Senate Passes New Anti-Marijuana Act

[Pangloss]

On Friday the Senate passed, via unanimous consent, the Saving Kids From Dangerous Drugs Act of 2010.

 

The Saving Kids From Dangerous Drugs Act of 2009, which passed the Senate unanimously Friday, includes language that could make the fines and jail time for cooking and distributing pot brownies double those for possessing regular (uncooked) marijuana.

 

From that wording it sounds like a new front in the War on Drugs, but as the title implies the bill, which passed by unanimous consent, only applies to the sale of drugs to minors (anyone under the age of 18). Some critics are saying that the wording is too broad and that it will cause problems for some adult users, but that could be addressed in a House version of the bill.

 

Personally I think this is fine, and drug laws related to exposure to minors is something that Congress should do even if it legalizes marijuana use for adults. I'm not absolutely opposed to some older youth being exposed if they have parental permission, but I'm a big believer in supporting (and not undermining) parental authority, which is also a freedom issue (freedom to raise their children, which society expects them to do responsibly).

 

What do you all think?

 

http://www.politico.com/click/stories/1008/pot_brownies_under_attack.html

[AzurePhoenix]

Soooo, muffins are still ok?

[ParanoiA]

Well, unusually enough I'm not so much against the law as much as I'm disappointed that we still think passing laws amounts to "doing something" about a given thing. I love this title "Saving Kids From Dangerous Drugs Act of 2010" - only it doesn't do that at all. It saves them from law abiding people that would have otherwise cooked them brownies with pot in them. That's all. Making that law doesn't save them from squat.

 

But sure, let's go ahead and continue the illusion that making laws is the same thing as addressing some problem or issue, while the problem or issue continues to grow and adapt around our laws while we ignore it believing we "did something" about it way back when, when we passed that law.

 

I think we should insist they stop giving these laws fraudulent titles like that. Grown men and women run around believing they've saved kids from dangerous drugs because they passed a law. It's the worst of all options. The belief something is being done, while it's not actually being done at all, so that no one else does it either.

 

And hey, let's not let the failed drug war stop us from continuing to fail with more pretty save-the-children laws. Go America!

[jackson33]

Frankly, I'm getting a little tired of a Federal Government passing any legislation they have no intention, will or MEANS* of enforcing or prosecuting. I'm talking the entire spectrum of the Federal into what the States are expected to enforce. As for drug law, the lost "War on Drugs" and this current idea that more potent drugs are somehow more dangerous than the milder ones or children may be harmed more, has long turned into political election year campaigning, showing unintended desires to be hard on crime. Specifically on "child protection laws", I don't know of a State or Jurisdiction that CAN'T already add to the sentence of a convicted felon (drugs or otherwise) when children are involved or more importantly where a Judge or Jury will not already issue the maximum penalty will be issued and that penalty will never be served to begin with.

 

Anytime you hear the Federal has passed or intends to pass legislation, pertaining to anything, the probability is those laws are stripping the powers of the States, in the event they wish. I'll remind you, one such law is 'Illegal Entrants into this Country', either by overstaying legal authorization (40%) or illegal border crossings (60%) and has for the most part been ignored by the Federal Government and currently efforts are being made to OBSTRUCT States from enforcing. Are Federal Drug Laws being enforced in California today???

 

*Means to enforce, even current laws, much less the proposed Federal Laws, Health Care to Drugs, can only lead to a Federal Police State, which leads to enforcement on those to whom it's enforced on and I don't think anyone realizes just how close this might currently be the rule.

[Moontanman]

(freedom to raise their children, which society expects them to do responsibly).

 

What do you all think?

 

http://www.politico.com/click/stories/1008/pot_brownies_under_attack.html

 

 

I think the idea that society expects you to raise your children responsively is a joke, The West Burro Baptist Church is a prime example, as are most illicit drug control laws. This is just another attempt to appear to be responsible while actually doing nothing....

[Marat]

What a profoundly odd society America is! While it is perfectly legal for parents to beat their children, even though there is an enormous amount of evidence that child beating is psychologically and physically extremely harmful, it is still worth passing special legislation to forbid anyone slipping children some small amounts of something baked into brownies which may make them silly for half an hour.

 

John Stuart Mill set forth an excellent principle of legislation when he said that no country should ever make anything illegal unless it was clear that what was made illegal was truly objectively harmful. I guess he should have added to that the proviso that it should also be significantly harmful, and that nothing should be criminalized if it is less harmful than other, more harmful things which are still legal.

[ParanoiA]

Well, unless you're just being hyperbolic, it's not perfectly legal to beat our children in America. We can spank them, maybe slap them, judiciously and that's about it. Beyond that and you're likely abusing them and can be arrested and have your children taken away.

 

I did spank my children from time to time, but they've long outgrown that form of behavior modification. And as liberal as I am about drug use and offended as I am at drug laws and the destruction they have caused, I would not characterize it as harmless for kiddos.

 

But I agree, if those two assumptions were true, it would be even more ridiculous. You have us pegged though, we are a profoundly odd society. If we make sense, then you know you're crazy.