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.
"And that's where the dopers usually have their car wrecks."
Then prosecute them for driving under the influence, just like any DRUNK driver who has a similar incident. (You can't call it an "accident," since one driving after indulging in intoxicants KNOWS he or she is less than capable at that point.)
Thanks for your input, Roscoe.
Most regular pot-smokers don't make good employees, if it comes to having godd QC, QA, or attendance (the voice of experience). The repercussions of that (potheads without jobs=public assistance)ourweigh the need to legalize maryjane. Other than that, I don't like the general tack of the big guvment police state any more than the next freeper.......
Absolutely. And for manufacture, sale and possession.
Or the big government welfare plantation...
There is a reason why I despise you and your ilk. It is your utterly mindless determination to maintain control over the lives of others, despite your inability to control your OWN lives that makes it exceedingly difficult for many people who suffer from intractable pain on a daily basis to get the meds they (we) need that actually WORK. I have done a lot of damage to myself in the service of an ungrateful nation, yet I cannot get pain meds that work for me because of jackasses like you. You, who think that NO ONE should have access to certain things because a FEW might enjoy it too much. You are disgusting pieces of dog excrement and need to be discarded just like it and for the same reason.
I think we're in about 95% agreement on that with a few exceptions.
If I understand you correctly. You believe it is unconstitutional to put restrictions on someone making TNT for their own private use in the apartment above you. What if they desire to work with the small pox virus in the privacy of their home?
Could it be constitutionally acceptable to you to limit those private actions based on the risk factor of harm to others, despite the fact that no harm might occur?
Answering that will help me understand your position a little more exactly. I take it that you are not a strict adherent to the premise that actions not resulting in harm are uninfringable, but rather agree that the criminalization of going 120mph through a school zone can be constitutionally illegal, even if no child is struck.
I point out your hyperbole when you say that I'm no better than the Taliban. If that were true, you would be missing your head right now, and I'd have a great Halloween display.
What I said concerning pedophilia and rape was a direct and fitting analogy to your comment that no action with anything God gave us could be wrong. God gave us children and women, so I wondered if the same would not then apply to them. I also wondered if, by the same logic, it was an uninfringable right in your mind to eat a Bald Eagle.
That is not hyperbole, it is using your flawed logic against you. A rational person would realize it and modify their position.
I notice you wouldn't answer the question. That should be a flag to you, that there is a problem with your thinking.
By the way, God also gave us Poison Ivy and flat worms. Are those also a religious experience for you, or do you only get religious about God's creations that make a person loopy? I'm trying to find out more about your religion. Does it involve anything beyond the use of "herbs"? I've always liked oregano, but didn't think about the spiritual aspects.
You know what? God also gave us Uranium, are you concerned that its private use is being regulated? You better get right on that.
I DON'T CARE... you are a villain...
I thought you said I was the Taliban? Or is it socialist Democrat Taliban? How does that work? Am I supposed to give out the free condoms before killing the fornicators or after?
As simple as possible, and with basic vocabulary:
Criminalizing actions that harm others is constitutional.
This Republic has elected representatives to decide if harm is being done (check out our federal and your state constitution). Those representatives, drawn from the People and elected by a majority of the People, obviously reflect the views of the People concerning "harm".
Without the People thus deciding "harm", murder, rape, robbery, etc. could not be criminalized. So unless you want no criminal law at all, you are stuck with the People deciding "harm".
Which part of that don't you agree with?
Type 4:
Person is very passionate, but lacks the ability to make a logical correlation of the facts. Uses analogies and logic that are highly flawed, and resorts immediately to hyperbole, e.g. The meter maid is a NAZI, the school principal is like Stalin, the FCC is the Taliban, etc.
- This type is always incredibly effective at swaying third parties to whichever view they oppose. Thus, this type is the absolute worst to have as an ally and the absolute best to have as an opponent. If a person ever finds themselves with such a person jumping in "to help", it is best to simply disengage from the conversation completely. It is simply impossible to overcome the negative effect they have to objective third party observers. With time they can even turn committed believers around.
On a completely unrelated subject, please keep posting. No particular reason.
Actually, I believe that working with explosives or biological agents in a crowded neighborhood is an invitation to disaster, UNLESS the person doing the work has an appropriate containment area which would contain and control blasts or viral leakages... which is well beyond the capacity of the average individual. So, while I would not object too strongly about safe STORAGE of, say, some RPGs or Stingers, I would be really unhappy about biologicals or about MAKING bombs or explosive devices. Being more than somewhat familiar with what can happen with both, it would be a non-starter. KEEPING explosive devices is another matter. I would object to someone who wanted to limit MY ownership of Ma Deuce or an M-79 with a few thousand rounds, or any of the other toys I learned to play with back in the day. Therefore I would hesitate to object to someone else having their toys, with the caveat that they be stored SAFELY and the owner have proper insurance and fire protection.
I am in agreement that rules are needful on the roads, as they are a shared commodity. However, in my community (and in way too many others), these rules are enforced totally arbitrarily, as a means of fundraising for the city. That is NOT acceptable.
It's obvious you don't care. Nor am I the villain here. I am merely the one pointing out that my stance is not only the PRINCIPLED ONE, but also has a practical side for me. Every day I have pain from injuries suffered during my 22-plus years of service that ranges from five to eight or better on the pain scales. Every single day. Yet because of jackasses like you, my doctor cannot treat it with anything that works for me. Doctors who DO treat pain appropriately are too often targeted by the DEA as pushers and go to jail for doing their job. And idiots like you cheer them on or else you work for the drug warriors yourself. In which case I can but dream that you might kick the wrong door down one fine night. I suspect that there are many others on this forum who have similar problems and would wish the same for you. JimRob comes to mind, though he would probably not come out and say it... sometimes he's too nice for his own good.
Welfare check late?
Dopers are just easing their pain, doncha know.
Cute, Roscoe. Real cute. But I don't put in my time on a gubmint job. I have always gotten out to do REAL work. And have always been able to look in a mirror after I cash my paycheck. Unlike you drug war shills. And I'll swap pains with you any time. Sight unseen. Let YOU live with this shiite.
I guess your drugs are confusing your mind, as that "statement" is one of the most meaningless I've read in a very long time. You, sir, are babbling.
Illegal drugs are chemical warfare against the young people of this country since the 1960s. It is pure villainy...
Please post PROOF for that absurd claim. Your babbling statements do not constitute proof.
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.