Time for the ‘Make Room for Serious Criminals’ bill

It’s hard to imagine a bill like this passing in its first iteration, and it would almost certainly draw a veto from this president, but Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) is nevertheless poised to do something interesting. During an appearance on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher,” Frank announced that he will soon introduce legislation to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana.

Frank offered no details on his legislation, and it’s not at all clear that he could ever get it to the House floor for a vote. A Frank aide was unaware of his plans other than his statement on HBO.

Frank has introduced legislation in previous years to allow the use of “medical marijuana,” although the bills never made it out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Asked by Maher as to why he would push a pot decriminalization bill now, Frank said the American public has already decided that personal use of marijuana is not a problem.

“I now think it’s time for the politicians to catch up to the public,” Frank said. “The notion that you lock people up for smoking marijuana is pretty silly. I’m going to call it the ‘Make Room for Serious Criminals’ bill.”

It sounds like Frank is thinking about this in the right way. I suspect a lot of Americans would like to “make room for serious criminals,” and would shudder if they realized how much it cost (in a time of an economic downturn and tight budgets) to incarcerate non-violent violent offenders who face jail time for possession.

Frank’s bill may take a few tries before it gains serious headway, but why not start the conversation?

Indeed, it’s probably worth keeping in mind that Frank’s position is hardly a fringe one anymore. A few months ago, then-presidential candidate Chris Dodd endorsed decriminalization…

Bill Maher handed Chris Dodd a smoking fatty during the HuffPost/Yahoo!/Slate Candidate Mashup, asking a surprise question about legalizing marijuana. To his credit, Dodd didn’t pass. He puffed.

“We’re cluttering up our prisons, frankly, when we draw distinctions” between booze and pot, Dodd said. “So I would decriminalize, or certainly advocate as president, the decriminalization of statutes that would incarcerate or severely penalize people for using marijuana.”

…and Barack Obama appears to be on the right track, too.

The Washington Times reports that Barack Obama, who told an audience of college students when he was running for the U.S. Senate in 2004 that he favored decriminalizing marijuana, still holds that position, although he opposes complete legalization. […]

Given what Obama seems to mean by decriminalization, this position is not exactly radical. About a dozen states are said to have decriminalized marijuana, which generally means that possession of small amounts for personal use does not result in arrest and can be punished by a modest fine at worst. Possession is still illegal in almost all of those states, the conspicuous exception being Alaska, where possession of a few ounces in one’s home does not trigger any penalty at all. Possessing more than the limit (usually an ounce), growing marijuana, or selling it remain crimes even in so call decrim states.

A sleeper issue for the ’08 campaign?

Decriminalization of marijuana would be an excellent way to make room in America’s prisons for all of the Bushylvanians who are destined to imprisonment for their crimes against the Republic.

Therefore, the Grand Chimp-Ah of the Bushylvanians will most certainly veto this legislation….

  • It is about time there was a discussion about this. It is ridiculous that people can drink, drink, drink until they are disgustingly sloppy but someone’s gonna get tripped out about a little toke. Mind you, I’m not much of a drinker these days, but I don’t hold it against anyone as long as they don’t drive. It’s really not any of my business. You would think the conservative right would get that seeing as how they’re supposed to be for smaller government. Of course, with the privitization trend in corrections these days theyre probably making money hand over fist. Money is always going to take precedence over smaller government.

  • Our incarceration rates defy comparison. We are off the end of anybody’s scale. In part this is due to our Puritanical origins, all the way from “making an example of someone” (Hester Prynne comes to mind) to the current “what kind of message will it send” if we’re not Hell-fire-and-brimstone here on Earth.

    It is in large part due to our racist attitudes toward blacks. The black form of cocaine draws sentences twenty times longer than the white form. “Reefer madness”, when it comes to sentencing, is almost totally “Racist madness”.

    This would be a very good time to decriminalize at least marijuana. In fact, it would be a very good time for honest assessment all around. What would be the effect, e.g., of lightening all punishment, say to a level comparable to Europe. At the same time, what would be the effect of increasing punishment for drunk driving, as they have? We need a dose of empiricist curiosity, not more of preachers’ wrath. We need if, for no better reason, than to reduce cost of the inhumane sport of punishing people.

  • John Kerry lost the 2004 presidential election on May 17, 2004. That was the day that gay marriages first took place in Massachusetts.

    I support legalization of gay marriage 100%. I support decriminalization of marijuana 100%. But here is my message to one of my favorite Congressmen, Barney Frank:

    Please, Congressman Frank, put this on the back burner for now. We really don’t need to open another front in the culture wars during this election season.

    There will be plenty of time for this after the election. 🙂

  • McCain has absolutely nothing to campaign on this fall except more of the same. As much as I respect Barney Frank and support decriminalization of marijuana, this is absolutely the wrong time to give McCain a lifeline to base his campaign on. Decriminalization may be popular with the majority, but not enough to get too many additional people out to vote. Whereas we know from past history that “look at what the hippies want to do now” is all you have to say to get the moralists out in droves.

  • And as usual I have no clue what Mary is talking about or how it relates to the post in question. Has Frank come out against Obama?

  • The AWOL alcoholic/cocaine addict chimp-in-chief will veto – after all – there’s a reason that his bodily fluids and eliminations are treated as the most important of national secrets when he is visiting other countries.

    They are afraid Americans will stop drinkin’ the kool-aide if they have access to substances of abuse as powerful as are regularly given to dur chimpfurher.

  • And gay marriage?

    Why would chimpy approve that when he can get the services of an admitted homosexual prostitute like gannon/guckert 24/7?

  • Shalimar, yes Frank has endorsed Clinton.

    My remark is a bit off-topic, but this blog has apparently become a pro-Obama campaign organ, so there are no more topics here other than what supports their candidate.

    Witness the hit piece on Clinton earlier, about her participation in Kosovo. Straight from Obama’s propaganda mill.

    Here are the facts on that one:

    Clinton visited the border to talk with refugees. She was not talking about arriving at the airport when she discussed dodging bullets. This is an unfair pro-Obama distortion of her remarks.

    Here is what Richard Holbroke said about Clinton’s participation in Kosovo, someone with more stature than Sinbad:

    “Concerning Kosovo, the Obama memo – citing their own advisors and supporters — falsely claims that Hillary played no role in the larger effort to open the border to more refugees. Richard Holbrooke, the architect of the Dayton Accords, lays out the facts:

    It was dire in May 1999 when Hillary Clinton arrived in Macedonia. The government of Macedonia had slowed the flow of refugees from Kosovo to a trickle. After visiting refugees and gaining a first-hand assessment of the situation, the First Lady had intense talks with President Gligorov and Prime Minister Georgievski. In these talks, one in the Presidential Palace, another in the residence of the American Ambassador, Christopher Hill, Mrs. Clinton pressed the Macedonian government to fully open the border so that Kosovar Albanian refugees could flee the war zone to safety. She also committed herself to work with the government and people of Macedonia who also faced an emergency because of the threat to their own safety and stability. Hillary Clinton promised to take action to help the Macedonian economy. Returning to Washington, she pressed hard in the administration for action to support the Macedonians. She even contacted American business executives to ensure that American textile contracts in Macedonia were not canceled. There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of those people I worked with in the Balkans at the time – that her intense efforts resulted in easing a crisis of significant dimensions and contributed to saving many lives.

    Hillary’s trip to Kosovo in May 1999 took place during the air war over Kosovo. Despite concerns about security, she traveled to the international border on the edge of the war zone, and visited with refugees. More, including more testimonials, HERE. [ visit Clinton’s website]”

    ON TOPIC: Barney Frank was just making an off-hand comment knowing Bill Maher’s feelings about legalizing drugs. I doubt he is planning to do anything serious about this any time soon. Manufacturing such a comment into any kind of issue worth discussing is just a bunch of wind about nothing, in my opinion. Worrying about what that might do for McCain is even sillier.

  • Mary (10) Are you having trouble putting in links? You can just cut (edit,copy or Command c) and paste (edit,paste or command v) the url address from the top of the screen of Clinton’s website to the comment area, or type in the url address (hillaryclinton.com), but do it on a separate line without the parentheses.

  • Democrats run the big cities in this country, and everyone has a serious gang problem. How do they handle it? Take the guns away from law-abiding citizens.

    The last three Democrat administrations chose to ignore fighting the Mafia completely (even the Clinton administration only prosecuted a couple of major Mafia figures, and that’s it). (I should note that it was a liberal, and a Democrat Congress, that passed RICO, although it was signed by a Republican President, Nixon.)

    The only serious criminals Democrats seem to believe in are those who don’t agree with them; and for Democrats, that’s a criminal act.

  • But… but… in this time of rising unemployment, what will we do with all the otherwise-unemployables in the DEA??? I gues we could let the Colombians make their payoffs legally and just tax the income normally. Sort of a private retirement system.

  • On March 23rd, 2008 at 10:29 am, Mary said:
    Barney Frank consider Barack Obama “not ready” to be president.

    So, how is it you teach, Mary? “Do as I say and not as I do?” You write even worse than the semi-literates you create.

  • While it’s a wonderful, logical, sane idea…it isn’t going to happen.

    Michigan will have a medical marijuana referendum on the ballot this year (it seems), but our Democratic governor is already – and publicly – against it.

    There is the privatized prison-industrial-complex angle, but there is also another facet that will keep the government away from decriminalization. You can tax booze and tobacco because people generally buy it from a store. Few people, however, are going to bother with stores for cannabis; they’ll either grow it themselves or find a friend who’s willing to do the cultivation.

    Ask Michael Pollan (he covers cannabis in Botany of Desire), the best and brightest horticulturists of a generation aren’t even known…they live in basements and attics perfecting the controlled environment cultivation of a plant that does quite well in those conditions. Taxing cannabis would have to be an honor system.

    And the policy makers don’t have a clue. Industrial hemp cultivation was struck down by a California court because the fields might be used to hide marijuana…except that illicit marijuana is unpollinated flowers and industrial hemp doesn’t worry about pollination (and it would be impossible and counter productive to stop pollination in industrial fields for several reasons). Industrial hemp fields would actually ruin guerrilla gardening for miles around. And if you don’t believe me, ask George Washington…there are diary entries where he scolds himself for not culling male plants before they produced pollen. There’s only one, horticultural reason for that…the father of our country was a high-on.

    It would be easier for local/state governments to just tell the police not to enforce possession laws. And that way, when someone gets busted with $20,000 in cash, guns, coke, and pot…the pot charges can be thrown on top of the others.

  • SteveIL is waiting, as most metalheads are, for the legalization of methamphetamine. Then we’ll no longer need to be curious about where his insanity comes from.

  • But… but… if we start to decriminalize drugs, then they will probably stop costing so much – which would cut into the profits of those who finance the drug trade – and make it less likely that people will try to get other people addicted because they can make some money from the addiction – and make it harder for neo-conservatives to fund things like the illegal war against the Nicaraguan government during the Reagan administration – and as someone else mentioned, cut down on the need for more prisons run by private contractors. This is unfair meddling in a lucrative market, and any good freeper should see that Barney Frank is nothing but a meddling pinko Socialist who is trying to interfere with business as usual!!!

  • I suspect a lot of Americans would like to “make room for serious criminals,” and would shudder if they realized how much it cost (in a time of an economic downturn and tight budgets) to incarcerate non-violent violent offenders who face jail time for possession.

    Non-violent violent offenders? That’s a flipflop even McCain would pause at.

  • Legalize it and tax it. It could make a good dent in the Bush/Republican-generated deficit.
    The current laws are about as effective as the Volstead Act.

  • So, how is it you teach, Mary? “Do as I say and not as I do?” You write even worse than the semi-literates you create.
    Thomas Cleaver @ 14

    And now, Mr. Cleaver, you understand why I homeschool my kids—to protect their intellectual potential from pedagogical piss-pots like Mary!

  • My remark is a bit off-topic, but this blog has apparently become a pro-Obama campaign organ, so there are no more topics here other than what supports their candidate.

    Correction: Your remark is COMPLETELY off-topic. This is a post on pot legalization; not Kosovo. And your rationalization for posting it here is nonsense. Frankly, I fail to understand what you’re doing here if you hate the blog so much and disagree with everything posted. Please, go create the pro-Hillary blog you imagine we need. It’s not hard. Blogger will walk you through everything and you could have your own blog within twenty minutes. You could even make it a Carpetbagger Rebuttal blog if you wanted. But the idea that Carpetbagger needs to change his blog to fit your reality is entirely absurd and completely egotistical.

    Sure, you think CB has a pro-Obama bias, and we think you have a HUGE pro-Hillary bias that has blinded you to reality. That’s just how it goes. So who the hell are you to insist that our bias is wrong and that your bias is reality? We disagree with you, get over it. Who knows, maybe you’re right about everything. But who the hell are you to insist that this is the case or to insist that Carpetbagger alter his entire blog to fit your needs? This isn’t a public service; it’s a blog. And people come here because they respect Carpetbagger’s opinions. Nobody made us come here and CB doesn’t have a monopoly on blogs. Hell, that’s one reason I set-up my blog over two years ago, as a rebuttal blog to post my own opinion on things. Please, go do the same.

    I’m not saying you have to leave, but if every comment you write is an insult to Carpetbagger’s integrity and you feel compelled to write long off-topic comments on almost every post, you really need to think about doing something else. But this is CB’s blog and he gets to write about whatever he wants to write about. And if you think we need another pro-Hillary blog, go for it. You might even make money at it. You’re allowed to disagree with anything you want, but to continue to insist that this blog is hugely flawed and that we’re all wrong is just silly. Stop being a blog bully.

  • The right hates pot because it make you less violent. If Jesus wasnt a stoner, its only because he was on a natural high.

  • ‘make’ should be ‘makes’ of course. Hunt & peck typing is a Hillary. Havent smoked in about 10 years; havent smoked more than 100x in the last 30 years, but I know what pot is and a dangerous drug it is not. Alcohol, now there is a dangerous drug.

  • Franks’ and Dodd’s positions on small amounts of pot are a breath of fresh air. Because of rhetoric that’s appealing to the conservative crowd the “tough on crime,” “law and order” and the ultimately foolish “three strikes and you’re out” catch phrases have ruled the day over pragmatism. A catch phrase that might offer the general public a better perspective on what’s going on is “free room and board for pot smokers at taxpayer expense.”

    If this society wants to get tough on pot smoking, public service would be a better punishment then time behind bars. Having the largest percentage of a population behind bars than any other nation on the planet shows we a justice system seriously out of whack.

  • 100% with Okie, @4. It should happen and, hopefully, will eventually. But, as a campaign plank? God forbid.

    And Lex, @15. I think there would be a way to tax it. Especially if marijuana for medical use were decriminalised. If it could be grown legally, on commercial scale, the growing could be controlled by the govt and taxes could be levied, while unlicensed growers would still risk jail (same as unlicensed stills are). Also, growing it on commercial scale *legally* would make it cheaper and less attractive to grow illegally.

    PS If Mary is a teacher above the kindergarten level, then my opinion of the US educational system has taken another plunge.

  • I’m sorry Doctor Biobrain, but you and others on this site rarely allow for debate from Hillary supporters, and start hurling insults anytime one of us tries to have our opinions heard.

    Sometimes its good to have differing opinions, plus neither candidate deserves to be attacked unfairly no matter who’s blog it is. If Obama was being unfairly bashed in some other blog, you would want somebody there to advocate on his behalf.

    The reason I read CB’s blog is that its really nice to know what the other side in order to be sure that I’m not missing something. I even check out FOX occasionally to find out what liberal they are bashing for fun, and I do all of this with an open mind.

    That being said, I think what Mary had to say was important information, just like I think the information I get from reading CB’s blog is important. I may not agree 100% with everything CB writes, but i respect his right to write about whatever he wants.

    If you want to dispute what Mary says and try to show it to be false, that’s one thing, but to dog her for talking about it at all isn’t the way to have a heatlhy debate.

    Back on topic now.. I think the ‘Make Room for Serious Criminals’ bill would be a start, but they really should legalize it for medicinal purposes. This seems to be working out pretty well in California and other places, and helps those who need it to get it legally! (cancer patients, glaucoma, etc..).

  • why do you attack Mary for bringing up important issues? You should not be afraid of knowing the other side, and besides you may learn something you didn’t know.

    I read CB’s blog because it challenges me to think outside the box, make me consider other points of view, therefore making more informed choices. Harping on Mary for speaking her mind is obnoxios, why don’t you try to debunk what she says instead of just giving her shit for saying it?

    On topic now, I think they should legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes, this seems to work well in areas where it is legal like California. Some people benefit greatly from using it, and should not be told that they can’t for legal reasons.

  • i was reading a book this morning (“the man who killed shakespear” by ken hodgson — worth reading if you really have nothing else, but that’s beside the point) which is set in the depression (1932) and there was some talk about the rationalization of prohibition of alcohol — it reads exactly the same as the many of the arguments in favor of maintaining the prohibition on marijuana use (that is, when you can get an argument which isn’t that insane black/white loop of “it’s illegal because it’s bad; it’s bad because it’s illegal”).

    when are our elected officials going to get their act together? i’m not holding my breath.

  • Greg, @27 and 28,

    I wouldn’t mind it if Mary *had* a differing point of view; I disagree with almost everything SteveL says, but I do appreciate his postings. Mostly, for the reason you mention — one needs to know what and how the other side thinks — but also because he *thinks*; his postings are his own and, at least, pertain to the subject on hand. Mary, OTOH, especially today, is nothing but a blogosphere version of a robo-call; no matter what the subject is, she drags Clinton into it. And, in several threads, doesn’t even bother to change the text; she just cuts and re-pastes the same article (taken off the Clinton website). That’s so intellectually lazy, as to deserve all the derision that’s being heaped on her.

    I do so miss Zeitgeist; the *one* sensible and literate Clintonista we used to have…

  • why do you attack Mary for bringing up important issues? You should not be afraid of knowing the other side, and besides you may learn something you didn’t know.

    Because this isn’t her blog. This is Carpetbagger’s. Yet she continues to insult him because he doesn’t run his blog the way she thinks he should run it. I fully agree that it’s good to hear from opposing views; though I avoid rightwing sites like the plague (their insanity upsets my digestion). But this isn’t the place to bring up important issues. Being off-topic is bad blog etiquette and is frowned upon.

    Differing opinions are fine. But when someone keeps blasting a blogger for not running their blog the way they want it run, while filling their comment space with long comments showing what they think the blogger should be writing, it’s time to create your own blog. Mary really should do that. If CB’s blog is biased, that’s his business. It’s one thing to point it out occassionally, but you reach the point where you’ve got to realize he likes what he writes. And this happens to be my favorite blog, so I don’t want him changing anything for Mary. If someone needs to write what she thinks we need to read, she needs to write it at her own place. This isn’t a community forum or a public service. It’s The Carpetbagger Report; and that’s what he does.

  • Greg—throughout the campaign, I have yet to see any semblance of Clinton actually “addressing the issues” in a meaningful way. She’s repeatedly spouted “35 years of experience” (which we now know doesn’t actually exist), a handful of slobbery slogans (ready on day 1, being just one), and a bushel-basket full of “kitchen sink strategy.”

    What specific has she offered, greggie? You don’t even have to offer “specific”S”—just one meaningful specific, in detail beyond reproach, on one meaningful problem. Or are we all supposed to just buy into the idea that we’ll find out—once she’s elected?

  • Mary@10
    Barney Frank consider Barack Obama “not ready” to be president.

    You justified this by saying Frank endorsed Clinton.

    This isn’t even close to being the same thing.
    So far the only one I’ve heard of saying such things are Clinton, McCain, and Penn.

    I stunned CB Steve and th MSM wouldn’t have picked up on such a charge.

    Could it be the lack of trust 52% of the population has for Clinton should be extended to her supporters?

    Quote or apology please. Either would be fine.

  • It’s about time.
    Why does this government and ONLY the government perpetuate all this bad propoganda about marijuana? Why are politicians so reluctant to get these bills rolling? Everyone else in this country knows marijuana is no big dangerous thing. Alcohol has ruined more lives than all marijuana smokers combined, and when was the last time you heard about someone getting angry on pot and killing someone? Yes, it’s about time politicians caught up to the American public instead of being dragged around by big money special interest.
    One in four American males in prison, the highest in the world. Does that sound like a free country?

  • Comments are closed.