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.
Leave it to you to miss the point.
"As a conservative, I say that society has a right to place reasonable restrictions on individual rights for the good of society."
Fine. "As a conservative, I say that society has a right to may place reasonable restrictions on individual rights for the good of society."
"So rights are something granted by the government?"
Nope. Never said that. Read it again.
"Really, even ban? Even given the 14th Amendment?"
Really. The 2nd was never incorporated into the 14th.
Is he now a Tory, also?
So, the GA General Assembly is full of libertarians? Apparently, irony is not a concept you're familiar with.
What do you mean "Ask a libertarian". I thought I did. Care to answer my question?
I'll tell you what. I'll re-phrase my question so you can answer it.
You called individual rights and individual liberties a conservative position. Then what constitutes a classic liberal's (in the mold of John Locke) position when it comes to rights and liberty?
. . . and you'd still be just as wrong. Words have meaning, obviously: the same words mean different things to different people. Ultimately, this particular element of our discussion is neither here nor there.
Leave it to you to miss the point.
Don't blame me for your propensity for using words you think mean the same thing but don't.
Fine. "As a conservative, I say that society may place reasonable restrictions on individual rights for the good of society."
Acting under the legitimate powers and rules alloted to the government by the people, I agree with you. I ask you yet again, what are your metrics for determining what reasonable restrictions may be placed on individual rights for the good of society?
"Really, even ban? Even given the 14th Amendment?"
Really. The 2nd was never incorporated into the 14th.
So a total gun ban in Massachusetts would pass constitutional muster in your world?
I accused you of acting like an asshole, not being one, because you acted like one. Do you have a problem with that?
I'm not passing judgement here, so don't get so defensive. I'm just setting definitions and explaining the difference between conservatives and libertarians.
I am not a libertarian, no matter how hard you and the other GOP cheerleaders on FR try to "tar" us non-Tories with the term, because I do not believe in the infallibility of the free market system, and as such I do not believe the free market system serves as a model for all human interaction.
A distinction without a difference.
Well, then would a "conservative" in the legislature act differently? Would a "conservative," for example, support Sens. Kennedy and Lautenberg in banning plastic guns, even though they don't exist. Would you support such a notion?
There are no metrics. How does one define "reasonable"? The 4th Amendment protects us from "unreasonable" searches. What are the metrics for that? C'mon.
"So a total gun ban in Massachusetts would pass constitutional muster in your world?"
In my world? What kind of question is that? Quit acting like an ignorant asshole. (Not that you are one, mind you, just acting like one. Feel better?)
A total gun ban in Massachusetts would not be against federal law or the federal constitution, but would violate Article XVII of the Massachusetts State constitution which states, "The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence."
Now if the people of Massachusetts did away with Article XVII, then, yes, Massachusetts could ban guns.
A conservative would not vote to allow a citizen to carry around a semi- or fully-automatic rifle, though they would allow him to own one and transport it.
It's called a "reasonable" restriction. Why do people have such a problem with this concept?
Are you so insecure that any concession means surrender? Well, let me clue you in on something. Insisting that you have the God-given absolute right to carry around a fully loaded M249 Squad Automatic Weapon everywhere you go doesn't help your cause.
And that advice is coming from a card-carrying contributing member of the NRA and a damn fine shot with a .45 at 15 yards if I do say so myself.
There are no metrics . . . that's simply another way of saying there is no limit. It's undefined. It's nebulous. It's vague. It means whatever anyone wants it to mean.Do you see the inherent problems yet?
In my world? What kind of question is that? Quit acting like an ignorant asshole. (Not that you are one, mind you, just acting like one. Feel better?)
"In your world" = "in your opinion." I apologize if such subtleties escape or insult you.
A total gun ban in Massachusetts would not be against federal law or the federal constitution
Sorry, I side with Black.
But I would not call that a conservative position. So when you frame a question that references "the conservative principles of individual rights, individual liberties, and a smaller, less intrusive government", it's bound to be met with blank stares.
Conservatives do not define their position based on individual rights and individual liberties, even though those exist under reasonable restrictions imposed by society. Individual rights and liberties uber alles is a position taken by libertarians, classical liberals, and objectivists.
Why are you asking me? Ask the legislators. If you want to know why I oppose such laws, it is because they don't do what they are intended to do. Do you think someone will decide on shooting up a 7-11 and then think, "Oh, I better not, since I had my heart set on using my Minimi, and open public carry of that is illegal."?
Are you so insecure that any concession means surrender?
Well, yes, to the degree that adult pot smoking will mean the breakdown of civil order.
What about that little thing called the 2nd Amendment?
IMO, this position best captures the spirit of the American Revolution and its ideological foundations.
I have a hunch your mileage may differ. ;^)
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.