Congressman introduces bill to DECRIMINALIZE Marijuana

Hoon

Send a message to your congressperson to support H.R. 5843 The Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2008. Sponsored by Representative Barney Frank (D-Mass.)

H.R. 5843 ¡Si, Se Puede!

Click Here
And fill out this easy web-form that will send an email to your respective congressperson.

TELL YOUR FRIENDS
To do the same thing - spread the word NOW!
Use E-mail etc.

H.R. 5843: 5 - 8 + 4 + 3 = 4 & 5 + 8 + 4 + 3 = 20

The sample letter you send your congressperson is below

http://www.mpp.org/
http://www.myspace.com/marijuanapolicyproject

Today, a bill to eliminate all federal penalties for marijuana possession was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Would you please take one minute to ask your U.S. representative to support this bill? MPP’s easy online action system makes it simple — just enter your name and contact info and we'll do the rest.

"The Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2008," introduced by Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), would eliminate the threat of arrest and prison for the possession of up to 3.5 ounces of marijuana and/or the not-for-profit transfer of up to one ounce of marijuana. It would not affect federal laws prohibiting selling marijuana for profit, importing and exporting marijuana, or cultivating marijuana. It also would not affect any state or local laws and regulations.

Because almost all marijuana arrests are made by local and state police, the primary impact of this federal bill is twofold: First, it would offer protection to people who are apprehended with marijuana in federal buildings or on federal land (such as national parks); and, second, the bill sends a message to state governments that the federal government is now open to the notion of states reducing their marijuana penalties, too.

This historic legislation comes 36 years after the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse made a similar recommendation to President Richard Nixon, suggesting that he decriminalize small amounts of marijuana.

MPP has worked closely with Congressman Frank’s staff over the last year, helping to craft the legislation and build political support for the proposal on Capitol Hill.

Now that the bill has been introduced, members of Congress need to hear from their constituents who want to see it passed. It takes only a minute or two to use MPP’s online action system to send a quick note to your member of the House.

Thanks so much for your help.

Sincerely,

Rob Kampia
Executive Director
Marijuana Policy Project
Washington, D.C.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
LETTER to your Congressperson that will be sent:
Please Support H.R. 5843, Barney Frank's Personal Use of Marijuana Act!
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

I am writing you today to ask that you vote for H.R. 5843, The Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2008. Sponsored by Representative Barney Frank (D-Mass.), this legislation would remove federal criminal penalties for the possession and not-for-profit transfer of small amounts of marijuana.

Each year, more than 700,000 people are arrested for marijuana offenses, costing American taxpayers more than $7 billion annually. Despite this, marijuana is still easily available, both to adults and minors. Through a controlled system of taxation and regulation, we can take money out of the pockets of drug dealers and more effectively limit youth access to marijuana.

Shouldn't we focus our country's resources on important priorities instead of continuing a wasteful war on marijuana?

America is currently experiencing a crisis of overcrowding in our criminal justice system. Approximately 1 out of every 100 Americans is currently incarcerated. A large number of these inmates are non-violent drug offenders. It's time we made room for real criminals, rather than incarcerating people for minor marijuana offenses.

I urge you to support The Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act. I will be immensely grateful. Thank you.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Hey Folks! Even better write you congressperson a real letter, find them by clicking here If need be just print up the sample and mail it.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Abookamongstthemany

I will definitely pass this along.

Collin

Nice!

theroachman

Happy 4/20



I will pass this along too

Eliot Rosewater

Wait a minute...is possession of weed a federal crime? I thought this was something controlled on the state level?

I've personally seen drug charges and the court docs don't say "U.S. vs. Me" it's "The state of Utah vs. Me".

So, should this resolution pass, it would still be up to each state to 'leagalize' it, right?

Urban Hiker

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

Wait a minute...is possession of weed a federal crime? I thought this was something controlled on the state level?

I've personally seen drug charges and the court docs don't say "U.S. vs. Me" it's "The state of Utah vs. Me".

So, should this resolution pass, it would still be up to each state to 'leagalize' it, right?

Perhaps, but at least the states who have passed medical marijuana laws would finally have the feds off of their backs. That's a good start.

Collin

*cough cough*

MichaelMcKevin

Is this for real or some 4/20 joke?

MichaelMcKevin

Is this for real or some 4/20 joke?

Anon

this is no joke, i saw barney franks on real time with bill maher a few weeks ago and he was talking about it then

Pacomc79

Does it also allow for research regarding the drug and or use for manufacturing paper products, rope etc?

LaterDays

Sensible drug laws in this country? What a concept.

MichaelMcKevin

How likely is it that this could actually work?

LaterDays

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

Wait a minute...is possession of weed a federal crime? I thought this was something controlled on the state level?

I've personally seen drug charges and the court docs don't say "U.S. vs. Me" it's "The state of Utah vs. Me".

So, should this resolution pass, it would still be up to each state to 'leagalize' it, right?

Possession, use, and sale of marijuana (ridiculously a Schedule I drug here... Cocaine isn't even regulated that strictly) is a Federal crime. Regardless of what the laws in a given state say, the DEA can arrest you and file criminal charges. What they have on-the-books and what they do in practice aren't always aligned, however. If you are dealing with ounces or less, the DEA isn't going to bother with you. State or local police, on the other hand, probably will. Depends on how retarded your state is. Mine is very retarded. But the Feds are mainly going to be concerned w/ trafficking, not petty possession... isn't worth their time or $.

And I don't believe anyone is seriously calling for it to be legalized... it's about decriminalizing it - which is actually a more practical and plausible approach. If it is legalized, it will become a booming industry akin to Big Tobacco or Big Alcohol. If it is decriminalized, it will remain illegal, but getting busted (regardless of how much or how many offenses) won't land you in jail... it'll just get you a fine. Most pot growers/dealers would rather get ticketed every so often than be pushed out of business because Phillips-Morris is now pedaling dirt-cheap, high quality bud at local convenient stores.

LaterDays

GivenToCarve wrote:

How likely is it that this could actually work?

Legalization isn't anywhere on the horizon, but decriminalization I personally think it's inevitable. Several reasons:

1. About a dozen states have now decriminalized it (some to more extent than others) - California, Hawaii, Montana, Alaska, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Colorado, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Places_that_have_decriminalized_non-medical_marijuana_in_the_United_States

Awareness is being raised and people are slowly starting to come to their senses -- we lock up a fucking shit-ton of people for minor marijuana offenses... literally billions of dollars have been wasted on arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating MJ-only buyers and sellers. MJ is a relatively harmless substance... arguably less so than tobacco and alcohol... and people are starting to acknowledge that, fortunately.

2. The Medical community is also warming up to it. The way the Gov't determines the Scheduling of a drug depends partly on whether or not the substance has any formally recognized medicinal aspects. Currently, MJ does not. Cocaine, on the other hand, does. So MJ actually has a more severe scheduling level than Cocaine... which is absurd beyond words. But it's now quickly gaining support w/in the medical community for it's anti-nausea and pain-killing attributes, and is licensed to those with a prescription in about a dozen states.

3. The major reason it isn't formally recognized for it's medicinal properties has to do w/ the fact that smoking it causes lung damage, and doctors are hesitant to prescribe it for that reason. However, THC pills are widely legal for prescription. Still not the same, though. BUT... recent studies show that using a high-quality Vaporizer to smoke the drug prevents the harmful effects seen w/ traditional smoking methods. THC burns at a lower temperature than the actual leaves... Vaporizers can be set to this temperature, so that only the THC burns off... there is actually no "smoke," as none of the substantive matter is burned. So, in other words, the only major reason that opponents to medicinal marijuana relied upon -- harmful effects of smoking it -- is being worked around through use of Vapes. Get it medicinally recognized and it drops to Schedule II, which will encourage a lot more serious discussion regarding its criminal status.

Kel Varnsen

LaterDays wrote:

And I don't believe anyone is seriously calling for it to be legalized... it's about decriminalizing it - which is actually a more practical and plausible approach. If it is legalized, it will become a booming industry akin to Big Tobacco or Big Alcohol. If it is decriminalized, it will remain illegal, but getting busted (regardless of how much or how many offenses) won't land you in jail... it'll just get you a fine. Most pot growers/dealers would rather get ticketed every so often than be pushed out of business because Phillips-Morris is now pedaling dirt-cheap, high quality bud at local convenient stores.

I am curious if you actually think this would happen if it was completely legalized. I mean Tobacco companies have already had to deal with massive lawsuits and made huge payouts because of the fact that their products are unsafe, do you actually think they would want to go down that road for a whole new product that with a lawsuit happy society would probably lead to the same results. I just see a huge shitstorm of a lawsuit after the first time someone dies because they got into a car accident after smoking a pack of legal Phillip Morris joints (or if they were hit by someone who was high after smoking them). Plus can you imagine the warning label on a package of joints?

Collin

Decriminalise it, and let people grow their own.

lazymoon13

doctors should be able to prescribe this.

SilverSeed

Kel Varnsen wrote:

I am curious if you actually think this would happen if it was completely legalized. I mean Tobacco companies have already had to deal with massive lawsuits and made huge payouts because of the fact that their products are unsafe, do you actually think they would want to go down that road for a whole new product that with a lawsuit happy society would probably lead to the same results. I just see a huge shitstorm of a lawsuit after the first time someone dies because they got into a car accident after smoking a pack of legal Phillip Morris joints (or if they were hit by someone who was high after smoking them). Plus can you imagine the warning label on a package of joints?

For that exact reason I think they would want to move towards pot. There's a reason Marlboro already owns the rights to market Marlboro Marley's and Marlboro Greens. There has been tons of research into the short and long term effects. None of which approach the issues of cigarettes, or alcohol for that matter. The warning label would have something about heavy machinery, but would basically tell clerks to watch the Ben & Jerry's section. Seriously I cannot imagine a better way to fix our economy than pure legalisation.

As a sidenote, I drive high all the time. It's no biggy...

LaterDays

Kel Varnsen wrote:

I am curious if you actually think this would happen if it was completely legalized. I mean Tobacco companies have already had to deal with massive lawsuits and made huge payouts because of the fact that their products are unsafe, do you actually think they would want to go down that road for a whole new product that with a lawsuit happy society would probably lead to the same results. I just see a huge shitstorm of a lawsuit after the first time someone dies because they got into a car accident after smoking a pack of legal Phillip Morris joints (or if they were hit by someone who was high after smoking them). Plus can you imagine the warning label on a package of joints?

It's an interesting point. Clearly the lawsuits w/ regard to tobacco-related lung cancer hasn't prompted Phillips-Morris to get out of that business. I haven't looked at their financial statements, but I'd be willing to bet that, even with all the shit they have to pay in fees and adverse judgments, they still turn a really pretty penny at the end of the day.

I would mention a couple of things: First, marijuana hasn't been demonstrated to show the same cancer-causing effects that tobacco has. It's bad for you lungs, worse even per weight than a cig, but this has to do with a number of factors (no filter, hotter temperature, deeper drags, longer drags, etc). Still, worse for your lungs does not necessarily equal cancer. Second, even if smoking MJ in spliffs or out of a pipe IS as cancerous, or even more so, you can always get the THC through smoking out of a vape... can't get nicotine that way. So maybe PM wouldn't sell packs of J's... maybe they'd sell the bud in bags and then pedal portable vaporizers. There are ways around it. Smoking cigs is the #1 killer in parts of this country... smoking weed probably isn't that bad, and I doubt it would be worse (don't know anyone who would or could smoke 2 packs of joints a day for 40 years, as people commonly do w/ cigs)... and the cigarette industry doesn't seem to be in any serious financial dire.

The driving-under-the-influence argument is more easily addressed. Even if pot is legalized, driving while high on it won't be. Take alcohol for instance: If people could sue Anheuser-Busch every time someone was hurt or killed by a drunk driver who drank their product, they would have gone out of business a long time ago. But product liability doesn't go that far... you have to be using it for its intended purpose, and driving drunk isn't part of the "intended purpose" of alcohol. Similarly, you can't sue the gun manufacturer for legally selling a gun used in a crime.

Marijuana would be a hugely profitable enterprise (hell, it already is). If it was regulated the way alcohol and tobacco and firearms are regulated, it would be just as big and just as protected. If you don't believe me, ask your local weed dealer -- if they sell enough, I guarantee they're against legalization. For decriminalization, but against legalization.

Kel Varnsen

SilverSeed wrote:

For that exact reason I think they would want to move towards pot. There's a reason Marlboro already owns the rights to market Marlboro Marley's and Marlboro Greens. There has been tons of research into the short and long term effects. None of which approach the issues of cigarettes, or alcohol for that matter. The warning label would have something about heavy machinery, but would basically tell clerks to watch the Ben & Jerry's section. Seriously I cannot imagine a better way to fix our economy than pure legalisation.

As a sidenote, I drive high all the time. It's no biggy...

But if you are driving high and you run someone over it becomes a way different story if the pot you were high on was produced by a huge company like Marlboro. Not because they are different under the law but because they have deep pockets. I can just see the eyes of a ton of lawyers turn into dollar signs if that ever happens. Yes I know that alcohol already has that problem, but I think it would be different if someone tried to introduce a brand new product in today's crazy litigious society.

LaterDays wrote:

It's an interesting point. Clearly the lawsuits w/ regard to tobacco-related lung cancer hasn't prompted Phillips-Morris to get out of that business. I haven't looked at their financial statements, but I'd be willing to bet that, even with all the shit they have to pay in fees and adverse judgments, they still turn a really pretty penny at the end of the day.

Isn't the only reason lawsuits didn't run Phillip-Morris out of business is because they made settlement deals with governments in exchange for those government's passing laws so that individual's couldn't sue? Without those laws if Phillip Morris had to defend against every single case they probably would be out of business.

LaterDays wrote:

The driving-under-the-influence argument is more easily addressed. Even if pot is legalized, driving while high on it won't be. Take alcohol for instance: If people could sue Anheuser-Busch every time someone was hurt or killed by a drunk driver who drank their product, they would have gone out of business a long time ago. But product liability doesn't go that far... you have to be using it for its intended purpose, and driving drunk isn't part of the "intended purpose" of alcohol. Similarly, you can't sue the gun manufacturer for legally selling a gun used in a crime.

But I think the only reason that alcohol and guns are protected is because they are established industries with legal precedent. With what would essentially a new product like legal pot you wouldn't have that precedent, and it would at least take a couple of lawsuits to decide what is reasonable. If that precedent went the wrong way for the companies producing it, it would be huge for them.