing less "natural" than the prescription pills that show up in an unmarked plastic bag.

I already know what's coming: the comparison to alcohol. And in many ways, I agree that alcohol can have the same sort of impact and can be dangerous in the same sort of ways, especially for kids who start drinking way too young. I didn't drink until I was 18, which is actually kind of old by today's measure. But for 13, 14, 15 year olds, drinking I think can have that same impact, convincing a kid/young adult that it's ok to put whatever you want into yourself in order to get the outcome you want. Fortunately, it seems as though people in general have an easier time drawing that line between alcohol and drugs as opposed to drawing that line between weed and more elicit drugs.

Sure, many people can smoke and be totally functional otherwise and just treat weed as an alcohol equivalent as far as recreational use. But in my estimation, there is something fundamentally different about how people psychologically deal with marijuana, and it is a gateway.

[Jack]

Jul 31, 2008 9:19:43 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

I also believe that once a person accepts that they're willing to do something illegal in order to feel different and feel good, it opens a door that it very difficult--arguably impossible--to close.

Not to give too much credence to the rest of your argument, but doesn't this actually favor legalization?

[kchoya]

Jul 30, 2008 22:33:44 GMT -5 AustinHoya03 said:

Jul 30, 2008 17:12:06 GMT -5 Jack said:

Well it might stop the DEA from cracking down on medical marijuana users and distributors in the states that allow it (e.g. California).

Good to see someone else read the New Yorker last week:

www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/28/080728fa_fact_samuels

But kc has it right -- this bill (which probably has no chance in hell of passing, IMO) would have very little effect on the average American. Gainesville PD will continue to bust hifi for POM for his quarter-ounce. (BTW, PODD in Utah? Really? Does that statute encompass all drugs in Utah -- including alcohol and caffeine?)

Actually, I'm not sure about Utah, but when I practiced in Montana, lots of clients would get PODD and PODP for having some weed and a pipe (for example). Of course, there's different schedules of drugs and different levels of violations. But no, unlike Florida, we didn't have a special marijuana only statute.

[Elvado]

Barney is also working to decriminalize running an escort service out of a Congessman's home...

[JohnJacquesLayup]

Jul 31, 2008 8:09:35 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

Even in theory, I can't possibly be more opposed to something than I am opposed to legalizing drug use. I have far far too many friends (and former-friends) who started with the "recreational," "small-time," "occassional" use and then ended up in some really bad places. None of them were caught for weed, so there's no way to blame the criminalization of marijuana for their situations. Their problems all stemmed from escalating use and graduating to different substances. They ended up surrounded by terrible people, making terrible choices, and squandering a lot of money they didn't have to squander. At least where I'm from and with the people I know/knew, the culture and habits of users are terrible and potentially life-ruining. That applies even to those who started out as occassional marijuana users.

I guess it's just too much bad history for me, but I'm not a fan of anything that conveys to people that drug use at any level is ok.

Man, you're killing my buzz.

[hifigator]

This thread has turned into the same old "legalize/don't legalize" argument. While that is a fine discussion to have in my mind, I think Frank's bill is different entirely. Basically, by decriminalizing weed at the federal level, states will be left to decide on their own. As someone else pointed out, this could be designed to simply avoid the confrontation that we all see coming at some point in California concerning "legal" use in the state and "illegal" use in the Country. On the grand scale, I am in favor of states' rights anyway, so I like this sort of bill, regardless of the specific topic. On the more specific scale, while this bill would open the door for the rampant decisions by states to legalize weed entirely, I just don't see that happening.
From the legistic point of view however, I do think that the crime should be handled more like a traffic ticket and less like an armed robbery. The bottom line as it relates to this bill is this:

Is possession of a bag of weed a crime?

That isn't the same thing as "is it a violation of an ordinance."

If you throw a cig butt out the window, should you be arrested? I think not, but a littering ticket is certainly a good option in my mind. What if you toss a soda or beer can out the window? Should you be arrested or given a ticket? Heck, there are still some cities that have odinances prohibiting spitting on the sidewalk. Should offenders be carted off to jail or just issued a ticket? What about the big cities like New York that have requirements for a pet owner to control his pet's natural bodily functions. Should violators of such a law be written a ticket or taken to the huskow?

The more I think about this, the more I realize that Berney Frank might be onto something.

[Boz]

Jul 31, 2008 10:55:20 GMT -5 hifigator said:

If you throw a cig butt out the window, should you be arrested?

YES!
Except that, in this country, it won't be long before the libero-fascists take away my right to smoke even in my own home or car, so the question is moot.

What if you toss a soda or beer can out the window?
Should you be arrested or given a ticket?

ARRESTED!
Well if you throw a beer can out the window, I think you have bigger problems anyway, so better to be arrested now than after you kill somebody.

Heck, there are still some cities that have odinances prohibiting spitting on the sidewalk. Should offenders be carted off to jail or just issued a ticket?

LOCK 'EM UP!
Well, unless they are smokers and the only reason they're spitting is the the world has taken away their cigarettes and dip is the only alternative. In that case, take pity on them and leave them alone, because it's only a matter of time before that's going to be banned too.

What about the big cities like New York that have requirements for a pet owner to control his pet's natural bodily functions. Should violators of such a law be written a ticket or taken to the huskow?

JAILED! AND PUT THE PETS TO SLEEP!
That's right. If you can't clean up after your pet, you should lose the pet, go to jail, and probably have your kids taken away too if you have any.


You know, I'd probably be a lot more tolerant and flexible if I could just have a cigarette in the morning.
;D