Potheads, puritans and pragmatists: Two marijuana initiatives put drug warriors on the defensive

Townhall ^ | October 18, 2006 | Jacob Sullum

[tpaine]

"-- You've begun your circular logic, hands on the ears, "prohibitionist" chant, so I'm pulling the handle. --"

Good plan. You do seem to need rest. Thanks.

[monkfan]

"There is actually little NOT dangerous about pot."

I'm not asking you to generate an exhaustive list. Just pick the top 3 or something.

[motzman]

Fair enough, people can disagree on this topic without vitriol.

I just think there's far too much not minding of one's own buisness goin' on round here.

But you should admit that government constantly coeces government thru contractual preferences, tax benefits, and sheer nanny-ing for companies to support "initatives" of dubious merit.

[motzman]

But you should admit that government constantly coeces government thru contractual preferences

Whatda? That should be "coerces businesses"

[SampleMan]

But you should admit that government constantly coeces government thru contractual preferences, tax benefits, and sheer nanny-ing for companies to support "initatives" of dubious merit.

Well I don't think it generally rises (or stoops) to coercion (although it sometimes does), but we can agree that the government puts too many restraints on business.

And I agree that we could all do a better job of minding our own business. I'm just mother-henning the baby in the bath water.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

In any case, our Fourth Amendment rights trump any supposed right to safety at work.

My Second Amendment right trumps that by 10mm...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I'm not asking you to generate an exhaustive list. Just pick the top 3 or something.

"Oh, wow, dude... sorry I forgot to turn off that 480 breaker... will those black marks go away?"

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Use of sarcasm tags is encouraged.

So is intelligence, but you don't use that often, so we are even?

[green iguana]

My Second Amendment right trumps that by 10mm...

Your 4th Amendment rights don't trump anything. Your 4th Amendment rights exist to protect them.

[KurtZ]

I'm not asking you to generate an exhaustive list. Just pick the top 3 or something.

It can't be done, but rather than admit to that, Sir Francis and others will resort to name calling and/or making rude and condescending comments towards those with whom they disagree. Just watch.

[green iguana]

Good Lord I'm tired... I meant 2nd Amendment rights. Sorry about that. Tho' as an aside, I think the rest of the Amendments exist to either protect or clarify our property rights affirmed by the 4th...

[mamelukesabre]

I'd call you a quasi-liberal for those views actually. The real reason they can't legalize pot is that there is no scientific method known for testing someone to see if they are under the influence...on the spot. I think. That's my opinion.

Do you know why it is legal to make your own wine and beer but not legal to make your own spirits? It's not because One is worse than the other or that big brother is trying to protect you from yourself. It's simply because at the time of the whiskey laws being first implemented, Uncle Sam recognized that it would be much more difficult to catch people in the act of wine/beer making that in the act of building and maintaining a still. The still is a large unconcealable piece of machinery that is unmistakable evidence very difficult to refute. It was a question of enforceability, not right or wrong.

So, back to pot and other drugs. They are illegal, simply because it is too difficult to quantitatively measure the level of imparement in the field. (ie, by a LEO)

This concept of enforceability is no doubt baffling to some of you younger citizens because Uncle Sam seems to not give a hoot about this concept much anymore. We get new laws right and left from the idiot bureaucrats that don't have a clue about practicality. They are too insulated from such tediousness up there in their palaces of higher thought and social engineering.

[eleni121]

So, basically you're for using the power of government to force people to conform to your ideas of right and wrong.

---

NO not at all. I want the LAWS OF OUR NATION to be enforced. I want THC users arrested and locked up. Potheads have had many years to change the laws and haven't managed much...and never will. Most thinking people want THC banned...or if it's ever proved that it relieves pain, I would support its dispensing in presecription pill form.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Sir Francis and others will resort to name calling and/or making rude and condescending comments towards those with whom they disagree.

As a matter of personal safety on the job, use of any intoxicants should have no place at work and should be tested for. If you want to label that "name calling," fine. You are a villain.

The rights of the dopers do not take priority over those of the sane people trying to make a living or the little kiddies at school.

The dopers, like the sex perverts, can only perpetuate an ever increasing market to support their filthy habits by molesting the minds and bodies of the young ones.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Good Lord I'm tired...

Get some exercise.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Drug raid yields Los Alamos documents...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1725423/posts

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Drug raid yields Los Alamos documents...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1725423/posts

[SampleMan]

I'd call you a quasi-liberal for those views actually.

I'm sure I'll live. I've survived worse.

It's not because One is worse than the other or that big brother is trying to protect you from yourself. It's simply because at the time of the whiskey laws being first implemented, Uncle Sam recognized that it would be much more difficult to catch people in the act of wine/beer making that in the act of building and maintaining a still. The still is a large unconcealable piece of machinery that is unmistakable evidence very difficult to refute. It was a question of enforceability, not right or wrong.

Are you suggesting that there be practical aspects of the law, or that practicality be set aside?

This concept of enforceability is no doubt baffling to some of you younger citizens because Uncle Sam seems to not give a hoot about this concept much anymore. We get new laws right and left from the idiot bureaucrats that don't have a clue about practicality. They are too insulated from such tediousness up there in their palaces of higher thought and social engineering.

Are you the oldest person in the United States or just clairvoyant concerning my age? I'm still missing your point. Mine is that the citizens of the states effected have the authority to prohibit or legalize pot, as well as polygamy, incest, etc.

[green iguana]

Get some exercise.

LOL. Good advice.

[tpaine]

Mine is that the citizens of the states effected have the authority to prohibit or legalize pot, as well as polygamy, incest, etc.

Public aspects of "vices" can be reasonably regulated by using State/local police powers, as long as due process is not violated.

-- Harlan said it best:
     "-- The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.  
It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . --"

State/local governments can have no delegated power to prohibit 'vices', as such powers are prohibited to them by both the 10th & 14th Amendments.
-- The 18th Amendment attempted [unconstitutionally] to prohibit the vice of drinking alcohol.
There are no amendments to prohibit drugs, as well as polygamy, incest, etc. --- because such 'lawmaking' would violate due process.