-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
Paul/Frank co-sponsoring legalization bill
- Thread starter igrowone
- Start date
I
IE2KS_KUSH
Sounds like it's about par for the course.
JG's Ghost
Active member
Politicians aren't going to touch this issue, hell most constituents would run there local do gooder up a pole for even thinking about passing a medical marijuana bill. Ron Paul has tried to get this passed before but no one supports it in the congress or legislature. Fucktards!
Good luck, peace
Good luck, peace
budlover123
Member
that's why we got to write our local representative fucktards and let them know their jobs are on the line.
i think the points about the gutlessness of congress(and its members) are spot on<br>
but there is the business case that is slowly building, the soda machine is rocking gently right now, give it some time<br>
look at this way, the states are probably going to continue more MMJ, control is slipping from federal hands a little at a time<br>
there are 2 choices, the fucktards can continue with their heads up their asses, and state MMJ creeps forward, with state revenues doing the same<br>
or some federal bill that doesn't look like 'legalization', but starts to let the federal fucktards 'share the wealth'<br>
when it comes down to money or stupidity, money usually wins, may take a while though
but there is the business case that is slowly building, the soda machine is rocking gently right now, give it some time<br>
look at this way, the states are probably going to continue more MMJ, control is slipping from federal hands a little at a time<br>
there are 2 choices, the fucktards can continue with their heads up their asses, and state MMJ creeps forward, with state revenues doing the same<br>
or some federal bill that doesn't look like 'legalization', but starts to let the federal fucktards 'share the wealth'<br>
when it comes down to money or stupidity, money usually wins, may take a while though
Z
zen_trikester
from the CNN blog
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/06/30/bennett.drug.legalization/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn
Why Barney Frank and Ron Paul are wrong on drug legalization
By William J. Bennett, CNN Contributor
June 30, 2011 9:13 a.m. EDT
tzleft.bennett.courtesy.jpg
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Some want to end the "war on drugs" and legalize marijuana, says William J. Bennett
They come from left and right, but it's still a bad idea, Bennett says
Keeping drugs illegal is one of the best ways to keep drugs away from children, he says
Bennett: Marijuana is more potent and causes more damage than we used to know
Editor's note: William J. Bennett is the Washington fellow of the Claremont Institute. He was U.S. secretary of education from 1985 to 1988 and was director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy under President George H.W. Bush.
(CNN) -- From certain precincts on the left, notably Barney Frank, to certain precincts on the right, notably the editorial page of National Review, we are witnessing a new push to end the so-called war on drugs and legalize drug use, starting with marijuana. Indeed, Ron Paul, Barney Frank's co-sponsor in the latest legislative effort, said recently he would go so far as to legalize heroin.
It's a bad idea. My friends at National Review begin their case by stating the illegalization of drugs has "curtailed personal freedom, created a violent black market and filled our prisons." But the legalization of drugs, including marijuana, would exacerbate each of these problems.
Ron Paul, Barney Frank: End pot prohibition
Starting with the basics, keeping drugs illegal is one of the best ways to keep drugs out of the hands -- and brains -- of children. We know three things here: First, children who don't use drugs continually tell us one of the reasons they don't is precisely because they are illegal.
For example, since at least 1975, report after report has found that "perceptions of the risk and social disapproval of drug use correlate very closely with drug taking behavior." When those in the drug prevention community ask teens who don't use drugs why they don't, time and again, the answer comes back "because it's illegal." This, of course, explains why a greater percentage of teens abuse legal substances like tobacco and alcohol over illegal drugs such as marijuana -- even when they say marijuana is easily accessible.
Second, keeping drugs out of the hands of children is the best way to prevent drug addiction generally, as study after study has confirmed that if we keep a child drug free until age 21, the chances of use in adulthood are next to zero.
Third, we don't need to guess at hypothetical legalization schemes. Our experience with legally prescribed narcotics has already proven it, and we now have an epidemic. This, despite doing everything the theorists have asked, from oversight to regulation to prescription requirements.
'Shut up!' as marijuana debate heats up
RELATED TOPICS
Drug Policy
Drug Addiction
Marijuana
Barney Frank
Normalizing, de-stigmatizing, and legalizing illegal drugs lowers their price and increases their use. As a recent RAND study on California found, legalization of marijuana there would cut the price by as much as 80% and increase use from as little as 50% to as much as 100%. Just what California, just what our society, needs.
As for the current drug policies curtailing personal freedom, the question is: "Whose freedom?" The drug dealers', sure -- the drug consumers, no.
As any parent with a child addicted to drugs will explain, as any visit to a drug rehab center will convey, those caught in the web of addiction are anything but free. And it is not because of their incarceration or rehabilitation, it is because of the vicious cycle of dependency, waste and brain damage addiction and abuse cause.
Let us make no mistake about this, either: Marijuana is much more potent and causes much more damage than we used to know. Today's marijuana tests on average at more than 10% THC (the psychoactive ingredient). We are even seeing samples of more than 30% THC. This is compared to the relatively lower levels of THC most legalizing proponents were more familiar with in generations past (under 4% in the early 1980s, even lower in the 1960s).
Chronic adolescent marijuana use has been found to be associated with "poorer performance on thinking tasks, including slower psychomotor speed and poorer complex attention, verbal memory and planning ability." We are seeing study after study finding adolescent marijuana use responsible for "disrupted brain development" in teens. Worse, we are seeing more and more studies showing teen marijuana use linked to psychosis.
As for the high incarceration rates for simple marijuana use and possession, it is a myth. As government documentation actually shows, over 97% of sentencing on federal marijuana-related charges is for trafficking, less than 2% is for simple possession. Indeed, the only National Review authority with federal prosecutorial experience that I know of backs this point up: "Actual enforcement is targeted at big distributors. People who merely possess drugs for personal use well know they are substantially safe no matter what the statutes say."
We have had a fair amount of experience with legalization and decriminalization schemes. What are those communities now saying? Citizens are trying to put the genie back in the bottle, from Northern California (where residents have complained that medical marijuana has "spawned crime, drug cartels and teenage pot use"), to the Netherlands (where drug tourism, use by minors, and border trafficking has increased), to England (where apologies have been made for endorsing decriminalization in light of the subsequent growth of teen drug treatment needs), to Colorado (where easy access has increased demand, "made a mockery" of the legal system, and is increasingly endangering public safety).
We have an illegal drug abuse epidemic in this country and it has not been given enough attention. But the cultural messages, as much as the law, matter. When we unified on this, as we once did, drug use went down. When we let up, as we now have, use increases.
The libertarian experiment promoted as a novel theory by some will only make things worse. More legalization equals more damage, waste, crime and abuse. Not less. That is why it is no time to surrender.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of William J. Bennett.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/06/30/bennett.drug.legalization/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn
Why Barney Frank and Ron Paul are wrong on drug legalization
By William J. Bennett, CNN Contributor
June 30, 2011 9:13 a.m. EDT
tzleft.bennett.courtesy.jpg
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Some want to end the "war on drugs" and legalize marijuana, says William J. Bennett
They come from left and right, but it's still a bad idea, Bennett says
Keeping drugs illegal is one of the best ways to keep drugs away from children, he says
Bennett: Marijuana is more potent and causes more damage than we used to know
Editor's note: William J. Bennett is the Washington fellow of the Claremont Institute. He was U.S. secretary of education from 1985 to 1988 and was director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy under President George H.W. Bush.
(CNN) -- From certain precincts on the left, notably Barney Frank, to certain precincts on the right, notably the editorial page of National Review, we are witnessing a new push to end the so-called war on drugs and legalize drug use, starting with marijuana. Indeed, Ron Paul, Barney Frank's co-sponsor in the latest legislative effort, said recently he would go so far as to legalize heroin.
It's a bad idea. My friends at National Review begin their case by stating the illegalization of drugs has "curtailed personal freedom, created a violent black market and filled our prisons." But the legalization of drugs, including marijuana, would exacerbate each of these problems.
Ron Paul, Barney Frank: End pot prohibition
Starting with the basics, keeping drugs illegal is one of the best ways to keep drugs out of the hands -- and brains -- of children. We know three things here: First, children who don't use drugs continually tell us one of the reasons they don't is precisely because they are illegal.
For example, since at least 1975, report after report has found that "perceptions of the risk and social disapproval of drug use correlate very closely with drug taking behavior." When those in the drug prevention community ask teens who don't use drugs why they don't, time and again, the answer comes back "because it's illegal." This, of course, explains why a greater percentage of teens abuse legal substances like tobacco and alcohol over illegal drugs such as marijuana -- even when they say marijuana is easily accessible.
Second, keeping drugs out of the hands of children is the best way to prevent drug addiction generally, as study after study has confirmed that if we keep a child drug free until age 21, the chances of use in adulthood are next to zero.
Third, we don't need to guess at hypothetical legalization schemes. Our experience with legally prescribed narcotics has already proven it, and we now have an epidemic. This, despite doing everything the theorists have asked, from oversight to regulation to prescription requirements.
'Shut up!' as marijuana debate heats up
RELATED TOPICS
Drug Policy
Drug Addiction
Marijuana
Barney Frank
Normalizing, de-stigmatizing, and legalizing illegal drugs lowers their price and increases their use. As a recent RAND study on California found, legalization of marijuana there would cut the price by as much as 80% and increase use from as little as 50% to as much as 100%. Just what California, just what our society, needs.
As for the current drug policies curtailing personal freedom, the question is: "Whose freedom?" The drug dealers', sure -- the drug consumers, no.
As any parent with a child addicted to drugs will explain, as any visit to a drug rehab center will convey, those caught in the web of addiction are anything but free. And it is not because of their incarceration or rehabilitation, it is because of the vicious cycle of dependency, waste and brain damage addiction and abuse cause.
Let us make no mistake about this, either: Marijuana is much more potent and causes much more damage than we used to know. Today's marijuana tests on average at more than 10% THC (the psychoactive ingredient). We are even seeing samples of more than 30% THC. This is compared to the relatively lower levels of THC most legalizing proponents were more familiar with in generations past (under 4% in the early 1980s, even lower in the 1960s).
Chronic adolescent marijuana use has been found to be associated with "poorer performance on thinking tasks, including slower psychomotor speed and poorer complex attention, verbal memory and planning ability." We are seeing study after study finding adolescent marijuana use responsible for "disrupted brain development" in teens. Worse, we are seeing more and more studies showing teen marijuana use linked to psychosis.
As for the high incarceration rates for simple marijuana use and possession, it is a myth. As government documentation actually shows, over 97% of sentencing on federal marijuana-related charges is for trafficking, less than 2% is for simple possession. Indeed, the only National Review authority with federal prosecutorial experience that I know of backs this point up: "Actual enforcement is targeted at big distributors. People who merely possess drugs for personal use well know they are substantially safe no matter what the statutes say."
We have had a fair amount of experience with legalization and decriminalization schemes. What are those communities now saying? Citizens are trying to put the genie back in the bottle, from Northern California (where residents have complained that medical marijuana has "spawned crime, drug cartels and teenage pot use"), to the Netherlands (where drug tourism, use by minors, and border trafficking has increased), to England (where apologies have been made for endorsing decriminalization in light of the subsequent growth of teen drug treatment needs), to Colorado (where easy access has increased demand, "made a mockery" of the legal system, and is increasingly endangering public safety).
We have an illegal drug abuse epidemic in this country and it has not been given enough attention. But the cultural messages, as much as the law, matter. When we unified on this, as we once did, drug use went down. When we let up, as we now have, use increases.
The libertarian experiment promoted as a novel theory by some will only make things worse. More legalization equals more damage, waste, crime and abuse. Not less. That is why it is no time to surrender.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of William J. Bennett.
S
schwagg
William J. Bennett, retard!
Z
zen_trikester
Yup. they're all made out of fucking ticky tack and the all sound just the same.
I agree. Are you familiar his brother, Robert Bennett? Hard to imagine that such polar-reasoning exists between brothers.
budlover123
Member
What about the cheap booze they sell on every corner in the ghetto?
get a clue you freedom hating "journalist"
Z
zen_trikester
do people actually sell bootleg booze on the street corners? That is pretty funny actually. You must mean at the corner store right? there couldn't be a profit in reselling booze unless there are minors or somebody has a still. Which I will say to any Kentucky folks out there... not much finer than that Kentucky shine. DAMN fine whiskey! I would love to get that shit up by me!
budlover123
Member
yeah I'm talking about stores...
When I lived in Oakland, California I heard about a gang of black Muslim dudes all dressed up in there suits, that went around to different black Muslim business owners that sold cheap horrible "poisons" I believe they said, to their brothers in the ghetto, and they smashed the shit out of that booze
<--store ownernot just any store in the ghetto, but the stores of black Muslims only that were selling the "poisons" in their community. I suppose they hold their own to a higher standard. (that's pretty cool if you ask me)
That wouldn't happened if they were selling weed, not that black Muslims love weed or anything, but some of that cheap malt liquor crap is poison.
not fine liquor like old Kentucky deluxe Whiskey (which is tasty, but probably more dangerous than some of these crappy malt liquors, it's like $5 for a liter or something)
Cojito
Active member
no surprise here. that pudgy bitch is a former republican drug czar. Bennett's made millions droning on and on about all our moral deficiencies. the man's an addict (food and gambling) and a hypocrite.
Stranger
Member
Bennett is about an opinion, he isn't bothered at all by the facts. He has sycophant followers that don't like to have core beliefs challenged either.
Mental wimps, not secure in their own beliefs so they have to attempt to assassinate ours.
The opposition just says the same shit over and over... no substance and will be crushed with the truth.
Time is on our sides.
This clip could have come from 1996. Nothing new, no facts and just an excerpt from a pulpit.
Most of all NOT RELEVANT.
Just because these people talking trash never have any issues with the law doesn't mean the other few million or so that have and are getting more fed up with selective enforcement and just outright thuggary.
We will win.
Lamar Smith is the problem now though. It's in his committee and he is supreme master in that arena. No one can make him even let the bill be read. How is that for democracy?
Mental wimps, not secure in their own beliefs so they have to attempt to assassinate ours.
The opposition just says the same shit over and over... no substance and will be crushed with the truth.
Time is on our sides.
This clip could have come from 1996. Nothing new, no facts and just an excerpt from a pulpit.
Most of all NOT RELEVANT.
Just because these people talking trash never have any issues with the law doesn't mean the other few million or so that have and are getting more fed up with selective enforcement and just outright thuggary.
We will win.
Lamar Smith is the problem now though. It's in his committee and he is supreme master in that arena. No one can make him even let the bill be read. How is that for democracy?
budlover123
Member
typed in "Lamar Smith prohibition" on google and the first hit is "Lamar Smith the Prohibitionist Is Trying to Impede Democracy"
This is our next step then, lets start a giant movement on youtube, message board, blogs and what not to bad mouth this guy as a prohibitionist and a hater of freedom.
That'll learn em. elections are always right around the corner, bad press is not always good press in politics.
Shit these internets give us a voice, you see how many people saw that one video on youtube, (the one with the cat in it)
edit: I hate how you can't send him an email if your not in his district, what happens if we shut this asshole up, will another just pop up to single-handedly stop democracy. Like Joe Lieberman on health care reform or whoever it was stopping everything untill the rich got their tax cuts extended.
This is our next step then, lets start a giant movement on youtube, message board, blogs and what not to bad mouth this guy as a prohibitionist and a hater of freedom.
That'll learn em. elections are always right around the corner, bad press is not always good press in politics.
Shit these internets give us a voice, you see how many people saw that one video on youtube, (the one with the cat in it)
edit: I hate how you can't send him an email if your not in his district, what happens if we shut this asshole up, will another just pop up to single-handedly stop democracy. Like Joe Lieberman on health care reform or whoever it was stopping everything untill the rich got their tax cuts extended.
G
guest86120975
Yesterday morning, I was watching MSNBC and Howard Dean (former governor of Vermont) made a remark I've been waiting on someone to make... He said that we have to do something about this drug war, and he believes Obama will call for something to be done after the election, but not before (assuming he wins, which let's be real..he's going to win again)...
Right now, nothing can be done anyway with the Repubs in charge of the House. If Obama wins, and the Dems take back the House...and also the Dems make gains in the Senate (which is entirely probable)...then, look out below.
Right now, nothing can be done anyway with the Repubs in charge of the House. If Obama wins, and the Dems take back the House...and also the Dems make gains in the Senate (which is entirely probable)...then, look out below.
this is courtisey of tony aroma ,from another thread, this should light the fire under your butts to get the Paul/Frank bill passed ,espeacially you cali guys.
"June 29, 2011
MEMORANDUM FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS
FROM: James M. Cole Deputy Attorney General
SUBJECT: Guidance Regarding the Ogden Memo in Jurisdictions Seeking to Authorize Marijuana for Medical Use
Over the last several months some of you have requested the Department’s assistance in responding to inquiries from State and local governments seeking guidance about the Department’s position on enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) in jurisdictions that have under consideration, or have implemented, legislation that would sanction and regulate the commercial cultivation and distribution of marijuana purportedly for medical use. Some of these jurisdictions have considered approving the cultivation of large quantities of marijuana, or broadening the regulation and taxation of the substance. You may have seen letters responding to these inquiries by several United States Attorneys. Those letters are entirely consistent with the October 2009 memorandum issued by Deputy Attorney General David Ogden to federal prosecutors in States that have enacted laws authorizing the medical use o f marijuana (the “Ogden Memo”).
The Department of Justice is committed to the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act in all States. Congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug and that the illegal distribution and sale of marijuana is a serious crime that provides a significant source of revenue to large scale criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels. The Ogden Memorandum provides guidance to you in deploying your resources to enforce the CSA as part of the exercise of the broad discretion you are given to address federal criminal matters within your districts.
A number of states have enacted some form of legislation relating to the medical use of marijuana. Accordingly,the Ogden Memo reiterated to you that prosecution of significant traffickers of illegal drugs, including marijuana, remains a core priority, but advised that it is likely not an efficient use of federal resources to focus enforcement efforts on individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or their caregivers. The term “caregiver” as used in the memorandum meant just that: individuals providing care to individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses, not commercial operations cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana.
The Department’s view of the efficient use of limited federal resources as articulated in the Ogden Memorandum has not changed. There has, however, been an increase in the scope of commercial cultivation, sale, distribution and use of marijuana for purported medical purposes. For example, within the past 12 months, several jurisdictions have considered or enacted legislation to authorize multiple large-scale, privately-operated industrial marijuana cultivation centers. Some of these planned facilities have revenue projections of millions of dollars based on the planned cultivation of tens of thousands of cannabis plants.
The Ogden Memorandum was never intended to shield such activities from federal enforcement action and prosecution, even where those activities purport to comply with state law. Persons who are in the business of cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, regardless of state law. Consistent with resource constraints and the discretion you may exercise in your district, such persons are subject to federal enforcement action, including potential prosecution. State laws or local ordinances are not a defense to civil or criminal enforcement of federal law with respect to such conduct, including enforcement of the CSA. Those who engage in transactions involving the proceeds of such activity may also be in violation of federal money laundering statutes and other federal financial laws.
The Department of Justice is tasked with enforcing existing federal criminal laws in all states, and enforcement of the CSA has long been and remains a core priority.
cc: Lanny A. Breuer Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division
B. Todd Jones United States Attorney District of Minnesota Chair, AGAC
Michele M. Leonhart Administrator Drug Enforcement Administration
H. Marshall Jarrett Director Executive Office for United States Attorneys
Kevin L. Perkins Assistant Director Criminal Investigative Division Federal Bureau of Investigations "
"June 29, 2011
MEMORANDUM FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS
FROM: James M. Cole Deputy Attorney General
SUBJECT: Guidance Regarding the Ogden Memo in Jurisdictions Seeking to Authorize Marijuana for Medical Use
Over the last several months some of you have requested the Department’s assistance in responding to inquiries from State and local governments seeking guidance about the Department’s position on enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) in jurisdictions that have under consideration, or have implemented, legislation that would sanction and regulate the commercial cultivation and distribution of marijuana purportedly for medical use. Some of these jurisdictions have considered approving the cultivation of large quantities of marijuana, or broadening the regulation and taxation of the substance. You may have seen letters responding to these inquiries by several United States Attorneys. Those letters are entirely consistent with the October 2009 memorandum issued by Deputy Attorney General David Ogden to federal prosecutors in States that have enacted laws authorizing the medical use o f marijuana (the “Ogden Memo”).
The Department of Justice is committed to the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act in all States. Congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug and that the illegal distribution and sale of marijuana is a serious crime that provides a significant source of revenue to large scale criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels. The Ogden Memorandum provides guidance to you in deploying your resources to enforce the CSA as part of the exercise of the broad discretion you are given to address federal criminal matters within your districts.
A number of states have enacted some form of legislation relating to the medical use of marijuana. Accordingly,the Ogden Memo reiterated to you that prosecution of significant traffickers of illegal drugs, including marijuana, remains a core priority, but advised that it is likely not an efficient use of federal resources to focus enforcement efforts on individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or their caregivers. The term “caregiver” as used in the memorandum meant just that: individuals providing care to individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses, not commercial operations cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana.
The Department’s view of the efficient use of limited federal resources as articulated in the Ogden Memorandum has not changed. There has, however, been an increase in the scope of commercial cultivation, sale, distribution and use of marijuana for purported medical purposes. For example, within the past 12 months, several jurisdictions have considered or enacted legislation to authorize multiple large-scale, privately-operated industrial marijuana cultivation centers. Some of these planned facilities have revenue projections of millions of dollars based on the planned cultivation of tens of thousands of cannabis plants.
The Ogden Memorandum was never intended to shield such activities from federal enforcement action and prosecution, even where those activities purport to comply with state law. Persons who are in the business of cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, regardless of state law. Consistent with resource constraints and the discretion you may exercise in your district, such persons are subject to federal enforcement action, including potential prosecution. State laws or local ordinances are not a defense to civil or criminal enforcement of federal law with respect to such conduct, including enforcement of the CSA. Those who engage in transactions involving the proceeds of such activity may also be in violation of federal money laundering statutes and other federal financial laws.
The Department of Justice is tasked with enforcing existing federal criminal laws in all states, and enforcement of the CSA has long been and remains a core priority.
cc: Lanny A. Breuer Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division
B. Todd Jones United States Attorney District of Minnesota Chair, AGAC
Michele M. Leonhart Administrator Drug Enforcement Administration
H. Marshall Jarrett Director Executive Office for United States Attorneys
Kevin L. Perkins Assistant Director Criminal Investigative Division Federal Bureau of Investigations "
