Posted on 10/28/2003 8:58:48 AM PST by bassmaner
Comedian Tommy Chong began a nine-month federal prison sentence on October 7 for operating a glass-blowing shop that sold pipes to marijuana smokers. Prosecutors were not impressed that his Nice Dreams Enterprises marketed a morally neutral product. Chong's pipes, after all, could be used with loose-leaf tobacco, just as any stoner in an Armani suit can smoke pot in a lawful Dunhill meerschaum.
In fact, as the Los Angeles Times reported October 10, Assistant U.S. Attorney Mary Houghton's court pleadings sought Chong's harsh punishment because he got rich "glamorizing the illegal distribution and use of marijuana" in films that "trivialize law enforcement efforts to combat drug trafficking and use."
Chong must have wondered when such activities became criminal. Perhaps the FBI now will arrest Sean Penn for hilariously smoking grass in Fast Times at Ridgemont High. Then they can handcuff Denzel Washington for portraying a crooked narcotics officer in Training Day."
At last, the homeland is secure from Chong, a 65-year-old comic whose merchandise spared potheads from fumbling with rolling papers. Could there be any greater triumph for public safety than that? And in this peaceful world and placid nation, taxpayers can rest assured that officials are using their hard-earned cash as wisely as possible. Recall that Chong and 54 others were busted in Operation Pipe Dreams, a February 24 crackdown on the drug-paraphernalia industry. That project involved 1,200 local, state, and federal authorities, the Drug Enforcement Administration estimates. These professional sleuths could have pursued al Qaeda instead, but what would that have accomplished?
All seriousness aside, as funnyman Steve Allen often said, federal drug warriors keep embarrassing themselves by enforcing pointless, oppressive policies that merely ignite tax dollars as if with a Zippo lighter. Like every White House since Nixon's, the Bush administration continues the collective, bipartisan hallucination that Uncle Sam's heavy hand can crush the desire of millions of Americans to alter their states of consciousness. Fortunately, some judges, states and cities have soured on the costly and cruel war on drugs as it grinds through its 30th futile year.
It is neither compassionate nor conservative for the Bush administration to use government force to stop cancer and AIDS sufferers, among others, from smoking marijuana to make their final days on Earth less excruciating. The U.S. Supreme Court evidently agrees. On October 14, the Supremes let stand a Ninth Circuit Court decision blocking federal efforts to yank the prescription-writing licenses of doctors who recommend medical marijuana to patients. This was a huge victory for the First Amendment, medical privacy, and the freedom of diseased Americans to ease their pain while leaving others untouched.
Seattle voters on September 16 approved Initiative 75 by 57.8 to 42.2 percent. I-75 instructs local police and prosecutors to make adult marijuana possession their lowest priority. Seattle's citizens decided to focus their limited resources on legitimate public needs, such as catching murderers, foiling rapists, and preventing terrorists from, say, toppling the landmark Space Needle.
A recent Drug Policy Alliance study found that between 1996 and 2000, voters endorsed 17 of 19 statewide ballot measures to approve medical marijuana, protect civil liberties, treat rather than imprison non-violent addicts and limit civil-asset forfeiture. From 1996 to 2002, 46 states passed some 150 such enlightened, fiscally responsible drug-law reforms.
"The war on drugs may well be the most wasteful use of government resources today," said Don Murphy, a DPA spokesman and former Republican Maryland delegate. "As a taxpayer, it's nice to know that Maryland is not alone in embracing more pragmatic approaches."
Even Drug Czar John Walters may see this issue slipping from his iron fist. While campaigning against I-75 on September 10, Seattle Weekly reported, Walters could have preached zero tolerance. Instead, he said, "The real issue is should we legalize marijuana." He added, "Let's have a debate about that."
In a September 17 letter to Walters, Robert Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project, wrote: "It's time to have that debate, so I am pleased to accept your invitation."
An honest, national debate on the war on drugs in general — and its uniquely idiotic marijuanaphobia in particular — would be a welcome development in the sad history of this national fiasco.
Of course I don't think you speak for all conservatives. I asked you because you're the first person to respond to my question . . . ever. Most pro-W.o.D. posters have ignored it ever since I began asking forms of it about a year ago. And I thank you for your honesty and your willingness to discuss it.
I'm confused by your two statements. You don't think support for individual rights is a conservative principle, yet you seem to support individual rights w/r/t firearms, and you call yourself a conservative. Is this---firearm ownership---perhaps the only area in which you support individual rights?
Sure they did -- that collective being the individual states.
The Constitution placed limits on the federal government only. The states were bound by their individual state constitutions. If a state wanted to ban guns, or free speech, or establish a state religion, they were free to do so.
Or didn't you know this?
What is it that defines them as "conservative" legislators, if not the laws they help pass?
Our society. Our values. Our way of life. Our traditions.
All of which are destroyed by making individual rights and individual liberties the foundation for the way we live.
I don't believe in anarchy.
You're contradicting yourself. In another post, you said the 2nd Amendment doesn't imply a collective individual right, but an individual right. Which is it?
Exactly who constitutes "our"?
Those are great Hallmark sentiments. Unfortunately, any citizen of any country could say the same words; there is nothing uniquely American about your 'conservatism'.
It is the fact that American society and culture created revolutionary libertarian values which makes it possible to speak of conserving those values.
If you don't think that the principles of the Revolution merit conservation, perhaps you'll admit, then, to being a Tory, not an American Conservative.
All of which are destroyed by making individual rights and individual liberties the foundation for the way we live.
I don't believe in anarchy.
The Wizard of Oz not withstanding, strawmen aren't real people.
What does define a political position is the extent to which one interprets this individual right.
As a conservative, I say that society has a right to place reasonable restrictions on individual rights for the good of society. As a conservative, I am comfortable with my previous definition of "arms" and who may or may not restrict them. A conservative does not define his position as one of championing individual rights and individual liberties over the good of society.
A libertarian would place individual rights, individual liberties above all else. Carrying an M249 SAW around while shopping at the local grocery store, why not?
As long as one's constitutionally protected rights are not being violated, I believe that they may be tempered by society.
(Keep in mind that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the federal government. If a state wishes to restrict or ban guns, and it is allowed by the state constitution, it may do so.)
Oddly enough, doing this is completely legal in my state.
Hah! Starting with what, drugs?
You're great at wrapping yourself in conservative rhetoric when it comes to the things you want. Where were you when this country was losing these "priciples of the Revolution"? Find one for me today.
But you want to restore these priciples starting with legalizing all drugs -- and you dare to cite the era of the Revolution and call it a principle. That takes balls.
I think John Adams had people like you in mind when he opined that our Constitution was wholly inadequate to the government of any other than a moral and religious people.
The General Assembly giveth and the General Assembly taketh away.
I would think that's it's more of the principle of ownership of one's own body, and the legitimacy of government regulation of the use of that body.
That's not true, because a communist would read "the right of the people" to mean the right of the people as a collective, not the right of people as individuals. Therefore, vis-a-vis a person's relationship with his or her government, this---interpretation of what constitutes individual rights---most definitely defines a political position.
As a conservative, I say that society has a right to place reasonable restrictions on individual rights for the good of society.
Society does not have rights. An individual has rights. The Bill of Rights applies to people, not to an American society.
As a conservative, I am comfortable with my previous definition of "arms" and who may or may not restrict them. A conservative does not define his position as one of championing individual rights and individual liberties over the good of society.
Obviously. That's why I asked you: "What's an appropriate metric for determining how much influence the government (any kind, federal, state, or local) may have on our personal lives? Where do you draw the line between public and private behavior?"
As long as one's constitutionally protected rights are not being violated, I believe that they may be tempered by society.
So rights are something granted by the government?
(Keep in mind that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the federal government. If a state wishes to restrict or ban guns, and it is allowed by the state constitution, it may do so.)
Really, even ban? Even given the 14th Amendment?
Sorry. I should have been clearer. "Our" means "not you".
Now, let's see if you can put a sentence together not followed by a question mark. You called individual rights and individual liberties a conservative position. Then what constitutes a libertarian position when it comes to rights and liberty?
I said it was a libertarian scenario. But "nightmare", "libertarian", whatever.
Nonsense? Your "right" to carry an M249 SAW into the 7-11 was given to you, not by God, but by the Georgia General Assembly. And they can take it away.
Are you deliberately trying to be an asshole? I hope not.
Now, let's see if you can put a sentence together not followed by a question mark. You called individual rights and individual liberties a conservative position. Then what constitutes a libertarian position when it comes to rights and liberty?
You should probably ask a libertarian. I consider myself more of a classic liberal in the mold of John Locke, absent his defense of slavery. As such, I believe in the sovereignty of an individual insomuch as the state has to provide compelling, overwhelming reason if it wishes to legislate or make administrative rules or grasp power in areas not clearly defined in its formative document, i.e., the Constitution.
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.