Federal Marijuana Reform Bills Introduced in US Congress

23536

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
7,725
Location
Stop resisting!
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2013/feb/05/federal_marijuana_reform_bills_i

Two Democratic congressmen announced Tuesday that they are introducing legislation to reform federal marijuana policy. In a joint press conference that also included representatives of drug reform groups, Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Jared Polis (D-CO) announced two separate bills aimed at addressing the looming clash between intransigent federal marijuana policies and states that have or likely will legalize marijuana. And more bills are pending, they said.

Blumenauer and Polis also released a report entitled "The Path Forward: Rethinking Federal Marijuana Policy," which outlines their perspective on marijuana policy and provides some background on regulation and opportunities for action. The congressmen have also established the Sensible Drug Policy Working Group, which will provide a forum for members of Congress who are working on related issues and hope to advance legislation.

Polis's Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act would remove the DEA's authority over marijuana, end federal marijuana prohibition, and leave it to the states to decide whether to prohibit marijuana or not. Blumenauer's Marijuana Tax Equity Act, House Bill 501, would create a federal excise tax on marijuana similar to those imposed on alcohol and tobacco. Taken together, the two bills would provide for a system of marijuana regulation and taxation in states where it is legal.

More specifically, Polis's bill would:

  • Remove marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act;
  • Transfer the Drug Enforcement Administration’s authority to regulate marijuana to a newly renamed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana and Firearms, which will be tasked with regulating marijuana as it currently does alcohol;
  • Require marijuana producers to purchase a permit, as commercial alcohol producers do, of which the proceeds would offset the cost of federal oversight; and
  • Ensure federal law distinguishes between individuals who grow marijuana for personal use and those involved in commercial sale and distribution.

Blumenauer's bill would:

  • Impose a 50% excise tax on the first sale of marijuana, from the producer to the next stage of production, usually the processor;
  • Impose an occupational tax similar to those in the tobacco and alcohol industries on those operating in marijuana, with producers, importers and manufacturers facing an occupation tax of $1,000 per year and any other person engaged in the business facing an annual tax of $500 per year;
  • Impose civil penalties for failure to comply with taxing duties. Criminal penalties will be assessed for intentional efforts to defraud the taxing authorities; and
  • Require the IRS to produce a study of the industry after two years, and every five years after that, and to issue recommendations to Congress to continue improving the administration of the tax.

The time has come for marijuana law reform at the federal level, the two congressmen said.

"There has been an enormous evolution of American opinion on marijuana. Americans are sick and tired of the costs of marijuana prohibition, whether it’s the financial costs or the human costs. Americans are saying enough is enough, let's try a new policy. We need to address drug use as a public health issue, not a criminal justice one," said Polis.

"My bill doesn't affect the legal status of marijuana where it is currently illegal," the Colorado congressman explained, "but it does allow states that have created either a legalized and regulated scheme for sales or that have medical marijuana laws to operate, without the constant fear that the federal government and the DEA and the other agencies will prosecute patients or businesses that are fully legal under state law. This is an idea whose time has come."

"Forty years ago, as a freshman member of the Oregon legislature, I was able to vote to make Oregon the first state to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana," said Blumenauer. "Since then, 14 states have joined Oregon, and after California legalized medical marijuana in 1996, we now have 19 jurisdictions that have authorized it, and we now have the first two states that have legalized marijuana for recreational use."

The Oregon congressman added that he and Polis are working with a bipartisan group of representatives and that up to eight or 10 marijuana reform bills could be introduced this session.

"We're looking at antiquated and sometimes nonsensical federal laws and policies to try to get us on a path that is less expensive, more productive, more fair, and more in tune with where America is going," Blumenauer said. "We arrested two-thirds of a million people in 2011 for a substance most people think should be legal. The president said he has bigger fish to fry, but there are still people further down the federal food chain frying those fish."

"This is a very exciting day," said Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance. "Last November, voters in Colorado and Washington made history, and the polling shows that a majority of Americans now support legalizing marijuana. There is no doubt more states will legalize in the years to come. This is the beginning of the end of marijuana prohibition."

"We were a primary backer of Amendment 64 in Colorado, which directed the state to regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol," said Steve Fox, director of government relations for the Marijuana Policy Project. "That's how we believe it should be treated, and we look forward to working with Reps. Polis and Blumenauer to see that this legislation is eventually passed by Congress."

If not this year, then soon, the congressmen said.

"There is growing support for this bill," Polis argued. "There has really been a sea change; we saw test votes in the last Congress for defunding the DEA and other things, and saw very strong support, and that will only increase over time. Congress is frequently a lagging indicator for public opinion; it’s a question of Congress catching up."

"This is the beginning, not the end," said Blumenauer. "My bill is a first step and we anticipate some give and take, but this will be gaining momentum. We've got legislation here today to get the ball rolling, but there will be more that you will be hearing about in the days ahead."

"It's clear that we've reached a tipping point," said Piper. "Major changes are going to happen and are happening now. The American people are demanding reform, and members of Congress are starting to give it to them."

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2013/feb/05/federal_marijuana_reform_bills_i
 
Transfer the Drug Enforcement Administration’s authority to regulate marijuana to a newly renamed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana and Firearms, which will be tasked with regulating marijuana as it currently does alcohol;

What the fuck? Marijuana should not be lumped together with alcohol, tobacco, and firearms.

This is the kind of shit I don't like hearing about.
 
or we could disban the DEA and fire them all, use the money for i dont know social reform, welfare, healthcare, science, space...

i don't want cannabis to be regulated like that, alcohol has some strict ass regulations on production (like with moonshine). If i want to cook up my own highly potent hash oil from plants i have grown myself i should be able to do so, so long as i don't pose a danger to myself, others or the environment. And shit i should be able to sell these, although i understand the need for quality control, i just see it getting out of hand and basically limiting people's choices in the way alcohol/tobacco do. I tihnk a complete laissez faire attitude towards cannabis is better, just let it go wherever it goes, and not try to make a fortune off of it.
 
^it's kind of a similar thing as people making their own beer/alcohol/wine at home. The thing is these people never make a fortune off what they do, they enjoy it themselves. But this allows big corporations to take over and distribute to the masses and that's where i see things being fucked up. I don't want brand name cannabis in packs from some factory. I like the idea of just walking into a cannabis dispensary and picking from the best of the best rather than getting packaged goods from some big ass corporation. Just don't want my little plant to be corrupted by the evil forces of capitalism.
 
Nothings going to stop you from growing illegally like people do now, so consider that aspect as not changing. The continued illegality of growing your own is well worth the boons this (or similar legalization measures) would provide.

The law should provide that people can produce their own-it is legal to brew your own beer as long as you don't sell it. The law should provide that people can make their own concentrates, in my opinion, people should have to take some sort of course, maybe have a license to produce concentrates requiring unstable or dangerous compounds.

This way, those who abide by the law can prove they can safely perform these conversions and should be allowed to do so. It'd be a better system that not allowing ANYONE except businesses to produce their own extracts. From my understanding, a lot of people enjoy brewing their own beer.

I bet the same applies to cannabis extracts in that certain people want certain effects from their stuff and what they desire might not be met by the store. I've lived in a rural area before and there was MAYBE ONE beer store that carried high quality beers. The law wouldn't be taking into account the folks who live outside of cities. The small town I lived in had a bunch of surrounding towns that were even smaller! It wouldn't be fair to make people make ~4 hour trips just to get what they want.

This would also cut down on explosions from the production of hash oil-if everyone were required to study safety tips, they'd be a lot better off. The government doesn't need to take away people's rights, it needs to encourage them to use them responsibly.
 
  • Require marijuana producers to purchase a permit, as commercial alcohol producers do, of which the proceeds would offset the cost of federal oversight; and
  • Ensure federal law distinguishes between individuals who grow marijuana for personal use and those involved in commercial sale and distribution.

Ah, that clears things up. The other article made it seem like the home hobbyist would need a permit.

What the fuck? Marijuana should not be lumped together with alcohol, tobacco, and firearms.

This is the kind of shit I don't like hearing about.

Is there some other preexisting agency you think would be more suited for the job?

But I sort of agree. I don't think an agency that deals with firearms and explosives should be involved in drug matters. Well, technically a home distillery could produce an explosion, but that doesn't count. Besides, their acronym is getting too long: ATMFE if you include everything.
 
Is there some other preexisting agency you think would be more suited for the job?

There shouldn't be one is my point. I don't believe in the FDA nor the DEA nor the ATF. Useless government fat that needs to get trimmed IMO.

I know that by saying this people will disagree with me, and we are all entitled to our opinions, but that isn't going to change mine.
 
FFS, why can't we just grow it ourselves? If you're going to "legalize" it then do it in all aspects. Here in WA we can soon go buy it from stores and legally own it, but I can't grow 2-3 plants in my backyard. :p

Colorado has us beat on the whole legalization thing.
 
I don't believe in the FDA

Seriously? I'm pretty sure that without the FDA, the grocery store and the pharmacy would be just as unreliable as my ecstasy dealer. 8(
 
^Yep. I don't get being up in arms over the govt. regulation aspect. If shit is legal, grow your own. If it's awesome, get a loan and rock the world. Don't expect weed to overthrow capitalism, that's silly.
 
Seriously? I'm pretty sure that without the FDA, the grocery store and the pharmacy would be just as unreliable as my ecstasy dealer. 8(

So how did humanity survive all of these thousands of years before the creation of the FDA? Think about it.

The FDA is totally unnecessary. There are other ways to ensure safe and reliable grocery stores and pharmacies without the government even getting involved.
 
So how did humanity survive all of these thousands of years before the creation of the FDA? Think about it.

The FDA is totally unnecessary. There are other ways to ensure safe and reliable grocery stores and pharmacies without the government even getting involved.

I generally agree, almost completely. But perhaps our cultures/societies have advanced in technology and mode of living to the point where SOME government interference is a beneficial thing. I agree that we need to trim the fat, but perhaps the bewildering complexity of our world today is the reason why we need some intervention. People thousands of years ago simply didn't have to face the same informational onslaught in their day-to-day life that we see every minute of our lives. I'm not saying we live "better", not at all, just that we live in a far more complex and information-rich manner. Not all people have the time/ability to research what they should about their food, medicines, and other products, and so I see a reason for some regulation - at least at this point in our societal evolution. Hopefully, eventually, we'll be able to do away with such primitive means - hopefully we'll develop better means of achieving what we try to use regulation for today. Hopefully the right and responsibility of using a product will be delegated to the individual, at some point, when it is clear that we have alternative measures for determining the safety of foods of and medicines. We need to develop the tools required, so that we can give them to all people, all individuals. Then we should end this governmental interference and give all choice to individuals, so as to do honour to the ideal of freedom itself.

I'm a libertarian with a strong belief in individual freedoms and in very limited government. But I can't say that the government is not needed at all, as much as I'd like to. It has some functions. Usually it's inefficient if not outright destructive. But I can't say for sure that it's not necessary.

I just think that we should be free to do anything we want for our own happiness so long as we don't infringe on the rights of others to do the same. I think that some regulation, at least for now, might be necessary, as much as I don't like that. But not regulation the way we currently have it - I'll definitely agree with that.
 
Last edited:
yeah I don't want to get salmonella from peanut butter or meningitis from nose drops. Some type of regulatory entity is necessary. I just don't want them to be in the business of telling people how much fun they can have.

At the liquor supermarket down the street from me they have something like 20,000 wines, 5,000 beers and 10,000 liquor brands. I don't feel oppressed in the least.
 
So how did humanity survive all of these thousands of years before the creation of the FDA? Think about it.

The FDA is totally unnecessary. There are other ways to ensure safe and reliable grocery stores and pharmacies without the government even getting involved.

This thousand s of years, like when people were hunting gatherers and then agrarian? before the population exploded a 1000 fold, and food has to be transported hundreds if not thousands of miles? And any scheister could get in and make snake oil claims about their products, meet no safety standards, and endanger millions? To suggest no oversight on food production or labeling for millions would be a disaster, what are all we gonna go do, back to hunting and gathering "natural" foods. Sorry dude, about 300 million people too many for that, and habitat has been replaced with strip malls and suburbia. Such a statement is woefully naive so and idealistic so as to be of no applicability.

Im a farmer. A true blue small time farmer, growing veggies, sheep, chickens and eggs, cattle, and pigs on a small 40'acre plot. The FDA, USDA, etc can cause grief, but without we'd be fucked. People aretoo fucking greedy and stupid. And yeah, maybe the ATF is bad company for marijuana, but it's the best fit I can see, the only one the Feds will agree to, and the tax incentives make this bitter pill easier to swallow for the man. Baby steps, and realistic ones. Sure, I I'm lucky I'm in control control of my food production, organic and sustainable, 99% are not. We have come to far (overpopulation and destruction of agricultural land) for the 40 acres and a mule model to work. Citizens of Los Angeles out hunting deer and harvesting greens form the LA river canal? please. No oversight=disaster. Let's realistic about this.

And as far as cannabis, these bills seem pretty realistic to me, and can see no better alternatives . The "archaic revival" ain't happening folks, unless of course this germ that kills 95% of people comes along that i i keep praying for. Give it time ;)
 
No FDA would be a grave security threat, 'nough said


I digress:
Its true, we need to make big changes concerning where funding is going but some of the things I hear are beyond outlandish. No fucking FDA? Wow!
 
Last edited:
Hallelujah.. Glad to have been part of the continuing fight in Colorado! The FDA has been bought and paid for a long time ago.. They will do what the $ tells them to. It will be interesting/scary to see the end solution the greedy bastards (big pharma) figure is the best way they can stack up more piles of worthless green paper off Green Bud. It would be a big mistake if they try and prohibit growing for personal use under some guise like its for our own damn protection!
 
Last edited:
Top