Posted on 10/23/2006 5:03:34 PM PDT by JTN
Nevada is known for gambling, 24-hour liquor sales and legal prostitution. Yet the main group opposing Question 7, an initiative on the state's ballot next month that would allow the sale and possession of up to an ounce of marijuana by adults 21 or older, is called the Committee to Keep Nevada Respectable.
In Colorado, opponents of Amendment 44, which would eliminate penalties for adults possessing an ounce or less of marijuana, are equally certain of their own rectitude. "Those who want to legalize drugs weaken our collective struggle against this scourge," declares the Colorado Drug Investigators Association. "Like a cancer, proponents for legalization eat away at society's resolve and moral fiber."
To sum up, smoking pot is less respectable than a drunken gambling spree followed by a visit to a hooker, while people who think adults shouldn't be punished for their choice of recreational intoxicants are like a tumor that will kill you unless it's eradicated. In the face of such self-righteous posturing, the marijuana initiatives' backers have refused to cede the moral high ground, a strategy from which other activists can learn.
The Nevada campaign, which calls itself the Committee to Regulate and Control Marijuana, emphasizes the advantages of removing marijuana from the black market, where regulation and control are impossible, and allowing adults to obtain the drug from licensed, accountable merchants. To signal that a legal market does not mean anything goes, the initiative increases penalties for injuring people while driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
The "regulate and control" message has attracted public support from more than 30 Nevada religious leaders. The list includes not just the usual suspects -- Unitarian Universalist ministers and Reform rabbis -- but also representatives of more conservative groups, such as Lutherans and Southern Baptists.
"I don't think using marijuana is a wise choice for anyone," says the Rev. William C. Webb, senior pastor of Reno's Second Baptist Church. "Drugs ruin enough lives. But we don't need our laws ruining more lives. If there has to be a market for marijuana, I'd rather it be regulated with sensible safeguards than run by violent gangs and dangerous drug dealers."
Troy Dayton of the Interfaith Drug Policy Initiative, who was largely responsible for persuading Webb and the other religious leaders to back Question 7, notes that support from members of the clergy, which was important in repealing alcohol prohibition, "forces a reframing of the issue." It's no longer a contest between potheads and puritans.
The Colorado campaign, which goes by the name SAFER (Safer Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation), emphasizes that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol and asks, "Should adults be punished for making the rational choice to use marijuana instead of alcohol?" This approach puts prohibitionists on the defensive by asking them to justify the disparate legal treatment of the two drugs.
So far they have not been up to the task. Mesa County District Attorney Pete Hautzinger has implicitly conceded marijuana itself is not so bad by implausibly linking it to methamphetamine. In a televised debate with SAFER's Mason Tvert, Colorado Attorney General John Suthers insisted "the only acceptable alternative to intoxication is sobriety."
That's fine for those who avoid all psychoactive substances as a matter of principle. But since most people -- including Suthers, who acknowledges drinking -- like using chemicals to alter their moods and minds, it's reasonable to ask for some consistency in the law's treatment of those chemicals, especially at a time when police are arresting a record number of Americans (nearly 787,000 last year) for marijuana offenses.
Despite a hard push by federal, state and local drug warriors who have been telling voters in Nevada and Colorado that failing to punish adults for smoking pot will "send the wrong message" to children, the latest polls indicate most are unpersuaded. Perhaps they worry about the message sent by the current policy of mindless intolerance.
Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine and a contributing columnist on Townhall.com.
Use of sarcasm tags is encouraged.
Your reading of the Ninth Amendment is just simply wrong.
Saying that those things that are not mentioned cannot be presumed to be prohibited, is a far cry from saying that everything that isn't enumerated as a right is also a right.
If it said what you'd like it to say, only Treason would be a crime.
"Obviously"? If its only apparent to you and a few others, its not obvious is it?
You've concurred that not every action is a right, so list your criteria for an unenumerated right, and back that up with the Constitution please.
What would you allow the people to decide using their better judgement?
'We the people' can infringe on the right to keep explosives for health reasons? -- Neat new argument, -- for the Brady types.
What of weapons? Interestingly, weapons were singled out by the framers and those who ratified the Constitution as so necessary as to be protected.
If all substances were to be protected, why were weapons singled out?
Arms [including explosives] were 'singled out' because the King tried to infringe on our rights to keep them. We specifically enumerated that right for good effect, not wanting any level of our new gov'ts to have the power to infringe upon it; - fat chance.
I'm all for more liberty, and I'll entertain arguments to legalize some substances that are currently prohibited, but I won't entertain the notion that getting high is a Constitutionally protected right.
Prohibitionists believe that a moral majority rules in a democracy. -- We have a Republic.
I've rehabilitated hundreds of potheads, crack addicts, meth users, paint huffers, cokefiends, heroin junkies, pill poppers and psychiatric patients. I don't have to rely on anybody else to know how harmful it is because I've seen plenty of lives up close destroyed by pot. And I'm not even talking about health issues beyond those which are caused by some hophead driving himself into a wall or falling off the curb and busting his chin.
I'm not the right person to be trotting out the propaganda. There is no serious argument that pot is good or harmless. Neither is alcohol, neither is nicotine. I've debated the NORMAL eggheads, Michael Moore, Califano and a variety of other in the pot legalization movement. Its all been an attempt to find some legal or scientific construct to justify the desire to get high and not be judged or busted for it. Wanting a list of 'harms' is another cannard so you can trot out a bunch of seemingly scientific studies disputing facts that every pothead knows is true. Let me guess, you can 'prove' that its not even addictive??? Reminds me of those cranks who claims that the IRS is illegal and the Constitution doesn't require citizens to pay income tax on their salaries.
And these initiatives are complete bullsh!t and any remotely honest person has to admit this. If it was really such a great idea, they wouldn't have to lie constantly or create bankshots to try to get people to support it. If you or they can't just admit that you want to get high, then the demand for intellectual honesty needs to be on the other side of the table.
So, basically you're for using the power of government to force people to conform to your ideas of right and wrong.
Whatever happened to "live and let live?"
Restricting the sale of C4 explosives is tyranny to you. OK got it. I think you've just pigeon holed yourself, but your honest.
Arms [including explosives] were 'singled out' because the King tried to infringe on our rights to keep them. We specifically enumerated that right for good effect, not wanting any level of our new gov'ts to have the power to infringe upon it; - fat chance.
Why enumerate any rights? Based on your assertive reading of the Constitution, it simply isn't required.
Prohibitionists believe that a moral majority rules in a democracy. -- We have a Republic.
Which you seem to forget is elected to serve the people. In nonenumerated areas, I'll take the judgement of the electorate over the dictate of nine appointed judges.
Wow. Four paragraphs of ranting and you couldn't come up with one single example...
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The Ninth Amendment does not state that every action that is not mentioned in the Constitution is a de facto right.
Never said it did. But obviously, smoking any substance is, just as drinking or eating any substance is.
"Obviously"? If its only apparent to you and a few others, its not obvious is it?
You claim fed/state/local gov't have a delegated constitutional power to decree what we can drink, eat or smoke. -- I say it's obvious they don't.
You've concurred that not every action is a right, so list your criteria for an unenumerated right, and back that up with the Constitution please.
"Life, liberty or property" are mentioned twice in the Constitution as covering our basic rights enumerated or not.
The Tenth Amendment clearly states that the people of the states are reserved the power to enact laws which they see fit, provided that those laws do not transgress those rights enumerated [or not, as per the 9th] in the Constitution.
Agreed.
Where is smoking anything enumerated?
The 9th clearly says rights do not need to be enumerated. Enumeration "-- shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. --"
Your reading of the Ninth Amendment is just simply wrong.
You so decree? Amusing.
Saying that those things that are not mentioned cannot be presumed to be prohibited, is a far cry from saying that everything that isn't enumerated as a right is also a right.
"Life, liberty or property" covers a ~lot~ of individual rights.
If it said what you'd like it to say, only Treason would be a crime.
Another of your 'decrees'. - Feel free to dream on.
Restricting the sale of C4 explosives is tyranny to you.
~Prohibiting~ the sale of explosives is indeed tyranny. -- You disagree, and would pigeon hole gunpowder as contraband?
OK got it. I think you've just pigeon holed yourself, but your honest.
Amusingly, that works both ways. -- You're honest too, and just put your foot in your own mouth.
Arms [including explosives] were 'singled out' because the King tried to infringe on our rights to keep them. We specifically enumerated that right for good effect, not wanting any level of our new gov'ts to have the power to infringe upon it; - fat chance.
Why enumerate any rights? Based on your assertive reading of the Constitution, it simply isn't required.
Some of the founders made exactly that argument. Luckily, they were ignored, and we enumerated life, liberty & property as inalienable rights.
Prohibitionists believe that a moral majority rules in a democracy. -- We have a Republic.
Which you seem to forget is elected to serve the people.
Forget? - Not true. I speak out against majority rule constantly.
In nonenumerated areas, I'll take the judgement of the electorate over the dictate of nine appointed judges.
Me too, as long as the judgment of both electorate & officials comply with their oaths to support, protect & defend the Constitution.
Life, liberty, and property are not absolute, but rather have their infringement contingent on due process, in stark contrast with the previous practice of governments to take all three without due process.
Your assertion is that the majority has no business in getting involved in that due process. Your alternative of a judicial dictatorship is most frightening to me.
In reply to your misreading the Ninth Amendment:
You so decree? Amusing.
The framers and ratifiers passed laws showing that they agreed with my, not your reading. The history of the United States over the last 230 years shows that the country has always agreed with my reading, not yours. As evidenced by current law my reading persists in being the accepted one. If you were to put forth a proposed amendment clearly stating your position, there is no time during our history, including today, when it would have passed. Are you still amused? Being in the majority doesn't make me right, but it makes your assertion that I'm making a decree laughable.
You've created this Dungeons and Dragons world, where its you and your reading of the Constitution against all comers, and you can't possibly be wrong, because you're just being persecuted by the masses.
IMHO your desire to stretch the Constitution to protect such things as smoking pot only serves to weaken our Republic. Not because pot smoking will weaken the Republic, but because trivializing the Constitution and our rights does.
You're arguing against a position I didn't take.
My point is that if you do the Constitutional gymnastics that are required to make smoking pot a constitutional right, then you have also ushered in polygamy, incest, and all other vice as a Constitutional right outside of the due process restrictions of the people.
This might be OK with you, but its a sure fire way to ensure that legalization will never happen.
Historical footnote here. You're reading too much mj propoganda. Hemp was grown for rope, not for smoking, and its not the same plant as mj. Also, the founders made state and local laws far more restrictive of vice than anything we have today, so you're just wrong about the Constitutional aspect. The Constitutional issue that we agree on is that the federal government has overreached it's authority in the WOD. Good luck with that part. I'm there for you.
IMHO, after getting the federal government out, stay with the practical arguments for state legalization, its a better argument, which is far more likely to work for you.
I apologize. I overreacted. It wasn't a rant.
We do disagree on the rights of the employer. I think they have the right to be overly stringent, and you would like them to be told by the government what they must accept. Your characterizing my position as favoring making businesses governmental agencies is intellectually flawed.
It must be done, as your typical reply is made up of straw man type rebuttals, -- best countered by keeping the discussion in context.
Your answer to how you define what constitutes an unenumerated right:
"Life, liberty or property" are mentioned twice in the Constitution as covering our basic rights enumerated or not.
Life, liberty, and property are not absolute, but rather have their infringement contingent on due process,
Quite true. Due process must be used in both the framing & the enforcement of constitutional law, or it is null & void.
Your assertion is that the majority has no business in getting involved in that due process.
There you go again with the out of context 'straw man' bull. I never said that. Majority decisions must conform to our Constitution, is what I said.
Your alternative of a judicial dictatorship [I made none] is most frightening to me.
Your inability to discuss the issues without so tarring your opponents is pitiful, not frightening.
In reply to your misreading [I made no misreading] the Ninth Amendment:
I wrote: -- The 9th clearly says rights do not need to be enumerated. Enumeration "-- shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. --"
The framers and ratifiers passed laws showing that they agreed with my, not your reading.
Feel free to post your examples
The history of the United States over the last 230 years shows that the country has always agreed with my reading, not yours.
Feel free to post your examples
As evidenced by current law my reading persists in being the accepted one.
Feel free to post your examples
If you were to put forth a proposed amendment clearly stating your position, there is no time during our history, including today, when it would have passed. Are you still amused?
I sure am, - more than ever. - Why do you assume an amendment should be needed to what? -- clarify the 9th?
Being in the majority doesn't make me right, but it makes your assertion that I'm making a decree laughable. You've created this Dungeons and Dragons world, where its you and your reading of the Constitution against all comers, and you can't possibly be wrong, because you're just being persecuted by the masses. IMHO your desire to stretch the Constitution to protect such things as smoking pot only serves to weaken our Republic. Not because pot smoking will weaken the Republic, but because trivializing the Constitution and our rights does.
The 'war on drugs' has indeed weakened the Republic, because trivializing the Constitution to enact prohibitions and deprive us of our rights does exactly that to due process:
"-- The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.
It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . --"
Justice Harlan
Everything you don't have an answer for brings you to scream "straw man". I don't think you understand what the term means.
You've begun your circular logic, hands on the ears, "prohibitionist" chant, so I'm pulling the handle. Its always just a matter of time once you arrive.
Just so you know though, we (that evil majority who elects representatives to decide due process) are already in our black helicopters watching your every move. The WOD really only exists to keep helicopter pilots employed, and the production of black paint up. Well it also exists to make you, personally, unhappy, but that is only a side benefit.
To all others reading this post, please see my #102.
Amusingly historically backwards point. Smoking pot [or any substance] was prohibited through constitutional gymnastics. There is no power to prohibit delegated in the Constitution, as was made evident by the 18th.
then you have also ushered in polygamy, incest, and all other vice as a Constitutional right outside of the due process restrictions of the people.
Public aspects of "vices" can be reasonably regulated by using State/local police powers, as long as due process is not violated.
-- Harlan said it best:
"-- The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.
It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . --"
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.