cannabisnews.com: Barney Frank Introduces Marijuana Legislation
function share_this(num) {
 tit=encodeURIComponent('Barney Frank Introduces Marijuana Legislation');
 url=encodeURIComponent('http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/24/thread24888.shtml');
 site = new Array(5);
 site[0]='http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u='+url+'&title='+tit;
 site[1]='http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit.php?url='+url+'&title='+tit;
 site[2]='http://digg.com/submit?topic=political_opinion&media=video&url='+url+'&title='+tit;
 site[3]='http://reddit.com/submit?url='+url+'&title='+tit;
 site[4]='http://del.icio.us/post?v=4&noui&jump=close&url='+url+'&title='+tit;
 window.open(site[num],'sharer','toolbar=0,status=0,width=620,height=500');
 return false;
}






Barney Frank Introduces Marijuana Legislation
Posted by CN Staff on June 22, 2009 at 16:05:11 PT
By Chris Weigant
Source: Huffington Post
Washington, D.C. -- Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts has introduced two pieces of legislation on marijuana -- one medical, and one recreational -- that deserve a lot more attention (and support by fellow House members) than they have been getting. The first would change federal law to allow states to experiment with medical marijuana without interference from Washington. And the second would drastically reduce federal penalties for "personal possession" of marijuana.
The medical marijuana bill aims to fix a problem in the federal classification of marijuana. The problem was best summed up in a live performance by Bill Maher I saw a number of months ago, where he talked about medical marijuana laws that states such as California (and others) have passed. I don't remember his exact words, but it went something like this: "It's still illegal to grow it, it's illegal for doctors to prescribe it, it's illegal to sell it, it's illegal to buy it, but if a joint happens to fall from the sky into your lips, then it's OK to smoke it."There's a reason for this legal disconnect. States are afraid of legalizing a production chain for marijuana because such legislative attempts always run into a brick wall called "federal law." Federal law always trumps state law, and federal law says that marijuana is illegal. Period. Federal law also states that marijuana has no medical value, and therefore even doctors who prescribe it are at risk of legal trouble with the feds for doing so.A few months back, I called upon President Obama to reclassify marijuana as a Schedule II Controlled Dangerous Substance, instead of Schedule I. The difference between the two is that Schedule I drugs have "no currently accepted medical use." Schedule II drugs do. Schedule II drugs (which include cocaine, opium, amphetamine, methamphetamine, and PCP) are just as illegal as Schedule I drugs, but doctors are still allowed to prescribe them. That's really the only difference between the two.The first of Frank's bills, (which you can look up under the number "HR 2835") is titled "The Marijuana Patient Protection Act" and (from Frank's press release): "would prevent federal authorities from prosecuting pharmacies, growers and users of medical marijuana in states where the use of the substance for medical reasons is legal."URL: http://www.house.gov/frank/pressreleases/2009/06-19-09-marijuana-bills.htmlCongressman Frank himself says about his bill:"There are some people who are in severe pain for whom nothing else seems to work. It is cruel to prevent them from having access to something which helps relieve their pain. This is especially true because so many states allow it. For the federal government to come in and supersede state law is a real mistake."His bill, to date, has 16 cosponsors, including two Republicans (Ron Paul and Dana Rohrabacher). Barney Frank has been fighting this battle for a long time, and has introduced similar legislation in every Congress since 1995, when he picked up the baton from the late Congressman McKinney from Connecticut (Frank had supported McKinney's bills for ten years prior to introducing his own bill in 1995).Back in 2006, when he introduced a similar bill, Frank was more expansive:"This is an issue on which people around the country are ahead of the politicians. Many elected officials are hesitant to support any proposals that might be viewed as weakening our drug laws, but I believe this is a common sense idea that will give some people who are suffering a measure of relief."If there are doctors willing to recommend the use of marijuana for their patients, and states willing to permit it. I think it's wrong for the federal government to subject either the doctors or the patients to criminal prosecution. Nothing in this proposal would make marijuana more available for the general population. The bill is limited to medicinal use of marijuana with a doctor's approval. The bill does, however, offer a challenge to conservatives who often profess their support for states' rights. I am delighted that some of my conservative colleagues, including Congressmen Ron Paul and Dana Rohrabacher, along with former Reagan Administration official Lyn Nofziger, have joined in this effort."I would add that taking legal action against those who use small quantities of marijuana for medical purposes is a highly questionable use of scarce prosecutorial resources at a time when they could be put to much better use."The second legislation Congressman Frank introduced recently is "The Act to Remove Federal Penalties for the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults" (search for it under "HR 2943"), which would (again, from Frank's press release): "eliminate federal penalties, but not override existing state law, on the possession or not-for-profit transfer of small amounts of marijuana. The bill would allow possession of up to 100 grams of the substance, and not-for-profit transfer of up to 28.3 grams (1 ounce). The legislation would also create a $100 fine (a civil penalty) for public use of marijuana."This is a harder row to hoe politically, which is why Frank lists responses to common criticisms:• The legislation would not affect federal laws prohibiting the cultivation or sale of marijuana for profit.• It would not legalize major drug dealing or create obstacles for federal officials from prosecuting such activity.• It would not affect any state or local laws regulating marijuana.• It would not alter the status of marijuana as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act.That last one is a bit of a disconnect, since H.R. 2835 would do exactly that, making it a bit odd in a press release that highlights both bills. Frank has, so far, gotten less support for H.R. 2943 than for the medical marijuana bill, shown by the fact that there are currently only four cosponsors (two of which are the aforementioned Republicans).But Frank doesn't mince words on this issue either: "I think John Stuart Mill had it right in the 1850s, when he argued that individuals should have the right to do what they want in private, so long as they don't hurt anyone else. It's a matter of personal liberty. Moreover, our courts are already stressed and our prisons are over-crowded. We don't need to spend our scarce resources prosecuting people who are doing no harm to others."The congressman does not say, but I am assuming he is referring to the Mill quote:"The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental or spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest."The question now is whether either of these bills is going to get anywhere. Frank's press office was not overly optimistic about chances for passage this year, seeing as how he's been fighting to get this done for almost a quarter-century now. A call to Henry Waxman's office (the chairman of the House committee both bills have been referred to) asking when the committee would hold a vote or move the legislation went unreturned by my deadline. A call to the White House press office asking whether President Obama could sign, or would support, this legislation also went unreturned.It's all fine and good that Obama has said that his administration wouldn't be going after legal (by state law) medical marijuana facilities, but the only way to guarantee that this policy outlives his term in office is to change the classification from Schedule I to Schedule II. This would allow the states to set up their own framework for the legal growth, transportation, and availability of marijuana to medical patients, without being worried about the heavy hand of Washington smacking down their efforts. Changing marijuana's classification, and reducing federal penalties for personal use are both commonsense changes at the federal level which are long overdue. While Barney Frank is to be applauded for pushing the issue forward, he cannot do this on his own.Like other issues Democrats have dragged their heels on, one has to wonder: "If not now, when?" How many Democrats do we need to elect to Congress before such commonsense laws are passed to rein in some of the excesses of past eras? How big a majority would it take? I strongly encourage anyone who cares about this issue to search for the these bills' cosponsors, and if you don't see your representative on those lists, contact them and ask them why they aren't.Source: Huffington Post (NY)Author: Chris WeigantPublished: June 22, 2009Copyright: 2009 HuffingtonPost.com, LLC Contact: scoop huffingtonpost.comURL: http://drugsense.org/url/vSL329aYWebsite: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/CannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help 
     
     
     
     




Comment #21 posted by rchandar on June 24, 2009 at 21:22:58 PT:
FoM, others interested...
Yes, thanks, that's most of it. No penalty stipulations for "recreational": for the time being, that's alright, but we'd like to see how much of a chance this bill has of passing.(If it passes both houses, I honestly don't think President Obama will veto it, though one can never tell). Thanks.--rchandar
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by FoM on June 24, 2009 at 19:32:08 PT
rchandar 
Does this help?Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act (Introduced in House)http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.2835:
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by rchandar on June 24, 2009 at 19:14:50 PT:
New Legislation
I'm not sure how they will do it--does anyone have a link to the stipulations of this "bill"?State laws are either less severe or more severe than federal, which is 1/1000. For example, Alabama's possession law is 1 year, $2000, and Tennessee is 6 months, $2000, whereas decrim states set the penalty at 0/100. If the Federal statute is re-drawn, it may be unclear how these states should adopt, or if they will. I think a federal law that states 0 jail, and a fine lower than $500, would send the "right message" for the time being. Or, even better: we could abolish federal penalties and let the states decide for themselves.--rchandar
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by christ on June 24, 2009 at 04:50:23 PT
Poll - HR 2943 (the decrim. one)
So far it's basically:Favor: 2Oppose: 0If you want to vote in the poll, you have to register, but it's free. And this organization is all about personal freedom / responsibility. The only negative thing about the poll is the options. I wish one said, "I prefer tax & regulate".http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=20477This URL also shows a link to HR 2835. Both show which Representatives have co-sponsored. So if yours isn't on the list, you can ask them to sign on.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by cliff on June 24, 2009 at 00:06:57 PT
These evil bastards - keep an eye on this one:
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/06/23/houston-police-mum-on-marijuana-prisoners-death/Houston police mum on marijuana prisoner’s deathA woman serving a short sentence in a Houston, Texas, jail for possession of marijuana died in custody over the weekend, and officers are not saying how or why.The 29-year-old, identified as Theresa Anthony, had expected to spend just two and a half weeks behind bars in the Harris County lockup. On Saturday, Cynthia Prude, Theresa’s mother, received a phone call from the jail’s Chaplain informing her that her daughter was dead.“I almost got in a wreck,” Prude told the local Fox affiliate. “I thought somebody was playing on the phone. I would like to know what happened to my daughter.”Prude has not been allowed to see the body, nor has the Harris County Sheriff’s Department even spoken with her, according to area media.“Today I still don’t know if that’s my daughter,” Prude told Houston news station KHOU. “I’m only going by a Social Security number that we got from Ben Taub Hospital.”Houston’s Fox affiliate noted that an autopsy has not yet been conducted on Theresa’s body.The Harris County Sheriff Department’s public information officer was not available to answer RAW STORY’s questions.Not the first timeIt is hardly the first time serious questions surrounded the death of a Harris County inmate.On 4 June 2009, the Justice Department concluded a 15 months-long investigation into the Harris County facility and determined in the subsequent 27-page report that over 142 prisoners had died there since 2001. Most expired due to lack of medical care, the report claims.The Associated Press noted that after the Justice Department declined to make its findings public, The Houston Chronicle was able to obtain a copy, which it released on the Internet.The findings, addressed to Harris County Judge Ed Emmett, lauded the prison’s efforts to maintain security, booking and intake programs and take basic fire safety precautions. The Justice Department said that by these measures, the facility “complies with constitutional requirements in a number of significant respects.”The Justice Department added that in spite of these marginal safety and procedural issues, “certain conditions at the jail violate the constitutional rights of detainees. Indeed, the number of inmate deaths related to inadequate medical care [...] is alarming.”This video is from My Fox Houston, broadcast late Monday, June 22, 2009.see link for videosnip it if you have to - this is important to find out what happened.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by Sinsemilla Jones on June 23, 2009 at 22:57:19 PT
Back to John Stuart Mill
This might be what Frank was referring to -“The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns him, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by Sinsemilla Jones on June 23, 2009 at 22:52:37 PT
It is poetic, Hope.
Thought this was interesting, though -"He was a member of the Texas House of Representatives from 1859 until 1860, when he enlisted in the Confederate States Army. He served throughout the Civil War..."Hard to imagine that Mills thought he was fighting for the right to keep slaves.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by Sam Adams on June 23, 2009 at 15:01:06 PT
Mills
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Q._MillsHe was a Texas senator - I guess you could say that Ron Paul is his intellectual heir.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by Sam Adams on June 23, 2009 at 14:58:17 PT
Mills
Hope - I am also impressed by his prose! Wow, those Victorian-era people could really read and write. Not to mention that everything he predicted would eventually happen to the nth degree.I'm afraid to say it, but I think the ultimate effect of technology is dumber people.  Politicians never talk that way anymore.I saw some study recently saying that there was no record of presidential candidate using the word "folks" until Nixon in the 60's. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by Hope on June 23, 2009 at 12:22:12 PT
It's even poetic.
"Prohibition was introduced as a fraud; it has been nursed as a fraud. It is wrapped in the livery of Heaven, but it comes to serve the devil. It comes to regulate by law our appetites and our daily lives. It comes to tear down liberty and build up fanaticism, hypocrisy, and intolerance. It comes to confiscate by legislative decree the property of many of our fellow citizens. It comes to send spies, detectives, and informers into our homes; to have us arrested and carried before courts and condemned to fines and imprisonments. It comes to dissipate the sunlight of happiness, peace, and prosperity in which we are now living and to fill our land with alienations, estrangements, and bitterness. It comes to bring us evil-- only evil-- and that continually. Let us rise in our might as one and overwhelm it with such indignation that we shall never hear of it again as long as grass grows and water runs." Roger Q. Mills, 1887Amen and Amen!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by Hope on June 23, 2009 at 12:18:23 PT
Comment 1
Profoundly true. Yet, amazingly, some are so blind as to choose not to see and so deaf as to choose not to hear. It's old but its exactly what the modern prohibition, the "War on Drugs", is. Exactly. Some understandings, knowledge, and insights are timeless and are bits of wisdom given to us for our benefit. Yet... it's happened again.In fact... it happened when virtually no one was paying attention to what was being done or even had access to the knowledge that it was being done. A small group of ambitious plotters did it... like sleight of hand... and it was done. "Prohibition was introduced as a fraud; it has been nursed as a fraud. It is wrapped in the livery of Heaven, but it comes to serve the devil. It comes to regulate by law our appetites and our daily lives. It comes to tear down liberty and build up fanaticism, hypocrisy, and intolerance. It comes to confiscate by legislative decree the property of many of our fellow citizens. It comes to send spies, detectives, and informers into our homes; to have us arrested and carried before courts and condemned to fines and imprisonments. It comes to dissipate the sunlight of happiness, peace, and prosperity in which we are now living and to fill our land with alienations, estrangements, and bitterness. It comes to bring us evil-- only evil-- and that continually. Let us rise in our might as one and overwhelm it with such indignation that we shall never hear of it again as long as grass grows and water runs." Roger Q. Mills, 1887
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by ekim on June 23, 2009 at 09:12:03 PT
recent show on discovery 
showing what might be going on in the earths core and how the magnet is sheilding us from the solar wind.http://science.howstuffworks.com/question782.htmWhy does the North Pole move?http://dsc.discovery.com/earth/earth-hsw/center-of-the-earth.htmlJourney to the Center of the Earth
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by HempWorld on June 23, 2009 at 08:23:03 PT
Had Enough #5 
Yes, I agree.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Sam Adams on June 23, 2009 at 06:58:50 PT
Temperance
Yoshi - yes, but it's interesting to note that the USA, and Western Europe, always had the temperance zealots from the beginning of history. Yet the temperence wackos were kept on the fringe - mostly only affecting people within their own churches - until The New Deal in the 1930s. That's when the zero-tolerance movement became Big Government's best friend. Drug laws became a convenient tool of oppression and control, just as the old vagrancy, male patriarchal, and apartheid laws were crumbling.In fact if one looks back into the Middle Ages the drug war mentality was on the rise with mass witch burnings that killed thousands upon thousands of girls & women. Most of them were the herbal medicine healers and specialists of the day.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by kaptinemo on June 23, 2009 at 04:46:46 PT:
Now we get to see who the real 'federalists' are
"It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.This Court has the power to prevent an experiment. We may strike down the statute which embodies it on the ground that, in our opinion, the measure is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. We have power to do this, because the due process clause has been held by the Court applicable to matters of substantive law as well as to matters of procedure. But in the exercise of this high power, we must be ever on our guard, lest we erect our prejudices into legal principles. If we would guide by the light of reason, we must let our minds be bold." - Supreme court Judge Louis BrandeisThis is the true meaning of 'federalism'...a concept that has largely been abandoned by those who make the most noise about being 'federalists' (such as the very powerful so-called "Federalist Society", from whom many supposedly 'conservative' lawyers get their talking points and marching orders). Proof of that abandonment happened in Raich/Monson, when the Supremes had their greatest change to live up to the tenets of 'federalism'. Instead, they chose the status quo, because to rule otherwise would have invalidated the entire present bureaucratic structure of the Federal government as it stands. Mr. Frank's legislation is a shot across the bow for these FINO's (Federalists In Name Only). A 'liberal' lawmaker is challenging 'conservative' legislators to 'walk the walk' and not just 'talk the talk'. The irony is doubly enjoyable, as it's been the FINOs who've blocked cannabis prohibition reform fro decades. It's time to put up or shut up about 'federalism'...which goes double for its' faux proponents.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by yoshi on June 22, 2009 at 22:48:00 PT:
Sam/ Mills
That's a great quote. Our nations drug policy is insane and has been for a long time. Nice to get that perspective 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Had Enough on June 22, 2009 at 20:42:47 PT
Re: #3
“”At that moment a point of no-return will be attained””We have reached that point… a long time ago…
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by FoM on June 22, 2009 at 18:08:50 PT
Barney Frank
I really appreciate his effort. Maybe this time it will work.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by HempWorld on June 22, 2009 at 16:42:31 PT
Barney Frank is a great man!
However, being a scholar in black money since 1979, my biggest fear is that most of Congress and the House reps. are on the take and thus corruption will block any much needed reform.I can see the same situation play out in Mexico, where now the danger exists that the cartels will be part of the government after the current election.At that moment a point of no-return will be attained, such as in the US Federal government of today. Very scary stuff, democracy and common sense be damned.
Legalize All Drugs!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by duzt on June 22, 2009 at 16:34:40 PT
This could pass and would be excellent
I have been saying for years that it simply comes down to this, make it schedule 2 then any doctor in any state can prescribe it. No more, "it's against federal law" and "federal law trumps state law" BS. I think there is enough momentum on our side right now that this could pass and the counties that have used the lame fed excuse to disallow dispensaries will no longer have that excuse. Then I can open mine in Placerville and we can have a decent dispensary for once around here, fingers crossed.......
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Sam Adams on June 22, 2009 at 16:11:57 PT
Mills
No, I think this was the quote Barney was referring to: "Prohibition was introduced as a fraud; it has been nursed as a fraud. It is wrapped in the livery of Heaven, but it comes to serve the devil. It comes to regulate by law our appetites and our daily lives. It comes to tear down liberty and build up fanaticism, hypocrisy, and intolerance. It comes to confiscate by legislative decree the property of many of our fellow citizens. It comes to send spies, detectives, and informers into our homes; to have us arrested and carried before courts and condemned to fines and imprisonments. It comes to dissipate the sunlight of happiness, peace, and prosperity in which we are now living and to fill our land with alienations, estrangements, and bitterness. It comes to bring us evil-- only evil-- and that continually. Let us rise in our might as one and overwhelm it with such indignation that we shall never hear of it again as long as grass grows and water runs." Roger Q. Mills, 1887
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment