Act to Remove Federal Penalties for the Personal Use of Marijuana...

[yermom]

by Responsible Adults (Introduced in House)

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

i thought it was a joke at first...


my apologies if this is a repost :D

[BudSooner]

Somewhere in a Longhorn locker room, Cedric Bensons place....the bong shelter at Ricky Williams house...et al........are jumping for joy.


Don't they have better things to do like investigate pro baseball or college football? ;)

[Flagstaffsooner]

I noticed that was introduced by Senator One Dik in his mouth and one dik in his azz.

[Mjcpr]

I noticed that was introduced by Senator One Dik in his mouth and one dik in his azz.

Is he Asian?

[GottaHavePride]

That removes penalties for possession up to 100 grams and not-for-profit transfer of less than one ounce.

Penalties for dealing would still apply, as well as penalties for use in public.

Sounds like a good idea to me. Might as well legalize, regulate, and tax its sale as well, like alcohol and tobacco.

[Okla-homey]

I'm all for it. The unintended consequences of the so-called "War on Drugs" have reaped untold miseries in this country that far outweigh the detrimental effect of the use of weed by the average person.

It's a plant. It grows in the ground people. Let's get over it and put it in the same category with liquor and tobacco. "Reefer Madness." pffft.

[King Crimson]

i agree with GHP; though, i would expect a decline in "dealing" if it were legal to buy elsewhere.

let the market decide. and no nicotine style additives.

[GottaHavePride]

You know, Germany made history with its "Beer Purity Laws"...

Heh.

[olevetonahill]

Ill Toke to that !

[Fraggle145]

I'm all for it. The unintended consequences of the so-called "War on Drugs" have reaped untold miseries in this country that far outweigh the detrimental effect of the use of weed by the average person.

It's a plant. It grows in the ground people. Let's get over it and put it in the same category with liquor and tobacco. "Reefer Madness." pffft.

Agreed, Here's hoping.

[StoopTroup]

I still don't want any surgeon of mine having a few tokes before surgery.

[Chuck Bao]

Or, a one-dik-in-his-mouth-and-one-dik-in-his-azz senator taking a few hits before trying to pass some funny legislation.

[Okla-homey]

I still don't want any surgeon of mine having a few tokes before surgery.

or knocking back three fingers of tequila.

or three Guinness's

It should be about making sure people understand zero tolerance for doing important stuff like driving, flying, fighting housefires, keeping books, skippering supertankers, policing our streets or performing surgery while impaired by drugs or alcohol. Not whether cannibis or bourbon is involved.

[Jerk]

Did I ever tell yall about the time I drank a lot of beer and smoked a lot of dope and got hungry, went to make a left hand turn on Sheilds blvd. and forgot there was a median in the middle? Yeah, I went right over it with a mitsubishi eclipse.

That was long time ago.

It's amazing I don't have a record.

[Sooner5030]

I don't smoke and I don't mind that other people do smoke. So I guess I'm all for legalizing and taxing the shiate outta it.

[SicEmBaylor]

I've never smoked pot in my life, but this legislation is way way overdue.

It's one of the best examples of the nanny state run amok.

I'm not a fan of over taxing it though. Taxing is just another means by which the state can manipulate personal behavior.

[StoopTroup]

It's our number one cash crap here.

Soon we'll be able to buy Texas out right. :D

I hope I can get a job running all the turnpikes we build down there. :D

[yermom]

or knocking back three fingers of tequila.

or three Guinness's

It should be about making sure people understand zero tolerance for doing important stuff like driving, flying, fighting housefires, keeping books, skippering supertankers, policing our streets or performing surgery while impaired by drugs or alcohol. Not whether cannibis or bourbon is involved.

or a few Vicodin...

[JohnnyMack]

or a few Vicodin...

You're sitting next to me at the next tailgate.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

It should be about making sure people understand zero tolerance for doing important stuff like driving, flying, fighting housefires, keeping books, skippering supertankers, policing our streets or performing surgery while impaired by drugs or alcohol. Not whether cannibis or bourbon is involved.

So, not to sound like a smart *** Homey, 'cause you ain't done nothin' but be righteous and helpful...

But did they nail down the technological details on the breathalyzer for weed yet? Some sort of field sobriety exam that doesn't require an act of Congress AND God to determine approximate level of inebriation at the time of operation?

Because until they do, until I stop shoveling up weekend fandangos with a bottle, a doobie, and that innocent telephone pole/street sign/parked car/family of four, count my hat in the ban it from the face of the earth crowd.

You could dang sure answer the legalities of sample gathering better than I could. Seriously, how exactly does that work? The gulf between a breathalyzer, blood tests, and urinating in a cup?

[Okla-homey]

So, not to sound like a smart *** Homey, 'cause you ain't done nothin' but be righteous and helpful...

But did they nail down the technological details on the breathalyzer for weed yet? Some sort of field sobriety exam that doesn't require an act of Congress AND God to determine approximate level of inebriation at the time of operation?

Because until they do, until I stop shoveling up weekend fandangos with a bottle, a doobie, and that innocent telephone pole/street sign/parked car/family of four, count my hat in the ban it from the face of the earth crowd.

You could dang sure answer the legalities of sample gathering better than I could. Seriously, how exactly does that work? The gulf between a breathalyzer, blood tests, and urinating in a cup?

All I know is this, OK is an implied consent state. If a cop askes you to blow and/or submit to a blood test, you can refuse, but if you do, you automatically lose your license -- six months for the first time I believe. If the fuzz has probable cause to believe the accused was under the influence of something when he/she caused the mess, they can arrest the wrongdoer and they will be charged with the crime(s) that apply. Then, the DA has to prove it at trial. Its up to the jury to decide if the defendant is guilty. People get convicted for negligent homicide or manslaughter all over America who did not blow, bleed or pee if they acted drunk or high at the scene where somebody died.

The thing is, I don't think anyone can definitively connect legalizing weed to increased highway mayhem. The doofuses who drive stoned are already doing it.

[47straight]

Yeah dude... it's like just a plant and stuff.... and so are poppies and cocoa plants.

[Sooner5030]

Because until they do, until I stop shoveling up weekend fandangos with a bottle, a doobie, and that innocent telephone pole/street sign/parked car/family of four, count my hat in the ban it from the face of the earth crowd.

I've never been a fan of laws that aim to keep people from making stupid decisions. If they are stupid enough to drive stoned then they are stupid enough to do it when there is detection capability.

Besides, I do not see any moral responsibility difference between those that fail to drive sober and 1) those that fail to drive with adequate sleep 2) fail to drive with the appropriate level of attention 3) fail to ensure that tires have adequate tread & that the vehicle is safe to operate.

But the one that has a sin attached to it gets more attention.

By the way, if someone has BAC above .08, stops at a red-light and gets rear-ended by someone not wearing a seat belt, asleep at the wheel and going 15 MPH in excess of the speed limit; does the drunk get prosecuted for manslaughter?

[GottaHavePride]

So, not to sound like a smart *** Homey, 'cause you ain't done nothin' but be righteous and helpful...

But did they nail down the technological details on the breathalyzer for weed yet? Some sort of field sobriety exam that doesn't require an act of Congress AND God to determine approximate level of inebriation at the time of operation?

Because until they do, until I stop shoveling up weekend fandangos with a bottle, a doobie, and that innocent telephone pole/street sign/parked car/family of four, count my hat in the ban it from the face of the earth crowd.

You could dang sure answer the legalities of sample gathering better than I could. Seriously, how exactly does that work? The gulf between a breathalyzer, blood tests, and urinating in a cup?

Um, this bill would only do away with penalties for use in private. Using in public or being high in public would still be grounds for penalty.

And poppies and coca plants are a different category. In their natural state, they're no big deal. I mean, no one's out trying to ban poppyseed muffins and Coca-Cola. (although maybe we should, we might help out some fat people.) Getting opium and cocaine out requires significant human intervention to extract and refine the chemicals in question.

[Blue]

Um, this bill would only do away with penalties for use in private. Using in public or being high in public would still be grounds for penalty.


I think he's saying you can't do a field test on someone driving under the influence.

except tempt them with :twinkies: ?

[Sooner_Havok]

If the feds legalize weed before Oklahoma legalizes beer, we are going to be the biggest laughing stock in the entire country!

[GottaHavePride]

Hey, at least Oklahoma pushed through a statewide smoking ban, unlike the tards in Kansas.

[Sooner_Havok]

Yeah, now we can't smoke or drink! Hooray for da gubment protecting me from myself!

[GottaHavePride]

Heh. In my book, being able to go to a bar and NOT reek of smoke is teh win. And so the beer is low point in Oklahoma. Last I checked, rum, vodka, tequila, bourbon, gin, and scotch were all still full strength. ;)

[Sooner_Havok]

Heh. In my book, being able to go to a bar and NOT reek of smoke is teh win. And so the beer is low point in Oklahoma. Last I checked, rum, vodka, tequila, bourbon, gin, and scotch were all still full strength. ;)

Whiskey is teh win, yes, but I want to be able to buy some damn New Belgium Brewery Beer! I want me some good beer, not this rice beer swill!

So help me Jebus if I can by a Marlboro "Green" Cigarette before I can buy a freaking Flat Tire or a Trippel

[Blue]

Heh. In my book, being able to go to a bar and NOT reek of smoke is teh win. And so the beer is low point in Oklahoma. Last I checked, rum, vodka, tequila, bourbon, gin, and scotch were all still full strength. ;)


Not being able to smoke in a bar is teh suck and bars should be able to make that decision despite some pansy *** complainers. No offense GHP. :D

Bars lose alot of money w/ that ban.

[SicEmBaylor]

Not being able to smoke in a bar is teh suck and bars should be able to make that decision despite some pansy *** complainers. No offense GHP. :D

Bars lose alot of money w/ that ban.

I agree. It's a matter of personal property rights.

[yermom]

I think he's saying you can't do a field test on someone driving under the influence.

except tempt them with :twinkies: ?

it wouldn't be any different than it is now...

and i've had the field weed smoking test :P

i had cut open a glow stick on Halloween at home my Freshman year and gotten the glass and glow juice in my eyes. the cop thought i was high and was looking for bumps on my tongue. (the hippie hair + red eyes wasn't helping) i believe they were supposed to be red right after smoking and white after that

my passenger reportedly tested this method on one of our unsuspecting pot smoking friends, and it was confirmed :D

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I have no problems with legalizing small amounts for non-felon adults. But as a former high school teacher, I think anyone responsible for kids getting it should be executed.

[JohnnyMack]

Not being able to smoke in a bar is teh suck and bars should be able to make that decision despite some pansy *** complainers. No offense GHP. :D

Bars lose alot of money w/ that ban.

You can smoke in a bar in Oklahoma.

[JohnnyMack]

I agree. It's a matter of personal property rights.

Whose rights? You and your cigar or me and my 2 year old?

[Sooner_Havok]

Whose rights? You and your cigar or me and my 2 year old?

If you are taking your 2 year old to teh bar, we have bigger problems here :P

[Fugue]

note to self - invest in Hostess.

:twinkies:

[yermom]

Whose rights? You and your cigar or me and my 2 year old?

i'm thinking it's more like the restaurant owner's rights

[TUSooner]

That would be a very good law.

I will say, in 8 years on my job I have never seen an appeal from a federal prosecution for possession for "non-distributable amounts." Does that mean there are no prosecutions? Not necessarily, but I doubt there are many, especially for less than an ounce.

Still, this law should be passed to make it official and stuff.

[SicEmBaylor]

Whose rights? You and your cigar or me and my 2 year old?

If you don't like it then patron an establishment that doesn't allow smoking. Personally, I don't like eating in a smoking restaurant either. I do like having a designated area to have a cigar afterward, but I hate breathing in cig. smoke.

Nonetheless, the way this should work is that if enough people refuse to patron an establishment because of their smoking policy (one way or another) then the business will either change its policy to appeal to more customers or rightly go out of business. The government shouldn't be involved in telling me what I can do with my own damned restaurant.

[NormanPride]

Yeah, and I should be able to have rat poo in my food as well!

[SicEmBaylor]

Yeah, and I should be able to have rat poo in my food as well!

That's something of a different issue. There's a reasonable expectation that the consumer can sufficiently research and determine a restaurant's smoking policy. It's pretty evident and obvious. I don't think it's reasonable to expect the consumer to know if his or her food is safe or that it's appropriately prepared. Obviously, the consumer doesn't have a lab kit to do an analysis of the food and make a good decision on whether to patron that establishment. This is where the city and state have a role in ensuring food safety.

[JohnnyMack]

That's something of a different issue. There's a reasonable expectation that the consumer can sufficiently research and determine a restaurant's smoking policy. It's pretty evident and obvious. I don't think it's reasonable to expect the consumer to know if his or her food is safe or that it's appropriately prepared. Obviously, the consumer doesn't have a lab kit to do an analysis of the food and make a good decision on whether to patron that establishment. This is where the city and state have a role in ensuring food safety.

But if second hand smoke presents a health risk, doesn't the city/state have a role in ensuring public safety?

[SicEmBaylor]

But if second hand smoke presents a health risk, doesn't the city/state have a role in ensuring public safety?

No, you can easily see that the restaurant allows smoking so if you willingly walk in there and suffer from 2nd hand smoke then that's your fault not the fault of the establishment that allows smoking and not the government's job to force everyone to stop smoking because for whatever reason you can't restrain yourself from walking into a smoke filled restaurant.

[JohnnyMack]

No, you can easily see that the restaurant allows smoking so if you willingly walk in there and suffer from 2nd hand smoke then that's your fault not the fault of the establishment that allows smoking and not the government's job to force everyone to stop smoking because for whatever reason you can't restrain yourself from walking into a smoke filled
restaurant.

I'm not asking the government to force anyone to stop smoking. I just believe that people should have a reasonable expectation that when they enter a restaurant that they shouldn't have to be exposed to someone else's shortcomings. It's not my fault you can't restrain yourself from sucking on it after you eat dinner.

http://epicself.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/gra_bdoctor-1_550x724shkl.jpg

Evolve already.

[Sooner_Havok]

What is funny is at the Old Chicago place they have a smoking room, but you cannot smoke cigars. Why???

[stoops the eternal pimp]

I m sure the local restaurants would lobby for that to pass as well...I once ate 12 cheeseburgers from Sonic after a bout with the left handed cigarettes

[mdklatt]

I just believe that people should have a reasonable expectation that when they enter a restaurant that they shouldn't have to be exposed to someone else's shortcomings.

I don't buy into the wishful thinking of free market solutions for all problems, but I think it would work in this case. The demand is high enough that most restaurants would probably go smoke-free on their own, leaving a minority to cater to the black lung crowd. There were a handful of Norman restaurants that went smoke-free before any laws took effect.

[StoopTroup]

I think there could be places that allow smoking and those places should pay more taxes for having such a business.

It might be to expensive to police it though.

[mdklatt]

I think there could be places that allow smoking and those places should pay more taxes for having such a business.



Why should they have to pay more taxes?

[StoopTroup]

Just to make the others happy. :D

[Frozen Sooner]

And the old free-market incomprehension of how externalities work rears its head again.

[GottaHavePride]

Bars lose alot of money w/ that ban.

How so? If all bars are covered with a consistent ban then your options are either to go to a bar anyway and just deal with not being allowed to smoke, or to drink at home. Generally speaking, if someone wants to go to a bar, they're going to go to a bar anyway and just deal with it.

Bars only lose money when the laws are written with a lot of idiotic loopholes that a few bars can work around and most other bars can't. In which case some bars lose some money and a few bars (that can exploit the loopholes) make a lot more money, but I would guess the total amount of money made by ALL the bars stays about the same.

[Blue]

I don't really go to alot of bars anymore, but when I do I go to the loopholed ones. The TGIF's down the street has a completely seperate bar (glass wall and door). They wouldn't do that unless they were losing money on people going to a smoking bar.