It's about time. And no, I don't smoke pot. I don't even drink. But this inane war on drugs costs too much money, does not deter drug use and actually creates crime, and is big government protecting us from ourselves in the worst way.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/30/ ... index.html

Current laws targeting marijuana users place undue burdens on law enforcement resources, punish ill Americans whose doctors have prescribed the substance and unfairly affect African-Americans, Frank said, flanked by legislators and representatives from advocacy groups.

"The vast amount of human activity ought to be none of the government's business," Frank said during a Capitol Hill news conference. "I don't think it is the government's business to tell you how to spend your leisure time." Allen St. Pierre, spokesman for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, likened the proposal to current laws dealing with alcohol consumption. Alcohol use is permitted and the government focuses its law enforcement efforts on those who abuse booze or drive under its influence, he said.

"We do not arrest and jail responsible alcohol drinkers," he said.

St. Pierre said there were tens of million of marijuana smokers in the United States, including himself, and hundreds of thousands are arrested each year for medical or personal use.

In a shot at Republicans, Frank said it was strange that those who support limited government want to criminalize marijuana.

Legalize all drugs, then regulate and tax their consumption. We need a free-market solution to this intractable problem.

I agree. And IMO this legislation doesn't go far enough. But it's a baby step.

Anyone who thinks the federal government would do this is living in a fantasy world. I do love Barney Frank, though.

Barney Frank for President!

I first met Barney when I was a lobbyist with Americans for Democratic Action in Boston in the late 80s. His sister, Ann Lewis, was head of ADA at the time and later went to work for the Clinton White House. Barney was always the most intelligent and funniest politician I ever met.

I remember his campaign posters: He was overweight, sitting at a desk covered in clutter, with his tie askew -- and the slogan he used was "Neatness isn't everything. Frank for Congress."

I think Rep. Frank is right except in one instance; both parties are in favor of the war on drugs as are probably the majority of Americans. Too bad because the government could actually make some money in this area like the states do with tobacco taxes.

i have no problem legalizing marijuana. I don't smoke but the simple fact is it is wasting government time and money.

Not only does the failed war on drugs waste government money, high drug prices also provide the main source of income for criminal organizations and terrorist groups. This is a major security threat. Remember that Al Qaeda is primarily funded by heroin sales. Oppressing markets failed for communists; why would it work better for us?

One way to sink the heroin market is to soak up the entire Afghan poppy supply with the medical opiate market -- God knows we need more of that.

One can only wish.

No. Weed is too powerful of a gateway drug. As a former habitual user, I know whats good. Weeds the devil!

Still, Im opposed to anything making it easier to access.

First of all, cigarettes and alcohol are also so-called gateway drugs. Do you support legalizing those too?

Second, why not then just make all drugs legal and regulate them? Why is this the government's business?

legalize heroin, coke, and lsd?

Um pass.

Again, why is this the government's business? Do you know what alcohol does to the body? That's legal. Do you know what Vicodin and Oxycontin do to the body? Those are both legal too. What's the difference? Why the hypocrisy?

While I support decriminalizing marijuana, I don't agree with making everything legal.

I mean, geez, why not just get rid of the Food and Drug Administration and allow people to use asbestos in thier homes or allow companies to add cancer-causing chemicals to their food? Why can't we buy oxycontin without a prescription, or morphine, or any damn substance we want?

I mean, isn't that what freedom is all about?

We do. And cigarettes, a known cancer risk, is legal without a prescription of any kind.



I'm not a libertine. I said that they should be regulated. But the fact is that you can get Oxycontin legally. Couldn't you do the same with heroin and PCP, make it legal with a prescription?

Then shouldn't Oxycontin be illegal? And Vicodin? And morphine? And tobacco? And alcohol? Or is your argument simply in defense of the status quo? I'd say the benefits of legalization would outweigh the benefits of continued criminalization for a variety of reasons - more revenue for the govt, less crime, fewer people in prison, and the less calculable de-mystification.

I'd argue that the health costs wouldn't change since there probably wouldn't be any more or fewer people using than there are already.

But in any case, you guys aren't addressing my central question. Why the double-standard? We have plenty of destructive LEGAL drugs. And we have plenty of destructive illegal drugs. And there seems to be no rhyme or reason to any of it.

And that's starting with pot, which is less harmful than alcohol but still illegal.



I'd say that's the case with banning these substances in the first place. We're wasting millions of dollars on a futile effort that does little but create more crime and more criminals while not reducing drug use one iota.

It is probably true that if all drugs were legalized, usage would rise. However, I fail to see why it is anybody's business what a person chooses to use. Like Beeble said, we could regulate them through the Congress's Commerce Powers. Put age restrictions in place and force people to use them in safe environments, like a home.

So long as a drug user isn't harming you directly (I don't count macroeconomically), I don't think it is your business what a person does -- even if that thing could potentially kill them.

Holy shit, KidRock and I totally agree on something! Mark your calendars!

It sounds like YOU do.



If you can't please everyone, then shouldn't we err on the side of freedom instead of banning every fucking thing that upsets a few people?

Well I don't really like your ability to go on the internet whenever you want. I guess that makes your internet usage MY business and it's okay for me to have the government ban you from doing it, right?

Nope, it's very simple. I think a substance should be legal until there is a compelling public reason for it to be illegal. I err on the side of freedom. And no one has yet provided any reason at all, let alone a compelling one, why alcohol or Oxycontin should be legal but not pot or heroin.

Your use of the internet right now is affecting me a lot more than some dude smoking pot in his living room. Yep, you should definitely be banned from using the internet. That's my morals and I get to force them on you whether you like it or not, right?



You mean my grand idea of letting people be responsible for their own lives doing something that harms no one but themselves? I wish I could take credit for that, but you'd have to go back a lot further to give credit where credit is due.

Isn't Oxycontin a Schedule II drug and therefore requires a prescription? Or do you mean legal as in not wholesale banned?

That's really my point. I err on the side of civil liberty. You, for reasons beyond me, err on the side of government taking away our choices.

You do understand what country you live in, don't you?