New Bill to Remove Federal Marijuana Penalties

[General Zod]

Sauce

(CNN) -- The U.S. should stop arresting responsible marijuana users, Rep. Barney Frank said Wednesday, announcing a proposal to end federal penalties for Americans carrying fewer than 100 grams, almost a quarter-pound, of the substance.

Current laws targeting marijuana users place undue burdens on law enforcement resources, punish ill Americans whose doctors have prescribed the substance and unfairly affect African-Americans, said Frank, flanked by legislators and representatives from advocacy groups.

"The vast amount of human activity ought to be none of the government's business," Frank said during a Capitol Hill news conference. "I don't think it is the government's business to tell you how to spend your leisure time."

The Massachusetts Democrat and his supporters emphasized that only the use -- and not the abuse -- of marijuana would be decriminalized if the resolution passes. Video Watch Frank lay out the proposal »

The Drug Enforcement Administration says people charged with simple possession are rarely incarcerated. The agency and the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy have long opposed marijuana legalization, for medical purposes or otherwise.

Marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance, meaning it has a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use, according to the ONDCP.

"Smoked marijuana has not withstood the rigors of science -- it is not medicine and it is not safe," the DEA states on its Web site. "Legalization of marijuana, no matter how it begins, will come at the expense of our children and public safety. It will create dependency and treatment issues, and open the door to use of other drugs, impaired health, delinquent behavior, and drugged drivers."

Allen St. Pierre, spokesman for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), likened Frank's proposal -- co-sponsored by Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas -- to current laws dealing with alcohol consumption. Alcohol use is permitted, and the government focuses its law enforcement efforts on those who abuse alcohol or drive under its influence, he said.

"We do not arrest and jail responsible alcohol drinkers," he said.

St. Pierre said there are tens of millions of marijuana smokers in the United States, including himself, and hundreds of thousands are arrested each year for medical or personal use. iReport.com: Is it time to legalize pot?

There have been 20 million marijuana-related arrests since 1965, he said, and 11 million since 1990, and "every 38 seconds, a marijuana smoker is arrested."

Rob Kampia, director of the Marijuana Policy Project, said marijuana arrests outnumber arrests for "all violent crimes combined," meaning that police are spending inordinate amounts of time chasing nonviolent criminals.

"Ending arrests is the key to marijuana policy reform," he said.

Reps. William Lacy Clay, D-Missouri, and Barbara Lee, D-California, said that in addition to targeting nonviolent offenders, U.S. marijuana laws also unfairly target African-Americans.

Clay said he did not condone drug use, but he opposes using tax dollars to pursue what he feels is an arcane holdover from "a phony war on drugs that is filling up our prisons, especially with people of color."

Too many drug enforcement resources are being dedicated to incarcerating nonviolent drugs users, and not enough is being done to stop the trafficking of narcotics into the United States, he said.

Being arrested is not the American marijuana smoker's only concern, said Bill Piper of the Drug Policy Alliance Network. Those found guilty of marijuana use can lose their jobs, financial aid for college, their food stamp and welfare benefits, or their low-cost housing.

The U.S. stance on marijuana, Piper said, "is one of the most destructive criminal justice policies in America today."

Calling the U.S. policy "inhumane" and "immoral," Lee said she has many constituents who are harassed or arrested for using or cultivating marijuana for medical purposes. California allows medical marijuana use, but the federal government does not, she explained.

House Resolution 5843, titled the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2008, would allow "a very small number of individuals" suffering from chronic pain or illness to smoke marijuana with impunity.

According to NORML, marijuana can be used to treat a range of illnesses, including glaucoma, asthma, multiple sclerosis, HIV/AIDS and seizures.

Frank, who is chairman of the Financial Services Committee, said about a dozen states already have approved some degree of medical marijuana use, and the federal government should stop devoting resources to arresting people who are complying with their states' laws.

In a shot at Republicans, Frank said it was strange that those who support limited government want to criminalize marijuana.

Asked if the resolution's passage would change his personal behavior, Frank quipped, "I do obey every law I vote for," but quickly said he did not use marijuana, nor does he encourage it.

"I smoke cigars. I don't think other people should do that. If young people ask me, I would advise them not to do it," he said.
advertisement

If HR 5843 were passed by the House, marijuana smokers could possess up to 100 grams -- about 3½ ounces -- of cannabis without being arrested. It would also permit the "nonprofit transfer" of up to an ounce of marijuana.

The resolution would not affect laws forbidding growing, importing or exporting marijuana, or selling it for profit. The resolution also would not affect any state laws regarding marijua

It's about fucking time. Hopefully this gets passed but I'm not holding my breath.

[CaptainZoidberg]

I don't see how this would be any different then a complete legalization of marijuana.

But nonetheless I support this action. Fighting marijuana usage is a massive waste of government resources that could be spent on fighting real crime.

[General Zod]

I don't see how this would be any different then a complete legalization of marijuana.

It means that bulk growing and distribution is still illegal. But they're not going to go after you for having a couple joints or one or two plants, which is frankly a huge step in the right direction.

[Kanastrous]

It's about fucking time. Hopefully this gets passed but I'm not holding my breath.

I was holding my breath while reading it, but eventually had to exhale.

[Ziggy Stardust]

It would also permit the "nonprofit transfer" of up to an ounce of marijuana.

That's the passage that caught my eye. Nonprofit transfer of an OUNCE? Where is the charity that deals with that and how do I sign up?

[Butterbean569]

The Pothead and Economist in me hope this leads to lower prices

[Raw Shark]

I don't see how this would be any different then a complete legalization of marijuana.

It means that bulk growing and distribution is still illegal. But they're not going to go after you for having a couple joints or one or two plants, which is frankly a huge step in the right direction.

It also leaves individual states the right to make it as illegal as they want, while no longer fucking over states whose citizen majority are in love with Mary Jane.

However:

Those found guilty of marijuana use can lose their jobs, financial aid for college, their food stamp and welfare benefits, or their low-cost housing.

I've got to say that I do support the bolded penalties. The idea of people in the projects being able to afford to blaze a fatter one than I can because my tax dollars pay for their essentials burns my ass.

[Broomstick]

Those found guilty of marijuana use can lose their jobs, financial aid for college, their food stamp and welfare benefits, or their low-cost housing.

I've got to say that I do support the bolded penalties. The idea of people in the projects being able to afford to blaze a fatter one than I can because my tax dollars pay for their essentials burns my ass.

It's a 10 year wait in most cities just to get on the waiting list for subsidized housing.

If I want food stamps in my state my total net worth has to be under $2,000 - including my car.

I don't have children, I'm not even sure I can get welfare.

That's fucking poor - and if you're in that spot and your 15 year old kid gets arrested for toking the whole family can lose a place to live, food stamps, and all other benefits.

That's not a little draconian in your book? It's not just the violator punished, it's the whole family, innocent with guilty.

[General Zod]

It also leaves individual states the right to make it as illegal as they want, while no longer fucking over states whose citizen majority are in love with Mary Jane.

I see state penalties that choose to buck the Federal guideline being smacked down in lawsuits if it's passed.

I've got to say that I do support the bolded penalties. The idea of people in the projects being able to afford to blaze a fatter one than I can because my tax dollars pay for their essentials burns my ass.

Should they lose their benefits for smoking cigarettes or drinking too?

[Covenant]

I've never understood the fascination with the substance, or had any interest in it myself. I find it somewhat depressing that people's demand for it would be so high that we're actually wasting so much time and energy on it, to the point that it's simpler just to ignore it and move on, but I suppose that's the best option in this circumstance. I don't approve of the legalization of these substances, and wish we could eliminate alcohol and tobacco from the list of regularly used chemicals, but eh--I guess there's better fights to fight than the small-time pothead. It's not like they're dangerous people.

[General Zod]

I've never understood the fascination with the substance, or had any interest in it myself. I find it somewhat depressing that people's demand for it would be so high that we're actually wasting so much time and energy on it, to the point that it's simpler just to ignore it and move on, but I suppose that's the best option in this circumstance.

I'm not really sure what kind of point you're making here, but how exactly are we wasting time and energy by ceasing the persecution of a relatively harmless act? This seems backwards to me.

[Havok]

I've never understood the fascination with the substance, or had any interest in it myself. I find it somewhat depressing that people's demand for it would be so high that we're actually wasting so much time and energy on it, to the point that it's simpler just to ignore it and move on, but I suppose that's the best option in this circumstance. I don't approve of the legalization of these substances, and wish we could eliminate alcohol and tobacco from the list of regularly used chemicals, but eh--I guess there's better fights to fight than the small-time pothead. It's not like they're dangerous people.

Didn't people seem to be more fascinated with booze during prohibition? If you tell people they can't do something, it makes them want to do it. Part of human nature perhaps.
Personally, I've never understood why you just can't treat pot like alcohol as this bill suggests.

[Uraniun235]

I've never understood the fascination with the substance, or had any interest in it myself. I find it somewhat depressing that people's demand for it would be so high that we're actually wasting so much time and energy on it, to the point that it's simpler just to ignore it and move on, but I suppose that's the best option in this circumstance. I don't approve of the legalization of these substances, and wish we could eliminate alcohol and tobacco from the list of regularly used chemicals, but eh--I guess there's better fights to fight than the small-time pothead. It's not like they're dangerous people.

A lot of people just plain want to get high/intoxicated, and a sad fraction of that population is willing to do damn near anything it takes to get there. Let us know if you find a way to excise that part of humanity; we can use the technique to abolish greed and gluttony while we're at it.

I've got to say that I do support the bolded penalties. The idea of people in the projects being able to afford to blaze a fatter one than I can because my tax dollars pay for their essentials burns my ass.

The irony is that people in abject poverty have more reasons to get high than wealthier people - to escape the miserable reality of their situation.

[Broomstick]

It also leaves individual states the right to make it as illegal as they want, while no longer fucking over states whose citizen majority are in love with Mary Jane.

I see state penalties that choose to buck the Federal guideline being smacked down in lawsuits if it's passed.

I doubt it - there's precedent in "dry" counties that forbid alcohol

I've got to say that I do support the bolded penalties. The idea of people in the projects being able to afford to blaze a fatter one than I can because my tax dollars pay for their essentials burns my ass.

Should they lose their benefits for smoking cigarettes or drinking too?

Or eating too many cheeseburgers, getting fat and unhealthy, and sucking up health care dollars at public expense?

Personally, I don't approve of smoking at all, I don't care what you're smoking. I want to be exposed to second hand pot smoke even less than second hand tobacco as it has been known to provoke my allergies and I have no desire to be forcibly intoxicated against my will, even a little bit. On the other hand, I don't care if people eat the shit as long as they aren't endangering others, but you know that's not what most of them will do, most of them will fucking smoke it and pollute the local atmosphere.

[Rihannsu Science Officer]

The Pothead and Economist in me hope this leads to lower prices

I don't even smoke cigarettes and I know f-all about economics, but to me it's a freedom issue. If you want to mess up your own body, whether it be by tanning, drinking alcohol, bungee jumping, or injecting yourself with 50 kg of Sweet Lady H, it's not the government's goddamn business to tell you you can't do it.

On the other hand, this is purely a federal law. It means that light smokers won't be federally prosecuted, which they rarely are as it is. Even if this bill passes, states can and will continue to conduct asset forfeiture, suspension of state aid for education, and incarcerate pot smokers.

[FireNexus]

It also leaves individual states the right to make it as illegal as they want, while no longer fucking over states whose citizen majority are in love with Mary Jane.

I see state penalties that choose to buck the Federal guideline being smacked down in lawsuits if it's passed.

I doubt it - there's precedent in "dry" counties that forbid alcohol

I've got to say that I do support the bolded penalties. The idea of people in the projects being able to afford to blaze a fatter one than I can because my tax dollars pay for their essentials burns my ass.

Should they lose their benefits for smoking cigarettes or drinking too?

Or eating too many cheeseburgers, getting fat and unhealthy, and sucking up health care dollars at public expense?

Personally, I don't approve of smoking at all, I don't care what you're smoking. I want to be exposed to second hand pot smoke even less than second hand tobacco as it has been known to provoke my allergies and I have no desire to be forcibly intoxicated against my will, even a little bit. On the other hand, I don't care if people eat the shit as long as they aren't endangering others, but you know that's not what most of them will do, most of them will fucking smoke it and pollute the local atmosphere.

It's too expensive and tedious to prepare it for eating now. If I could go into my local state-run marijuana store (I'm assuming that's how pennsylvania would set it up, since they do it that way with alcohol) and buy some brownies, I'd probably never smoke again.

[Kanastrous]

I don't even smoke cigarettes and I know f-all about economics, but to me it's a freedom issue. If you want to mess up your own body, whether it be by tanning, drinking alcohol, bungee jumping, or injecting yourself with 50 kg of Sweet Lady H, it's not the government's goddamn business to tell you you can't do it.

Is it the taxpayers' collective goddamn business, if you are on public welfare and the medical damage done by your bad habits is treated at taxpayer expense?

[Xenophobe3691]

Is it the taxpayers' collective goddamn business, if you are on public welfare and the medical damage done by your bad habits is treated at taxpayer expense?

What about comparing it to the taxpayer's bill for banning it, enforcing that ban, and the additional loss of revenue for taxing and regulating it?

[General Zod]

Is it the taxpayers' collective goddamn business, if you are on public welfare and the medical damage done by your bad habits is treated at taxpayer expense?

So you simply get them into a program to help them quit at their own expense if they're irresponsible with the substance in order for them to get treatment of a condition caused by the habit. Problem solved.

[Darth Wong]

Is it the taxpayers' collective goddamn business, if you are on public welfare and the medical damage done by your bad habits is treated at taxpayer expense?

What about comparing it to the taxpayer's bill for banning it, enforcing that ban, and the additional loss of revenue for taxing and regulating it?

Totally irrelevant when discussing the question of whether the government has any business interfering. What you're talking about is the question of how the government should best interfere.

[Rahvin]

I don't even smoke cigarettes and I know f-all about economics, but to me it's a freedom issue. If you want to mess up your own body, whether it be by tanning, drinking alcohol, bungee jumping, or injecting yourself with 50 kg of Sweet Lady H, it's not the government's goddamn business to tell you you can't do it.

Is it the taxpayers' collective goddamn business, if you are on public welfare and the medical damage done by your bad habits is treated at taxpayer expense?

But how do you rationalize that with the way the system works now, where people can (and do) spend welfare checks on alcohol and cigarrettes?

You can limit that to a certain extent by making sure food stamps cannot be used to purchase legally sold pot or alcohol or tobacco...but then, this bill isn't going to make marijuana stores legal, so barter is always a possibility anyway. You could force the use of an ID with food stamps I suppose. I have no idea whether any of this is currently done or not.

But that still doesn't address welfare, which from my understanding is an actual check. You can't restrict where cash winds up very easily. And if it's already at least okay (or just unenforceable) to let welfare recipients purchase alcohol and tobacco products, then you don't really have much of an argument against allowing marijuana use while on public assistance as well without creating a double-standard.

So what's the real argument against legalizing pot? If it's only about welfare recipients, well...expecting all welfare recipients to use their public funds wisely is a foolish notion, and that's completely independent of whether pot is legalized or not. I can't think of any other arguments that don't apply equally to either alcohol or tobacco products or both as well.

[Kanastrous]

Is it the taxpayers' collective goddamn business, if you are on public welfare and the medical damage done by your bad habits is treated at taxpayer expense?

So you simply get them into a program to help them quit at their own expense if they're irresponsible with the substance in order for them to get treatment of a condition caused by the habit. Problem solved.

Seems to me, that if they can afford to enter a treatment program at their own expense, they can probably handle other problems at their own expense and are therefore not really the people I have in mind.

[The Yosemite Bear]

I keep saying that by the time the Baby Boomers have taken over the AARP Pot will be legal and on it's way to being covered by medicare....

of course those same baby boomers will be working until they are 120 to pay off the debts created by chimpus nero.

[General Zod]

Seems to me, that if they can afford to enter a treatment program at their own expense, they can probably handle other problems at their own expense and are therefore not really the people I have in mind.

Frankly, as much as marijuana can cost, if they can afford enough marijuana to develop a problem that constitutes hospitalization, they can afford a program to quit in order to receive treatment.

[PainRack]

I keep saying that by the time the Baby Boomers have taken over the AARP Pot will be legal and on it's way to being covered by medicare....

of course those same baby boomers will be working until they are 120 to pay off the debts created by chimpus nero.

You know, this the part that still disturbs me. Why the fuck is marijuana and drug use linked to healthcare issues? For those who insist that "smoking" a weed is better than a pill or an inhaler, get a life.