My Version of the Marijuana Legalization Act

[Bono]

§ 1 The possession, sale and consumption of marijuana and the plants needed for its processing, shall not be criminalized by the federal government of Atlasia.

§ 2 All federal activities related with it shall be imediately shut down, and the money currently aproppriated to them shall be used to pay off the national debt.

§ 3 All convicts by federal courts of the crimes repealed on this bill, shall be given amnesty to the punishment awarded to them by the said courts.

[John Dibble]

Good bill, much better than the other one. This citizen thinks there should be an alteration to section 2 - the federal government should still be involved in stopping illegal imporation of marijuana(I know most is grown in the country, but some is still brought in from abroad).

[ilikeverin]

[7,052,770]

So the only difference is no federal tax on marijuana?
That's probably good since marijuana would have state sales tax already anyway.

[John Dibble]

So the only difference is no federal tax on marijuana?
That's probably good since marijuana would have state sales tax already anyway.

The primary difference is that the regions/states can still criminalize it if they wish to do so. And though a federal tax in this case might not be bad, it should be on a seperate bill, since it is really a different issue.

[StevenNick]

No worries, Ike.  I'll still vote against this bill and PBrunsel will still veto it.

Now, whether or not the veto will be overriden is another story....

[ilikeverin]

No worries, Ike. I'll still vote against this bill and PBrunsel will still veto it.

*whew*

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm guessing yes... however...

So the only difference is no federal tax on marijuana?
That's probably good since marijuana would have state sales tax already anyway.

The primary difference is that the regions/states can still criminalize it if they wish to do so.

At least this is a plus

[DanielX]

I support this bill. Such restrictions are not federal business.

[The Dowager Mod]

I still oppose this.

[Siege40]

While I like it better, I think I'd still Abstain.

Siege

[Defarge]

I am not well versed on this subject.  Right now, how much of a part does the Federal Government take in the War on Drugs?  Or is it primarily the regions that finances drug law enforcement?  My vote on this bill may very well come down to whether regions that continue to keep marijuana illegal will pick up the slack in terms of drug enforcement once the Federal Government pulls out.

[John Dibble]

I am not well versed on this subject.  Right now, how much of a part does the Federal Government take in the War on Drugs?  Or is it primarily the regions that finances drug law enforcement?  My vote on this bill may very well come down to whether regions that continue to keep marijuana illegal will pick up the slack in terms of drug enforcement once the Federal Government pulls out.

My understanding is about half of the funding for the W.o.D. is from the federal government. Also, the FBI is involved, which is a federal branch of law enforcement.

[7,052,770]

I actually like this bill better, and though I will support decriminilization in my region, I think it is best left up to each region to decide.  Remember Alaska's recent decrimilization ballot initiative.

[Defarge]

I am not well versed on this subject.  Right now, how much of a part does the Federal Government take in the War on Drugs?  Or is it primarily the regions that finances drug law enforcement?  My vote on this bill may very well come down to whether regions that continue to keep marijuana illegal will pick up the slack in terms of drug enforcement once the Federal Government pulls out.

My understanding is about half of the funding for the W.o.D. is from the federal government. Also, the FBI is involved, which is a federal branch of law enforcement.

If so, then I move that Clause 2 be stricken.  If we're going to legalize marijuana, we have to go the whole nine yards.  We can't allow marijuana to be illegal in the regions, and completely halt the federal government's role in the war on drugs.  Either keep it illegal and continue the war on drugs, or legalize it and end the war on drugs.  Don't make it legal in some places but not in others, and halt the federal government's role in the war on drugs.

Give the regions the ability to legalize marijuana, but as long as some areas keep it illegal, we must continue the war on drugs.  We cannot allow some regions to be full of drug-related crime simply because their regional government continue to ban marijuana while the Federal Government ends all participation in the war on drugs.

I ask for a vote on removing clause 2.

[John Dibble]

I am not well versed on this subject.  Right now, how much of a part does the Federal Government take in the War on Drugs?  Or is it primarily the regions that finances drug law enforcement?  My vote on this bill may very well come down to whether regions that continue to keep marijuana illegal will pick up the slack in terms of drug enforcement once the Federal Government pulls out.

My understanding is about half of the funding for the W.o.D. is from the federal government. Also, the FBI is involved, which is a federal branch of law enforcement.

If so, then I move that Clause 2 be stricken.  If we're going to legalize marijuana, we have to go the whole nine yards.  We can't allow marijuana to be illegal in the regions, and completely halt the federal government's role in the war on drugs.  Either keep it illegal and continue the war on drugs, or legalize it and end the war on drugs.  Don't make it legal in some places but not in others, and halt the federal government's role in the war on drugs.

I move that Clause 2 be stricken.  Give the regions the ability to legalize marijuana, but as long as some areas keep it illegal, we must continue the war on drugs.  We cannot allow some regions to be full of drug-related crime simply because their regional government continue to ban marijuana while the Federal Government ends all participation in the war on drugs.

I don't see why not. Regions that maintain illegality would simply have to put more of their own money into fighting the war on drugs. Also, we're not ending the war on drugs with this bill(though I wish we were, but this needs to be incremental) we are just ending the marijuana part on the federal government's part. Other drugs would still be illegal and would still be hunted by the federal government's law enforcement agencies - if nothing else it would give them more time and resources to hunt down the more harmful substances like cocaine and the like, which cause far more violent crime than marijuana.

I think the regions would legalize marijuana once they see the benefits of it, and if not it is the regions that will pay the price for it.

[Defarge]

I am not well versed on this subject.  Right now, how much of a part does the Federal Government take in the War on Drugs?  Or is it primarily the regions that finances drug law enforcement?  My vote on this bill may very well come down to whether regions that continue to keep marijuana illegal will pick up the slack in terms of drug enforcement once the Federal Government pulls out.

My understanding is about half of the funding for the W.o.D. is from the federal government. Also, the FBI is involved, which is a federal branch of law enforcement.

If so, then I move that Clause 2 be stricken.  If we're going to legalize marijuana, we have to go the whole nine yards.  We can't allow marijuana to be illegal in the regions, and completely halt the federal government's role in the war on drugs.  Either keep it illegal and continue the war on drugs, or legalize it and end the war on drugs.  Don't make it legal in some places but not in others, and halt the federal government's role in the war on drugs.

I move that Clause 2 be stricken.  Give the regions the ability to legalize marijuana, but as long as some areas keep it illegal, we must continue the war on drugs.  We cannot allow some regions to be full of drug-related crime simply because their regional government continue to ban marijuana while the Federal Government ends all participation in the war on drugs.

I don't see why not. Regions that maintain illegality would simply have to put more of their own money into fighting the war on drugs. Also, we're not ending the war on drugs with this bill(though I wish we were, but this needs to be incremental) we are just ending the marijuana part on the federal government's part. Other drugs would still be illegal and would still be hunted by the federal government's law enforcement agencies - if nothing else it would give them more time and resources to hunt down the more harmful substances like cocaine and the like, which cause far more violent crime than marijuana.

I think the regions would legalize marijuana once they see the benefits of it, and if not it is the regions that will pay the price for it.

What I'm concerned with is "pay the price for it."  We should not penalize regions financially and in terms of safety simply because they do not want to decriminalize marijuana.  We should not go to the governors and say "you're going to decriminalize marijuana or your region will become a crime-stricken, gang amusement park which we'll won't do anything about because you're paying the price."

Should we legalize marijuana?  I don't know.  But forcing regions to choose between decriminalizing marijuana, or facing the war on drugs on their own is just wrong.

[John Dibble]

I am not well versed on this subject.  Right now, how much of a part does the Federal Government take in the War on Drugs?  Or is it primarily the regions that finances drug law enforcement?  My vote on this bill may very well come down to whether regions that continue to keep marijuana illegal will pick up the slack in terms of drug enforcement once the Federal Government pulls out.

My understanding is about half of the funding for the W.o.D. is from the federal government. Also, the FBI is involved, which is a federal branch of law enforcement.

If so, then I move that Clause 2 be stricken.  If we're going to legalize marijuana, we have to go the whole nine yards.  We can't allow marijuana to be illegal in the regions, and completely halt the federal government's role in the war on drugs.  Either keep it illegal and continue the war on drugs, or legalize it and end the war on drugs.  Don't make it legal in some places but not in others, and halt the federal government's role in the war on drugs.

I move that Clause 2 be stricken.  Give the regions the ability to legalize marijuana, but as long as some areas keep it illegal, we must continue the war on drugs.  We cannot allow some regions to be full of drug-related crime simply because their regional government continue to ban marijuana while the Federal Government ends all participation in the war on drugs.

I don't see why not. Regions that maintain illegality would simply have to put more of their own money into fighting the war on drugs. Also, we're not ending the war on drugs with this bill(though I wish we were, but this needs to be incremental) we are just ending the marijuana part on the federal government's part. Other drugs would still be illegal and would still be hunted by the federal government's law enforcement agencies - if nothing else it would give them more time and resources to hunt down the more harmful substances like cocaine and the like, which cause far more violent crime than marijuana.

I think the regions would legalize marijuana once they see the benefits of it, and if not it is the regions that will pay the price for it.

What I'm concerned with is "pay the price for it."  We should not penalize regions financially and in terms of safety simply because they do not want to decriminalize marijuana.  We should not go to the governors and say "you're going to decriminalize marijuana or your region will become a crime-stricken, gang amusement park which we'll won't do anything about because you're paying the price."

Should we legalize marijuana?  I don't know.  But forcing regions to choose between decriminalizing marijuana, or facing the war on drugs on their own is just wrong.

Once again, they won't be facing the war on drugs on their own - just the marijuana part. You also act as if the federal government disinvolving itself from fighting this one drug would suddenly make things much worse. It won't, who knows, it may end up having a positive effect - some potheads would move to legal regions, the federal government spends less so the states can keep more money(which they can use to fight the W.o.D.), marijuana drug lords become legit and stop trafficking to illegal states since they wouldn't be as profitable, and a variety of other possibilities.

Besides, shouldn't stupidity be punished, through karma at the very least? And states have their own laws on illegal stuff now, which the federal government does not involve itself in - they pay whatever price they must for those laws, why is this different?

Also, you say it's wrong to force the regions to decide on criminalizing or legalizing marijuana - why isn't it wrong to force them to criminalize it? You force their police to chase down people in crimes they might not view as important, where they could make better use of their time, you force them to crowd their prisons, you force them to spend money on the W.o.D., you force the negative effects of prohibition on them(remember what happened in alcohol prohibition?) - how is forcing them to do all this and more less wrong than giving them a CHOICE?!

[Bono]

Ok, by common agreement, this be put to a vote.

[TeePee4Prez]

Ok, by common agreement, this be put to a vote.

[badnarikin04]

As a candidate for Senate I want to say that I fully endorse this bill and if voting on this bill is somehow not put to a close by the time I would be elected, I will work with Senators Bono and IrishDemocrat to put this bill into action.

Bringing freedom back into the lives of the Atlasian people starts here, and with a multipartisan effort like we've seen here, we can build off this act to create bigger things.

[TeePee4Prez]

Will the PPT call this to a vote.

[JohnFKennedy]

Will the PPT call this to a vote.

It has to go to official debate time first which I hereby open now.

If you wish to bring it to a vote five senators need to agree to doing so.

[StevenNick]

I move to bring this bill to a vote.

[StevenNick]

Bump.  Can I get a second?

[Bono]

I move to bring this bill to a vote.

Seconded.