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.
LOL! Why, indeed?
Carolyn
"Why pick on a homegrown vegetable?"
Answer: In order to justify the creation and maintenance of a
domestic standing army which will one day be used to disarm
the general public in the final step toward totalitarian socialism.
I do? Fascinating imagination you have, almost as fascinating as your religious belief that smoking pot is a central tenant of Christianity. Do you hold other tenants or is that it? Well never mind, the point is that your religious zeal, clouded your ability to understand my posts.
My point, once again, is that the People must be the ones that decide the Constitutionality (based on harm to others) of any given law. They must do this through their representatives using due process, and if you don't agree with their judgment, its your right and obligation to make a logical argument to sway minds.
I said:
"...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."
Let me restate this for you, as you are confused as to my point. The Constitution is not animate. It is a contract, not a devine creature. It cannot enforce itself. Thus, even if people agree not to prohibit behavior that is not harmful to others (which is what I assert the Constitution says), the Constitution is not at all definitive on what constitutes harm to others. It certainly can't leap out of its case and pass judgment. No doubt you think that you are just the one to do it, but 299,999,999 others may disagree.
Let me give you an example. Person "A" likes to have sex with a pig in his front yard every day. Person "B" seeks a law to prohibit that behavior.
B's argument is that its repugnant, makes her ill, and traumatizes her children. She shouldn't have to cover her eyes when outside, and it makes her property less desirable and thus less valuable. A's argument is that he's not hurting anyone directly, the pig likes it, and no one is being forced to watch.
There are any number of actions the People could take, and I'm not inclined to consider it the end of the Republic if they decide that banging a pig in public constitutes harm to others.
I trust no other, particularly heretical fools, to determine what is good for me to ingest.
Who are you to judge what is heretical? Why are you better than the next to decide what is harmful to others? Why is it that I never hear such passion about the abridgement of enumerated rights like speech, that I hear about pot smoking?
The last is the curious one to me. These arguments for pot smoking are so stoked up on rights, but when I look at the posting histories of those that are so impassioned, I see that not many of them are too concerned about encroachments on other far more important enumerated rights.
Making pot smoking legal (best of luck with that) will in no way help to protect our First, Second, or Fifth Amendment rights. It just doesn't work that way. In fact, if its done through screwed up constitutional process, vice repeal, it could spell disaster for all of our rights. My time and energy will be spent protecting our enumerated rights that are absolutely under attack, not trying to force the People to accept that they aren't competent to decide when an unenumerated right causes harm to others. I'm not willing to turn it over to a good king (read judge).
Duck! There's a black helicopter coming through.
Was that also the purpose of the blue laws prohibiting beer sales, hunting, etc. on Sundays?
Are we spending billions on enforcing those laws?
Do we terrorize the public with military style raids on homes in order to
ensure that they adhere to those laws?
Rights are not enumerated, rights are God given and protected by the Constitution.
Powers of the Federal Government are enumerated in the Constitution as
limits to its power over the people. Controlling dietary intake is not an enumerated power!
"but I'm not OK with the concept that its a constitutional right."
We have NO Constitutional Rights. What we have is a document which grants government certain power to do a (VERY) few things in our names and on our behalf. We have a Bill of Rights appended to that document as a "for example" of areas we have NOT granted government any authority to act. In the Ninth and Tenth amendments we FURTHER restrict the government. We, the People, retain ALL OTHER AUTHORITY and our INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, which are to be PROTECTED by the government, which is why we initiated the United States in the first place.
It appears that people obeyed those laws. But what exactly is your point, that if people actually break a law that we shouldn't enforce it? Why else would you care what its costing? If combating terrorists becomes too expensive should we stop? What are we spending to enforce laws on murder, robbery, speed limits, and parking? I thought your concern was with a violation of your rights, not with the cost, which is it?
What is "military style" vice "police style"? I haven't been terrorized by the DEA of late, so I'm not sure. I asked all my friends and neighbors and they haven't been terrorized by them either. Would you say these incidents of "terror" occur more often at the grocery store, places of worship, or meth labs?
Paranoia gone wild anyone?
You've come late to the discussion and I don't have the time or inclination for the remedial work of bringing you up to speed. You're wanting to counter an argument I'm not making. Please read my posts, its all there.
Neither is setting speed limits or parking restrictions I suppose. You'd best get right on that.
Now might be a good time to medicate. It could drop the percentage of your sentances that end with exclamation points. I'll be back later.
"It appears that people obeyed those laws. But what exactly is your point, that if people actually break a law that we shouldn't enforce it?"
This is a government of the people. The Constitution is the law and any law passed by any administration which
violates the Constitution is powerless over the people.
"If combating terrorists becomes too expensive should we stop? What are we spending to enforce laws on murder, robbery, speed limits, and parking?"
Speeding and parking tickets are cash cows for the cops.
Murder and robbery involve victimization in which an other's
rights are violated and it is the government's duty to
serve those violated and to protect others. As well, we
should be protected from all terrorists including the DEAmen
conjured by heretics spreading through violence their state
mandated religion of evil substances to be purged by war.
"Why else would you care what its costing?"
"...declaring war against the natural rights of all mankind, and extirpating the defenders thereof from the face of the earth, is the concern of every man to whom nature hath given the power of feeling" Thomas Paine from 'Common Sense'
Should we not care that we are slaves to those who terrorize
us when we slave for only half the year or should we wait
until they take our whole paycheck?
"The unlawful use of or threatened use of force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."--FBI definition of terrorism.
The lack of results in a generations long civil war(WOD) relegates all action taken by the government as significant only for the TERROR that it inflicts upon the citizenry in effort to control their appetites. (Not a Constitutionally mandated federal power!) The DEAmen are the Taliban of America.
"You've come late to the discussion and I don't have the time or inclination for the remedial work of bringing you up to speed. You're wanting to counter an argument I'm not making. Please read my posts, its all there."
I read the entire thread before posting at #166 and followed it all the way. You answer little and attack a lot. Moreover, I quoted the part of your argument I wished to debate in each posted response.
Your post to me:
I read the entire thread before posting at #166 and followed it all the way. You answer little and attack a lot. Moreover, I quoted the part of your argument I wished to debate in each posted response.
You may notice that the post wasn't to you, unless you are also using "dcwusmc" as a screen name, but then I'm not clairvoyant. Thus your point is meaningless in relation to my post which you quoted. Context, think about it.
Further you state that I'm obfuscating. If I was any clearer on my position, I'd be spoon feeding it to you. As for attacking people, I've attacked positions, and the unwillingness of some to answer direct questions. Also, I've questioned people's priorities and the wisdom of their methodology. I'm sure they'll survive my utter savagery.
Did you have a question that I haven't answered? I'd be oh so happy to answer it for you. That's a novel way of progressing in the arena of ideas.
Since you've read all my posts, here is a question for you. What is your judgment of the People restricting public sex with pigs? I know that some here will scream "STRAWMAN!", but hypotheticals are also a novel way of achieving progress in the arena of ideas. It moves the subject away from that of which people have inflamed their passion, and creates a more objective frame of reference.
Ro 14:14
I know, and am confident in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself; but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
Matthew 15:11
Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but
that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
No man is deserving of the wrath of DEAmen conjured
by corporate pawns seeking to maintain the efficiency of
their chattel through selectively staged terror campaigns
against possessors, propagators and protectors of a gift from
the garden of God. Cheer your DEAmen on, if you must.
But, know that you do not do so with the grace of God.
Peace be with you!
"You may notice that the post wasn't to you"
Duh! Excuse me for jumping into the thread!!!!!!!!!!!!
So clubbing someone to death with a rock is OK? Wait, did God create crystal meth? Did God create little boys and little girls? If He did, is it then OK to have sex with them? God created Bald Eagles, can I have one of those for breakfast? Gosh, your logic seems confusing, can you restate it?
Maybe you should use spell check before becoming a grammar Nazi!
OK! But I wasn't worried about your grammar! I was worried about your mindset! Because you see deep dark conspiracy in the drug war! People aren't concerned about the harm to their children! They are concerned about setting up a police state, to come for you in the night, to finally rid themselves of you, the last hurdle to socialist domination!
Here's a thought, just a little, teensy weensy thought, that maybe, just maybe, the criminalization of drugs is because (right or wrong) the majority of the People see it as a substance harmful to their families. Thus, if they are wrong it is in believing there is harm where none exists, not because they are having secret Wednesday night meetings to plot your destruction.
Did you have a question that I haven't answered?
Why are you better than the next to decide what is harmful to others?
"Natural rights are those which appertain to man in right of his existence. Of this kind are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind, and also all those rights of acting as an individual for his own comfort and happiness, which are not injurious to the natural rights of others." --Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1791.
OK, I've stopped laughing now, so I can answer this particular charge. No wait..... I had to laugh some more. Whew, I think I'm good now. You claim to have read all my posts, which one did I make my puritanical demand in? Did it involve shooting you? Cutting off your head perhaps? Having you dress head to toe in a condom costume? "Just as bad" is pretty tough talk, and I'm sure a rational person like you wouldn't go into hysterical hyperbole. So what is it that I'm proposing that rivals cutting off your head, I'm just dying to know (excuse the humor)?
The first time you posted it, I answered in essentially the same way. It took a dozen more times for you to finally admit you saw the truth. - Congrats yourself.
You're advocating the power of officials to enact & enforce unconstitutional prohibitions.
I've never advocated any such thing.
Belied by your post #158:
< "-- I'm still missing your point. Mine is that the citizens of the states effected have the authority to prohibit or legalize pot, as well as polygamy, incest, etc.
158 posted on 10/25/2006 5:17:04 AM PDT by SampleMan
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.
-- 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.
And although it isn't a perfect system, its better than all of the alternatives.
Our system for protecting liberty is being ignored by fed/state/local officials, and you advocate that "-- the citizens of the states effected have the authority to prohibit or legalize pot, as well as polygamy, incest, etc. --".
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).
It's pretty hard not to be irritated by prohibitionists like you kid, but I try..
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.
The "way" has been found.. The 'rule of constitutional law' must be enforced, despite what you majority rule prohibitionists say.
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.