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.
Stick with "Duh!", it looks good on you. You not only jumped into a thread, but took exception to a comment that clearly applied to someone that had just entered based on the fact that they had just entered. It was disingenuous at best.
In any case, you seem to have read all my posts, but still don't understand my argument. Perhaps coffee would be the best herb of choice?
My argument is that the People are entrusted in determining what is harmful to others and what is not, thus determining the constitutionality. We don't have a king, and I don't desire one (in or out of judicial robes).
Tell me again why the majority of the People disagree with you about pot, meth, etc. being harmful to them. Is it all a conspiracy against you, or is it because you have been unable to convince them that its not?
I'm not. That's why I only have one vote, and I'm not king.
But perhaps your question is, "Who is the majority to decide what is harmful to others?" Well, they would be the best collection of thought and due process we have to come to such decisions after airing them in the arena of ideas, however flawed those decisions may be. The same entity that must decide if murder, rape, robbery, extortion, slander, and perjury are harmful to others. I'll remind you here that those decisions are not unanimous either.
Who would you have decide? Surely you believe some things are harmful to others, so who decides if not the People?
"the criminalization of drugs is because the majority of the People see it as a substance harmful"
The tyranny of the majority is the reason we have a Republic.
The majority were in on the witch hunts of old, but it did
not make it right. And, there is little difference between
the witch hunts and the War on Drugs. Except, today the
false doctrine emanates from a purported secular state. It
has become a state mandated heretical religion enforced by
DEAmen and preached by a Czar.
Bear in mind this sacred principle, that
though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail,
that will to be rightful must be reasonable;
that the minority possess their equal rights,
which equal law must protect,
and to violate would be oppression." -Thomas Jefferson
What is reasonable about requiring the submission of the
individual's will in the determination of the substance
from which he is made through the process of ingestion as
long as there is no harm to any other?
MAJORITY RULE
Excerpts From Speech By Senator James A. Reed Of Missouri
(U.S. Senate, June 4, 1926)
I am getting a little tired of hearing about the sacred rights of the majority; that this is a country ruled by the majority; and that the majority has the right to have its way.
This is not a country ruled by the majority.
This is not a country of majority rule.
The Constitution of the United States was written, in large part, to prevent majority rule. The Declaration of Independence was an announcement that there are limitations upon majority rule.
The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were declared in the Declaration to be inalienable rights.
They could not be given away by the citizen himself. Much less could they be taken away by temporary agents, sitting in legislative bodies, holding a limited authority of brief duration.
The Constitution itself is a direct limitation upon majority rule.
"You shall not take property without due process of law," says the Constitution, and before we can take that safeguard away what must we do? We must obtain not a majority by this body, not a majority of the House of Representatives," but a two-thirds majority in each House concurring in a resolution, and that resolution must be approved by three fourths of the States.
What about majority rule in connection with that proposition?
The right to trial by jury can not be taken away by majority rule. The right for the habitation of the citizen to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures can not be taken away by majority rule.
If it could have been so taken away, Volstead and his like would have invaded every home of America and fanaticism would have thrust its ugly face into every home of this land...
Before you can trample upon certain rights of the American people you must have more than a majority, Sir, and I believe it to be true that there are certain rights which even by amending the Constitution of the United States, we can not take away from the citizens of the United States.
Majority rule!
Where is the logic or the reason to be found back of majority rule except in the mere necessity to dispatch business?
The fact that a majority of 1 or 10 vote for a bill in the Senate is not a certification that the action is right.
The majority has been wrong oftener than it has been right in all the course of time. The majority crucified Jesus Christ. The majority burned the Christians at the stake. The majority drove the Jews into exile and the ghetto. The majority established slavery. The majority set up innumerable gibbets. The majority chained to stakes and surrounded with circles of flame martyrs through all the ages of the world's history. The majority in China believe in a doctrine and follow a code of ethics different from ours. Either they are wrong or we are wrong. The majority in India follow a different code of ethics and have a different set of ideas than we, and they far out number us. Either they are wrong or we are wrong.
The majority went down the pathway of the ages wearing gyves, which they voluntarily forged and fastened upon their arms; and when a minority arose headed by some brave soul, they hanged him upon a gibbet, they crucified him upon a cross, they pulled his limbs apart with horrible instruments of torture, and the majority stood there leering and jibing at the man who was the apostle of a better day.
Majority rule without any limitation or curb upon the particular set of fools who happen to be placed for the moment in charge of the machinery of a government!
The majority grinned and jeered when Columbus said the world was round. The majority threw him into a dungeon for having discovered a new world.
The majority said that Galileo must recant or that Galileo must go to prison. The majority cut off the ears of John Pym because he dared advocate the liberty of the press.
The majority to the South of the Mason and Dixon line established the horrible thing called slavery, and the majority north of it did likewise, and only turned reformer when slavery ceased to be profitable to them.
Majority rule!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Biographical Note
James Alexander Reed (1861 - 1944), was born in Ohio; but after a brief sojourn in Iowa, settled in Kansas City, Missouri in the 1880s. At the turn of the Century, he was the Prosecuting Attorney in Kansas City, where he obtained 285 convictions in the 287 cases that he tried. From 1911 until his retirement in 1929, he served as a Democratic Senator from Missouri. The one political figure of that era, whom the usually cynical H. L. Mencken actually idolized, Reed opposed virtually every bit of wishful thinking, "do-gooder" legislation of his time; and was the first man in either party to openly oppose the League of Nations. In the 1920s he was the most outspoken foe of Prohibition in the Congress. On the other hand, he strongly favored Naval preparedness; and as an exercise in analytic reasoning in 1922, outlined the course of the Japanese attacks on our Pacific positions over 19 years later. There has been no more effective Conservative voice in this Century.
While too long for an internet posting, any of Reed's major Senate addresses on Foreign Policy, Military Preparedness, Prohibition, or the fallacy of trying to solve human problems by creating a more intrusive Federal Government, will reward the reader with both the insight and technique to deal with the present more effectively
Majority Rule!--America is not a country of Majority Rule.
Address:http://pages.prodigy.com/RETURN/Reed.htm
Gee, it sure seemed like your comment I was responding to:
To: dirtboy
I think its stupid to legalize the possession of small amounts. It should either be legal or illegal. To legalize small amounts is like making stealing $5 legal.
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.
I'm also OK with employers, including government (the electorate), having very broad rights in who they hire and fire, or otherwise hand out money to. If a man doesn't want to employ someone who smokes pot or drinks alcohol or smokes, that should be his business. Same goes for how government funds are spent.
Do what you want, but bare the consequences, might indeed be the best alternative to drug use.
37 posted on 10/23/2006 6:43:11 PM PDT by SampleMan (Do not dispute the peacefulness of Islam, so as not to send Muslims into violent outrage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
You have constant problem with stating facts not in evidence. I think you do this on purpose, so I'm disinclined to post the history of the planet, as you do, in order to show it. It's enough to say that you have said that the Peoples representatives must decide what is harmful and what isn't (of which we agree). Therein they have the capacity to decide that pot is harmful to others. They may be wrong, but there is no other way to make that decision, other than for you to appoint yourself king. Again, I'm not inclined to allow that.
It's pretty hard not to be irritated by prohibitionists like you kid, but I try..
Wow pops, you must be what 104? Perhaps you're senile? You're certainly crotchety, and I'm guessing that's the main attribute that will prevent you from getting any converts.
There are several ways to argue.
1. Shout people down.
- At the right time and place this may be useful, but never for winning the person shouted down as a convert.
2. Repeating the same line over and over. Pausing to plan the next attack, but not to listen. Never answering questions or hypothetically (they're only traps and straw men), but returning to the same tired line, over and over and over.
- This is a purely defensive mindset that makes the person happy at the end of the day that they themselves have not been persuaded. It is seen most in old men at the end of bars, who have their one thought and their pride is sticking to it. This too is a loser in persuading people.
3. Put out your idea. Invite genuine controversy. Be eager to answer questions. The more times you are asked the better, its an opportunity to give another example, another analogy, another hypothetical, that will persuade the other side. Ask your own challenging questions and listen to the answers. Hypotheticals are good because they draw on the objective and move away from the passion. Don't be too proud to concede ground, if its for intellectually valid reasons, even if its just to acknowledge that the other person is genuine (assuming they are). This is the MOST persuasive form of argument. In the last 20 years, I've brought easily over 100 people to the conservative mind set with it, and I'm not a social guy.
Now the styles above have nothing to do with being right or wrong, although with #3 it helps. Many people who are right are stuck in number 1 or 2. You my friend are stuck on #2. I realize what you think of me, but I'm giving you the best advice I can and opening myself to your ridicule for it. You aren't doing yourself any favors.
You have a lot of knowledge, and I like your passion for freedom, but I wouldn't want you on my side of an argument because you are bad at it, and drive people away. You're stuck on transmit.
For example, although I'm advocating that the federal government has overreached and that the People of the states should decide the law, to you I am a prohibitionist. Why? Because you are locked into the logic that anyone that disagrees with you on any facet of your argument is out to get you and an enemy of the Constitution.
I have legitimate concerns about regulating antibiotics and such, but I'd frankly like to see a few states legalize pot (and not half measures like legalizing possession of 1 ounce), but full blown legalization. That would give the country a chance to see how it works and adjust their views one way or another on the "harm" question.
Having a disagreement about the issue of harm does not make one an enemy of the state, as you emphatically insist. You have never stopped to address the perils of your own logic concerning overturning the People via judicial means.
Is it bad when the People make a bad decision concerning harm? Yes. But any alternative beyond changing the viewpoint of the people is far worse. I do not want kings, demi-kings, or king makers deciding for us, what is best for us. We do it best, even when we don't get it right the first time.
Perhaps a constitutional amendment requiring that every law must also state the harm done to others would be agreeable to you? I know you are insistent that it shouldn't be required, but neither should the Bill or Rights be required. However, its been most helpful.
My apologies for the confusion. Is there an issue concerning my position that I could clarify for you. Not withstanding my first post to you, I feel obligated at this point. Especially to a Marine.
If not them who? Do you have some devine breathing creature that never makes mistakes to decide for us the question of "harm"?
Or perhaps are the People, who are most effected, and thus able to judge the harm, and have the most to lose by its misapplication, the best ones to decide?
Again I pose to you, "If not the People, then who?"
I think it would be healthy for you to make sure you read my #247 to tpaine. There's a lot that carries over for you.
I reread your original post to me, and the reason I responded as I did, is because I didn't think you understood that I wasn't questioning the concept of unenumerated rights, but rather addressing the means and authority of the people to put curbs on behavior (murder, inciting a riot, etc.).
In this, the question becomes, "Is the behavior harmful to others?"
Now my position is that it must be harmful to others if a law restricting it is to be constitutionally correct. However, we have no divine being that walks among us to make that decision with perfection, so the People through their representatives must be the entity to make the decision. All other options are full of perils far worse than the People misjudging the harm. I'll acknowledge that hypotheticals could probably be made to the contrary, but given that the People are the ones most harmed by any bad decisions and the worse the decision the greater the harm, I don't think those hypotheticals are realistic. Whereas I think the evils of the alternatives are real, frightening, and not self-correcting.
I should have said "uninfringable right". I have a right to speech, but not to scream in your ear, as the People have decided that it does harm to you.
More of my words:
I'm also OK with employers, including government (the electorate), having very broad rights in who they hire and fire, or otherwise hand out money to. If a man doesn't want to employ someone who smokes pot or drinks alcohol or smokes, that should be his business. Same goes for how government funds are spent.
I stand by that. Employers can put contractual requirements on employees. Working for them is voluntary. If I don't want someone that smokes pot, smells bad, or has blue eyes, that's my business, even if its unwise.
What of a state employer? A state job is not a right. If the People decide they want certain limits on employment that is fine. As the government should always try to be fair, the People should not be arbitrary. Genuine arguments of unfairness, tend to bring the People about. You can take it to court, but then you are putting it before 12 People vice the entire electorate, or 1 person.
Again, we have no divine entity that always rules correctly to decide these things for us, and the most dangerous thing we could do is seek one out.
I've never advocated any such thing.
Belied by your post #158:
"-- 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."
158 posted on 10/25/2006 5:17:04 AM PDT by SampleMan
I'm advocating that the federal government has overreached and that the People of the states should decide the law,
to you I am a prohibitionist. Why?
Because you insist that the citizens of the states effected have "the authority to prohibit or legalize pot, as well as polygamy, incest, etc." -- Thats why.
Having a disagreement about the issue of harm does not make one an enemy of the state, as you emphatically insist.
This is the MOST persuasive form of argument.
In the last 20 years, I've brought easily over 100 people to the conservative mind set with it, and I'm not a social guy.
Having every level of gov't in the USA ignoring the constitution is far worse than just "Having a disagreement", imo..
Majority rule prohibitionists are indeed enemies of our rule of constitutional law, just as Senator Reed put it nearly 80 years ago.
--- Our prohibitionary 'wars' against drugs, guns, vice, etc - are tearing this country apart.
You accused me of never answering questions. I invited you to ask one, which I readily answered to the best of my abilities, but you haven't answered any of mine. How am I to learn if you don't answer any questions?
"You don't think other people have rights in the workplace to be free of dangerous individuals that can cause them injury or death?"
If THAT were your goal, just testing for impairment, whatever the cause, would be sufficient. Say a simple test of reflexes and mental agility when clocking in in the morning. If you are impaired, NO MATTER THE CAUSE, you get sent home.
But I suspect you want folks tested (and busted) for ILLEGAL substances. Because you are a control-freakazoid, authoritarian busybody, am I right?
"As a tax payer, I'm all for requiring people who get public money to be free of debilitating chemical influence at work."
See post 255.
Your continual charges of "majority rule" are disingenuous. I've never advocated that the People ignore the Constitution, just that they are the only entity that should be administering it. Are you advocating minority rule, in that you would have a minority of the pure overrule the judgment of the People?
Sadly, I wasted my last post on you. That's a shame, a real shame, and not for me.
"Please tell us what the government tells you that you must ingest?"
There are places where you, as a loving and responsible parent, can be prosecuted if you don't let the schools dope up your kids with Ritalin should the teacher and school nurse, neither with an MD degree, decide that they want to do so. It HAS happened and has been reported here on FR. Check it out.
Is there a question there?
Are you asking me if I think any trace of pot is debilitating? No. Personally I don't think it would be. I've never smoked pot, but for most tasks that don't involve life or death, I think I'm competent with a beer on board.
If you are asking me if I think your solution is a good one, I don't think so. It would be very time consuming, questionably arbitrary and subject to favoritism, etc. As a practical matter I think it would be a big failure.
I think random checks for substance abuse are a good system, that is fair across the board, even if the levels chosen are not well founded. Keeping in mind that employment is voluntary.
Is there a method of checking for debilitating levels of pot? I have no idea.
Unless you are advocating raising the bar substantially for wrongful termination, I think you have to come up with something better for sending someone home for having too much pot on board. Fair enough?
First, I whole heartedly agree with parental rights on this issue, and its a valid answer to my question. Thank you for bringing it up.
Would legalizing pot solve that issue? It hasn't solved government overbearance, where it has been legalized in Europe. The nanny states there have become much more overbearing in most all areas, while doing more and more to legalize drugs. Frankly, I don't think there is a connection.
But parental rights aren't all powerful are they? We don't allow incest, nasty beatings, and we struggle with passive failure to seek critical medical treatment.
So because the People in some states are for now allowing what you and I clearly see as an affront to constitutional freedom should we take the power to decide "harm" away from them? If so, who do you give it to? I can't think of anything better, so it is either the going with the People with the realization that we must be ever vigilant and active to keep our neighbors true, OR it is to be armed insurrection. I can reach that point, but not over pot being illegal.
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.