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.
So you're for legalizing weak people eating pot on religious grounds? Are you therefore OK with criminalizing meth for strong people because its not part of your herbal religion?
2 Peter 3:16. As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
This verse tells us that mishandling the Word of God can be very dangerous. Indeed, mishandling the Word of God is a "path" to destruction.
Please keep posting.
News flash. Myself and 299,999,998 Americans define being deprived of life as harmful. Reasonable expectation of harm is what gets you through each day without dying. To suddenly pretend that reasonable expectation of harm is meaningless is akin to suicide. Try practicing your theory while crossing the street tomorrow.
Just to clarify for everyone, you believe that having a restrictive speed limit for school crossings is unconstitutional because its based on fear, correct?
Please keep posting. You're invaluable.
Yes. Breaking a set speed limit in a school zone is not nearly as definitive as a dead child. If only there were an infinite supply of children.
I say however that the person that hit the child wasn't doing anything different than the person that went through at 120mph and didn't kill a child. Neither could have stopped, one just got lucky, so you're not punishing the action, but a statistical anomaly. Isn't that arbitrary enforcement?
Also, do attempted murder and attempted rape become unconstitutional on the grounds that nothing actually happened? Such laws are just based on the reasonable fear that the final act would have occurred.
However, don't let this stop you. It has become common place to call it an herb, and the apostles probably knew this would happen 2000 years ago. Are there any other followers in your cult-evasion? Please keep posting.
Rules of the road, as I already noted, are jake with me because the road is a SHARED commodity. The problem I have with them is when cities use enforcement of them as a means of fundraising, as my city does.
ATTEMPTED violations of rights, such as attempted rape or murder, are, in my view, just as serious as COMPLETED violations. Punishment should be left to the imagination of the intended victim. I would have a few creative suggestions to offer... PRESUMING, in a truly FREE (meaning armed) society, the perp survived the attempt.
I USTA play with them. Now, being retired from my Marine Corps, I am no longer trusted by FedGov to own them... and, of course Cali has banned weapons over .50 cal, to its eternal shame. I got to play with the old 3.5" Bazooka, flame thrower, the Blooper (M-79), Ma Deuce, the old air-cooled Browning .30 MG, the Garand, TNT, C-4, Det Cord, etc.
What I liked was the old 106 Recoilless. With the .50 cal spotting rifle on top. The message it sent was always priceless: If you don't like THIS, you SURE ain't gonna like what's coming next. (There was an incident in Hue City, Tet, '68, the year before I got there, which was great. Some 5th Marines took a 106 to the second story of a house and fired it. The backblast took out the whole back wall of the room and just about brought down the ceiling on them. Last time they did that!) Then there was Ontos... mounted six external 106s. That's enough to spoil just about your whole WEEK!
More later.
When it comes to your vision of rights under the Constitution, and reasonable restrictions based on likely outcome, I can't see that we have any disagreement.
As I noted before, I'm sure we can find disagreements if we look for them on where to draw the line, but that's the nature of being human and a different argument.
My case all along has been that handing our responsibilities over to a judge, because we think that the particular judge will rule our way this one time, is the most dangerous thing to do. Because once you give the judiciary the power, they won't give it back.
What prevents a dictatorship of the majority. Ultimately there is only one thing that ever does. The majority's own restraint and willingness to follow the Constitution, based on the supposition of each individual that playing by the rules is in their own self interest. If it is demonstrated over time that it is not in their long term interest, they will make a new rule book. I'd like to keep that from happening and assert that to do it, we must enter the arena of ideas every day and make the case for the People to keep their authority and to act on it responsibly.
More people die from ingesting peanuts than rat poison, does that mean rat poison should be allowed in food or that peanuts should be banned? Do I really have to explain that one to you? OK, statistics count. 100% of people that eat rat poison get sick, about 3% have an alergy to nuts and about .4% have a bad reaction. A reasonable person could draw a usable conclusion from that.
NOT HERBS
Indeed, mishandling the word, like attempting to stick scientific classifications into it in order to justify war.
More ignorance! You select a passage to support your war
and deny that which immediately preceeds it.
2 Peter 3:14
Wherefore, dearly beloved, waiting for these things, be diligent that you may be found before him unspotted and blameless in peace.
Matthew 15 : 8-9
This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
"Whoever thinks he understands divine scripture or any part of it, but whose interpretation does not build up the twofold love of God and neighbor, has not really understood it." St. Augustine
Wow! Your ignorance is vast and twisted. Scientific
classifications did not exist when the Bible was written
nor when it was translated into english. Moreover, Ockham's
razor would require the common definition of an herb as any
plant or plant part desired for its savory, aromatic or
medicinal properties.
"Are there any other followers in your cult-evasion?"
Indeed, there are many Christian sects that believe it is a
sacrament. And, many others as well. You haven't even a
clue what it meant for Christ to be the annointed. You
are simply an ignorant puritan zealot seeking dominion over
others when you haven't even achieved true self awareness,
sought peace and become one of the children of God, a peacemaker. You advocate war against your brother because
he protects, possesses or propagates a gift from God.
Matthew 5:9
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
Unfortunately, your allies on this thread are of a character that reveals at least three enabling conditions of the actually existing impetus for prohibition - malicious ignorance of history, a not-so-disguised personal financial interest, and an unreasoning hatred for those perceived as 'non-conforming'.
Personally, I've no patience remaining for these thugs. This is not a recent development - posting histories show everything you need to know.
-- 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. --
However -- 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.
--- my threshold on the storage of explosive in the house next to mine appears to be lower than yours.
And if the 'majority' can be convinced that the storage of gunpowder/ammo next door is 'harmful'? What then? Defacto gun control?
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.
Yep, there we have it. You admit that majorities can control/prohibit the storage of arms. This discussion did indeed serve its purpose.
Because its a gray area are we all right? I'd say no.
Thank you for being candid. You can join the ranks of Roscoe & nameless, with pride. --- They openly admit that States should have the power to infringe on arms keeping.
I actually think all drugs should be legal...
But, in your myopic, frantic defense of drug abuse, you overlook the fact that other people have rights as well... and they vote...
I like the idea of drug testing for any employment as an Occupational Health and Safety standard... I do not want impaired idiots at work or on the roadways.
Let them do all the drugs they like, let them kill themselves with the crap, just keep them out of public office off the roads and out of work... the problem will correct itself...
It's not DEMON RUM that's the problem - it's demonic people!
In sum total, the worthless swine who abuse alcohol and drugs(whatever's available), and live on the proceeds of crime, whether by personal felonies or by living on the dole, amount to no more than 2% of the population.
There is no good reason why the behaviors of the non-criminal-parasite 98% of the population should be punitively controlled because of a lack of political will to deal with the 2%.
Not even if there's good money to be made by doing so?
Reasonable control is reasonable. No surprise there. Have I ever said that I think we have a good balance in my opinion right now? No. And I don't. I think we have to much regulation and too many restrictions.
My argument that keeps getting shoved aside, is that the People and not the judiciary are the only ones that should be deciding what's reasonable. Because even when they are wrong, it is better than the alternative of picking a man in robes to decide for us, who is no less likely to do the right thing and has no where near the motivation to do the right thing or to correct mistakes.
Unfortunately, your allies on this thread...
I have allies? Who would that be? I've yet to hear anyone making the argument that I am. You are confusing the argument that drugs should be illegal with my argument that the decision should not be taken away from the People.
Years ago Arthur Koestler pegged 'demonic people':
™-- The continuous disasters of man's history are mainly due to his excessive capacity and urge to become identified with a tribe, nation, church or cause, and to espouse its credo uncritically and enthusiastically, even if its tenets are contrary to reason, devoid of self-interest and detrimental to the claims of self-preservation. We are thus driven to the unfashionable conclusion that the trouble with our species is not an excess of aggression, but an excess capacity for fanatical devotion. --"
There is no good reason why the behaviors of the non-criminal-parasite 98% of the population should be punitively controlled because of a lack of political will to deal with the 2%.
The fanatical among us demand that the demon rum, the demon gun be blamed, -- and above all that 'the cause' be served..
I withdraw the needless aspersion. Your point is, indeed, distinct from those of the prohibitionists.
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.