Bill To Remove Pot From Fed Controlled Substance List
 

Barney Frank and Ron Paul introduce HB 2306, which would allow states to decide what they want to do with Marijuana.

I like this part of the article:

Frank admitted in a conference call Thursday that he didn't think the bill had a chance of passing, but according to Reason's Hit & Run blog, the congressman was "particularly struck by the hypocrisy of public officials who will themselves talk about smoking marijuana, wink at it, and then make it criminal for other people," which leads to "a very discriminatory pattern of enforcement."



hxxp://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/06/marijuana-bill-officially-introduced-to-congress-by-ron-paul-barney-frank.html

I don't think it would make a big difference in incarceration rates, but it's a good first step and should allow more states to go the same route.

And federal regulation of recreational drugs that don't reach interstate commerce is unconstitutional, IMO. But unfortunately, this is one of the side effects of the "absolutely everything is interstate commerce" line of thinking. We like that interpretation if it it allows regulation we like, but we hate it when it allows regulation we hate.

I think one of the dirty secrets as to why decriminalization has been so slow, even in the states, is that it's such an effective tool for law enforcement. They learned that in MA - officers can no longer search your car if they smell marijuana at a traffic spot. Before that, marijuana has been a handy tool for officers to find stashes of other illegal drugs, illegal weapons, etc, in cars and in people's homes. It in no way justifies making something illegal of course, it's just something that's been utilized.

What won't happen to this bill: puff, puff, pass.

I'm curious to read the bill, though.

This is another one of those bills that is nearly 50/50 with public support that will get tabled or hammered like 15-420. (see Frank's internet gambling bill HR 2046) Can't blame the politicians though as they keep getting reelected by pandering to the vocal minorities.

I see what you did there.

:) Not intentional but I guess I could take credit.

Not necessarily. The seminal case on this subject, Raich v. Gonzales, actually had a different split than you'd think among the justices involved. The liberals voted to uphold the government's ban, while the conservatives voted to overturn it. They were going against their personal policy interests (or at least what we'd expect those interests to be), but falling in line with their judicial philosophy. The only outlier was Scalia, which was surprising because he's usually he most principled of the conservative justices.

A fine pair indeed.

(pair of what I'll leave to your imagination).

I do really enjoy splits like that, it makes me feel like there's really a constitutional analysis going on amongst really smart people.

Haha!Good one nevertheless. :)

Molson missed his chance to say "I do really enjoy splifs like that"

Hey, all I can do is set em up.

Doesn't have a chance of passing. Fantasyland.