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.
I might entertain a debate on the issue in the proper context. It seems rather OT on this thread.
They might be in favor of it based on arguments that department B is unnecessary.
I seriously doubt they'd support arguments of eliminating department B on grounds that it's claimed Constitutional authority is flawed if department A claims authority on the same basis.
Necessary. Unnecessary. Whatever. If department B goes, there's more money for department A.
"I seriously doubt they'd support arguments of eliminating department B on grounds that it's claimed Constitutional authority is flawed if department A claims authority on the same basis."
I'm in favor of reducing or eliminating departments even if they're constitutionally sound. Aren't you?
The bottom line is that government employees may favor a reduction in government and/or a reduction in government spending, as long as it's not their department.
Generally, yes. Again, I think that whole discussion may be a OT on this particular thread, and would rather not open a door to having it hijacked to peripheral issues.
If they may, then they also may not, so the fact that they may is not the bottom line.
Then you have no problem changing your statement to, "I think (some) people who work for the federal government (may) have a conflict of interest when it comes to determining the appropriate limits of the power of the federal government"?
Not based on any arguments you've submitted. "Appropriate limits of the power of the federal government" is not the same as "appropriate distribution of federal tax money". I'm not going to change my opinion about one based on arguments about the other.
The initiatives are consistent with the spread of all manner of vice and crime i.e. perversion, adultery, perjury, greed, the giving and acceptance of bribes, treason, sedition etc. etc. No suprise if they pass.
You forgot gluttony.
No longer does one who enjoys the sin of "gambling" have to board a jet & fly to sin city, not when a little piece of sin city's in their own back yard.
Decriminalization -- I sincerely believe -- will be Nevada's only chance to continue attracting the hordes seeking to do all the things they cannot do anywhere else.
...time'll tell.
"Decriminalization' [which is just a return to the pre-prohibitional freedoms of our 19th century Republic] -- will be Americas answer to the big brother style 'Democracy' being practiced now by both political parties.. -- I sincerely believe.
Right on! And if that doesn't do it, I say they should legalize heroin and cocaine.
I mean, c'mon. We have a tourism industry at stake here!
Sounds like you agree with my prediction the deriection NV pols will take if they [ever] get desperate enough, bob.
"I mean, c'mon. We have a tourism industry at stake here!"
Yea.
...they do. ;^)
Yea.
That's what it is, in reality and "legally", alright.
So what.
It'd happen in the one *spot* in the entire nation where antisocial behavior's already expected, the "anything goes" mentality necessary to entertain a legalization/decrim effort abounds and there wouldn't be a lot WA could do, would there.
LV Jaycees like to say, "What happens in Las Vegas, stays in Las Vegas." & they'd sure have a splendid opportunity to prove it if their backs were against the way?
If legalizing/decrim'g certain dope was the difference between LV et al continuing to prosper, or, turning into a ghost town.
Wanna guess what direction the Nevada taxpayer will direct their politicians to go -- all of 'em -- & to hell with yours or anyone else's legal and/or moral argument(s).
"...-- will be Americas answer to the big brother style 'Democracy' being practiced now by both political parties."
We Yanks are *creative*, huh.
Always been weird like that here in the good ol' USA trying to live with her dichotomies, paradoxes & contradictions.
Ain't it great.
Americans do what they want to do.
When American's properly motivated get outa the way *&* to hell with the Constitution, BoRs or anything else impeding their pursuit of a buck. {~now there's a surprise}
Besides, they got the guns & *want* the money, Professor. :o)
"I sincerely believe."
HA!!
Right.
tpaine on one side & robertpaulsen on the other.
Jesus, is it a full moon or what.
Why one'd think given how fast the two never fail to show up on these threads they're one in the same.
...God forbid.
So, you're OK with living in an enclave of drunkards, as long as they don't use pot, or do you favor a return to Prohibition like we had in the past?
The journalist's death was not caused by the smoking of marijuana. It was because somebody was "driving under the influence of..."
Different crime, different law.
"Decriminalization' [which is just a return to the pre-prohibitional freedoms of our 19th century Republic] -- will be Americas answer to the big brother style 'Democracy' being practiced now by both political parties.. -- I sincerely believe.
"I sincerely believe." HA!!
Right.
tpaine on one side & 'he who must not be named' on the other.
Jesus, is it a full moon or what.
Why one'd think given how fast the two never fail to show up on these threads they're one in the same.
...God forbid.
I work for our Constitutional freedoms, not against them, -- so I gotta be fast..
Unfortunately, I'm loosing a lot of races these days to FR's young whippersnapper prohibitionists. -- It's hell to get old.
Speaking of 'sides' to take.
Goodbye Justice, Hello Happiness
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1732867/posts
The Puritans, as best I can tell, were users of wine, beer and distilled spirits. Wish folks could stop knocking those Puritans with a zillion petty slanders that are all absent of any real history.
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.