国会議員[口論フランク]個人的なマリファナの使用を解禁するために手形をもたらす

Rep. 口論フランク(D-MA)は彼が「呼んだことをもたらす彼の約束で2008年3月21日によく譲る深刻な犯罪者ビルに席を」作った 出現 HBO ビルMaherとの実質の時間。 手形を後援してRepsがありなさい。 Ronポール(R-TX)、Maurice Hinchey (D-NY)、Dana Rohrabacher (RCA)およびサムFarr (D-CA)。

木曜日のテキスト 新聞発表、Repから。 フランクの議会のウェブサイトは、続く。

####

国会議員、第4地区、マサチューセッツ2252 Rayburn建物 · ワシントンD.C.、 20515 · (202) 225-5931

2008年4月17日

フランクは個人的なマリファナの使用の中央政府罰を取除くために立法をもたらす

国会議員はまたビルをファイルし博士のとのRecommendationそれを可能にすることを選ぶ状態のマリファナの医学使用を許可する

国会議員の口論フランクは今日目指した二党派の立法をもたらしマリファナの個々の使用の中央政府制限を取除く。 1つの手形はマリファナの個人的な使用のための中央政府罰を取除き、フランクが議会の複数の先行する会議でファイルした他は-版-医学の目的のための使用を医者の推薦と法的にすることを選んだ状態のマリファナの医学使用を可能にする。 代表的なRonポール(R-TX)はフランクをように中央政府罰手形の共同スポンサー結合した。 医学のマリファナ手形の共同スポンサーはRepである。 Repsと共にポール。 Maurice Hinchey (D-NY)、Dana Rohrabacher (RCA)、およびサムFarr (D-CA)。

立法を説明しているフランク国会議員は次の声明を発表した。

「私は実際はそれが罪として社会が真剣に行ないたくない何かを確立する本の立法で保つべき悪い法の執行であることを考える。 In my view, having federal law enforcement agents engaged in the prosecution of people who are personally using marijuana is a waste of scarce resources better used for serious crimes. In fact, this type of prosecution often meets with public disapproval. The most frequent recent examples have been federal prosecutions of individuals using marijuana for medical purposes in states that have voted – usually by public referenda – to allow such use. Because current federal law has been interpreted as superseding state law in this area, most states that have made medical use of marijuana legal have been unable to actually implement their laws.

“When doctors recommend the use of marijuana for their patients and states are willing to permit it, I think it’s wrong for the federal government to subject either the doctors or the patients to criminal prosecution. More broadly speaking, the norm in America is for the states to decide whether particular behaviors should be made criminal. To make the smoking of marijuana, whether for medical purposes or not, one of those extremely rare instances of federal crime – literally, to make a ‘federal case’ out of it – is wholly disproportionate to the activity involved. We do not have federal criminal prohibitions against drinking alcoholic beverages, and there are generally no criminal penalties for the use of tobacco at the state and federal levels for adults. There is no rational argument for treating marijuana so differently from these other substances.”

To those who say that the government should not be encouraging the smoking of marijuana, my response is that I completely agree. But it is a great mistake to divide all human activity into two categories: those that are criminally prohibited, and those that are encouraged. In a free society, there must be a very considerable zone of activity between those two poles in which people are allowed to make their own choices as long as they are not impinging on the rights, freedom, or property of others. I believe it is important with regard to tobacco, marijuana and alcohol, among other things, that we strictly regulate the age at which people may use these substances. And, enforcement of age restrictions should be firm. But, criminalizing choices that adults make because we think they are unwise ones, when the choices involved have no negative effect on the rights of others, is not appropriate in a free society.”

“If the laws I am proposing pass, states will still be free to treat marijuana as they wish. But I do not believe that the federal government should treat adults who choose to smoke marijuana as criminals. Federal law enforcement is a serious business, and we should be concentrating our efforts in this regard on measures that truly protect the public.”

by RAW STORY Link to Article 4/17/2008

Who is Barney Frank? Below is an excerpt from Wikipedia, a link to the complete article can be found here.

Frank is one of the most liberal members of the House, and has been outspoken on many civil rights issues, including gay rights. In 1987, he spoke publicly about his homosexuality for the first time. He said in a 1996 interview: “I’m used to being in the minority. I’m a left-handed gay Jew. I’ve never felt, automatically, a member of any majority.”

Reprimand

In 1990, the House voted to reprimand Frank when it was revealed that Steve Gobie, a male escort whom Frank had befriended after hiring him through a personal advertisement, claimed to have conducted an escort service from Frank’s apartment when he was not at home. Frank had dismissed Gobie earlier that year and reported the incident to the House Ethics Committee after learning of Gobie’s activities. After an investigation, the House Ethics Committee found no evidence that Frank had known of or been involved in the alleged illegal activity.^[2] Regarding Gobie’s more scandalous claims the report by the Ethics Committee concluded, “In numerous instances where an assertion made by Mr. Gobie (either publicly or during his Committee deposition) was investigated for accuracy, the assertion was contradicted by third-party sworn testimony or other evidence of Mr. Gobie himself.”^[3

Also, a biography for Barney Frank can be found here>> Barney Frank bio.