Yes? And. . .? 
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.
No, it means it IS NOT MY CHOICE ABOUT WHO IS NEXT DOOR. UNLESS I BUY THEIR PROPERTY FROM THEM OR UNLESS THEY PRESENT A CLEAR THREAT TO ME.
And right now, we do NOT treat consumers of alcohol as a threat unless they go beyond just drinking. So why should weed be different?
Well, then, let's make all alcohol illegal because some might abuse it. That is your rationale here, isn't it, when it comes to pot.
The only problem is, alcohol prohibition didn't work, did it?
We only have so many law enforcement resources. Best to use them for real problems, such as meth, and decriminalize weed.
I've known plenty of regular pot users who are highly productive members of society. People who own businesses or who have responsible jobs.
Me, I can't smoke the stuff and do my work the next day. But that's me. I know others who don't have that problem.
Oh, and you have pot-smoking neighbors already. They just ain't about to let you know it with your kind of attitude.
Yes? And. . .?
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.
Reread my post. The 10th Amendment does NOT make smoking pot a right. You can argue that there is no federal case if the pot is grown and consumed within a given state, but the 10th Amendment does not prohibit the states from passing such laws.
I'm always fascinated to hear that the founders, ratifiers, and citizens of the first 200 years were simply ignorant of what the Constitution actually said.
Gawd, I hate the smell of 10th Amendment igorance in the evening. It smells like ... ignorance.
The 10th Amendment does NOT make pot smoking a right, as you noted, but for the WRONG REASONS. It simply says that the fedgov DOES NOT HAVE A VOICE IN THE MATTER. If a state says you have the right to smoke pot within their jurisdiction, the FEDGOV IS SUPPOSED TO BE SILENT under the 10th.
But, like so many self-professed limited government conservatives, you say you want limited government - as long as the concept does not limit what you want government to do.
Soros and company have spent a hundred million easy trying to figure out how to get the entire nation to legally approve dope smoking in all fifty states since there is no way in hell that Congress or any other elected official who wants a future in politics is going to support potheads. So they came upon the initiative process and started with the 'medical marijuana' cannard. In each state where they managed to trick voters into biting off that one, they then started on the 'one ounce' and 'regulation and tax' angle - as if the taxpayers are so desparate for more taxes that they would sell children or televise executions if it would create more tax revenue - to advance the ultimate goal which is an Amsterdam-style drug haven throughout America.
These dopers would argue that THC makes you smarter if they thought it would get the Teachers Union onboard.
Like alcohol? The most destructive drug out there. And we allow advertising for such. Guess we should ban such. And ban the sale of booze as well.
Cypress Hill is the group who sings it.
I can hear it in my head, let me think real hard and see if you can hear it.
;-)
Something....something....I'm hearing some kind of a tune in my head......
By the way, airline pilots don't have to be impaired by alcohol to get fired. They have strict policies on when they must cease drinking before a flight and that's that. As for your employer, it is likely their liability insurance rates that drive policy. If I was a trucking employer, I'd require mandatory testing for any substance which led to impairment. As long as I could get clean employees without problem, I'd set a very low tolerance limit on drugs with an impairing effect. I might also prohibit tobacco use, if the cost factors on benefits were significant.
It appears that your desire for legalization is to force your employer to do as you wish. Legalization should play no role in what your employer requires with respect to drug use.
And I said differently where? You appear to not understand the difference between something being allowed versus something being protected. I hate the smell of someone that doesn't read or understand what they're accusing people of.
But interstate commerce and regulation of foreign trade are a bit of a bugaboo to your overall tactic.
I suggest you stick with the argument that the federal government cannot regulate the manufacture, sale, or use of drugs which occur solely within the confines of a single state.
But, like so many self-professed limited government conservatives, you say you want limited government - as long as the concept does not limit what you want government to do.
Is this where I'm supposed to cry? Give me a break. I want the people of any given state to be able to decide whether a certain substance (pot, C4 explosives, or plutonium) requires regulation for the purpose of public health. What of weapons? Interestingly, weapons were singled out by the framers and those who ratified the Constitution as so necessary as to be protected.
If all substances were to be protected, why were weapons singled out?
I'm all for more liberty, and I'll entertain arguments to legalize some substances that are currently prohibited, but I won't entertain the notion that getting high is a Constitutionally protected right.
No. I've stated that your employer has the right to set the requirements of employment, and that you have the right to say no. As for company liability, you already stated that it was a company car and that the company requires you to travel. That makes the company liable.
Again, the biggest problem is that drug testing does not test for impairment, and in some cases, does not even test for the actual "illegal" substance.
So don't work for that employer if you don't like it. They write the checks, so they, not you, decide what is reasonable. It frankly has nothing to do with the substance being legal or illegal. Won't you get fired for having a legal amount of alcohol in your system while you're driving the company car?
The point is, it wastes billions of dollars per year with absolutely no effect on safety, and the only people who ever get caught are pot users who are not impaired in the first place. It also creates a poor work environment.
Now who's assuming? Your assumption requires us to believe that either the known consequence of termination has no effect on the decision process OR that pot users are just too responsible to ever come to work impaired. The facts are much different. Accidents due to smoking pot and/or drinking alcohol are low because employers don't tolerate it.
If you allow government to dictate what you cannot ingest, then logically they can also dicate what you can ingest, and of course then they can also dictate what you must ingest.
Hogwash. Like saying that if you let the government decide who can't vote (felons), then "they" can also dictate who can vote, and of course then they can also dictate who you must vote for. Just a nonsensical diatribe of nonsequitor logic.
...there was no drug problem when drugs were legal.
Again, hogwash. Morphine was a tremendous problem as soon as it was available. The fact is that very few drugs other than alcohol were available to anyone in the U.S. before about 1865. As soon as they became available, their irresponsible use became a problem. How exactly do you explain the issue of opium in China? Did they only imagine that there was a problem?
Again a condition of employment that you don't like. You should really find a different employer if not smoking pot causes you such distress. Stop trying to force other people to accept your behavior.
You don't want just legalization, you want to force people to employ you against their will.
Here's a news flash, legalization won't in itself change a single employer requirement. Employers are well within their rights to have a zero tolerance policy on alcohol if they want. If they are a Christian school, they can have a zero tolerance policy on employing Muslims.
You have a serious issue with wanting to force people to accept your norms in the workplace. You'd be best to stick simply with legalization, and accept that many things which are legal are not allowed in the work place.
I didn't specify a next door neighbor. Point is that in your immediate neighborhood there are daily cannabis users.
This is true virtually everywhere,nationwide.
Hits from the bong, by Cypress Hill
It's kinda catchy. I quit listening to that stuff shortly after I gave up the reefer.
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.