House committee approves bill legalizing marijuana at the federal level

[milktree]

House committee approves landmark bill legalizing marijuana at the federal level

The legislation removes marijuana from schedule 1 of the Controlled Substances Act.

www.cnbc.com

If this passses, how long before pot use will no longer make someone a prohibited person?

 

[BREWINZ]

It won't pass the Senate, unfortunately. They all try to take your freedom. Just depends on the topic.

 

[rivet_42]

The "law and order" Republicans want to keep weed illegal (with the exception of a few small-l "libertarian" Republicans) and the Democrats want to keep the pool of people eligible to own guns as small as possible, so nothing's going to happen.

 

[Dadstoys]

Well at least we're getting the important stuff passed.

 

[Waher]

It won't pass the Senate, unfortunately. They all try to take your freedom. Just depends on the topic.

I wouldn't be so sure of that with all the CJ 'reform', potential revenue streams, and removing a major source of income/smuggling across the southern border, on the table.

I think Trump would sign a bill that let's individual states decide on the legality within their borders as long as the Feds get their cut of the taxes. Maybe even demand part of the taxes go to paying for the wall.

 

[Dench]

Well at least we're getting the important stuff passed.

Passing it definitely is important. Both from a cost savings, to massive revenue, to the .gov minding its own business.

It being illegal is completely retarded.

 

[Coda]

Question 11e...... on 4473
"Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside".

Even if it is legalized at the federal level I doubt they will eliminate 11e, The second warning part will be dropped as will the "unlawful user" part. But any admission of drug use legal or not is probably still going to be a deal breaker. So people will still have to lie and everything will reamain the same.

 

[Dench]

The question is simple.

Are you an unlawful [federally] user of X controlled substance.

If it's not illegal, it's not unlawful.

The only reason why MJ was specifically added was the federal situation is so retarded that they have to add this because any normal person would assume a doctor would know more about treatment than the ATF.

They can't and won't prohibit legal use of controlled substances. And if they do, papa bless. Because that is going to be some sexy case law.

 

[NH_Realtor]

Well at least we're getting the important stuff passed.

I believe common practice is to pass it to the left hand side.

 

[KBCraig]

It won't pass the Senate, unfortunately. They all try to take your freedom. Just depends on the topic.

The Senate is where freedom goes to die.

That's true in DC, as well as every state capitol except Nebraska (they have a unicameral legislature).

It gives representatives cover to vote for bills that will never become law.

 

[omega42]

The states have already decided this one. Fed is playing catch up.

 

[Rehoboth Dave]

I believe common practice is to pass it to the left hand side.

Right, clockwise, unless you're from "Down Under" then it's "Anti clockwise",.... or so I hear.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

The states have already decided this one. Fed is playing catch up.

That's my guess. The Fed wants a cut of the tax revenue just like on tobacco.

 

[Dench]

That's my guess. The Fed wants a cut of the tax revenue just like on tobacco.

They will definitely get it and no ones other guessed other wise. yet they still resist it. And in the meantime all the cash profits from any drug go into the black market. A world where if you're wronged you don't call a lawyer, you just got murder the person.

Drug prohibition has killed many, many times more people than it could ever dream of saving. I'm not exactly sure why there is a single bit of resistance towards legalization of pot especially.

 

[42!]

This is going to mess up my prediction that Trump has it reclassified, decriminalizing it on a Fed level, just before the election, thus pushing some on-the-fence voters to his side. He'll cover himself by saying he's not in favor of MJ but that it should be up to the individual States.

Now we wait and see....

 

[rsj]

Question 11e...... on 4473
"Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside".

Even if it is legalized at the federal level I doubt they will eliminate 11e, The second warning part will be dropped as will the "unlawful user" part. But any admission of drug use legal or not is probably still going to be a deal breaker. So people will still have to lie and everything will reamain the same.

The 4473 could require you to check Yes on the box "Are you a unicorn?" in order to pass the test. Everyone would go along with it.

 

[42!]

Question 11e...... on 4473
"Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside".

Even if it is legalized at the federal level I doubt they will eliminate 11e, The second warning part will be dropped as will the "unlawful user" part. But any admission of drug use legal or not is probably still going to be a deal breaker. So people will still have to lie and everything will reamain the same.

If it's legalized, it doesn't matter if they retain the first part. The question is "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to," what follows the comma are qualifiers limiting the actual question. So if you are an unlawful user of a boat, you don't have to answer yes to the question. If your use is not "unlawful" and you are not "addicted" nothing else matters. So even now, if you are legally using depressants, stimulants, or narcotics, you can answer No, provided you are not addicted. Of course this is all from a Fed law perspective.

Read carefully, those squiggly lines have meaning

 

[Dench]

In the face of:

-The War on Drugs being a massive failure resulting in millions of deaths
-trillions of dollars spent
-overseas governments meddled and toppled
-conflict of interests
-millions of people incarcerated for non violent offences (@ ~$50,000+ per year, our dime)
-alcohol being legal in the face of it which for human history has been the worst net drug for humanity
-fake scheduled schemes, i.e, pot at 1, when even hard core anti pot people would be unable to defend its position


The founding fathers didnt allow this shit. We had to amend the constitution to ban alcohol, and that was a fart in church even though at the time alcoholism was basically breaking the entire country. But now as a "free" adult I can't injest unauthorized substances for reasons. And we're now at the point where I can lose my car if caught with a f***ing vape in MA.

Dont. Support. Draconian. Bullshit. Under. Public. Safety.

Pretty please?

 

[Blackmore]

The Senate won't pass it because Trump's October surprise will be to legalize it by EO.

 

[drgrant]

Question 11e...... on 4473
"Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside".

Even if it is legalized at the federal level I doubt they will eliminate 11e, The second warning part will be dropped as will the "unlawful user" part. But any admission of drug use legal or not is probably still going to be a deal breaker. So people will still have to lie and everything will reamain the same.

Sorry, wrong answer. The feds would have to modify the 4473 to reflect that, you can't have a prohibition based on something that isn't law. Most of the stuff on the 4473 is based off stuff actually printed in US code. If MJ is no longer considered an illicit substance by the feds, BATFE literally can't do that.

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

The Senate won't pass it because Trump's October surprise will be to legalize it by EO.

I was thinking this too, and if the democraps were smart they would be wanting to push it now to get that over with, to take the "surprise" off the
table... but they'll f*** it up...

 

[SFC13557]

Money talks. I stopped in at GAGE in Ayer just for the helluva it yesterday. Quite an impressive company and operation.

 

[Peicemaker]

Weed will be legalized. I really hope Trump will delay on signing the bill, or EO if the Senate wants to be a bunch of moralizing douchebags, till like 10/1/20 thereby dragging all the libertarians and fence sitters out to the polls in November. This is political gold for the Donald. Its also a win for American liberty and another nail in the drug war's coffin.

 

[Broc]

I was thinking this too, and if the democraps were smart they would be wanting to push it now to get that over with, to take the "surprise" off the
table... but they'll f*** it up...

I would think if they were smart, they would be waiting until next year.

I'm trying to understand what is the political move here. If Rs shut it down, the election is too far away for the average moron to remember. If he Rs dont shut it down, it will be the same.

If they waited until Oct 2020, then they force the Rs to pass it, but if they pass it a lot of the R voter base might be pissed, voting them out. If it doesnt pass, the Ds can play it as the heros that will pass it if elected.

 

[Broc]

In the face of:

-The War on Drugs being a massive failure resulting in millions of deaths
-trillions of dollars spent
-overseas governments meddled and toppled
-conflict of interests
-millions of people incarcerated for non violent offences (@ ~$50,000+ per year, our dime)
-alcohol being legal in the face of it which for human history has been the worst net drug for humanity
-fake scheduled schemes, i.e, pot at 1, when even hard core anti pot people would be unable to defend its position


The founding fathers didnt allow this shit. We had to amend the constitution to ban alcohol, and that was a fart in church even though at the time alcoholism was basically breaking the entire country. But now as a "free" adult I can't injest unauthorized substances for reasons. And we're now at the point where I can lose my car if caught with a f***ing vape in MA.

Dont. Support. Draconian. Bullshit. Under. Public. Safety.

Pretty please?

Define failure?

I think the war on drugs was a HUGE success for the government. It allowed the gov to grow bigger. It allowed the gov to incarcerate people and destroy their future, therefore making them dependent on the gov. It allowed the govt to f*** around all over Latin America with the excuse of fighting drug smuggling. It created a huge welfare state for all people involved in the drug war (think how many thousands of jobs it created). It also created a huge welfare state for the defense companies involved.

The war on drugs was never about stopping drugs, or protecting people from this "evil" stuff.