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.

[SampleMan]

The Fourth Amendment does not apply to employers but at the same time, they should not be able to fire you one year before retirement to screw you out of your benefits either. There has to be good faith on both sides.

Apples and oranges. If not using a particular drug is set down as a condition of employment, then that's the contract.

[microgood]

If the government holds a person down and conducts a drug test without a warrant, you have a point, otherwise you don't.

What was being advocated was to mandate drug testing for all employees nationwide using OSHA. Without any cause or any warrant. The forced searching of all Americans that have a job by the Federal Government would violate the Fourth Amendment.

It would of course also violate the equal protection clause since people who were not employed would be exempted from the law.

[microgood]

Apples and oranges. If not using a particular drug is set down as a condition of employment, then that's the contract.

I was assuming they were not being fired for using the drug in question, but so the employer could save money and screw the employee out of retirement, so it was not apples and oranges.

[SampleMan]

I was assuming they were not being fired for using the drug in question, but so the employer could save money and screw the employee out of retirement, so it was not apples and oranges.

Legally, it doesn't matter why one party wants to uphold the contract. If the employee doesn't want to get fired for smoking pot, they have clear options. Don't smoke pot, or don't work for an employer that prohibits it.

[microgood]

Legally, it doesn't matter why one party wants to uphold the contract. If the employee doesn't want to get fired for smoking pot, they have clear options. Don't smoke pot, or don't work for an employer that prohibits it.

I agree with that, I was just making the point that neither side can break the contract, the employee cannot use the drug, and the employer cannot fire the employee to screw him out of his retirement when the employee has fulfilled his end of the bargain. Employers can violate contracts as easily as employees.

[SampleMan]

What was being advocated was to mandate drug testing for all employees nationwide using OSHA. Without any cause or any warrant. The forced searching of all Americans that have a job by the Federal Government would violate the Fourth Amendment.

Actually, the cause would be safety if it were OSHA, and it would be as constitutional as prohibiting a worker from using alcohol (alcohol is often prohibited in amounts less than what creates intoxication). This would require that a substantial enough case could be made to keep a majority of voters from overturning it. OSHA does not now regulate a large portion of the workforce, so it would be a highly unlikely eventuality.

It would of course also violate the equal protection clause since people who were not employed would be exempted from the law.

That's just crazy talk. Like saying that DUI laws violate equal protection, because not everyone drives. Not every citizen has to be immediately subject to a law for it to be valid. Does the requirement for a pilot's license violate equal protection because not everyone is a pilot? Of course not. Your equal protection argument is beyond flimsy.

[webstersII]

"If it's just a vegetable, then smoke squash, and shut up already about pot."

Hey, don't talk about banning squash. I like squash.

[SampleMan]

Employers can violate contracts as easily as employees.

And be sued for such just as easily.

[SampleMan]

Hey, don't talk about banning squash. I like squash.

Is it hard to get squash to stay lit?

[Crooked Constituent]

Pick it, pack it,
Fire it up, Come along,
And take a hit from the bong,
Put the blunt down just for a second,
Don't get me wrong it's not a new method,
Inhale, Exhale,
Just got a ounce in the mail,
I like a blunt or a big fat bowl,
But my double barrel bong is gettin' me stoned,
I'm skill it, There's water inside don't spill it,
It smells like shit on the carpet,
Still it, goes down smooth when I get a clean hit,
Of the skunky funky smelly green shit,
Sing my song, puff all night long,
As I take Hits from the bong...

Hits from the bong y'all

Let's smoke that bowl, hit the bong,
And then take that finger off of that hole,
Plug it, unplug it,
Don't straaaain, I love you Mary Jane,
She never complains, when I hit Mary,
With that flame, I light up the cherry,
She's so good to me, when I pack a fresh bowl I clean the screen,
Don't get me stirred up the smoke, through the bubbling water,
Is Makin' it pure so I got ta', take my hit and hold it,
Just like Chong, I hit the bowl and I reload it,
Get my four-footer and bring it on...
As I take Hits from the bong,

[webstersII]

" Is it hard to get squash to stay lit?"

I don't know. I usually just boil it. :-)

[ccmay]

"Those who want to legalize drugs weaken our collective struggle against this scourge bargaining power," declares the Colorado Drug Investigators Association. "Like a cancer, proponents for legalization eat away at society's resolve and moral fiber our rice bowl. "

[ccmay]

I don't want THC users living next door to me or my kids. Or anywhere in my neighborhood.

They are already there, and as time goes by there are going to be more and more votes like this, and the new Prohibition will become ever more shaky. You may have to check out real estate in Singapore if it means that much to you.

-ccm

[NurdlyPeon]

Looks like a great song, but what is the tune? How can I sing to it if I don't know the tune?

[SampleMan]

I don't know. I usually just boil it. :-)

Dude! You're losing all of the potency. I steam all of my vegetables.

Actually, I steam everything but squash. It gets baked if its an Acorn or something similar, or sauteed if it more closely resembles a cucumber. Too much and it turns to mush though.

[11B40]

I don't want THC users living next door to me or my kids. Or anywhere in my neighborhood.



Tough break eleni121. I guarantee you have neighbors who smoke cannabis on a daily basis.

[elkfersupper]

I don't want THC users living next door to me or my kids. Or anywhere in my neighborhood. So, if deluded legalizers cannot find a way to banish these dangerous fools to some cave, then maintain its status of illegality nation wide.

I'm starting to feel the same way about Big Macs and WalMarts.

[eleni121]

LOL. A recovering alcoholic judge on one side and a retired kooky school teacher on the other.

It's a wild world.

[elkfersupper]

If it's just a vegetable, then smoke squash, and shut up already about pot.

I'm saving that to use against you in your rants about tobacco......just so you know.

[dirtboy]

I'm OK with a state legalizing pot if the majority of that state decides to, but I'm not OK with the concept that its a constitutional right.

Well, you unfortuately have a real problem with the 10th amendment, then.

Because, according to the 10th, it IS a state's decision about such. Or should be, until SCOTUS decides that words mean what they wish them to mean.