Potheads, puritans and pragmatists: Two marijuana initiatives put drug warriors on the defensive

Townhall ^ | October 18, 2006 | Jacob Sullum

[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.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Illegal drugs are chemical warfare against the young people of this country since the 1960s. It is pure villainy...

[CDHart]

Are you a lawyer?

Carolyn

[Mojave]

Withdrawal pains?

[SampleMan]

Are you a lawyer?

Always happy to answer a question. No. And I've always believed that any law or constitution that requires a lawyer to understand, isn't worth the paper its printed on.

[PaxMacian]

"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,"

You are no different than the Taliban and have still failed
to argue against that fact. You demand that your religious
views become state mandated. You disparage the belief of
others and conjure DEAmen to do your evil bidding masked in
the mystery of the whore of Babylon. It is not a wonder
that such a person as seeks to control other's lives down
to the minutae of personal consumption would resort to
veiled threats when confronted with a mind they have no
control over. Even an army of your DEAmen haven't the
power to change my mind nor take my head. They may take
my life for holding a remote control when thy break down
the door, but the words I speak are truth and it is eternal.

"no action with anything God gave us could be wrong"

I wrote no such thing. God made herb, saw that it was good
and gave it to man and animals alike for consumption.
He also said not to fight amongst yourselves over what one
consumes. Moreover, the heresy of evil substance installed
as a federally mandated religion is undeniably unconstitutional.

An herb is a plant part desired for its aromatic, savory or medicinal properties. Your illogical hypotheticals disregard this simple fact. If you wish to claim the logical stance then you should attempt to answer my first post to you. Explain how one can logically use the commerce
clause of the Constitution to attempt to ban a gift from God instead of adhering to the word of the law and protect THE PEOPLE by properly regulating the existing industry?

[PaxMacian]

"Criminalizing actions that harm others is constitutional."

Smoking herb is not illegal, possessing it is illegal.
The right to be secure in your possessions is guaranteed
by the Constitution. Failing to regulate an industry which
supplies an herb for consumption while attempting to ban
the possession of that herb fails to protect the consumer.
The feds have abused their power and failed to do their duty.
Their puritanical crusade has blinded them, as you, to their
own evil actions of violence taken against others and
negligence in their duty.

[PaxMacian]

Your supposition that harm is the basis of criminal law is
patently absurd. Alcohol causes many times the harm of
herb and yet it is legal. Comparing violent acts of one
against another to the possession of a gift from God is not
in any sense logical. You can repeat it as many times as
you like but it just exposes your ignorance.

[PaxMacian]

Nice description of your posting style, thanks!

[Lurker 50001]

I have done a lot of damage to myself in the service of an ungrateful nation,... dcwusmc

I DON'T CARE... you are a villain... Sir Francis Dashwood


Welfare check late? -- Mojave

dcwusmc,
I wanted to thank you for your service to our country. The majority of your fellow citizens are not represented by the two jerks above.

Thanks again for your service.

01

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I wanted to thank you for your service to our country.

I was a W-5... served at Ord, Benning, Campbell, Lewis, and Roberts...

[PaxMacian]

"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."

Since herb makes inefficient chattel the socialist usurpation
requires the eradication of a gift from God and the
suppression of its possessors, protectors and propagators?
What is your notion of a free Republic?

[SampleMan]

Nice description of your posting style, thanks!

Sure you don't want to include rubber and glue in that statement? It would seem appropriate.

[SampleMan]

Your supposition that harm is the basis of criminal law is patently absurd.

Really? Patently absurd? Murder is not illegal because of the harm it does? Fascinating. If not harm, then criminal law would be based on what in your world?

This should be fascinating. PLEASE keep posting. No particular reason.

[dcwusmc]

Actually, he's almost right. "Harm" is really hard to show in many cases and can be whatever someone claims it to be. The BEST baseline for crime is violation of rights, which are pretty easy to define objectively. Murder is, of course, the ultimate violation of rights.

[dcwusmc]

Thank you for your civility. It's MOST refreshing.

[tpaine]

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?

287 SampleMan


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



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.
292 dcwusmc


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


All of us have agreed that reasonable regulations can be made & enforced, using due process, to control ~public~ aspects of 'harmful' activities.

-- Certainly, making CNB weapons in a crowded neighborhood would apply, because as dcw noted; "-- The BEST baseline for crime is violation of rights --" and all the neighbors rights are being violated by having CNB bombs made next door.

Reasonable people can agree on what is in essence a zoning matter [making CNB weapons] in certain areas. --
-- It is not constitutionally acceptable to outright ~prohibit~ such private actions based on a 'risk factor' of harm to others, just as the 2nd Amendment says. Prohibitions are infringements.

[Mojave]

Illicit drug use is a perk for claiming to have served?

Huh, learn something new everyday.

[PaxMacian]

Matthew 11:18-19
For John came neither eating nor drinking,
and they say,
'He has a demon.'
The Son of Man came eating and drinking,
and they say,
'Here is a glutton and a drunkard,
a friend of tax collectors and "sinners."
' But wisdom is proved right by her actions."


Murder is criminal because it violates an other's inalienable right to life. Harm as a chief motivation
is no different than having fear as your chief motivation.
Most occurrences of the word 'fear' in the Bible are followed
by the word 'not'. Sometimes it is fear 'God'. But, you
fear a gift from God, a flower. Meanwhile, you disregard
the word of the Lord and cheer on DEAmen to the destruction
of other's lives over their consumption of an herb.


ROM 14:2-4
For one believeth that he may eat all things:
but he that is weak, let him eat herbs.
Let not him that eateth, despise him that eateth not:
and he that eateth not, let him not judge him that eateth.
For God hath taken him to him.
Who art thou that judgest another man's servant?
To his own lord he standeth or falleth. And he shall stand:
for God is able to make him stand.

[dcwusmc]

I guess someone has to stop using big words to explain things to you. I use what my VA doc gives me for pain. Because of asshats like you, she cannot give me what WORKS for me very often. Mostly I do without as I have to save my PRESCRIPTION drugs for the nights when it is worst. Like when it's a nine or ten on the scale. I sincerely hope and pray that you and your a-hole buddy, sir frank dashed-in-the head, come to have YOUR right arms almost severed so you can know what it's like. (Severed, by the way, means cut off. I forgot, you don't understand the big words.)

[Mojave]

she cannot give me what WORKS for me very often.

Dope?