Decriminalization of LSD Bill

[Ebowed]

Decriminalization of LSD Bill

Section 1: Applicability
1. This law shall only apply in the District of Columbia and in federal territories which do not form part of any Region.

Section 2: In Regards to the Legal Status of LSD
1. The possession and consumption of LSD (also known as lysergic acid diethylamide, LSD-25, or "acid"), a non-addictive semisynthetic psychedelic drug, shall be lawful for anyone who is 18 years or older.
2. This law shall not be interpreted as to decriminalize driving under the influence of LSD.


Sponsor: The President pro tempore

[DownWithTheLeft]

Offer an Amendment:

To add a Section 2.3 that states the following:
LSD may only be used in private residencies

Also to add a Section 3 on purchases
1.) LSD may only be purchased from drug stores behind the counter
2.) LSD will be taxed at 22%

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Never thought I'd say this, but I support DWTL's amendments.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Nay

[Ebowed]

We are voting on the following amendments:

To add a Section 2.3 that states the following:
LSD may only be used in private residencies

Also to add a Section 3 on purchases
1.) LSD may only be purchased from drug stores behind the counter
2.) LSD will be taxed at 22%


Amendment 1 (Consumption): Nay
Amendment 2 (Sin Tax): Nay

[DownWithTheLeft]

Consumption: Aye
Sin Tax: Aye

[Bono]

I do not see the point on the first amendment. If people are going to be allowed to take LSD, what does it matter if they buy it from a drug store behind the counter or if they buy it from an useful friend? That's just useless feel good legislation of the kind this house is so apt at producing.

[Colin]

I do not see the point on the first amendment. If people are going to be allowed to take LSD, what does it matter if they buy it from a drug store behind the counter or if they buy it from an useful friend? That's just useless feel good legislation of the kind this house is so apt at producing.

Well it allows the government to better regulate the quality of the drug if it is only sold in pharmacies. Otherwise you could still have a home-made LSD market within the legal LSD market which would sell sub-par and dangerous impure forms of the drug. After more thinking though I really don't see the purpose of either of these amendments. If we are going to decrimininalize something then let's go all the way instead of all these half-way measures. Though I would be supportive of a Sin Tax on LSD.

As for my vote:

Nay
Nay

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Aye
Aye

[Brandon H]

Abstain
Aye

[Ebowed]

I do not see the point on the first amendment. If people are going to be allowed to take LSD, what does it matter if they buy it from a drug store behind the counter or if they buy it from an useful friend? That's just useless feel good legislation of the kind this house is so apt at producing.

I don't support that stupid clause either.  It's part of the second amendment.

[Rob]

Nay
Nay

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Nay to Section 2.3, LSD does have some potential uses beyond as a recreational drug, as written this amendment would delete it.

Aye to Section 3, though I think a different licensed source than a pharmacy would be a better way to obtain recreational LSD.

[minionofmidas]

Nay on 2.3

Nay on 3, although I would support the tax if voted on separately.

[Јas]

2.3: Nay
3: Aye

[DownWithTheLeft]

Maybe my Sec 2.3 wasn't the best wording, but hopefully someone could set some guidelines on how this stuff can be used, random LSD use in the street would not be a great thing and would make me vote on the bill.  Since this bill should be a close vote, I think it would be detrimental to supporters of it to lose my vote.

[Ebowed]

Given that the bill will inevitably be jumbled in some way that compromises its original spirit, I am withdrawing it.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Given that the bill will inevitably be jumbled in some way that compromises its original spirit, I am withdrawing it.

Too bad I liked the idea, too bad you have to have it exactly your way.  The goal would have been accomplished.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Since Ebowed has taken up sponsorship of my bill for Yates, I would like to take sponsorship of this bill which has never been officially killed

[minionofmidas]

Since Ebowed has taken up sponsorship of my bill for Yates, I would like to take sponsorship of this bill which has never been officially killed

The bill still stood as originally introduced by the time it was withdrawn (though the vote tally on the second amendment was 5-4, the bill had not yet been amended.)

[minionofmidas]

If elected, I'll introduce some OSPR amendment to clarify practice regarding withdrawing of bills.

[DownWithTheLeft]

If Ebowed does not start bringing this to a vote, I will file a lawsuit.

[Ebowed]

If Ebowed does not start bringing this to a vote, I will file a lawsuit.

Bringing what to a vote?

This same bill is already in the legislative pipeline; having it being debated here when there aren't even free slots would be frivolous.

[Ebowed]

Also, this is from a different Senate session IIRC.  You can't just add your name to withdrawn legislation from any era and have it voted on.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Also, this is from a different Senate session IIRC.  You can't just add your name to withdrawn legislation from any era and have it voted on.

What if he throws a big enough hissyfit?