Marijuana Legalization and Taxation Act

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Sam Spade]

I would like to propose an amendment:

Clause 3 will be reworded to say:

All those convicted of crimes in federal courts that have been repealed in this bill shall be released from any sentence in prison they are presently serving and any outstanding fines owed. These provisions do not exonerate those who are presently in jail or paying fines for other crimes and misdemeanors.

This is fine with me.

[Sam Spade]

Aye.

[Sam Spade]

Mr. President, I suggest we move this along as fast as possible! It's 4/20!

We need to approve the above amendment and then I would happy to vote on it.

Vote for my Senate Procedural Resolution and we'll actually get rules that we can disregard on this sort of thing. 

[Sam Spade]

With six votes in favor to one against, the amendment has passed.

The only problem I can see now is the cause of where it would be illegal after this is passed. As I am currently interpreting it is that the regions would have to pass specific legislation banning marijuana to have marijuana stay illegal. I am thinking about presenting an amendment concerning whether regions would have to pass specific illegalization and criminalization legislation to maintain its illegality.

Perhaps what we could do is add an amendment saying that marijuana will be by default illegal in the regions, but that each region is free to pass their own legislation legalizing it in the region.

If we get rid of the federal laws against marijuana, my assumption is that the only valid laws would be state laws already on the books against substances that might be legitimately defined as marijuana. (sort of like what would happen if Roe v. Wade was overturned)

Other than that, marijuana would be functionally legal in any other jurisdictions, simply because no laws would exist on the books, except for this federal one.  I could be wrong on this, but that's my fundamental assumption and probably a good one to go off of.

As to the state laws I have no idea how many there are or where they are.

I think we should make an amendment saying that marijuana is in default "legal" pursuant to any state or regional clauses already on the books, but that any region may be allowed to draft legislation to define parameters dealing with any issues concerning marijuana not defined in this bill, or may be allowed to illegalize it in their region, if they so wish. 

The federal government would obviously not fund enforcement of this banning, that would be said region's responsibility.

[Sam Spade]

Nay.

[Sam Spade]

Aye to the Gabu amendment.

The NixonNow amendment is funny.

[Sam Spade]

Amusing, but...

Nay.

[Sam Spade]

This is the 'effective' Senator that Keystone Phil wants re-elected:

Mr. President, I hereby introduce the following ammendment:

No person in Atlasia who has not attained the age of two hundred years shall consume or otherwise grow or distribute marijuana.

We should have a procedure law that requires every amendment to have at least one co-sponsor.

My overhaul of the Senate's procedural resolutions laid out in these two threads would take care of this problem.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=16936.msg434047#msg434047

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=16936.msg442197#msg442197

For this problem, read Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3.

[Sam Spade]

Since NixonNow has now resigned from the Senate, can we ignore his amendments, and I motion to bring this bill to a vote, unless their are any objections or more reasonable amendments.

[Sam Spade]

I motion to call a vote on this bill.  (to be seconded by 2/3 of the Senate after 5 days of the debating)

[Sam Spade]

Aye.

[Sam Spade]

Just need one more vote to pass this. 

[Sam Spade]

My vote count yet?

Aye.

You're a Senator, I don't see why not.. 

Yippee!

[Sam Spade]

This legislation is now passed.