What is the official way to request that pot be legalized?

This may seem like a silly question, but according to the government what is the official way to make a request to legalize pot? This should have been taken care of a long time ago. I'm a busy person, but somebody needs to take care of this. (not me though)

If alcohol is legal pot should be too since it doesn't harm your body.

 

lol weed harms your body...alot...but i dont think its as bad as alcohal and ciggs

 

yeah, i agree if tobacco is legal, pot should be too.
i wouldnt know who you should speak to. but try to get info on your government and find the person who is in charge of stuff like that (i dont know what pot would classify under. find someone whos in charge of the wellbeing of products or whatever). then give them a call or email.

 

Form a petition.
Get the signatures required (don't cheat!)
Get it on the ballot.
Get a majority of people to vote for it, and you have just passed your ballot!

Either that or pay off a lobbyist, but that's expensive and risky.

 

That is right except you left out one step. "What will the petition say"? It has to be drafted to explain exactly what you hope to have happen if you get enough Sigs to get it on the ballot.

 

A. "The Right of the People"
​

The Second Amendment's recognition of a "right" that belongs to "the people" indicates a right of individuals. The word "right," standing by itself in the Constitution, is clear. Although in some contexts entities other than individuals are said to have "rights," (37) the Constitution itself does not use the word "right" in this manner. Setting aside the Second Amendment, not once does the Constitution confer a "right" on any governmental entity, state or federal. Nor does it confer any "right" restricted to persons in governmental service, such as members of an organized military unit. In addition to its various references to a "right of the people" discussed below, the Constitution in the Sixth Amendment secures "right" to an accused person, and in the Seventh secures a person's "right" to a jury trial in civil cases. (38) By contrast, governments, whether state or federal, have in the Constitution only "powers" or "authority." (39) It would be a marked anomaly if "right" in the Second Amendment departed from such uniform usage throughout the Constitution.

In any event, any possible doubt vanishes when "right" is conjoined with "the people," as it is in the Second Amendment. Such a right belongs to individuals: The "people" are not a "State," nor are they identical with the "Militia." Indeed, the Second Amendment distinctly uses all three of these terms, yet it secures a "right" only to the "people." The phrase "the right of the people" appears two other times in the Bill of Rights, and both times refers to a personal right, which belongs to individuals. The First Amendment secures "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," and the Fourth safeguards "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." In addition, the Ninth Amendment refers to "rights . . . retained by the people." We see no reason to read the phrase in the Second Amendment to mean something other than what it plainly means in these neighboring and contemporaneous amendments.

The Supreme Court, in interpreting the Fourth Amendment, likewise has recognized that the Constitution uses "the people," and especially "the right of the people," to refer to individuals:

"[T]he people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by "the People of the United States." The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ("Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble") (emphasis added); Art. I, § 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States") (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. (40)

​

Thomas Cooley, the leading constitutional scholar after the Civil War, took the same view in explaining "the people" in the context of the First Amendment: "When the term 'the people' is made use of in constitutional law or discussions, it is often the case that those only are intended who have a share in the government through being clothed with the elective franchise. . . . But in all the enumerations and guaranties of rights the whole people are intended, because the rights of all are equal, and are meant to be equally protected." (41)

The Constitution confirms this meaning of "the people" as individuals by expressly distinguishing the "people" from the "States," using each word to refer to a distinct thing. Indeed, the Second Amendment itself refers separately to "the people" and the "State." And the difference is firmly established by the Tenth Amendment, which distinguishes between the powers reserved "to the States" and those reserved "to the people." The "people" are the individuals who compose the States, distinct from - and bearing their federal "rights" apart from - those entities. (42)

Similarly, the Constitution gives distinct meanings to "the people" and the "Militia." Again, the Second Amendment itself is a notable example, referring to the "well regulated Militia" but granting the "right" to "the people." The Constitution's other references to "rights" of "the people," noted above, cannot plausibly be construed as referring to the "Militia." In addition, when granting governmental power over the militia, the Constitution speaks of the militia expressly, without any reference to or suggestion of the broader "people." (43) And the Fifth Amendment's Grand Jury Clause, which distinguishes between all "person" and those serving in the army, navy, or "the Militia, when in actual service," indicates that where the Constitution addresses rights that turn on service in the militia it does so expressly.

The only truly "collective" use of the "the people" at the time of the Founding was to refer to the people as they existed apart from government or any service to it. The Declaration of Independence refers to "one People" dissolving their political bonds with another and forming their own nation, and "We the people" created the Constitution in ratifying conventions chosen "by the People" of each State. (44) Thus, even in this context, the "people" are distinguished from "the government" or "the State"; nor can the term plausibly be limited to the "Militia." And when "the people" appears in the phrase "the right of the people" in the Constitution, we conclude that it indicates a personal right of individuals, whether that be a right to assemble and petition, to be secure in one's person and property, or to keep and bear arms.

B. "To Keep and Bear Arms"
​

The "right of the people" that the Second Amendment secures is a right "to keep and bear Arms." As the previous subpart showed, those who hold the right are, according to the text, "the people" - individuals - not the government or even the militia. The phrase "to keep and bear Arms" is consistent with this conclusion: The phrase "keep . . . Arms" reinforces it, (45) and the phrase "bear Arms" is not inconsistent with it.

1. "To Keep . . . Arms."
​

In eighteenth-century English, an individual could "keep arms," and keep them for private purposes, unrelated to militia duty, just as he could keep any other private property, and the phrase was commonly used in this sense. For example, in Rex v. Gardner (K.B. 1738), a defendant charged with "keeping a gun" in violation of a 1706 English statute (which prohibited commoners from keeping specified objects or "other engines" for the destruction of game) argued that "though there are many things for the bare keeping of which a man may be convicted; yet they are only such as can only be used for destruction of the game, whereas a gun is necessary for defence of a house, or for a farmer to shoot crows." The court agreed, reasoning that "a gun differs from nets and dogs, which can only be kept for an ill purpose." (46) The Court of Common Pleas six years later treated Gardner as having "settled and determined" that "a man may keep a gun for the defence of his house and family," (47) and in 1752 the King's Bench reiterated that "a gun may be kept for the defence of a man's house, and for divers other lawful purposes." (48) The same usage appeared in an earlier prosecution of a man for "keeping of a gun" contrary to a statute that barred all but the wealthy from privately owning small handguns. (49)

William Blackstone, whose Commentaries on the Laws of England, first published in the decade before the American Revolution, was the leading legal authority in America at the Founding, wrote, without any reference to the militia, of "person" who are "qualified to keep a gun" and are "shooting at a mark," apparently on their own property. (50) He also noted that certain persons could not "keep arms in their houses," pursuant to a statute that used "keep" to signify private ownership and control over arms, wherever located. (51) Colonial and early state statutes similarly used "keep" to "describe arms possession by individuals in all contexts," including requiring those exempt from militia service (such as the over-aged) to "keep" arms in their homes for both law enforcement and "the defense of their homes from criminals or foreign enemies." (52) At the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention in 1788, Samuel Adams proposed an amendment prohibiting Congress from "prevent[ing] the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms," indicating ownership by individuals of private arms. (53) And that State's Supreme Court, in a libel case soon after the Founding, likened the "right to keep fire arms" to the freedom of the press, both being individual but not unlimited rights - the former not protecting "him who uses them for annoyance or destruction." (54) The basic dictionary definition of "keep" -"[t]o retain" and "[t]o have in custody"- was consistent with this specific meaning. (55)

 

It only hurts you if you smoke it I believe.
I don't smoke so I would only eat it.

People that smoke pot are probably over using it because they need it quickly.
Pot should be legalized, but smoking should be dicouraged because of health.

SO Anyone know how close petitions have come to getting pot on a balot and has it ever happened and failed to pass? ( I think there are web sites out there on this topic, but I'm new to it)

I was picturing myself going into a police station and saying
"Hello, could you please tell me the official way to request that canibus be legalized. I realize this may seem like an unusual question but I thought that the police probably know the laws better than anyone."
(actually this isn't competely true, they are the enforcers of law not the makers, I would probably have to go to a court)


(possibly adding if asked)
"Further I would like to make this request because I believe that the arrests are not logical for the people or the government, case in point being that a worse drug is already legal, and I have health as primary concern with recrational drugs such as alcohol, thank you."

 

write your congressman, join NORML

 

and your senator, and your governor. If a representative gets enough letters from people saying they beleive marijuana should be legal, they will have to at least adress the issue.

 

I just wrote my state representative.

Dear Michael,



I am concerned with the damage recreational drug use of alcohol has on the body. I do not know the proper channels to make a request on the modification of a law, but I hope this political party can help.



I am aware that drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco is harmful to our bodies, but I believe it is neither possible nor necessary to stop the use of drugs such as alcohol and tobacco. Thus, I would like to allow these recreational drugs to continue with the education that there are safer alternatives.



I believe that there is an error regarding a law that has yet to be corrected for quite some time in relation to drug policy. I have heard a lot of money is being spent to stop the use of a drug that is healthier to use than alcohol and tobacco. That is the eating of cannabis.



Could an action please be made quickly to fix this error while educating the public that smoking of any kind is not healthy and drinking alcohol is not healthy either.



I believe that this action is very conservative when properly understood and is in the best interest of both our bodies and government funds that are being misdirected and harming our citizens that are more educated on the proper choice and use of recreational drugs such as eating cannabis in place of drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco.



I have been well educated by the public schools and university at this fine state in psychology and it is well taught and understood among the educated, that while illegal, eating cannabis is the healthiest and safest recreational drug. I have also been well educated in criminal justice. I think many citizens have been respectful of our laws and are patiently waiting for them to change, but our patience is being pushed while we wait for an illogical law to endure. I have also been well educated in politics and history from this fine state and it is well known that during an immature time of our past the cannabis law was passed for immoral reasons. It is now far passed time to correct this mistake and educate the public.



If there is any fear that using recreational drugs such as cannabis could lead to the use of other dangerous drugs, do not worry for alcohol is a recreational drug already legal. Thus that route, even possible, has already been fully established by our government through the current recreational drug alcohol.



It is best to minimize other factors such as the direct damage a drug does to our bodies by legalizing the less harmful recreational drug such as eating cannabis.



If you are worried that you will be viewed as irresponsible by opening up another recreational drug, I think it is important to understand that it is being done in the best interest of health and funds by using the lesser of two evils. Recreational drugs are not perfect, but we should not allow a law to continue that encourages more dangerous drugs because everyone is too afraid to legalize another safer recreational drug since they will be viewed as irresponsible.

 

look at the marijuana laws for alaska and denver, CO buddy! not to mention cali, and all the other decriminalized states!

 

Alaska, California, Colorado (WOO! ), Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Maine, Minnesota, Ohio, and Oregon.

 

Wait, so what do they do to you if they catch you with it in those states?

 

they give you a ticket which amounts to a small-medium fine for smaller amounts(usually under an ounce)

 

Ive been pulled over smoke 4 times. Not once have I even goten a ticket(Minnesota) Twice they confiscated it, once they said it smells alot like weed and we said somethin like "we dun smell anything" and he gave us a dirty look and let us go, and a last time, it was one of the cops that got me the second time, and ive met on many occasions, looked at the green, and gave a dissapointment talk, but gave it back.

 

So you are saying some cops aren't even enforcing the law and others will put you in jail or prison or something? Maybe some cops realize that pot isn't dangerous and go easy if the law in the area isn't harsh.

 

Some cops are being sensable and releasing you with just confinscating your shit, or making you dump it. Some will even let you keep it. It varies from state to state, but it tends to be more common in states that have allready decriminalized marijuana (so its just a small fine), and they dont get in trouble for letting you off.

Remember, its a cop's job to inforce the law, not to judge weather or not its just. Dont hate cops for arresting you, its not there fault the asshats in our political system feel the need to keep stoners down.

If your caught and busted, think of it as a learning experiance and be more careful next time. If you get off, be thankful you wern't fined or jailed, which is what cops are totally allowed to do.

 

ok lets petition the british so we can get our freedom right ? i meant it work in 1775 . fucking idiot wimps.

 

cops are assholes in general and becouse of fear of loosing theyr job very few look away = so your fuck anyway .

 

Um. England kicked our asses until the french arrived and the brits decided it wasn't really worth it anymore.
I don't think we can rely on the French right now, so i guess that option's out. That and the british g'vt isn't really powerful in the states.

writing a congressman isn't going to accomplish jack shit.
And joining a large organization like NORML while funnelling funds to the right people doesn't really acomplish much on a personal level.
Seriously, just get a petition together that decrims posession under an ounce or something and get enough people to sign it. You might attract the attention of some nasty people if you do this though...