A bipartisan team of Reps. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Ron Paul, R-Texas, will introduce federal legislation that would permit states to legalize, regulate, tax and control marijuana without federal interference.

The legislation will be unveiled Thursday by Frank, an outspoken liberal Democrat, and the libertarian Paul, who is running for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

The bill would limit the U.S. government role in marijuana enforcement to interdiction of cross-border or inter-state smuggling. Citizens would be able to legally grow, use or sell cannabis in states which have legalized the forbidden weed.

The legislation is the first bill to be introduced in Congress that would end federal marijuana prohibition…

The legislation follows a report by the Global Commission on Drug Policy, released early this month, that pronounced the War on Drugs a failure and advocated legal regulation of marijuana.

A breath of fresh air in Congress. Maybe a little smoke, too.

  1. Micromike says:

    #6 is right.
    #11 is wrong. America is all about changing bad laws not living with them.
    #14 – It was Randolph Hearst, newspaper publisher and yellow journalist of the 33rd degree.

    In a free country marijuana would be legal as it was in America until 1937 when evil industrialists demonized the most promising anti cancer medicine we have and the safest therapeutically effective substance known to mankind, it is the ONLY medicine with no side effects.

    Supporting a corrupt government like ours is not patriotic it is stupid folly that leads to tyranny. America – fix it or suffer.

  2. Buzz Mega says:

    They’re just using sanity as another one of their nefarious tricks. This idea sounds good on the surface, and it’s good under the surface, but it’s a dangled lollipop to lull us into a sense of feeling like there are sane people in government. Next thing you know… BAM!… they’ll start taxing the rich.

  3. murderofcrows says:

    Indeed. Hemp of any type should be legal.

  4. goldbug says:

    #25 bobbo, 18th amendment aside, no doubt if it were only the “ignorant, violent negroes” partaking of alcohol the feds would have gotten away with outlawing it beyond the remit of the constitution.

    Out of curiosity, what would have been the 1920 justification of alcohol prohibition absent an amendment, the commerce clause? That seems a popular one, along with the “fuck you, I’m president, I can bomb who I want” clause.

  5. bobbo, in Repose says:

    Goldbug–exactly so. The CC has destroyed any limitation on Federal Power all as interpreted by liberal and conservative courts since day one. When you can’t grow and consume your own plants on your own property because it “affects” interstate commerce AND you can’t NOT BUY health insurance because it affects interstate commerce==there is NOTHING that does not affect interstate commerce. The damnable thing is that that is absolutely true BUT the rights/powers/duties in the Const must all be balanced off against one another. The CC is never balanced by the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property/err–happiness.

    Its outrageous. Its the way it is.

  6. Mr. Fusion says:

    All the power to them.

    Don’t look for any tax revenue though. This stuff grows like a weed. In your basement.

  7. bobbo, in Repose says:

    Goldbug–on further reflection, I don’t want to “project” todays Courts attitude to back then. A quick google turned this short interesting article up:


    saying that 90 years ago the USSC was upholding states rights so the Feds countered by establishing a tax on drugs and alcohol. On drugs it was meant to “trap” drug dealers on tax evasion/failure to comply. Probably something similar was going on with Alcohol too along with many states making it illegal.

    Always amuses me the blather given to our “inalienable rights given by god” but if your government doesn’t agree, you don’t get to exercise them in the open and isn’t that really the point?

    FREEEEEEEEDOM—someone else doing something you don’t like.

  8. President Amabo says:

    Christ, what is the world coming to when I have to support something Barney Frank proposes? On the other hand, others have pointed out the forces that will prevent it from actually happening.

  9. aslightlycrankygeek says:

    Uggh… if this passes I would think of Barney Frank while smoking pot. I wouldn’t say this makes up for all the damage he has done to this country, but it is a start.

    It sounds like most of the people here are fine with the novel concept of letting states decide their own rules for themselves. Why not letting them decide other controversial issues like abortion laws, health care, etc? If anything, drug laws are probably one of the worst things to try to enforce at the state level because the US was set up in such a way to allow for one border around all of the states and easy interstate travel and commerce with defense and border enforcement at the national level.

  10. Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

    Fox News John Stossel and Judge Napolitano make a good argument for ending prohibition…just like the last prohibition, this isn’t working.


  11. Chris Mac says:


    the only thing we are missing out on is the socialist tax revenue

  12. Mr. Fusion says:


    the only thing we will be missing out on is the fascist gulag population.

  13. Jess Hurchist says:

    #31 microMike “it is the ONLY medicine with no side effects.”
    I think the side effects are why it is so popular.

  14. tcc3 says:

    #36 Mr Fusion

    You can grow vegetables in your backyard too, but there’s still demand at the supermarket produce stand. And Farmers Markets.

    Some people have black thumbs. More people are lazy. Some cant roll – would like the convenience of prepackaging.

    Never underestimate the industry advantage from the laziness of the general public.

  15. t0llyb0ng says:

    My little county in southeast Kansas could grow fabulous hemp. But we’re collectively too dumb to grow hemp & so we are poor—& we deserve to be.

  16. kerpow says:

    #11 What consequences are you talking about?

  17. Uncle Patso says:

    #31 microMike: “it is the ONLY medicine with no side effects.”

    Back in the ’70s, a friend of mine who never allowed tobacco smoking in his place happened upon one of those free chest X-ray vans and went in. They found a spot on one of his lungs. Did I mention he never smoked tobacco?

  18. Uncle Patso says:

    Uh, what were we just talking about?

  19. Mr. Fusion says:


    I understand your comparison, BUT,…

    I used to grow pot in my window back when I was in college. Whenever company came to visit I would just pluck a few leaves, dry them in the oven, and enjoy. Not a super buzz but enjoyable because of the freshness and always available. (ah ya, good times)

    Those who want a nice buzz occasionally will not be paying high prices for commercially grown and TAXED product. The medicinal crowd probably would unless their favorite nephew grows his own.

  20. So what says:

    #40 alfie how progressive of you.

  21. Anonymous says:

    FRY ANYONE WHO GETS HIGH and then gets behind the wheel or behind handlebars. Otherwise, tax the hell out of it and definitely LEGALIZE IT! Same goes for PROSTITUTION too, like they already do in Nevada!!! That way the government can at least CONTROL it. Right? I mean, do you REALLY think ANYONE is controlling it NOW?! Just ask the poor SOB’s in Phoenix how well this war on drugs is going.

    Maybe we should even think about legalizing EVERYTHING! After all, isn’t one of our American “rights” that to pursue HAPPINESS?!

    (Want to bring this thought experiment out any further? Then let’s all be like Amsterdam! After all, everyone knows how much “better” it is in Europe. Right? …NOT!)


Bad Behavior has blocked 13484 access attempts in the last 7 days.