H.R. 5843, Act to Remove Federal Penalties for Personal Use of Marijuana by Adults

[keep_it_real]

Act to Remove Federal Penalties for the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults - Prohibits the imposition of any penalty under an Act of Congress for the possession of marijuana for personal use or for the not-for-profit transfer between adults of marijuana for personal use.

Deems the possession of 100 grams or less of marijuana as personal use (one ounce or less for a not-for-profit transfer between adults).

Allows the imposition of a civil penalty under the Controlled Substances Act for the public use of marijuana if such penalty does not exceed $100.

- States Rights: Allows states to decide if and how they wish to prosecute possessors of small quantities of Marijuana. By eliminating federal penalties for such possession, the Commerce Clause will no longer pre-empt state law with respect to low-level possession.

http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_5843.html

110th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 5843

To eliminate most Federal penalties for possession of marijuana for personal use, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

April 17, 2008

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts (for himself and Mr. PAUL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To eliminate most Federal penalties for possession of marijuana for personal use, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Act to Remove Federal Penalties for the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults'.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF CERTAIN MARIJUANA-RELATED PENALTIES.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no penalty may be imposed under an Act of Congress for the possession of marijuana for personal use, or for the not-for-profit transfer between adults of marijuana for personal use. For the purposes of this section, possession of 100 grams or less of marijuana shall be presumed to be for personal use, as shall the not-for-profit transfer of one ounce or less of marijuana, except that the civil penalty provided in section 405 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 844a) may be imposed for the public use of marijuana if the amount of the penalty does not exceed $100.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.5843:

[kestrel91316]

1. OMG. Dare we hope??

I know this won't happen under Bush, but maybe it could happen under Obama.

It's really the only way to get the DEA to LAY THE HELL OFF the harrassment of medical marijuana users here in CA.

[tabasco]

14. Rational drug laws should be a priority.

The idiotic laws have had the same success as Prohibition.

[reggie the dog]

32. states would still be free to bust people

but this law seems much more in line with the constitution seeing as the right to smoke cannabis is not overtly stated in the constitution one can assume that it is a right either garded by the people or their states.

[krispos42]

42. But states are working towards that as well

California is almost 10% of the population and they've decriminalized it, right? And Oregon as well?

With gay marriage and 100% legal pot, California may be seeing a population explosion soon!

[kestrel91316]

48. Here in CA we have the right to use medical marijuana, and if the

feds decriminalized it, that would be the nail in the coffin for the minimal enforcement of possession laws we have now for nonmedical users.

If TX or SC or ND or wherever wants to be neanderthals about it, that is their problem. One MORE reason for me to stay away from conservative states and not spend my consumer dollars there..

[dave123williams]

52. Agreed. Oklahoma can look forward to NEVER getting my business.

You know, they can throw you in jail in OK for 99 years for the possession of a single plant.

Thank God for California. I'll be sure to wave down to Oklahoma the next time I fly over it.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. Good grief, it's about time, people!

Let's decriminalize this, and get on with the serious questions of the day!

I hope this passes...

Old bushbot will most likely veto it, if it gets that far...

But at least it's an opening salvo!

K&R

:patriot:

[Edweird]

3. That's cool. Realistically, I think it has zero chance, but who knows....

[tridim]

4. It has zero chance until February 2009.

Which is a shame because Americans are obviously sick of the war on Cannabis users. They have been for awhile now.

[Edweird]

5. The "war on drugs" is a big racket. Affected parties will make their

position known and that will be the end of it.

[cloudbase]

6. Agreed.

There is way too much money at stake for law enforcement agencies and the private prisons for anything to change.

[defendandprotect]

54. True . . . the corruption . .. the involvement of government/justic officials . . .

none of this could be happening without the involvement of high government officials and
members of law enforcement ---

LOTS of money involved --- Golden Triangle -- world power ---

[pattmarty]

27. Yeah, that "war" has been going on for over 30 yrs and has.......

....not gotten any better, but hundreds of times worse.

[HereSince1628]

36. I think "Reefer Madness" was made back in the '30s so

that 'war' has been going on much longer than 30 years.

"Smoke some rope" and "Put that in your pipe and smoke it" were common expressions when I was a kid in the 50's.

[AlbertCat]

43. When Hemp was Hip

That's the title of a CD of songs from the 20's 30's and 40's about "tea" and the "vipers" who smoke it. Great music!

[defendandprotect]

55. Can't Hemp also be used as a fuel . . .?

This crop is a HUGE threat to the monopolies we have going in energy, etal ---
especially re free thinking!!

[Jackpine Radical]

62. Hemp has a lot of industrial uses.

Fabric, rope, hemp oil, paper...a pretty long list, all told.

One story I heard was that William Randolph Hearst put on a campaign to outlaw hemp so as to increase the value of his forest holdings by eliminating hemp as a competetor for paper making.

[defendandprotect]

63. Right . . . HEMP is a champion threat to those controlling our natural resources . . .

and is being controlled because it's related to cannabis ---
though I haven't lately read the differences and the connections so I'm
passing on that right now --- but obviously something we should all know and understand.

[Jackpine Radical]

66. I think hemp is just a low-THC variety of Cannabis sativa.

[reggie the dog]

73. only low THC since the law says industrial hemp

must be low THC, centuries ago when THC content was not regulated many stands of "industrial hemp" were just cannabis sativa and it was hit or miss whether or not you had good smoking quality flowers.

[Grinchie]

69. Oldest surviving written document in the world is made from Hemp.

One acre of hemp has more cellulose that 10 acres of softwood, in one season compared to ten years.

Hemp was a mandatory crop in WWII when it was used for Fiber, lubricants, and fuel. The Government paid farmers to grow it.

Unfortunately, DuPont and Hearst had just invented Nylon, and hearst had millions of acres of Forests that he wanted to harvest for cellulose, so they came up with the foreign sounding name, Marijuana, which scared the hicks into believing it was something else. World War II came along and the U.S. Government fell back on an easily produced commodity that didn't use up precious oil in its production.

Even the AMA was not aware that Marijuana was the same as Hemp until after the law against it was passed, and when it was realized what was passed, many doctors spoke out against it.

This sad state of affairs was continued during the Vietnam War, since the US was struggling to fulffill the promise of perpetual war, and the War on Drugs, just like the War of Terror, is ambiguous, has no clear resolution, and ultimately neverending.

Reagan, Bush, Clinto, Clinton, Bush continued subsidizing Monsanto for Herbicide flights in Columbia, which now kill secondary crops cause they are dumping so much of it.

Thats right, you pay for it.

[reggie the dog]

72. food, fuel, clothing and hash, all at once from the same plant

And I do not mean "the same plant" as in hemp in general. I mean you can take one plant and make ethanol from the stalks, food from the seeds, and drugs by making hash when you shake the flowers to get the seeds out. It is true that if you grow for buds you get less seeds if any at all, but if you grow for food and fuel you can still make great hash the Moroccan way by shaking the flowers and collecting the seeds while letting the thc and resin fall through. Now as for the stalks, it is the cellulose in the stalks that makes good ethanol, you can use the fiber from the same plant that you took the fuel, food, and hash from, to make clothing.

[jody]

7. Perhaps reporters will ask Obama and McCain if they support HR 5843. n/t

[99th_Monkey]

9. I hope reporters don't ask. Wait until after election.

this is the last thing I want the Rethugs to be able to accuse Obama of being a "dope pusher pandering
to his pot-head base" blah blah. And if Obama says he DOESN'T support it now, so then he's committed
himself to be against it on the campaign trail; which could be brought up as a "flip flop" if he changes
and supported HR5843 later.

I say let this sleeping dog lie until after Jan. 20 09.

BTW-I totally support this, it's just a timing thing.

[jody]

13. Good points but IMO some reporter will ask the question. n/t

[99th_Monkey]

15. Just between you and me.

Pssst. Don't tell anyone, but I'm pretty sure I heard this mentioned during the early primary season
by Kucinich supporters as a reason they don't support Obama (that he's on record as being opposed to
legalization of pot because it would be "a bad example for the youth" or some such.

my point is there's NOTHING constructive I can see about having this become a big issue in the GE.
The less strongly Obama's forced to come out against it before the GE, the more chance he has of "rethinking"
the issue later and decide to support it.

[Trillo]

22. Republican wedge issue.

It's not "marijuana legalization" at all levels, so, it's a "state's rights issue"

Just a thought.

[druidity33]

25. let's be clear

this bill only discusses DECRIMINALIZATION... which is entirely different from LEGALIZING. Obama has said he is against Legalization, but he has been somewhat open to Medical MJ. Remember, his mom was sick for a long time and i believe he understands the need for effective pain medication.

This could bite him in the but, but i think if he talks about his mom and her death and the pain she endured, people won't be so critical of his stance.

:shrug:

[PermanentRevolution]

18. Yeah, of course they will...

And they'll do it for the exact reason described above - to box Obama into a corner on drug policy. The press loves their fabricated issues.

Realistically, this has no chance of passing, and probably wouldn't even in February - politicians are so terrified of being called "soft on drugs" that they'll keep dumping billions into a failed drug policy that hasn't produced a single credible result in reducing demand, but has resulted in hundreds and hundreds of thousands of arrests for what should be an issue of personal choice.

[jody]

20. See #19 re GLBT issues. Obama is already boxed in on one divisive, polarizing,

governmental-destructive issue.

[defendandprotect]

57. Like all the other issues, this is a very serious problem effecting much

of our societies, jails, enforcement ---

And, we should all be speaking out for legalization of marijuana ---

The GOP has made it such a taboo subject that it isn't discussed, but rarely ---

It's another issue controlled by FEAR --- parents fearing that their kids will
get hooked/get in trouble --- whereas, IMO, kids are more threatened by these laws --
and not treating this as a health issue.

[Hippo_Tron]

16. Obama will say "No, but we do need to take a closer look at sentencing laws"

Unfotunately I don't see Obama using the Oval Office to lead us in this direction. However, he won't be a roadblock either which is a start.

[sudopod]

17. He seems like the sort who could be reasoned with.

Unlike certain er...deciders. :p

[jody]

19. Obama said he would use the presidential bully pulpit to support GLBT issues, why not this one? n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

21. Because the American public has been brainwashed for decades on this issue

And it's difficult if not impossible to win an election if you don't take that into consideration. On GLBT issues we've made significant progress in the past few decades and we're getting to the point where politicians feel comfortable supporting GLBT issues.

[jody]

23. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. n/t

[defendandprotect]

58. Well, we also have to bust thru on this subject -- keep talking it up, bringing it up ---

Especially get the corporate-press to take it off their "taboo" lists and deal
with it more honestly --

Drug war as a big busines ---
obvious corruption of government officials/justice officials ---

Prison population ---

And, overall, common sense says this is a health issue ---

[Grinchie]

70. Obama has already said he supports decriminalizing Marijuana

I saw it in a speech the other day, and I was impressed.

For those that are too timid to actually speak up for their rights deserve what they get.

I am not afraid to speak my support for a natural product that has many other uses than to get one "High", which is just an escape for someone that has nothing better to do with their brain.

Look at Hemp for the myriad benefits it provides and it becomes clear that a blanket prohibition is ludicrous.

I for one look forward to the day when I can use products that don't involve Oil-based plastics or chemicals in any way.

[jody]

8. Why was the bill referred to House Energy and Commerce committee? n/t

[eShirl]

11. maybe this:"By eliminating federal penalties for such possession, the Commerce Clause will no longer

...pre-empt state law with respect to low-level possession."

[jody]

12. Thanks. n/t

[undeterred]

10. The Democratic rep in my state who is a doctor opposes this.

Steve Kagen.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. Doctors often oppose

As protectionism. Cannibis is medicine for many ailments and has been for all time. Dr Kagen wants to get $150 dollars and sell you some meds when you get a tummy ache, not see you hit the bong and have the ache vanish. If you get glaucoma, he wants you on lifetime chemical drugs, and he wants payment every quarter to give you those drugs.
Greed. That is all it is. Greed and a desire to control.

[undeterred]

47. Kagen declined Congresional health insurance

till everyone has it, and he's sponsored some very progressive bills, including one trying to end discrimination in health care against people with pre-existing conditions.

I think he's wrong on this, but I don't know his reasoning.

[defendandprotect]

59. How many of us tell our doctors this --- ask for their cooperation on

legalizing marijuana and ending the filthy drug war - ??

Or, even the most obvious one --- tell them why they should support single payer health care--???

[Romulox]

45. The prison-guard unions will oppose it as well. It's called naked self-interest. nt

[pleah]

24. K&R I hope they pass this!

[pattmarty]

26. Barney Frank did what he said he would................

.........and good for him. Not only is he an extremely bright guy, he's pretty cool to boot. As far as Ron Paul goes, he is a "true" Libertarian not just one of those "compassionate conservatives".

[AlbertCat]

44. As far as Ron Paul goes, he is a "true" Libertarian

Then why does his "libertarian" ass want to outlaw abortion? I guess libertarianism doesn't extend to women's wombs.

Ron Paul is a Repug nut. The only difference is he's not a war monger. And this only appears like a badge of honor because he is a Repug. But he is a Repug, and don't you forget it.

Flat taxes. Get real!

[pattmarty]

50. Be cool!!!!!!!!!!!!! What I meant was the guy has "Liberterian"....

...views and I AM IN NO WAY ENDORSING HIS VIEWS. There are, believe it or not, people on the right (not too many) that actually believe their "values" are the true way to go. I call them the "true believers". Like I said, VERY few, but I think Paul is one of those. Myself I am probably more to the "left" than you are, I describe myself as just to the right of Karl Marx. Some of my "beliefs" state financed (Federal) education system for K-16 (if you don't want to go to college, 4 yrs of trade/technical school), TOTALLY paid single payer healthcare for EVERYFUCKINGBODY, re-regulation of all business varying degrees depending on how much damage each can do to the social environment. So, to make this long story short, I AM NOT A SUPPORTER OF RON PAUL IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM.

[reggie the dog]

74. anti abortion, or pro states rights?

I thought he wanted states to decide on abortion? He seems to be a libertarian but he considers a fetus to be alive and wants to protect its rights, though he is open enough to let each state choose.

[Phred42]

28. The JAIL Corporations (and Lobby) won't like this one little bit

:rofl:


:popcorn:

[psychmommy]

29. in nj we are experiencing severe overcrowding in

our prisons and jails. low level marijuana users have to compete with resources needed for crack, meth, pcp and heroin abusers which are devastating our young. we are also dealing with increased gang violence. it may become a necessity to look the other way on low level marijuana possession as our resources diminish. i say package it in a 5 or 10 pack similar to cigs. tax the hell out of it and there will still be a revenue stream. put all of the requisite warnings and no sale to those under 21. it could be a boon to tobacco growers, if allowed to grow the evil weed and use those production facilities. it could be a win win for society. take the marijuana dealing from the street dealer to maybe the liquor store.

[tridim]

51. I have no doubt RJR would ruin Cannabis..

Genetically altering it and adding chemicals, just like they do with tobacco. No thanks.

Ideally we should shoot for legal hobby gardens, enough for personal use.

[ekwhite]

30. K&R

Now is the time to lobby your congressperson to vote yes on this bill.

[L. Coyote]

33. How about restoring voting rights for everyone too!

[paparush]

34. Oh, c'mon now! What, are you HIGH already?

:-) :sarcasm: :-)

[ocd liberal]

35. K & R & off to wake and bake right now!

[iamahaingttta]

37. Mmm... wake and bake!

If I didn't have to go to work for a few hours, that's what I would be doing now.

Marijuana being illegal is just dumb.
That is all...

[NorthCarolina]

38. What are the odds of this passing?

eom

[jwirr]

39. I hope this one passes. Too many lives down the drain for a pleasure

that is no worse than smoking and drinking.

[Canuckistanian]

40. So THAT's the cause of all the scary "Marijuana is more potent" BS from the WH

They always ramp up these scare tactics just before a big vote on something.

Obviously, they think this one might catch on.

[mopinko]

41. i have been hearing about that super bud for 30+ years

know anyone who has some?

i believe barney frank joked that he wanted to call it the "make room for real criminals act"
i heartily concur with that sentiment.

[tridim]

53. Actually I do know people with super bud.

But the reason is no mystery. They buy Cannabis that has been grown with care using the best genetics, selected for top potency and aroma. It's exactly like buying top quality produce at the farmer's market.

I also know people who buy crappy bud. It's crappy because it was grown without care, quick dried, compressed and smuggled into the country.

Both types have been available since the day Cannabis was criminalized.

[tekisui]

46. KNR! Keep up the good fight Bernie!

[baghdad_bush]

49. Getting ready to celebrate: time to roll a fat one.....

You should always be ready...

[bamacrat]

56. The time has come for this country to remove the marijuana blinders.

It is not harmful and is exponentially more beneficial and useful than any legal substance ever made. Go Barney Go.

:smoke:

[Jackpine Radical]

60. It's about goddam time.

Like we don't have enough legitimate purposes for our tax money without spending it hassling harmless potheads.

[defendandprotect]

61. Meanwhile, we're also suppressing Hemp, one of the most useful crops ----

It's all about money and control --- corruption at highest levels ---

Going to take a lot of power to reverse all of this garbage ---

[Metta]

64. An enlightened proposition.

Kudos to Barney Frank and those who support it. It's way past overdue to decriminalize it.

[nikto]

65. KKKonservatives and The Corporate Right would DIE first!!

Pot is too much a symbol for obsessed Kultural KKKonservatives
to EVER give up the emotional release obtained by screaming about
the 60s, hippies stoned commies, etc etc

And the Corporate folks?

They stand to lose Billion$$ in pharmecutical profits
as millions of Americans self-medicate with cannabis at
a fraction of the cost of many prescription drug$.

To anyone with any common sense,
legalizing pot is the right thing to do, the MORAL thing,
the compassionate thing, and the practical thing,
but the American rightwing
has nothing to gain from it & quite a bit of profit$ and
ideological fervor to lose.

[Grinchie]

67. OMG This can't be happening! Monsanto will lose Billions in lost Herbicide revenue!

Plus, the CIA Black Op's won't be able to make more money anymore.

Thousands of poor SWAT teams across the country will lose free flights in Helicopters to spy on people and raid grandma's herb garden.

Plus, whi will pay for all to tasers, M-16's and paddy wagons to haul away all those violent pot smokers.

Oh No!, less manadatory incarcerations will remove considerable numbers of non-violent criminals fromt the Private Correctional Facilities, so they will lose money too!

This bill will never pass, to many people make money from the this scam.

However, there is always hope that it will and we can get back to freedom from Government telling us a plant is not allowed to grow.

I'd like them to make GMO's against the law, because those are much worse.

[Rex]

68. It will never pass. Too much common sense and would save billions

not to mention it would free up the court system to go after real crime like corporate crime (Enron, Halliburton etc). It would be great to have sensible law enforcement in this country.

[TNOE]

71. Kick

[slackmaster]

75. I love Barney Frank!

He's Da Man!