Rep. Frank Defends Proposal to Decriminalize Marijuana
Mon, Mar 24, 2008 4:09 pm
Rep. Barney Frank is defending a bill he plans to file this week decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana, saying the federal law unfairly targets those using medical marijuana in California.
Frank, who filed a bill to decriminalize marijuana as a member of the Massachusetts Legislature in the 1970s, said the decision whether to make possession of the drug illegal should be left up to the states.
He also said the federal government shouldn’t have a law on the books that is rarely enforced and which doesn’t make sense to large portions of the public.
"Do you really think people should be prosecuted for smoking marijuana? I don’t think most people agree with that. It’s one area where the public is ahead of the elected officials," Frank said in an interview with The Associated Press. "It does not appear to me to be a law that society is serious about."
Frank said he was particularly troubled by federal law enforcement agencies targeting those using marijuana as a legal medical treatment under California law.
"I don’t think smoking marijuana should be a federal case," he said. "There’s no federal law against mugging."
Marijuana use is illegal under U.S. law, which does not recognize the medical marijuana laws in California and 11 other states.
The Drug Enforcement Agency and other U.S. agencies have been shutting down major medical marijuana dispensaries throughout California in the last two years and charging their operators with felony distribution charges.
Frank first announced the bill on the HBO show "Real Time," hosted by Bill Maher.
Frank’s comments come as pro-marijuana activists are pushing a ballot question that would decriminalize possession of an ounce or less of marijuana in Massachusetts.
Instead of facing a criminal record, those caught with a small amount of marijuana for personal use would instead pay a civil fine of $100 — much like a traffic ticket.
Supporters say the measure would save the state millions of dollars in law enforcement costs and spare thousands of state residents from the burden of a criminal record.
Critics, including the head of the anti-drug education group DARE-Massachusetts, say they oppose decriminalizing any amount of marijuana because it could send a signal to children that smoking pot is no big deal.
They say they while not everyone who smokes pot will end up shooting heroin, almost no heroin addicts begin with the more dangerous drug.
Activists pushing the initiative point to more than two dozen nonbinding referendum questions placed on local ballots in Massachusetts in the past six years. In each, a majority of voters supported the idea of decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana.
About a dozen states have already adopted similar laws.
Asked about the marijuana ballot initiative last December, Gov. Deval Patrick said he had to consult with his Public Safety Secretary Kevin Burke and Secretary of Health and Human Services Dr. JudyAnn Bigby before staking out a position.
"I think they are both skeptical," he said at the time.
The ballot question isn’t the only effort under way to ease the state’s drug laws.
A bill working its way through the Statehouse would also decriminalize possession of an ounce or less of the drug, but set a higher fine of $250.






» add a comment
garp
Aug 18 2008, 5:10 pm
All though I do think that there should be a reasonable age limit on smoking pot, or for that fact drinking and smoking cigarettes because for one the average teen isn’t responsible enough to know when enough is enough, even 21 year olds don’t have that mastered, go to your local college bar and you can see many barley legal’s drunk and disorderly. I think responsible ADULTS should be the only ones able to smoke legally
D.420NY
Apr 27 2008, 9:37 am
I'm just glad there is finally a congressman with enough guts to stand up and say what most of them have got to be thinking. I'm 23 now and I started smoking so long ago I don't even remember how old I was, so how many represenatives do you really think are out there that haven't done it?
hmmm
Apr 22 2008, 10:35 am
bud smokerno.10000000
Apr 21 2008, 4:34 pm
evry dealer i had punk police hits him up then i have to fined a new connect they shud leagaliz it cuz i have issus
wit anger and if i dont have my haze ill probly kill somebody, when im high im harmless!!!
jimjomhitabong
Apr 20 2008, 9:32 am
I love weed
Mar 29 2008, 5:44 pm
421mybdaywaslate?
Mar 28 2008, 12:06 am
TCB...re: umm dos lol
Mar 28 2008, 12:00 am
theo
Mar 27 2008, 12:52 am
HU210
Mar 26 2008, 8:31 pm
sirsmokesalot
Mar 26 2008, 7:44 pm
People , as much as I wish pot would be made legal, and I would stand up with this guy and anyone else to justify our cause, I don't think it will be. And the reason is MONEY , PLAIN AND SIMPLE. Even though states may save money in law enforcement costs , thats baby shit to what they make by keeping it illegal. The feds made 1.2 billion last year just in , and get this , urine test subsidies , thats no shit either. If they make that much in used piss , can you imagine what the rest of the bullshit brings in. It's absolutly staggering and I don't see those communist pigs ever giing that up. They don't care about US, just our money and we are all slaves to their system.
FOR NOW.
Slater
Mar 26 2008, 7:25 pm
had to say. Im going to have to say, 18 and up for drinking and smoking.
Slater
Mar 26 2008, 7:24 pm
Right to the pursuit of happiness.
kids ARE doing things
Mar 26 2008, 1:14 am
Okla420
Mar 26 2008, 12:27 am
Now before I get flamed here let me state that I know not every kid that goes and smokes pot is going to cut classes, get in trouble ect. ect. because there were a few really smart kids I knew/know who smoked on occasion..
I get your point that being young these days is stressful.. but you know what? Life is stressful. It definitely doesn't get any easier after high school either.
All in all I say 21 + for weed still. If not that it should at least be 18 +. Kids tend to do too many stupid things as it is, without pot.
Jay
Mar 25 2008, 10:24 pm
well,
Mar 25 2008, 9:07 pm
okla420
Mar 25 2008, 8:53 pm
I guess if sacramental is smoking a cigarello and eating too many cheetos I guess that would cover just about every teenage pothead.
I'm all for 21+, just like booze.
umm
Mar 25 2008, 8:24 pm
MyZong_is_MyFriend
Mar 25 2008, 5:31 pm
Slater
Mar 25 2008, 3:16 pm
Its not fare to put a age limit on a sacramental drug that helps people of all ages, gender, and ethnicity.
420Viper
Mar 25 2008, 8:41 am
Second of all, about the children. I was smoking cigarettes and drinking beer in High School months before I had my first smoke of weed. Why aren't tobacco and alcohol considered gateway drugs? How many die of alcohol and tobacco use every day? What do we tell the children?
Simple. Tell the kids these are adult thing and activities and legalize grass so one has to prove they are 21+ years old to buy it. The last time I checked, the black market only asks for money, not ID.
SmoKinTheIndustry
Mar 25 2008, 3:11 am
smokintheindustry (MySpace)
FINALLY
Mar 25 2008, 1:22 am
wheres waldo
Mar 24 2008, 11:11 pm
wheres waldo
Mar 24 2008, 11:09 pm
truth
Mar 24 2008, 10:50 pm
Suggs4Drugs
Mar 24 2008, 9:17 pm
They suspend 3rd graders for sexual harrasment.
They expell 2nd graders for making a play gun out of paper.
They suspend 4th graders for taking a chicken strip and pointing it at a teacher and saying bang.
Fuck our hypersensitive society. No one cares for the children. Its like I said, the Government doesnt care about the people, it cares about money.
A friend of mines kid was kicking the school bus drivers seat (He's 6), so the bus driver calls the police, the police PUT THE 6 YEAR OLD IN HANDCUFFS, take him to the police station where his parents have to pick him up. HES FUCKING 6!!!
Its bullshit.
MassHaze
Mar 24 2008, 8:10 pm
Just think: Everyone understands the impressionability of kids, and no one wants to seem like a child-killer. Anyone can say "its for the children" and gain votes for their side without any real support for their claims. Go against their idea, and you are a baby-killer. They do it with gun control, too.
Suggs4Drugs
Mar 24 2008, 7:21 pm
But good luck on this Bill.
But we shouldnt be surprised when it is shot down in office. Remember, the Government doesnt give a shit about the people, so why should we expect them to legalize something we enjoy.
umm
Mar 24 2008, 4:55 pm
kinder
Mar 24 2008, 4:33 pm
umm dos lol
Mar 24 2008, 4:29 pm
Lol, they mean it can send the right signal?
At least this Barney Frank guy isnt a government tool and knows the way things SHOULD be.
ohhhh and FUCK YOU TCB
CSMP
Mar 24 2008, 4:28 pm
"The Massachusetts Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy is proud to be moving forward on the state level to create a sound marijuana policy while Congressman Frank tackles this issue in the nation’s capital," said Whitney A. Taylor, CSMP campaign manager. "The people of Massachusetts are ready for a proven, practical marijuana policy, which is reflected in the efforts of both Congressman Frank and CSMP."
By creating a civil penalty system for possession of up to an ounce of marijuana, CSMP's initiative will greatly reduce the human and financial costs of current laws. According to Harvard economist Dr. Jeff Miron, Massachusetts’ taxpayers spend $29.5 million a year just to arrest and book offenders who possess an ounce or less of marijuana.
This arrest can result in up to six months in jail and a $500 fine, but more costly is the creation of a criminal record — or CORI — for these offenders. A CORI can essentially mean a lifetime of punishment, making an individual ineligible for student loans, creating barriers to employment, and banning smalltime marijuana violators from many housing opportunities, Taylor said.
Last year, over 7,500 Bay Staters received a CORI and endless barriers to a successful life for personal possession of an ounce or less of marijuana.
"This commonsense approach to marijuana possession will create huge savings, both human and financial," Taylor said. "Thousands of individuals will be able to move on to lead productive lives, while over $29 million a year can stay in local community coffers — it is a win-win for Massachusetts."
» add a comment