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

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.

My notion is just what I said. MANY if not most regular pot smokers screw up their work, and don't care about their impact on others to varying degrees. My best line of action is drug testing my employees, and it works. My libertarian sentiments agree with many here, but I have chosen to draw the line. If you work for me and you can add 1/8" and 1/4" on Friday, then on Monday you can't......it can't be good. You can't even work at McD's for long if you forget how to add....or maybe you can. You just can't work for me.
Secondly, I personally know several long term pot smokers. They are addicted. They have to have a joint every morning and more. They generally live their lives around their addiction. I choose not to live this way, and would not like my children to live this way. Sure tobacco and alcohol are no different. In that light the government should legalize and tax it. Fine. But since you are quoting scripture on your personal page how about adding one: 1 Corinthians 6:12 - "As a Christian I (Paul) may do anything, but that does not mean that everything is good for me. I may do everything, but I must not be a slave of anything."
Do what you want, you already do.....just leave me and my kids out of it. Pot, meth, cocaine, heroin, etc., etc. are just instruments of poverty and destroy wealth of all kinds. Smoke on brother, but don't let me catch you around my kid.

Sorry to take so long to get back to this post. It deserved more than a quick reply and I've been busy with the family this weekend.

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.

You play with the M2 and grenade launchers? All I can say is that you're a fun guy and I want to hang out with you, as long as you also drink beer.

We are in about 95% agreement I'd say. However, my threshold on the storage of explosive in the house next to mine appears to be lower than yours. My preferred toy was the Mk-84, and I definitely don't want one of those next door, with or without proper insurance, as everyone that relies on me and my property would already be dead. The military puts those things in bunkered storage for more than protective purposes.

But our disagreement serves a purpose. You have chosen a level of harm that prevents your neighbor from running a bomb factory. I've chosen a level of harm that would prevent you from storing those bombs next to me. Another may choose a level of harm that prevents me from having any guns at all in my house.

Are all but one of us unconstitutional? I'd say no. Because its a gray area are we all right? I'd say no.

To get back to the speed limit, what is too restrictive, what's just right, and what's too harmful? 99% of us can likely agree that 3mph is too restrictive and serves no purpose in protecting others rights. We may also agree that 100mph through school zones is too high and lower speeds already put others rights at risk. There is no perfect answer, yet we know that at certain points that it is too restrictive or not restrictive enough.

Uber libertarians view any desire to prevent harm (violation of other's rights), as unconstitutional. To them speed limits in school zones are unconstitutional, because speeding in itself doesn't hurt anyone. They believe its better to wait until the child is dead, and then act on solid grounds.

The danger that these uber libertarians don't see, is that a mandated hands on the eyes - fingers in the ears, approach to harm endangers the Constitution, and thus protecting the "right" to go 100mph in a school zone, can cost us far more important rights. If the Constitution becomes a tool for terrorizing people by preventing them the ability to self-govern in a reasonable fashion, People will either ignore it or turn to another vehicle. That may not be the way they would like the world to be, but that is reality.

I just don't consider my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness trampled by having to slow down in a school zone. Of course, arbitrary enforcement of any rule or law is unacceptable, but a well defined rule/law is less likely to be arbitrarily enforced than a vague one.

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.