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.
Indeed so stop lying about God saying it is okay to use pot.
I've given you numerous scriptures about this in the past, and you always dance and twist, convincing only yourself that you've made any kind of case.
Give it up, Pax, and if you care at all what God thinks of you, repent.
GOD MADE HERB
GOD SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD
GOD GAVE IT TO MAN
Genesis 1:11
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth"; and it was so.
Genesis 1:12
And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:29
And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.
Expect me to take the word of a liar? I will stick with the real word.
"You seem very intrigued by the color black Is that also part of your cult?"
It is the terrorrist imagery of the masked DEAmen like the dark knight and
their wrapping of themselves in mystery as they hide behind masks from
those who they pretend to protect, not my intrique.
In matters of the division of power and authority between the national government and the States, who else would have authority to rule on it?
It was a long time after the Constitution's ratification before the Supreme Court decided that it was the final arbiter of constitutionality and Congress/President have failed to rein it in.
Where in the Constitution is such power granted to the Supreme Court? Why would the court make better decisions than the Congress or the President?
Ah! The old B-movie western rule. I missed that in the Constitution. Which article is it in again? How did you feel about Johnny Cash? Are zebra's constitutional or unconstitutional, because that really has me confused?
Oh please keep posting.
I have an oligarchy of doctors? How did I miss that? Are you at all aware that finding a doctor to perform an abortion is difficult, because the oligarchy tends to disdain it?
For my hypothetical, how about an answer? You haven't bothered to have one of those in the last dozen or so posts. Running away from the issue isn't a good sign for your argument's strength. My hypothetical required one of two decisions. How about being brave and making one?
They already do live in your neighborhood. It's everywhere.
I use to not want it legalized but I have changed my mind because I am sick of spending the money trying to enforce laws against pot. Its a no win situation.
I don't smoke pot.
John
Hopefully they would be more insulated from the corruption and influence of special interest groups and political aspirations.
The USSC got it's first lessons in living document revisionism rammed down their collective throats by FDR and the New Deal Congress.
"that really has me confused?"
Some truth out of you at last.
NO John it's not everywhere. But when I see it I will call the police. I know people how have served time for selling it. I have no sympathy for them. I consider it time well served...away from our kids and communities.
I have broken off a few relationships over it (over the years) but not that many.
It pretty much stays within certain demographic groups...the loser groups.
I knew pot messed up your brain, but I didn't realize how far you were gone.
When you actually care what God thinks of you, you can always repent. For now, it seems like you'd rather get high than care what He thinks.
Much to the contrary they are their own special interest group and are wholly insulated from having to answer for their actions.
Why is a 5-4 ruling (which we see all the time) more comforting to you than a flip of the coin? Shouldn't constitutional law be clearer than that, if it is really decided on the merits? Don't you want those deciding your fate to to be answerable?
And yes, the country went through 160 years, solving slavery, polygamy, women's suffrage, etc. without the Lordship of the Supreme Court (Dred Scott was decided as a property rights issue).
Looking at just a few incidents from historically recent times you have FDR's packing of the court to overcome Legislative protection of the Constitution, the strange ruling on abortion (privacy trumps life), and most recently the Court's decision to uphold bans on political free speech, based on it being political.
Can't say I see the the USSC as a noble cut above Congress or the Executive.
Almost forgot. Please keep posting.
Damn, I hate having to deal with democrats too.
If you think that it is not a right to self-medicate responsibly then you have declared your body to be property of the state to regulate as it sees fit.
Doubletalk. They are still more insulated from the corruption and influence of the special interest groups than the politicians. What does "their own special interest group" mean? They're going to influence and corrupt themselves?
Why is a 5-4 ruling (which we see all the time) more comforting to you than a flip of the coin?
Who said it was?
Should a bare majority of the houses of Congress be any more comforting?
Shouldn't constitutional law be clearer than that, if it is really decided on the merits? Don't you want those deciding your fate to to be answerable?
Bee effing ess. You want it decided by backroom deals and midnight sessions of Congress?
Looking at just a few incidents from historically recent times you have FDR's packing of the court to overcome Legislative protection of the Constitution, the strange ruling on abortion (privacy trumps life), and most recently the Court's decision to uphold bans on political free speech, based on it being political.
Can't say I see the the USSC as a noble cut above Congress or the Executive.
Just where do you think the debate over the Constitutionality of an act of Congress is going to take place? On the floor before the votes are taken? Do you think trying to get conservative "original intent" justices appointed to the Court is a waste of time? It may not be perfect, but the USSC is there for a reason. If you want a system where Congress can simply pass any law that seems popular at the time, and leave it to the electorate to decide if it was right you might as well the the Constition and scratch out any reference to making Amendments - we won't need to stinking Amendments.
Sample has made pretty clear that he believes the current drugs regime is injudicious, so I am prepared to believe that he is not being disingenuous or sophistical in this instance.
His words are clear in that he believes that the decision to make drugs illegal "should not be taken away from the People".
S-man:
If we give away our legislative right to decide to the judiciary, what is then the appeal process when the judiciary makes decisions contrary to the Constitution?
Our legislators & executives, indeed ALL of our officials, are duty bound by oath to ignore "decisions contrary to the Constitution". -- And as per the unconstitutional 18th, we first ignored, then repealed prohibition. We the People are now in the process of ignoring the 'war on drugs', -- with the exception of those who insist in believing that the decision to make drugs illegal "should not be taken away from the People".
-- there are equally some real nut jobs arguing for legalization by any means. Should tpaine think that's a reference to him, its not.
Thanks for the faint praise, and for realizing that I am not making a personal attack on you either. -- This debate on governmental prohibitional power ['states rights'] has been going on since the Constitution was ratified. -- In effect we fought a civil war about it -- Can you agree?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I noticed you ragging on Pac:
"-- how about an answer? You haven't bothered to have one of those in the last dozen or so posts. Running away from the issue isn't a good sign for your argument's strength. --- How about being brave and making one? --"
Amusing you can't see the irony in your own words. --- Can you -- 'Speak for yourself' S-man?
Still I wasn't clear enough in that particular post you cite, so here it is. I should have said, "uninfringable right". Like the court has mandated with abortion. For example free speech has limits (too many now), as does religion. In unenumerated rights, we restrict sex from certain areas and restrict age of consent, etc.
Before you go off on calling me a liberal democrat, socialist, rights sucking, Constitution hating, DEAmen, read my last 30 posts. That should bring you up to speed. Then I'd be happy to converse.
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.