The Alex Jones Special Report: Kevin Booth Drug American War

May 9, 2008

Urge Your Congressman to Support H.R.5842

April 22, 2008

“H.R. 5842: To provide for the medical use of marijuana in accordance with the laws of the various States”

This bill was introduced on 4/16/08 and is being scheduled for debate. I urge you to do as I have done; contact your local representatives and urge them to support it.

Sponsor – Rep. Barney Frank [D-MA]

Co Sponsors – Rep. Sam Farr [D-CA], Rep. Maurice Hinchey [D-NY], Rep. Ronald Paul [R-TX], Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [R-CA]

As you can see this is not a partisan bill. It has the support of both the left and the right.

You can locate and write to your representatives here.

You can view H.R. 5842 here.

I beleieve it is of the utmost importance that the federal governemnt NOT interfere with the states and the will of the people in those states.

If you have questions or need help, just shoot me an email or leave a comment.


House of Representatives to Consider Medical Cannabis Legislation!

April 22, 2008

NORML is pleased to announce that Representative Ron Paul and Representative Barney Frank have introduced H.R. 5842, the “Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act”, which seeks to enact legal protections for authorized medical marijuana patients, in the House of Representatives. Now is the time to contact your House member and urge him or her to support this important legislation.

H.R. 5842 will help to ensure that medical marijuana patients in those states where medical cannabis legislation has been approved will no longer have to fear arrest or prosecution from federal law enforcement agencies. However, this proposal will only receive serious consideration if your elected officials hear an unmistakable message of support from their constituents.

Currently, twelve states — Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington — have enacted laws protecting medical marijuana patients from state prosecution. It’s time that we allowed our unique federalist system to work the way it was intended, and permit these states’ citizens and their representatives to enact laws permitting the medical use of cannabis, free from federal interference.

Please take two minutes of your time today to contact your House member and tell him or her to support this important measure.  For your convenience, a prewritten letter will be sent to your representatives when you enter your zip code below.

Thank you for your support of NORML and our efforts to enact medical marijuana reform in the United States.

Ron Fisher
NORML Outreach Coordinator

Barney and Ron: Together Again

April 16, 2008

Topic: Government Regulation
Barney and Ron: Together Again

It may come as a shock to supporters of both men, but Barney Frank and Ron Paul are jointly sponsoring s bill affecting federal regulatory power and states’ rights.

by rtbohan
Wednesday, April 16, 2008

The Hill newspaper reports today thatBarney Frank and Ron Paul are together again, or perhaps together again for the first time.( They  jointly introduced a bill in the House of Representatives last Friday dealing with federal regulatory power and states’ rights, issues  on which most would expect them to be taking opposite sides. What may be even more surprising is that the measure is in reponse to complaints from bankes, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department.

Barney Frank is a liberal Democrat and an advocate of strong federal regulation of business.  Ron Paul is a conservative Republican and libertarian who wants to limit federal regulation and supports the right of state government to set regulations on matters he believes are outside the legitimate scope of federal power.

What brought the two opponents into at least temporary agreement is their opposition to the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act.  The law the two are sponsoring would prohbit the Federal Government from adopting any measures to carry out this law.

The 2006 Act does not prohibit internet gambling nor regulate it.  It directs the federal government and the banks to enforce various state laws prohibiting gambling.  A number of states, of course, are, directly or indirectly, in the gambling business themselves, either through the licensing and taxing of casinos or through lotteries, which are voluntary tax systems.  These states want to limit competition by banning gambling on the internet and prohbiting payoffs from internet gambling sites.  Unable to directly enforce these laws, they have called upon the federal government to act for them. The NFL and other sports organization as well as the Family Research Council joined in vocal support of the measure.

Representatuve Frank, the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has already sponsored a law to legalize and provide for federal regulation of internet gambling, which would, among other things, repeal the 2006 Act.  It would treat  internet gambling as a matter of interstate commerce and therefore under the delegated power of the federal government.  In terms of economic and personal freedom this might not be an improvement over the current law.

He has joined Representative Paul in sponsoring the legislation introduced Friday in reponse to complaints before his committee from the American Bankers Association, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department.  Because a great deal of business is done over the internet and a great deal of money changes hands, the government feels that devising regulations for distinquishing illegal gambling payments from other payments would be difficult to devise.  The bankers feel they would be almost impossible to apply without using too many of the banks’  resources in sorting out the payments.

The Frank-Paul measure would stop the implementation of the 2006 Act by prohibiting the creation of a federal enforcement mechanism  From Frank’s point of view, the measure provides a means of blocking an onerous regulation until his bill can be considered.  From Paul’s point of view, this is another means of limiting federal regulation of business.

This is not the only issue on which Frank and Paul are in agreement, despite their very different viewpoints.  Both, for example, want to leave regulation of at least marijuana, if not other drugs, to the states and get the federal government out. On the whole, however, they have very different views of the role of government and on the interpretation of the constitution.

But intelligent people holding strongly opposing views can work together when their goals coincide.