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.
That's not my point. My point is, do the people have the right to decide whether the behavior is simply unwise or whether the behavior is sufficiently harmful to others to warrant abridging it.
The argument you're making is to answer the question, which is the methodology of trying to win the argument in the arena of ideas. Good for you, but that's not my point (see my #102).
The bone I'm picking is with the notion that the people should not be allowed to decide such things in the arena of ideas, because smoking pot is a constitutional right, and is therefore untouchable. The problem with this logic is that someone has to decide the question of harm. I say that should be the People after open and honest debate. I don't want it to be some appointed judge with a Napoleon complex.
No.6, thank you for your penetrating post.
Here is the nut of it:
"If we assert that self-harm of this sort is punishable, than when we bring punishment for marijuana, we also keep the door open to those who would criminalize other behaviors, on the grounds that we (the people) are generally harmed by the self-abuser's health or lifestyle problems caused by his choices. In this fashion smokers are being demonized; busineses are prohibited from allowing smoking, prohibitive taxes are levied, government social services are brought to bear against parents who smoke, and so forth. The same technique is now beginning to be used against eaters of unhealthy food.
This, essentially, is the argument: do the people have the right to criminalize behavior they feel is unwise, or do the people have the right to possibly unwise behavior?...."
In fact, it isn't 'the People' who lead these control-freak social movements, but usually paid agents of the state whipping the people into hysteria over these 'health' issues with their own money. In addition, the bogus gubmint 'science' sucks on innumerable public titties.
Why Americans are largely blind to the metastasizing socialism in their own country when they recoil from it so strongly in foreign climes eludes me, even after all these years of following US politics.
Those who support the Constitution and America's historical foundation have always been a minority - I don't know if that can work in the long run.
This, essentially, is the argument: do the people have the right to criminalize behavior they feel is unwise, or do the people have the right to possibly unwise behavior?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
S-man
That's not my point. My point is, do the people have the right to decide whether the behavior is simply unwise or whether the behavior is sufficiently harmful to others to warrant abridging it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Obviously No.6's point is a valid constitutional question.
'Abridgement' is addressed in the 14th:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Thus, we see that under the 14th; -- the People of a State do not have the right/power to criminalize behavior they feel is "unwise". --
--- They must use due process of law to deprive us of life, liberty, or property.
"-- 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, . . . --"
Harlan
State/local governments can have no delegated power to prohibit 'unwise behavior', as such powers are prohibited to them by both the 10th & 14th Amendments.
A fair argument and an understandable worry. But my point is, "If not the People, then who?" and the answer to that is judges. No thanks, the People have made many mistakes, and the pendulum swings, but they retain control of the pendulum.
To some, having the Constitution is an end. Its not an end, its a road map, constant vigilance and constant public discourse is vital.
You and I likely disagree to some extent on the harm done to others by certain behaviors, but if the country can solve slavery, there is hope for us too, but not if we decide to allow someone else to decide for us.
You're definitely not this obtuse. Get with the program.
Can the People decide by due process on whether it is
A. Just unwise.
OR
B. Harmful to others.
Well? Who decides? And dont' give that BS that it's already been decided in the Constitution. It hasn't. Somebody has to decide whether any given law is criminalizing the unwise, or protecting others from harm. Who's job is that if not the People's?
Get with the program; - read post #200, my son. -- All your obtuse questions were answered therein.
Even with multiple choice, with no other possible options, you won't commit.
I answered your question, here:
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1724611/posts?page=200
Help us out her pops. How about you pick one:
A. People
B. Judges
All you have to type is "A" or "B" and hit "post".
Some laws only work if they are applied equally to all states. Look at gambling. The states that allow it end up with casinos right on the border to steal tax dollars and entertainment dollars from the states that don't allow it. There needs to be a universal law against gambling or else a law that says you can't put a casino withing 50 miles of a state that doesn't allow gambling.
Same for drug laws. Same for alcohol, prostitution etc.
But I would agree with you that the Fed over reaches its legitimate authority.
Read much kid? - From post #200:
So, who decides whether the action in question is causing other people sufficient harm to justify putting curbs on it?
Officials [both elected & appointed] by the People, - all sworn to uphold the Constitution, - decide.
You're advocating the power of officials to enact & enforce unconstitutional prohibitions.
-- No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; -- Constitutional law; - and no matter which way you phrase it; - such prohibitions are infringements.
I agree with you, prescription requirements for anti-biotics for example, however, practicality does not override the Constitution. The people of Florida cannot tell the people of Georgia, not to have casinos. There is nothing to prevent the states from coordinating their laws, should they wish, without resorting to federal laws.
But I would agree with you that the Fed over reaches its legitimate authority
Weird, - you call for 'universal laws' while agreeing with us that the feds are out of control authoritarians.
-- But then, so are State and local governments over reaching their legitimate authority..
How about we the People demand that all levels of governments & officials conform to and support our Law of the Land, -- just as they've sworn to do in Article VI?
Radical idea?
But I would agree with you that the Fed over reaches its legitimate authority
Weird, - you call for 'universal laws' while agreeing with us that the feds are out of control authoritarians.
-- But then, so are State and local governments over reaching their legitimate authority..
How about we the People demand that all levels of governments & officials conform to and support our Law of the Land, -- just as they've sworn to do in Article VI?
Radical idea?
Nice. So can I call you an alcoholic because you're defending the use of alcohol?
You can if you want, if you don't mind being foolish.
Oh my God! You answered the question. I'm marking my calender.
You're advocating the power of officials to enact & enforce unconstitutional prohibitions.
Read much pops? I've never advocated any such thing. I've advocated that the People through their representives and representative's appointments decide what is and isn't constitutional by making the decision of what does and does not present harm. And although it isn't a perfect system, its better than all of the alternatives.
Your beef with the People concerning pot is that they don't agree with you about the harm done to others. That's fine, use your free speech to try to change their minds (hopefully you can perfect a non-irritating style). Just don't destroy the system by deciding that because on this issue when you aren't in the majority on the "judgment of harm", that you have to find a way to force everyone else to accept your judgment.
Again I congratulate you on answering a question. It had to be posed over a dozen times, but you finally did it. Hopefully this will be the beginning of a new level of communication for you.
"...an esocteric world where the Constitution is a god that lords over the people down to the most minute detail without the need for the involvement of human minds or hands. Because in your happy world, these people who cannot be trusted to decide if a vice does them harm, are protected from themselves by.... well apparently by you alone deciding what your god says."
The Constitution is the foundation of our great nation and all that usurp or
disparage it are traitors. It is such traitors that lord over the people by using
force to require all to adhere to their heretical religion of evil substance.
Evil has no substance, it is but the abscence of the presence of God or
wilfull action adverse to the expressed will of God. DEAmen in black armor
and masked in mystery wage a terror campaign upon the citizenry and you
sit on the sidelines and cheer them on because they are protecting citizens
from themselves? Such fascism should not be tolerated in this Republic.
It should be a duty for freedom loving Republicans to prevent government from imposing upon individuals, through force and coercion, arbitrary
puritanical beliefs that are contrary to established religious facts, beliefs and scripture. Only this way can we assure the freedom of religion envisioned
in this nations’ founding. I trust no other, particularly heretical fools, to
determine what is good for me to ingest.
"A wise man ought to realize that health is the most valuable possession and learn how to treat his illnesses by his own judgement.
Hippocrates - A regimen for Health circa 500 B.C.
Romans 14: 2-4
For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
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.