Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2008

Congressman Frank’s Personal Use of Marijuana Act hits the House floor

April 17, 2008

Today Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) introduced legislation to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana. The bill, dubbed the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2008, marks the first time in decades that Congress has considered removing criminal penalties for marijuana.  

Congressman Frank’s legislation would decriminalize the possession of up to 100 grams of marijuana and the not-for-profit transfer of one ounce of marijuana. It would not affect laws prohibiting drug sales or the cultivation of marijuana, and it would not affect state or local laws regulating marijuana possession.

“It’s time for the politicians to catch up with the public on this [issue],” Congressman Frank said. “The notion that you lock people up for smoking marijuana is pretty silly.”

The bill incorporates the basic recommendation of the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse (also known as the Shafer Commission). The commission, which was administered by the White House and published its findings in 1972, recommended that then-president Richard Nixon decriminalize possession of marijuana in amounts that constituted “simple possession.”

Thirty-six years later, Rep. Frank will try to do just that.

Why support this legislation?

- Currently, 1 out of every 100 Americans is behind bars, and many of these prisoners are non-violent drug offenders.

- Arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating people simply for possessing marijuana for personal use is an illogical waste of our government’s limited resources.

- Each year, more than 700,000 people are arrested for marijuana offenses, costing American taxpayers more than $7 billion annually. Despite this, marijuana is still easily available, both to adults and minors.

- The money saved from ending marijuana prohibition could provide health insurance each year to 4.5 million uninsured children in the U.S.  This legislation would be an important first step towards that.

B’Man: Of course I doubt this gets anywhere, but at least these people will be forced to discuss it (finally) after all this time. Too many people’s lives have been ruined over this issue… unfairly and unconstitutionally.

Obama Flips Off Clinton and Laughs About It (LOL: Me, Too… snicker)

America Agrees To Leave Political Discussion Up To The Professionals

Nation Agrees Not To Talk About Politics

April 18, 2008

WASHINGTON—After months of fevered and contentious political discourse, the U.S. populace unanimously agreed Monday that, before somebody gets upset and things get out of hand, it would be better to just stop talking about politics altogether.

Designed to reverse the trend of heated discussions on topics ranging from the Democrats’ shifting stance on NAFTA to Sen. John McCain’s support for the Iraq War, the nationwide change in subject is effective immediately.

“There’s no point getting the country all riled up talking about politics, especially right before a big election like this,” 43-year-old Pittsburgh resident Eric Daniels said. “With terrorism and the economy and all these other problems on our minds, nobody wants to talk about which candidate can best restore faith in America both at home and abroad.”

“Baseball season just started,” Daniels added. “How about them Pirates?”

The decision by all 301,139,947 U.S. citizens to talk about something else is expected to last the more than six months leading up to the presidential election on Nov. 4. During that time, the nation has agreed to supplant all lively debates and impassioned arguments about politics with topics such as movies, music, summertime, and, in some rare cases, personal matters like family, relationships, and feelings.

Anything, Americans strongly reiterated, so long as it is not politics.

A Zogby International poll conducted last week reflected the country’s distaste for political debate. When asked if they preferred the Republican emphasis on national security or the more Democratic commitment to domestic issues, 73 percent of respondents agreed to disagree on the matter and just leave it at that; 16 percent called the topic of Obama versus Clinton “touchy” and not worth talking about if it could offend someone; and 11 percent said that for the sake of everyone having a good, hassle-free year, it is probably best to just let it go and not worry about who the 44th president will be.

In addition, nine out of 10 Americans polled stressed that with the dollar’s poor performance and record-high gas prices, this is neither the time nor the place to be talking about politics in the first place.

“If people need to talk about Hillary Clinton’s health care proposal, I hope they have the decency to let me know so I can go somewhere else first,” Jacksonville, FL resident Katherine Watson, 37, said. “Or at least make the conversations more interesting. Maybe talk about Barack Obama’s smile or John McCain’s weird shoulder thing.”

Citizens have also reportedly experienced much less tension in the nation since the ban was instated. Moreover, millions have expressed relief and enthusiasm that, given the backgrounds of the candidates in this election, the injunction has led to a drop in awkward discussions of race, gender, and age.

“Yesterday I had a wonderful, hour-long conversation about how crazy [contestant] Andrew [D'Ambrosi] on Top Chef is, but at least he adds an interesting dynamic to the show,” Deirdre Miles, 26, of Sacramento said. “It was such a relief to know that nobody would be bringing up superdelegates, the Pennsylvania primary, or John McCain’s comment about having our troops in Iraq for the next 100 years. I’ve got two brothers fighting over there, so that is the last thing I want to think about right now.”

Even as the country braces for a potential recession, a number of media outlets claim that the injunction on talking politics could be a boon to business. With television, newspapers, and radio stations all forced to cover only sports and entertainment, ad revenue and ratings are expected to soar in every major market nationwide.

For their part, politicians have largely been supportive of the move.

“The president is proud that the American people have come together on such an important issue,” White House press secretary Dana Perino told reporters at a briefing Tuesday. “He supports their decision wholeheartedly, and thinks U.S. citizens should focus on relaxing and having a good time in the upcoming months.”

Added Perino, “We’ll take care of the politics for you.”

Though the moratorium will likely be lifted after the election, the 1984 agreement between Americans to avoid discussing religion has been extended until 2024.

When Desperate Times Call For Desperate Measures: Call In The Exorcist

h/t The Familographerand C&P’d from MichaelMoore.com. BTW: limited posting today, still on the road in McMinnville, TN today.

Congressional candidate asks for papal exorcism of Bush, Cheney

By Thadeus Greenson / Times-Standard

MENDOCINO, CA — Just hours after Pope Benedict XVI arrived at the White House on Wednesday, North Coast congressional hopeful Mitch Clogg pleaded for his help.

”Your Holiness,” Clogg wrote on his blog, “please exorcise the president.”

Clogg, who also called for a papal exorcism on Vice President Dick Cheney, is challenging Congressman Mike Thompson for his seat representing the North Coast in the Capitol.

On Wednesday, Clogg elaborated on his papal plea from his Mendocino office, talked about why at 69 he’s throwing his cap into the congressional ring and why he feels Thompson is unfit to represent his district.

Identified on the June primary ballot as a public interest journalist, Clogg said he’s had too many jobs to name: White collar jobs, blue collar jobs and government jobs, but he’s always enjoyed researching and writing. The recent note on his blog, he said, wasn’t meant too seriously and was aimed in part to highlight a piece of his district integrally involved in the papal White House visit.

”That was a wise crack, but the fact of the matter is that it is a wine produced in this district that is getting poured in honor of the pope,” Clogg said, adding that the wine is Sonoma’s Sebastiani Vineyards and Winery’s 2005 Dutton Ranch Chardonnay.

While he labeled the post as a wise crack, Clogg didn’t entirely dismiss it.

”These men are evil,” he said of Bush and Cheney. “It’s not just a bad president and vice president, we’ve never had anything like this where the country is being run by a criminal syndicate. It seems like these guys ought to be tarred and feathered, literally, on their way to prison.”

Seeing no help from Congress on the horizon in the form of impeachment, Clogg turned to the pope with his Wednesday blog plea.

”If I believed in the devil, I would believe that Bush and Cheney were inhabited by him,” he said.

Clogg also saved some harsh words for his challenger, saying Thompson is essentially a Republican in Democratic clothing and is too conservative to represent the 1st District.

”As far as I’m concerned, a conservative Democrat is like a black blizzard — it doesn’t happen, it’s a contradiction in terms,” Clogg said.

Thompson said while Clogg is calling him too conservative, the Republicans he runs against call him too liberal, which highlights the fact he is the moderate he’s always claimed to be.

Thompson, Clogg contends, has enabled the war in Iraq by, after initially voting against it, voting for every emergency appropriations bill that has come before Congress. The North Coast congressman has also overseen the dramatic downturn in local fishing and timber industries, Clogg said. Though Thompson has managed to help bring disaster relief funds to town, Clogg said that is too little too late.

He also said Thompson dropped the ball by not pushing for increased governmental oversight of the industries during his almost 20 years representing the district.

Thompson said it’s ridiculous to think he hasn’t pressed for governmental oversight of the industries. The congressman said he’s worked in the California Legislature to augment the state budget to put more feet on the ground to review timber harvest plans, helped bring a lawsuit against the Bush administration for diverting water from rivers and has helped hold hearings on endangered species and water flows.

”I don’t think there’s anyone that’s held this administration’s feet to the fire more,” said Thompson, who also received the Sierra Club’s Edgar Wayburn Award in 2007 for helping pass legislation to permanently protect 273,000 acres of wilderness in Northern California.

Perhaps most of all, Clogg took issue with Thompson for not having pushed harder in the House to impeach Bush and Cheney. In previous conversations with the Times-Standard, Thompson has said he hasn’t done so because he didn’t think the subject would gain much traction with his colleagues.

”The people need to see this, that not only do they have a president that will lie us into an extravagant and devastatingly costly, immoral war, we also have members of Congress that will lie to protect him,” Clogg said.

Clogg contends that the topic of impeachment hasn’t gained much traction because nobody’s brought it to the House floor, where it would only need a 50-percent-plus-one vote to pass. If it arrived on the floor, Clogg contends, Democrats would be under tremendous pressure from their constituents to vote to impeach.

Wednesday, Thompson stood by his guns on the topic.

”It was a legitimate assessment of the facts,” Thompson said of his previous statements. “I voted to send a bill to the judiciary committee where it could see if there was evidence of impeachable offenses, and I signed the letter to the judiciary asking them to do their work, but the reality of the situation is there are not enough votes to impeach. It would be a complete distraction for the House and the Senate, and grind things to a halt.”