Marijuana Legalization and Taxation Act

[Gabu]

I just realized that we have an open spot because of Hughento's resignation and the subsequent withdrawal of his bill.

As introduced by Sen. Colin Wixted:

Marijuana Legalization and Taxation Act[/i]

§ 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 immediately shut down, and the money currently appropriated to them shall be used for:

     A. The construction of treatment centres for alcohol, marijuana,
         and other drug abuses
     B. The fight against illegal drugs

§3 All people convicted by federal courts of the crimes repealed in this bill, shall be given amnesty from the punishment awarded to them by the said courts.

§4. Taxes on marijuana shall be set in the annual budget. Individual regions may set their own taxes on marijuana as they see fit.

I hereby open debate on this bill.

[Reaganfan]

No way. This is more of the liberal crap that I will never vote for.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No way. This is more of the liberal crap that I will never vote for.

I think the people of your rather liberal district, including myself, would support it.

Note: The sponsor is a Republican

[Reaganfan]

Actually, Wixted is no longer in the REPUBLICAN Party or the ACA. He is a member of the Freedom Party, so...BOO-YA.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

He's a real life Republican.

Note: Your behavior is not a good way to act toward a constituent

[Sam Spade]

ok, well let me start from the top.

After reading the past lengthy debates on this topic, I have a few questions that will hopefully be answered and a couple of concerns.

Overall, as I said before, I am supportive of the decriminalization of drug use (marijuana) and for Senators who can't argue properly, I might remind Senator Naso that such esteemed conservatives as William F. Buckley have called for a decriminalization of drug use in the past and present.

So, here are my questions for the sponsor:

1.  I assume that the regions will still have the right to criminalize/decriminalize marijuana if they wish to.  This will only apply to the federal government at large, not to the regions, who can set up their own rules.

2.  I am a little worried about the criminal provisions of the law.  Someone with more legal knowledge can hopefully fill me in on this, but if someone possessed, sold, etc. marijuana along with committing another crime, the only crime they are given amnesty from is the possession, sale, etc. of marijuana. 

I don't want to see other criminals get out because of this, just that the marijuana portion of their sentence be reduced.

3.  I think there should be some regulation as to the THC level of the product by the federal government, as was in True Democrat's bill before.  If John Dibble would write a good amendment dealing with that provision (since I don't know the inner details), I'd be happy to introduce.

4.  I do not support the provisions in clause 2.  I will propose an amendment to that very soon.

[Sam Spade]

Actually, Wixted is no longer in the REPUBLICAN Party or the ACA. He is a member of the Freedom Party, so...BOO-YA.

Colin is a member of the Union Party, not the Freedom Party.

[Sam Spade]

Ok, I motion to strike Amendment 2 and insert this Amendment as Amendment 2.

§ 2 All federal activities dealing with the investigation and prosecution of said criminal activities as listed in Clause 1 shall be immediately shut down, and the money currently appropriated for these activities shall be appropriated as follows:

     a.  A sum of no less than one-half (50%) and no greater than the whole (100%) of the appropriations and moneys procured by this bill must be designated towards the general Budgetary fund and the necessity of covering the present Budget’s shortfall and may not be authorized by the Senate to fund any other appropriations in this present Fiscal Year (2006).

     b.  A sum of no less than none (0%) and no greater than one-half (50%) of the appropriations and moneys procured by this bill may be authorized by the Senate in future legislation to fund appropriations and expenditures exclusively with any or all of the following measures:
          i.  The construction and funding of treatment centers for alcohol, marijuana, and other drug abuses.
          ii.  The so-called "War on Drugs" against illegal drugs not decriminalized by this legislation

[Sam Spade]

On the THC content, here is my amendment to Clause 1 on that issue:

§ 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.

a. Marijuana with a THC content higher than 13% is prohibited for sale and mass distribution.

b. Marijuana with a THC content of any level shall be legal to grow, possess, and consume for private use.

[MAS117]

I'm all for the decriminalization of marijuana, but there needs to be a limit to how much someone can possess at once. Also I wouldn't mind putting a age limit, like 18 years old to buy.

[Jake]

Actually, Wixted is no longer in the REPUBLICAN Party or the ACA. He is a member of the Freedom Party, so...BOO-YA.

Colin is a member of the Union Party, not the Freedom Party.

so....BOO-YA

[Gabu]

Okay, I open votes on the following two amendments...

To strike section 1 and replace it with the following:

§ 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.

a. Marijuana with a THC content higher than 13% is prohibited for sale and mass distribution.

b. Marijuana with a THC content of any level shall be legal to grow, possess, and consume for private use.

To strike section 2 and replace it with the following:

§ 2 All federal activities dealing with the investigation and prosecution of said criminal activities as listed in Clause 1 shall be immediately shut down, and the money currently appropriated for these activities shall be appropriated as follows:

 a. A sum of no less than one-half (50%) and no greater than the whole (100%) of the appropriations and moneys procured by this bill must be designated towards the general Budgetary fund and the necessity of covering the present Budget’s shortfall and may not be authorized by the Senate to fund any other appropriations in this present Fiscal Year (2006).

 b. A sum of no less than none (0%) and no greater than one-half (50%) of the appropriations and moneys procured by this bill may be authorized by the Senate in future legislation to fund appropriations and expenditures exclusively with any or all of the following measures:
 i. The construction and funding of treatment centers for alcohol, marijuana, and other drug abuses.
 ii. The so-called "War on Drugs" against illegal drugs not decriminalized by this legislation

I hereby open voting on these two amendments.

All senators in favor, vote "aye"; all against, vote "nay".

[Sam Spade]

Aye, aye.

[Sam Spade]

I'm all for the decriminalization of marijuana, but there needs to be a limit to how much someone can possess at once. Also I wouldn't mind putting a age limit, like 18 years old to buy.

The first comment makes no sense to me. 

The only thing we might be able to legislate on is how much a person is allowed to have on his personage in public (and even that is questionable) or how much could be legally sold in one setting (PA has a similar, but strange law on this with regards to alcohol). 

To look into private residences and see how much people are possessing is a clear violation of civil liberties.

I think age limits can only be legislated by regional governments.

[MAS117]

I'm all for the decriminalization of marijuana, but there needs to be a limit to how much someone can possess at once. Also I wouldn't mind putting a age limit, like 18 years old to buy.

The first comment makes no sense to me. 

The only thing we might be able to legislate on is how much a person is allowed to have on his personage in public (and even that is questionable) or how much could be legally sold in one setting (PA has a similar, but strange law on this with regards to alcohol). 

To look into private residences and see how much people are possessing is a clear violation of civil liberties.

I think age limits can only be legislated by regional governments.

I'm sry, let me clear that up. A limit to how much someone can sell at a given time.

[Gabu]

Aye, aye.

[Reaganfan]

NAY

[Gabu]

NAY

Um, there are two amendments up for voting; we're not voting on the bill itself.

[MAS117]

NAY

God for bid someone elected to a postion such as Naso's would actually read what we are voting for.

-----

Aye, Aye.

[WMS]

Aye, Aye.

[Nym90]

Aye Aye

[Gabu]

With six votes in favor to, uh, one, I guess, against, these two amendments have passed.

[Peter]

Whilst I don't usually interfere in the business of the Senate, I do find it slightly disconcerting that amendments seem to come up to vote almost immediately with little to no time to debate them, in this case a matter of two hours from the second being proposed to the vote being opened.

Given that we presently have a drive to make the Senate slow down to the point that people can keep up a little more, I'd counsel a little more consideration be allowed.

[Gabu]

Whilst I don't usually interfere in the business of the Senate, I do find it slightly disconcerting that amendments seem to come up to vote almost immediately with little to no time to debate them, in this case a matter of two hours from the second being proposed to the vote being opened.

Given that we presently have a drive to make the Senate slow down to the point that people can keep up a little more, I'd counsel a little more consideration be allowed.

True, although there have been times when an amendment has gone without reaching enough votes one way or another for nearly a week while people argue about it.  It might be a good idea to give them formal debate time, though, I dunno.

[Sam Spade]

Whilst I don't usually interfere in the business of the Senate, I do find it slightly disconcerting that amendments seem to come up to vote almost immediately with little to no time to debate them, in this case a matter of two hours from the second being proposed to the vote being opened.

Given that we presently have a drive to make the Senate slow down to the point that people can keep up a little more, I'd counsel a little more consideration be allowed.

True, although there have been times when an amendment has gone without reaching enough votes one way or another for nearly a week while people argue about it.  It might be a good idea to give them formal debate time, though, I dunno.

Well, I understand Peter's point about slowing the Senate down by giving an amendment debate time.  Of course, a Senator then could use the amendment process as sort of a prolonged self-filibuster, if he wanted to.

I think that I'll put something in the Third Senate Procedural Resolution to deal with this problem and see what y'all think.