Sheriffs Try to Overturn Legalization of Pot in Colorado

Time ^ | March 05, 2015 | Tessa Berenson

[Ken H]

The lawsuit brought against the state claims sheriffs are faced with a "crisis of conscience"

A group of sheriffs will file a lawsuit Thursday against Colorado for its legal marijuana law.

The lawsuit says legalizing pot on a state level while it’s still illegal on a federal one creates a “crisis of conscience,” USA Today reports.

Colorado is “asking every peace officer to violate their oath,” Larimer County, Colo., Sheriff Justin Smith, the lead plaintiff in the suit, said. “What we’re being forced to do … makes me ineligible for office. Which constitution are we supposed to uphold?”

[philman_36]

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals. C. S. Lewis

[muir_redwoods]

I know and have known too many drug addicts. I volunteered at the VA hospital when I was in college and worked with several amphetamine users and a few heroin addicts; all but one had served in Vietnam. The amphetamine users, to a man, claimed they were first given speed by the military, one of the heroin addicts took classes part-time at the school I attended. Their private hell didn’t come to me, I had to go looking for it to find it. Their foolish abuse of drugs made no impact on me until I decided to get involved.

I know you feel that 19th century China is a near perfect analogue for 21st century America but what do you make of this from Forbes Magazine?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/

[ConservingFreedom]

It's easy to see why a collapse in economic and social activity might take seventy years, but it is not at all easy to see why political anger would take so long.

Really - in a pre-mass communication age and a vast country, a monarchy taking 50 years to feel the effects of political anger is not at all easy to see?

Talk about an effort to save your "Idee Fixe".

[DiogenesLamp]

... and yet everything you’ve written shows an inability to understand the issues and the risks we actually face with the status quo.

That's one theory. Another is that I recognize the difference between "bad" and "worse", while you seem to be convinced that "worse" is actually "better."

No, Worse is worse. As bad as you *THINK* things are now, you would have us leap from the frying pan into the fire.

It is inescapable that what you favor, if extended to the deadly drug alcohol, would fail utterly and yet you cling to the notion that it will succeed with other drugs.

And here we go again with that utterly stupid and childish libertarian talking point "Alcohol." They had alcohol in China too, but it didn't f***ing wreck their nation. Opium did that. I don't think the Libertarians will ever shut up about alcohol compared to all other drugs until Reality drops an anvil on their heads.

It’s simply an absurd position with no basis in logic or experience.

More like you are conceptually incapable of grasping the logic. It's just beyond you.

To you, what is the lesson of prohibition?

There are a lot of lessons to be learned from Alcohol prohibition. The Libertarians will tell you that all "prohibitions" are impossible because that is what they wish to believe, and that is the "lesson" that they want people to learn.

I think the proponents of alcohol prohibition made a lot of mistakes in pursuing their goals, and had they done things differently, they might actually have been successful at accomplishing them.

The foremost mistake they made was "too much and too fast." They also failed to reckon with the fact that Humanities relationship with alcohol is so old that our genes even evolved to process it.

Now i'm not in favor of Alcohol prohibition, but I can see how they might have succeeded had they pursued a different course of action than that which they pursued. A Course of action similar to this perhaps.

They are slowly choking smoking to death, and if they manage to succeed eventually, it will demonstrate that prohibition is indeed possible, it's success is just a manner of how you go about implementing it.

[DiogenesLamp]

Really - in a pre-mass communication age and a vast country, a monarchy taking 50 years to feel the effects of political anger is not at all easy to see?

Talk about an effort to save your "Idee Fixe".

Exactly. What you just spouted was an utterly nonsensical effort to salvage your ridiculous theory. Political anger takes 50 years to manifest itself. Sure.

[muir_redwoods]

So the experience of China 150 years ago is apposite but the current experience in a western European country like our NATO ally Portugal is not. Citations from Wikipedia are influential but Steve Forbes is a kook.

Does that about characterize your reasoning ability fairly?

[DiogenesLamp]

I volunteered at the VA hospital when I was in college and worked with several amphetamine users and a few heroin addicts; all but one had served in Vietnam. The amphetamine users, to a man, claimed they were first given speed by the military, one of the heroin addicts took classes part-time at the school I attended.

Yeah, that "Soldier's disease" thing is just utterly far-fetched, isn't it?

I know you feel that 19th century China is a near perfect analogue for 21st century America ...

Stop misstating what I said. I said Human Chinese are exactly like Human Americans. I utterly reject the dodge that culture plays a role in addiction. (Que that idiot to trot out his stupid quote on this point.)

Biochemistry is what causes addiction. If the chemicals don't bond with human receptors, no addiction to them occurs. Human Americans are the same humans as human Chinese. Stop trying to argue i'm saying something different.

...but what do you make of this from Forbes Magazine?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/

Forbes is a Libertarian, not Conservative entity. So is Cato, and so is "Reason", and so are a lot of other groups. They report things that support their Libertarian claims, and ignore things which do not.

It's funny that they think the statements made by the Socialist government of Portugal are worthy of notice when they concern drugs, but on economic policy? Not so much.

Yes, another Socialist government reporting that their new policies are working splendidly. Pardon me if I don't put much credibility into the things they say.

That report has been debunked by doctors in Portugal who treat drug addiction victims. I used to have a link to it. Let me see if I can find it.

I think this is it, but they won't let you read the article for free anymore. Here's a different article on the topic. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2815084/Portugal-decriminalised-drugs-Results-Use-teens-doubled-decade-nearly-fifth-15-16-year-olds-using-drugs.html

Liberal Democrats held up Portugal as shining example on 'drugs war'
But since legalisation the number of children users has more than doubled
In 1995 8% of teenagers had tried drugs but after new law it rose to 19%
More children under 13 have also tried cannabis since laws were relaxed

Wow. Imagine that. You legalize something, and usage increases. Who would have guessed that making something easier to get would result in more usage?

This is real rocket science here.

[DiogenesLamp]

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.

Preventing the spread of drug addiction isn't tyranny. Suggesting such makes a mockery of real tyranny.

This is what I find so offensive about you people. You compare being murdered on account of your race or your faith to getting your hand slapped because you can't put down the weed. You compare brutal beatings and imprisonment in gulags to a "right" to puff on a narcotic for recreational purposes. You compare forced starvation, and torture to stopping dope addiction.

No, you're f***ing freedom is not at risk from Tyranny, all the rest of our freedoms are at risk from your refusal to behave like you live in a civil society.

What you want is the "freedom" to sh*t in the public swimming pool, and make the rest of us swim in it. Well i've got news for you bub, you don't have a "right" to sh*t in the public swimming pool. You have no legitimate NEED to sh*t in the public swimming pool. People are not "tyrants", because they won't let you sh*t in the public swimming pool.

Your assertions of "Tyranny" sound like the screechings of a little kid who just got spanked by his mommy.

How about you just stop using the word "Tyranny" to describe interference with your pet vice? It's completely inappropriate.

[DiogenesLamp]

I think i’ve had enough of addressing these petty childish indulgences, and I am going to go do something more worthwhile.

[ConservingFreedom]

it will demonstrate that prohibition is indeed possible, it's success is just a manner of how you go about implementing it.

I can endorse a "prohibition" that, like the tobacco one, means education, advertising restrictions, and taxes not heavy enough to create a significant black market opportunity. Sure would beat the Hell out of criminalization.

[muir_redwoods]

I’ve invalidated your comical attempt to use 19th century China as a warning for 21st century America. I gave you valid citations for current legalization efforts in a western country and the results obtained therein. I explained clearly the abysmal failure of the current US policy, its cost and its dangerous impact on what’s left of our Constitution. I explained that I feel alcohol, complicit in 100,000 US deaths each year and tobacco, complicit in 400,000 deaths each year are and should be legal because adults get to make that choice. I have remained civil because I am right. You’ve become snarky because you have almost no valid points to make and lack the reasoning skill to present the few bits you do have.

Shortly the US will legalize marijuana in all or most states, very probably. We can compare notes then. I look forward to it.

[ConservingFreedom]

In Portugal it remains illegal to sell drugs, so those who decide to sell drugs to adults still have no incentive to not also sell to kids. Meanwhile in the United States, where 13 states have decriminalized marijuana: 'Monitoring the Future, an annual survey of high school seniors, revealed that students in states that had decriminalized marijuana did not report using the drug more than their counterparts in states where marijuana remained illegal between 1975 and 1980. [Johnston LD, O'Malley PM, Bachman JG. 1989. “Marijuana decriminalization: The impact on youth, 1975-1980.” Journal of Public Health 10:456.]' - http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9586&page=65

[ConservingFreedom]

Really - in a pre-mass communication age and a vast country, a monarchy taking 50 years to feel the effects of political anger is not at all easy to see?

Political anger takes 50 years to manifest itself. Sure.

I'm delighted to let the reader decide.

[philman_36]

It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.

Yep, that about covers it.

[Ken H]

Uh-oh...

_________________________________________________________________

A majority favors marijuana legalization for first time, according to nation’s most authoritative survey

March 04, 2015

For the first time, the General Social Survey -- a large, national survey conducted every two years and widely considered to represent the gold standard for public opinion research -- shows a majority of Americans favoring the legalization of marijuana.

-snip-

Fifty-two percent said pot should be legalized, 42 percent opposed it, and another 7 percent were undecided. Support is up 9 percentage points from 2012 the last time the survey was conducted.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/03/04/majority-of-americans-favor-marijuana-legalization-for-first-time-according-to-the-nations-most-authoritative-survey/

[DiogenesLamp]

It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.

Yep, that about covers it.

That it is only "Moral busybodies" that are interfering with drug addiction in this nation is the BIG LIE that Libertarians keep telling.

I've seen people destroyed with drug addiction. I've known people who *DIED* as a result of drug addiction. I've seen the wreckage it leaves behind in the lives of their families and their children. (all the ones I know who died left behind dependents.)

If this disease expands to the larger population as it did in China, it will exponentially increase the death and destruction to the point where it threatens everyone's lives. This isn't a theory, this is history. It already happened, and you people are arrogant and naive to think it won't happen again.

But of course you are trying to argue that being concerned about mass death and sovereign collapse makes someone a "busybody." No, the "busybodies" are the people like you who are trying to force a social change for the worse by making another narcotic more easily available to people who don't know what they are getting in to.

How about you and "conflating freedom" stop being busybodies?

[Ken H]

[philman_36]

That it is only "Moral busybodies" that are interfering with drug addiction in this nation is the BIG LIE that Libertarians keep telling.

I've never said it was just "moral busybodies" I have a conflict with, have I?