gop marijuana conservatives rand paul bryan fischer
Ending Marijuana Prohibition

Six Republicans Resubmit Bill To Allow States To Legalize Marijuana

gop marijuana conservatives rand paul bryan fischerSix Republican members of Congress just reintroduced the Respect State Marijuana Laws Act, previously submitted in 2013, which would amend the federal Controlled Substances Act by permitting states to develop their own marijuana policies without fear of federal prosecution. Four states have already legalized recreational use of marijuana for adults, while twenty-three states, D.C., and Guam allow some form of medical marijuana access. According to the think tank Third Way, 67% of Americans support Congress passing a bill that respects states developing their own marijuana policy.

“There are few principles more fundamental to the Republican Party than states’ rights. Allowing states to decide their own marijuana policy both fits with party ideology and makes much more sense than the laws currently on the books,” said Maj. Neill Franklin (Ret.), executive director for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, a group of cops and other criminal justice professionals opposed to the drug war. “But until Congress decides to change the law all assurances of non-intervention from the federal government may prove meaningless.”

Many states considering new marijuana laws have been hesitant because doing so may violate federal law, and because the Drug Enforcement Administration has said it will act independently of federal mandates that limit federal interaction with state marijuana laws. The Department of Justice released a memo in August 2013 stating they would no longer go after states that decided to legalize marijuana, so long as businesses complied with common sense guidelines such as not selling marijuana to children and not being involved in organized criminal activity. The recently passed federal “cromnibus” spending bill also prohibits the DOJ from undermining states’ medical marijuana policies. Drug Enforcement Administrator Michele Leonhart has authorized her agency to ignore these mandates. Leonhart will be retiring next month after an official letter of “no confidence” was issued by the House Oversight Committee after hearings on a sex scandal in which DEA agents repeatedly had sex with prostitutes paid for by drug cartels.

LEAP is committed to ending decades of failed policy that have created underground markets and gang violence, fostered corruption and racism, and largely ignored the public health crisis of addiction. The war on drugs has cost more than one trillion dollars, yielded only disastrous outcomes, and ultimately diverted the penal system’s attention away from more important crimes.

Source: Law Enforcement Against Prohibitionmake a donation

  • Robert Dewayne King

    The time to strike is NOW , while the DEA is temporarily leaderless and before they can muster up anything like a coherent response !!

    • concerned

      they havent had a coherent response to cannabis prohibition ever

      • AntiIgnorant

        Which is precisely why millions ignore their failed policies that are based on lies.

      • They don’t want to interfere with the money private prisons make off of non-violent pot smokers. Plus locking up doobie smokers cut down on prison riots and mayhem. It’s an easy job for prison officials if the prisons are full of pot smokers instead of murderers, rapist and violent offenders.

    • ĐΣFΣCŦΣĐ

      The DEA stands on perverted morality. They push their agenda on the masses by saying “We are morality, who will protect you from yourselves. Bow to our guns and self worth. Fear war drums and die for the blood of my moral”

  • No, you are leaving those of us stuck behind Enemy lines to die on the wrong side of the modern Science Highway! We live in oppressed dictator states we all go together!

  • Beau Peepski

    F*#kn Democrats… They know damn well their base are the ones who pushed this whole issue for years, and while I’m glad it’s being done (baby steps), their spinelessness makes me seething mad. Dems should be LEADING on this issue !

    • wowFAD

      You have a point. The foot-dragging is maddening. But to be fair in this case, there were also six Democrat cosponsors.

    • They are. As I mentioned in a comment above, there are actually 22 Democratic co-sponsors from when the bill was originally introduced.

  • Leo

    yo

  • mary chang

    WOOHOO! Obama could do a lot of good by taking Marijuana off the Drug Schedule. Marijuana has been ILLEGAL for 70+ years! And what are the results?…

    *Today marijuana is America’s #1 cash crop.

    *Marijuana is stronger and easier to get than ever before, albeit much more expensive than it should be. To smoke casually from the “black market”, it will run you $100/month. This is much more expensive than it needs to be. More expensive than my cell phone ($20/month from Tmobile), car insurance ($25/month from InsurancePanda), netflix ($10/month), and gym ($15/month from Planet fitness) COMBINED!!! Would you rather put money into the hands of violent gangs and drug dealers… or into taxes for schools, hospitals, public infrastructure, etc.???

    *Today American kids can buy marijuana easier than they can buy a beer.

    *There are over half a million Americans in jail right now for non-violent drug crimes.

    *Today marijuana is the #1 source of income for violent drug gangs and drug cartels who are richer and more dangerous than ever before.

    *Guns are illegal in Mexico yet Mexican drug cartels are buying machine guns, rocket launchers, grenades, airplanes, armored vehicles, anti-aircraft guns, and even submarines.

    *The DEA has been having sex parties funded by drug cartels.

    *The ATF/DOJ has given thousands of guns to drug cartels.

    I have this stupid thing I do called THINKING, and clearly I can see that marijuana prohibition can never work! America should have learned this simple lesson from alcohol prohibition!

    • Lawrence Goodwin

      Carl Sagan, famed astronomer and avid recreational consumer of herb, said it best: “The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to the full utilization of a drug which helps to bring the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world.” My own little motto (adapted from the immortal words of FDR) is, The only thing we have to fear about cannabis, is the fear of these plants itself.

  • wowFAD

    The Congressmen responsible for reintroducing this legislation are Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Justin Amash (R-MI), Duncan Hunter (R-CA), Thomas Massie (R-KY), Tom McClintock (R-CA), Don Young (R-AK), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Dina Titus (D-NV), Janice Schakowsky (D-IL), Jared Polis (D-CO), and Mark Pocan (D-WI).

    Gotta give credit where credit is due. Twelve Congressmen, six from each major party. It’s encouraging to see movement by representatives from states that do not yet have medical or recreational cannabis laws on the books (Wisconsin, Kentucky, Tennessee). My question is where are all the other cosponsors from all the other states that have reformed their laws only to suffer from federal interference? No reps from Washington state or New England? What about Arizona and New Mexico?

    I’m happy there are a dozen cosponsors, but we should be counting cosponsors by the dozen, given that half of our states have reformed their laws. Keep in mind they’re called “representatives” for a reason: it is their job to represent our interests at the federal level. There are hundreds of Congressman who should have signed on to support this legislation because a safe majority of Americans want this to happen. Keep writing to yours and he/she will eventually get the point.

    • So, the headline really should read that 6 congresspeople from each party reintroduced the bill.

      But here’s the best bit:

      https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1523

      > 28 cosponsors (22D, 6R)

      So, we are counting co-sponsors by the dozen. Thanks to the Democrats.

      • wowFAD

        That’s from the list of cosponsors from 2013, the 113th Congress. The current batch is the 114th.

        https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr1940

        There are 12 sponsors. Six R, six D. If you weren’t in such a hurry to give credit where it isn’t due, you would have checked the dates on your sources.

        • You’re so eager to get in my grill that you think I don’t know that that is from the FIRST time this exact bill was introduced. Funny.

          The fact is that when this bill was FIRST introduced, it had a whole bunch more co-sponsors, all of whom now know damn well that this bill isn’t going anywhere in a GOP controlled congress.

          And none of that has anything to do with the fact that the head line is click bait, man bites dog style, since it should read 6 members of each party introduced THIS version, a version that was heavily backed by Democrats back when there were more of them.

          • Denny

            News flash–the bill didn’t go anywhere when the current administration had total control of the government during O’s first two years in office, they did nothing. If he and his minions had followed through on their promises we wouldn’t still be wrestling with this issue.

          • Denny, you need to pay attention. That bill was from 2013. Not 2009.

            Dems never had total control for two years, it was about 2 months, and they passed major health care reform that has lowered the uninsured rate substantially.

            And what minions made what promises? Let’s see some substance instead of your usual bullshit.

          • wowFAD

            LOL — Scott, you’re so eager to get in MY grill that you’re trying to pick a fight with the person who POINTED OUT that there are Democrats signed onto the bill. Nobody did that before I got here. As for your complaints about “click-bait” you should send them to someone who (a) wrote the article, (b) could do something about it, and/or (c) gives a damn how upset it makes you. Fact is, you screwed up, and now you’re trying to save face. You saw “22d” and got so excited, you didn’t bother to verify you were looking at the right bill. Whoops!

            Anything else from 2013 you want us to be excited about? Want to talk about any two-year-old movies? I hear the next hobbit film is going to be good. In fact, if you *did* intend to cut and paste information about the 2013 version of this legislation, you didn’t mention it, and you used the present tense, not the past tense. So either you never made it through the 4th grade and learned about verb agreement, or you’re a liar who has taken yet another ding to his ego, courtesy of yours truly. Rest assured, I know what you did, and I laughed my ass off at your stupidity.

          • I was happy you mentioned the democrats. I just wanted to show you that on the original version of the bill, there were substantially more Democratic co-sponsors than Republicans.

            ” As for your complaints about “click-bait” you should send them to someone who (a) wrote the article”

            I made the complaint in the comment section of the story.

            “gives a damn how upset it makes you.”

            I’m not upset. I simply think that anyone writing for the weed blog ought to do a better job of conveying to people how Democrats are better on this issue. Titling this story to mention the 6 Republicans is a surprise, but leaving out the fact that Democrats also signed on to the bill, AS YOU POINTED OUT, is something that is perfectly fit for mentioning in the comments. AS YOU DID.

            Geez, wow, I was patting you on the back, and you lash out like a drunk boxer with a concussion.

            “Fact is, you screwed up, and now you’re trying to save face.”

            Fact is, you’re lying. I knew damn well this was the EXACT SAME BILL that was backed by 22 D’s just two years ago… WHEN THERE WERE MORE D’s. That’s the whole point. PUT MORE D’s back in congress, and we’ll have a much better chance of passing this bill, which HAS NO CHANCE now that the GOP has such a big majority in the House.

            “You saw “22d” and got so excited, you didn’t bother to verify you were looking at the right bill.”

            Now you’re showing your ignorance again. IT’s the exact same bill. Hence, the phrase: “reintroduced the Respect State Marijuana Laws Act” in the story.

            So, pay close attention, Mr “I voted Glibertarian so Voldemort could keep being my Governor.” The exact same bill was co-sponsored by 22 D’s in the last congress. Those who are still there might just very well sign onto cosponsor the bill again… but they know that it’s going nowhere, so there’s not much point.

            See where I was going there? Or do you even care?

            As for calling me a liar, you’re the one who just says shit he’s not sure about… like whether any Democrats had backed A2.

            Now, I said “we are counting co-sponsors” by the dozen, because when we look at the original bill, we can see that there were indeed a whole bunch of D cosponsors. You were bitching about “where are the D’s” and I showed you. When the bill first came out they were there. Now that the bill has even LESS of a chance of going anywhere, they know it’s not worth their time.

            But you ignore the original co-sponsor list so you can try to make it look like the D’s suck more than they do. Because that’s what you do.

            Now, if you’d care to admit to the BIGGER POINT HERE, which is what this is always about, the fact remains that the difference between democrats and republicans on this issue is stark. Republicans suck. Democrats are better. And Glibertarians don’t get elected.

            91% of Dems voted for keeping the DEA out of medicinal programs, only 22% of Republicans did.

            94% of Democrats voted to keep the feds out of pot banking, only 20% of Republicans did.

          • wowFAD

            Guess what? I took one gander at this wall of butt-hurt and elected to not bother reading it. Having flashbacks, Scott? LOL You’re a joke.

          • Heh. Your obsession with anal sex is interesting but irrelevant to the fact that the reason I posted the link to the original version of the bill is because I knew that 22 Dems co-sponsored it originally, and only 6 Republicans did.

            And remember, we’re talking about a bill that would easily pass a Democratic House, but that doesn’t have a chance in hell of passing this GOP controlled one unless enough Republicans join the Democrats to issue a discharge petition.

            Now, do you want to bet on whether marijuana will be rescheduled before Obama leaves office, or do you just want to ignore all the relevant points while you make anal sex jokes?

          • wowFAD

            Not even going to expand this one. I’m going to assume you want to discuss more things from two years ago like they’re still relevant, in which case, I’m just going to laugh at you and move on with my life, as is my new SOP for attention whores. Starting to remember how pathetic it was to chase me around this blog, yet? Have you remembered how you were humiliated by me, over and over? LOL Of course you have. That’s why you keep replying, right fucktard? You’re lonely! LOLOLOL

          • Aww… look at the little glibertarian wailing away as he falls deeper and deeper into his volcano of bullshit.

            This bill was originally cosponsored by 22 D’s and 6 R’s. This bill would stand a chance in a House run by Democrats. These, and other, facts that you can’t deal with cause you to launch personal attacks and anal sex jokes as you spiral further and further away from the basic facts at hand.

            It’s really quite enjoyable.

          • wowFAD

            Not reading this either. Blah blah, my name is Scott and I’m such an idiot that I don’t know what year it is. LOLOLOLOL

          • Everyone watch while the Glibertarian Troll sticks his fingers in his ears and three-year-olds his way into his room. Such a spectacle. Rarely have I seen so much effort expended to avoid a point.

          • wowFAD

            The point that, if your daughter had as many dicks coming out of her as she’s had going in, she’d look like a porcupine? LOL

          • Aww,, now look at the poor little Glibertarian… Has to resort to such nasty tactics to make himself feel better… Flailing now, Wowzy, as you circle the drain…

          • wowFAD

            Nope, just planting thoughts in your head. How does it feel knowing your daughter is the biggest sperm dumpster on the east coast?

          • Your obsession with sex is funny, but my daughter and her friends jokingly insult each other better than you have insulted her here.

            Now, show me how brave you can be from behind your fake name some more.

            Meanwhile, this bill was originally cosponsored by 22 D’s and 6 R’s. And that really pisses you off, doesn’t it?

          • wowFAD

            Right, right — “jokingly” is the adverb used by all daughters to assure their fathers they’re not going to show up in a video, someday. I’m sure everything on her facebook is said “jokingly,” Scott. Instead of throwing barbs, perhaps you should ask Spencer if he likes knowing his father is dumb enough to be an asshole online using his real name. I use a nonsense username mainly because, unlike you, I believe in keeping my loved ones safe. Robin would probably be disappointed if she found out about your behavior — she’d be even more upset if it came knocking, one day. What you don’t understand, being a dip-shit, is that the internet is full of REAL people. Not only have you elected to put yourself out there, you dragged your family with you. So while it is fun to watch you squirm, I’d like to remind you there’s a REASON people post anonymously, asshole. Your arrogance might cost you dearly — one day. An accident might happen, and you’ll wonder “was it that *last* person I pissed off?” So while you might feel really brave posting under your name, I’d strongly encourage you to be a little less of a card-carrying antagonist. Your family may never thank you for being polite, but they may hate you for being an asshole — one day. I suggest you take the warning for what it is. You’re not the first asshole I’ve shutdown simply by sending his wife a transcript.

          • More evasion, bullshit, name calling and personal attacks. This is what you resort to when you can’t argue. Quite tiresome.

            “You’re not the first asshole I’ve shutdown simply by sending his wife a transcript.”

            Pitiful. My wife loves the fact that I antagonize people like you.

            But, hey, if you’re going to start threatening me, I say, keep talking, wingnut.

          • wowFAD

            Uh huh. I guess we’ll see, won’t we? That’s the beauty of knowing you’re married. I don’t have to get out of my chair to make your life a living hell. All I have to do is show your wife I tried to caution you against putting your family at risk on the internet, that you ignored the warning, and she’s going to make your life a living hell for putting your pride before their welfare.

            You see, I’m going to let her know that you’re only acting like an asshole, fortunately, because I’m a liberal and *not* a right-wing anything. Nobody on my end of things is going to cut up the family cat and leave it on the front door step. However, that’s what the people you claim to enjoy “antagonizing” do when they get really mad. Were I actually a “wingnut,” your family would be in danger. Which either makes you a liar and coward, because you know I’m not a “wingnut,” or you’re an idiot twice over for provoking people on the internet using your real name. It took me all of ten minutes to get the names of both your children, your wife, and your address in NY. It wasn’t hard because you make it easy.

            So we’ll see how your wife responds when the internet reaches out to caution your family against YOUR rampant arrogance and idiocy. I can understand accidentally going to the webpage from two years ago, but now, you’re actually demonstrating REAL stupidity. Looks like I can send a copy to your mother-in-law, as well. Or maybe she’s your mother. Either way, won’t this be fun?

          • been there

            Although I’ve agreed with some of your previous posts in various threads, the fact that you resort to threats diminishes much of what you say.

          • wowFAD

            I don’t see how. The other reason I post anonymously is that my identity, and thus my personality, should have no affect on anything I’ve said — the words by themselves don’t become any more or less true depending on who said them.

            Actually, one of the reasons why Scott pisses me off so badly is that I refuse to let him know who I am. He’s constantly ascribing things to me that are not true in attempts to pull me into tangent political arguments. It’s been happening for well over six months, now. I’ve gotten tired of his abuse, and it’s going to stop. I’m a liberal. *Very* liberal. But Scott likes to pretend I’m a Republican simply because it entertains him to be obnoxious. After half a year of this nonsense, I’ve decided to make it stop.

            I’ve had similar issues with other people, before. And I *did* handle it precisely the same way. The reason “antagonists” (trolls) take their act to the internet is that they can’t assert their identity in real life. Which means their real lives can always snap them back into behaving like a person, or at the very least, make them go away. I suspect Scott, like the last one, will wilt away as soon as his wife, his kids, and his mother know what he’s been doing. Scott has a personal grudge with me, and the only way to settle it is by getting personal. Tattling on him to his family, in my opinion, is the quickest and easiest way to be rid of him, permanently. That is, unless you have a better suggestion that I haven’t already tried.

          • been there

            You really believe that using a pseudonym keeps you safe???
            .
            I’m pretty sure Snowden made a very good point:You are not as anonymous as you think you are.

          • wowFAD

            Actually, you’re as anonymous as you want to be. All you need to exist on the internet is an email address to which you know the password. All other things follow from there. If your real name isn’t associated with it, all they can do is log the last IP from which you checked that email.

            The notion that the federal government has a microscope on every corner of the Internet is a deliberately vague, unquantifiable impossibility. Sure, they might try to retain as much information as possible in hopes of making use of it, but it requires a human being to sit down and read it *to* make use of it. The metaphor of the feds tracking our “digital fingerprints” is not nearly as apt as them following us around and scooping up our digital feces by the truckload.

            Each of us have gaps of knowledge in our understanding of the world — don’t let people fill yours in with whatever makes you most anxious. The overwhelming majority of us will never warrant the type of scrutiny you’re worried about.

    • Bob Mylow

      Unfortunately the representative’s that are silent for their states . Are not in office for their states or their people but only to represent the special interest groups that paid for their elections. More about who they really work for should be made public. When they fail to vote in the better interest of their states should be made note and used too bar them from future reelection. Failing to do the job there elected for should not be allowed.

      • wowFAD

        It’s not much better at the state level. In Georgia, the Senate Majority Leader defeated a CBD-only bill in 2014 at the behest of her puppet-masters in the health and pharmaceutical industries. Not that the bill would have helped anyone without in-state cultivation, anyway. But to reward her for killing the bill, she received over $100k in campaign contributions for the 2014 cycle… …to run unopposed. The vast majority of politicians at every level are corrupt and complicit in our system of open bribery.

    • Lizzard Smith

      Thank you for that! The only things I can add from my days since Richard Nixon the corrupt made his announcement that the feds have declared war on the people of the United Police States of America by declalairing a’war on drugs’ (and poverty and crime and non whites like hippies, bikers, anyone with long hair, rock & roll and any poor soul of color) he set in motion corruption of like that hasn’t been seen since Alfonse Capone. Very few of our “Representatives” stand for the electorate, they stand only for the money that comes from Big Pharma and the cartels. Leonhart was recent proof that the cops will ignore the law just to feed the penal system and themselves. If we really want to quit living in that past we have to elect those we can trust (if that’s even possible) are not already bought and owned by the Cartels like the DEA and make them work for legalization in their first term or there won’t be a second. Fire ALLrouge outfits like the DEA and stand between lobbyists and the houses and end this corruption once and for all. once the money is taken out of the equation they’ll all have no choice but the girl back and do their job and do the job that we hire them for. if they don’t fire them or do not reelect them. And tell them why! But too few are not already dipping into the Cartel budget. As we have seen with the DEA and the constant killing by state and local police it may have been too late in 1973. Only MLK Jr. sized demos and mass unemployment in federal police dpts. as well as reps being replaced at a quick rate will convince them that we want total surrender of this war by them on us. 9r convince your state to stand up to the federal Reefer madne$$ so we can get a landslide they can’t stop. I live in New Hampshire, qualify for medpot but not one ID card or joint has been issued due to a prosecutor who thinks its wrong cause the Bible told him so. Must be where he keeps the Cartel $$$ he gets. Just because the press says we have medpot all we have is a law that like the DEA 5he state has seemed to ignore. May be 2hy so little is heard from New England, all we have are promises that look like bald faced lies.

  • Let’s be sure to watch this closely so we know who’s responsible for killing it. Again.