Rand Paul and Cory Booker to offer Amendment to protect state medical marijuana laws

[MyOwnSummer12]

Senators Rand Paul (R-KY) and Cory Booker (D-NJ) to Offer Groundbreaking Medical Marijuana Amendment on Senate Floor

Similar Bipartisan Amendment Passed the U.S. House a Few Weeks Ago in Historic Victory

Amendment Seeks to Protect 32 States With Medical Marijuana Laws from Federal Interference

Senators Rand Paul (R-KY) and Cory Booker (D-NJ) will offer an amendment to a federal spending bill that would prohibit the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) from undermining state marijuana laws. The House approved a similar bipartisan measure on May 29th. An amendment prohibiting the DEA from interfering with state hemp production for research purposes also passed the U.S. House. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved a similar hemp amendment in committee June 5th that was offered by Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

 

[PEB]

Well he continues costing himself his chances with the Republican nomination by working with Democrats!

 

[Diamond Jim]

Weed brings people together.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Weed brings people together.

I do not smoke the herb, but I think you all should be able to do so legally.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I'm pleasantly surprised my rep voted correctly.

 

[sangreporsangre]

What kind of asshole would be against this?

 

[Strychnine]

What kind of asshole would be against this?

I have a sinking feeling that they'll be on display shortly.

 

[Madmick]

Weed brings people together.

I know you say this half in jest, but the fact that the pro-marijuana crowd is so young and so politically diverse is (and has been) a key harbinger to the issue's fate.

It will be legal before I die. I thought it would be federally legal by the time I was 30 or so. I missed by a few decades, but I was closer to right than those who disagreed with me (it's already decriminalized in numerous states, pseudo-legal in half a dozen more, and outright legal in Colorado).

What kind of asshole would be against this?

Probably about 85% or more of our grandparents (including my own). Their day in the sun is no more, fortunately.

 

[mantronix]

What about the states that aren't listed? It seems they should have just said "any state that creates marijuana legislation".

 

[Long Dark Blues]

What about the states that aren't listed? It seems they should have just said "any state that creates marijuana legislation".

Leaving that for a future revision of this amendment, so that they can relive their current glory.

 

[kpt018]

I get that we went through decades of demonizing drugs and really pushing the war on them, but it's kind of sad that there is still debate (with a very significant amount of folks still pushing to fight the war) and even sadder that progress is so slow that they are debating medical marijuana (should be a no brainer).

Just decriminalize drugs and let's stop fucking around. The other side benefit being we can watch Mexican drug lords collectively shit a brick.

 

[Jukai]

The only thing that I'd be against is spending time on an amendment. That's an incredibly long and difficult process, I think our culture is slowly shifting and the legalization of marijuana is on its way, they should just push federal legalization and not worry about an amendment.

Other than that, thumbs up.

 

[Diamond Jim]

What kind of asshole would be against this?

My representative apparently. Michael McCaul (R-TX) voted nay.

 

[mantronix]

The only thing that I'd be against is spending time on an amendment. That's an incredibly long and difficult process, I think our culture is slowly shifting and the legalization of marijuana is on its way, they should just push federal legalization and not worry about an amendment.

Other than that, thumbs up.

Yeah, it has 32 states in the amendment, so I agree that the push should be for federal since more than half the union already allows it to some degree.

My state has a lot of big pharma companies so we will not get weed until the federal govt tells the backwards rednecks that run this state to allow it.

 

[MyOwnSummer12]

I get that we went through decades of demonizing drugs and really pushing the war on them, but it's kind of sad that there is still debate (with a very significant amount of folks still pushing to fight the war) and even sadder that progress is so slow that they are debating medical marijuana (should be a no brainer).

Just decriminalize drugs and let's stop fucking around. The other side benefit being we can watch Mexican drug lords collectively shit a brick.

Ron Paul always said that Congress runs about 10-15 years behind the people.

 

[MyOwnSummer12]

Yeah, it has 32 states in the amendment, so I agree that the push should be for federal since more than half the union already allows it to some degree.

My state has a lot of big pharma companies so we will not get weed until the federal govt tells the backwards rednecks that run this state to allow it.

Constitutionally the Feds have no jurisdiction. The 10th Amendment says this issue is reserved to the state and/or people of that state.

 

[Jukai]

Constitutionally the Feds have no jurisdiction. The 10th Amendment says this issue is reserved to the state and/or people of that state.

So you're saying a federal ban on drugs is unconstitutional?

 

[kpt018]

Ron Paul always said that Congress runs about 10-15 years behind the people.

Probably about right. Some times it is a good thing (the people can jump the gun and react before facts are out, sometimes influenced too greatly by a single event, etc.) but sometimes it's a bad thing.

I think Ron Paul is an awful candidate, but I am with him on the war on drugs and some of his positions on war.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

It will be legal before I die. I thought it would be federally legal by the time I was 30 or so. I missed by a few decades,....

How old are you?

So you're saying a federal ban on drugs is unconstitutional?

I'll say it. You can make the case that the feds can regulate the market for it but I see nothing that gives them authority to criminalize usage. Even with the commerce clause you can debate the interstate viewpoint and that regulating something doesn't include banning it altogether. Regulating among the states would be facilitating the commerce rather than shutting it down. So yeah, if I smoke some dried plant that grows in my yard there's nothing I see in the Constitution that allows for federal authority there.

 

[ben236]

So you're saying a federal ban on drugs is unconstitutional?

I would say so. They could prohibit it's sale across state lines via the interstate commerce clause, but the war on drugs in it's current state is an overreach IMO.