Posted on 08/10/2005 12:59:24 PM PDT by Know your rights
While a marijuana ordinance has received more than enough support to place it on the November ballot, it was the initiative's opponents who were most vocal at the Telluride Town Council meeting Tuesday.
Speaking passionately about their opposition to marijuana use, about a half-dozen opponents spoke out about the negative implications of an ordinance that would relax the enforcement of marijuana laws and support a statewide system of legalization, distribution and taxation.
A number of supporters also spoke during a half-hour debate that ended without consensus.
The town council had two options: it could either endorse the ordinance and therefore put it on the books, or place the ordinance on the November ballot.
The council showed no inclination toward passing the measure themselves. Instead, they chose unanimously to let voters decide.
"Whatever council votes today, it's neither an endorsement or a denial of the initiative," said council member Andrea Benda.
"There's been a lot of back and forth on this, and that's what an election is all about" said council member Stu Fraser. "By Nov. 1, everybody will have heard every aspect of this ... And then the folks in the community will vote on it."
The debate was not broadcast on KOTO, since a power outage forced the meeting out of Rebekah Hall and into the firehouse next door. But the 30 or 40 people who attended the meeting heard several sides of the arguments for and against the proposed ordinance, America's Drug War, medical marijuana and marijuana use in general.
Opponents cited a variety of concerns.
Richard Kearney, a former member of the Positive Alternatives Team, which works to provide area youth with alternatives to drug and alcohol use, wondered whether the ordinance might lead to increased violence, because, he said, a large portion of "violent crime is substance related."
Marrene Reagan, a family therapist, said that while she supports medical marijuana to ease pain, de-criminalizing marijuana would be bad for families.
"Children are confused because many of the people that they look up to and respect are very comfortable using marijuana," Reagan said. "They question this use of a substance to fill these emotional holes we have in us. There are ways to fill these emotional holes that allow us to grow and are positive, and I don't think using substances is an answer. I just think this is a highly unusual step that I don't think addresses many of the issues and I don't think it's necessary."
The ordinance would not, in fact, legalize marijuana. It would merely make it the Town Marshals' "lowest law enforcement priority."
Some saw that as a problem in itself.
"I think it's inappropriate to create a priority" for the marshals, said Mike Dorsey, a former lawyer for the federal government. "Law enforcement is a flexible matter. The marshals work with the town attorneys to make their own priorities.
"You guys are trying to send a message to the state, if not the nation, that marijuana should be legalized," Dorsey said. "I think that's inappropriate for the families of Telluride. If we pass this ordinance we're saying that Telluride supports the decriminalization of marijuana."
But Peggy Rose, a registered medical marijuana patient from Grand Junction, said she would like to have a "sanctuary" where she can use her medicine without worrying about prosecution. She said she suffers from chronic nausea and cannot eat if she does not smoke the herb.
Ron Gilmer, a member of the Colorado Advisory Counsel on AIDS, said he supported the medical marijuana initiative as a way of relieving the pain of terminally ill patients. He said he especially supported the second part of the ordinance, which supports a method of marijuana distribution that would give patients easier access to the drug.
Those apply only to constitutional laws.
Exactly my point. You like socialism? Fine. Not me.
I'm only referring to constitutional laws.
Much sadder how the lack of a sense of humor infects the "Legalize it!" fringe.
Sorry, straw man arguments are not allowed. As long as some number of fools have decided that socialism is the best way to run indigent care and my vote and yours do not amount to enough to stop it, we are stuck with it. The use of marijuana, while unlikely to lead to the need for long term care, is no different from the effects that might be linked to alcohol, dangerous sports, tobacco etc. Your argument is not specific to the topic. I see no need for us to debate socialism since I gather we are of like mind on that subject
I see. In for a penny, in for a pound, eh?
That is, if we support all these other activities with our tax dollars, and they're legal, and we're stuck with them, well, we might just as well legalize marijuana and add it to the rest.
The way I read it, that's basically your point.
Guess if I agree with you.
Wait, do you imagine that legalizing it will affect the numbers of people using it? You can't possibly believe that the law prevents anyone who want to use it from using it, do you? We are stuck with it irrespective of the law the real question is do you want to incur the long term costs of medical care which you will bear anyway in addition to the legal costs which produce no benefit? Seems obvious to me. The stupid, inept WOD does nothing except provide a huge sinkhole for tax dollars in a failed and laughingly miserable attempt to keep idiots from being idiotic.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Nah, muir_redwoods, golly gee, the number of people using it may actually go down with legalization! You're a funny guy.
"You can't possibly believe that the law prevents anyone who want to use it from using it, do you?"
With legalization though, more people may want to. Do you also think nothing would change if we lowered the age of consent to 16? Legalized gambling? Prostitution? Child porn?
"The stupid, inept WOD does nothing except provide a huge sinkhole for tax dollars in a failed and laughingly miserable attempt to keep idiots from being idiotic."
Oh, and how will legalizing marijuana change that? Seriously.
You're saying we will end the WOD, dismantle the DEA, the ONDCP, and release all drug prisoners when we legalize marijuana?
Well, if so, make sure that's clearly spelled out in the legislation.
"Las Vegas -- An initiative to legalize possession of up to 1 ounce of marijuana in Nevada might go up in smoke, after organizers forgot to file 6,000 petition signatures in southern Nevada."
-- AP, June 24, 2004
Dude, where's my petition!!
I don't want to change it. I want to stop flushing money uselessly down the toilet in an ineffectual war on marijuana, and please stop resorting to the strawman arguments. I never suggested legalizing all drugs or lowering the age of consent, the topic is marijuana which is presently uncontrolled in this country but we somehow keep wasting huge sums of money.
Your debate skills are basically to use strawman arguments I never suggested and then make points against those. It is not very mature. Try to stay on topic.
Fine. A laudable goal. But I'll ask again, where are the savings going to come from?
Money will continue to be spent on the WOD against the other illegal recreational drugs. The DEA and the ONDCP will continue on as before. Other drugs users, dealers, and traffickers will continue to be arrested and imprisoned.
99% of the marijuana arrests are done at the state or local level (not federal) and are usually part of another infraction (driving, disturbance, etc.). Those arrests wouldn't stop with marijuana legalization -- they just wouldn't tack on the marijuana charge.
Yeah, you'd have some saving at the state/local level in the money spent on prosecuting, convicting, and jailing some small user, but you can realize those same savings by simply decriminalizing marijuana use and issuing a fine like a traffic ticket.
No expense, plus revenue of $100 to $500 per incident. A profit maker. (I'd still want to jail the dealers though, no matter the drug -- they're the gatekeepers to the underage.)
I wasn't presenting a strawman argument. I was simply pointing out the fallacy of your argument -- that legalizing just marijuana is the key to savings in the WOD.
That said, I'm not in favor of marijuana decriminalization unless it is done seriously and not simply as a first step towards legalization. Increasing fines for subsequent arrests, mandatory drug treatment (for users, not dealers), periodic drug testing, community service, weekend jail time for chronic users, possible driving license suspension, etc. A true effort to make the punishment fit the crime, plus assistance in stopping the use.
That, I'd consider.
Laws regulating purely intrastate activity that "substantially affects" interstate commerce are unconstitutional, the FDR court's fabrications notwithstanding.
Cool it with the "regulating".
Laws written in accordance with the Necessary and Proper Clause of the U.S. Constitution regulating governing purely intrastate activity that "substantially affects" interstate commerce are unconstitutional, the FDR court's fabrications notwithstanding certainly constitutional.
Tell me why not, rather than making exceptions to what is.
They're not in accord with that clause because they're not proper.
regulating governing
More laughable semantic hairsplitting.
If that's the way you debate, then allow me to respond in kind: "Yes they are".
"More laughable semantic hairsplitting."
If it is indeed merely semantic hairsplitting, then humor me by using "governing" from now on.
Really? I thought you conceded that a pre-FDR court ruled that Congress may regulate intrastate traffic under the Commerce Clause. Was that pre-FDR court in error also? Is there some USSC court that hasn't been in error, according to you? Any court?
Be that as it may, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress the power to regulate purely intrastate activity. Of course, that's not what were talking about here, so I have no idea why you're bringing it up. Care to fill me in?
" And I might consider humoring you if you tell my why that would humor you."
Consider? Might consider? I tell you and in return you might consider it?
Hah! Tell you what. I'll consider telling you. Maybe.
Doesn't sound right to me ... better quote me exactly.
Be that as it may, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress the power to regulate purely intrastate activity
More than simply not granting that authority, it *explicitly* puts intrastate activity outside of federal authority.
Read it yourself -- in context.
"More than simply not granting that authority, it *explicitly* puts intrastate activity outside of federal authority."
Article I, Section 8 does not explicitly put any activity outside of federal authority. It grants powers.
Explain how the Commerce Clause is so explicit in placing intrastate activity outside of federal authority. Especially when the clause uses the phrase "among the several states", and does not even *explicitly* allow "interstate" regulation!
Looks *implicit* to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.