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

Townhall ^ | October 18, 2006 | Jacob Sullum

[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.

[tpaine]

The 'curious joke' around here is your inability to debate the issues you yourself raised by 'sniping' at me..

What's your excuse?

[SampleMan]

Loopback test?

Checking if a particular poster's ego would force them to get the last word in(not you). I find my humor where I can.

[tpaine]

I too find humor in the fact that you've now made at least three cute little 'asides', [two of them naming me], -- without the courtesy of a ping - or the guts to answer.

Feel ashamed S-man.

[tpaine]

Lanier:

"--- Collectives can be just as stupid as any individual, and in important cases, stupider. The interesting question is whether it's possible to map out where the one is smarter than the many.


There is a lot of history to this topic, and varied disciplines have lots to say. Here is a quick pass at where I think the boundary between effective collective thought and nonsense lies:

The collective is more likely to be smart when it isn't defining its own questions, when the goodness of an answer can be evaluated by a simple result (such as a single numeric value,) and when the information system which informs the collective is filtered by a quality control mechanism that relies on individuals to a high degree.

Under those circumstances, a collective can be smarter than a person. Break any one of those conditions and the collective becomes unreliable or worse.


Meanwhile, an individual best achieves optimal stupidity on those rare occasions when one is both given substantial powers and insulated from the results of his or her actions.

If the above criteria have any merit, then there is an unfortunate convergence. The setup for the most stupid collective is also the setup for the most stupid individuals.



http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/post?id=1730338%2C3

[SampleMan]

I'm breaking a new rule of mine here, but you might as well know, I haven't read a single one of your last 40-60 posts. I frankly don't get past reading that its from you before I skip it. This one was just an accident, as you were unusually brief. Your posts are a colossal waste of time. You don't answer questions, you don't add anything, you are just a one trick pony stuck on transmit, with an irritating character to boot. Like a broken record of Howard Dean.

As I said before, I don't think you are a total kook like some, but neither do you have anything to offer. My time is too valuable to waste it posting to someone that is disingenuous, while continually questioning my integrity and true intent. You can safely call me a liar tucked behind your computer screen, but just because I can't invite you outside, doesn't mean that I have to dignify it.
If you want to continue speaking to people that are ignoring you, try the bus stop.
This is a courtesy reply, but consider it my last to you, and only by accident will I be reading any of your posts.

[PaxMacian]

You embody ignorance and wear it with pride.

Psalm 59:12 [For] the sin of their mouth, [and] the words of their lips, Let them even be taken in their pride, And for cursing and lying which they speak.

[SampleMan]

Thanks again for clarifying who the kook is that I've been referring to.
Do you have a sacred bong for your sacrament? Must the holy doobie be rolled on your alter? Do you have any good quotes about the DEA from the Book of Revelations?
Do keep posting, every word is fascinating.

[robertpaulsen]

"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."

Not really. Unless you consider 14 years to be "a long time".

Marbury v. Madison was decided in 1803. The U.S. Supreme Court has been deciding the constitutionality of Congressional actions for over 200 years now, and that seems to be acceptable to all. Better than having Congress deciding if their own laws are constitutional -- like putting the fox in charge of the hen house.

If the U.S. Supreme Court is overstepping its authority, Congress can simply vote to remove the courts' jurisdiction on that issue. The House did just that on the issue of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance (H. R. 2389):

"no court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, the Pledge of Allegiance"

[tpaine]

tacticalogic asked:
Thats your best shot?

Here's another example of a pitiful, even semi-deranged 'shot' from sampleman:

"-- you need to go off in a corner with tpaine and come to grips with your assertion that majority rule canceling out fundamental rights is OK, as long as its a super-majority.

Where he comes up with the delusion that we are advocating that a super-majority can cancel out fundamental rights is simply beyond rational comprehension.

As we've seen, sampleman & crowd do indeed want a system where Congress [and States/cities] can simply pass any law that seems popular at the time, and leave it to the electorate to decide if it was 'right'.

-- Unable to rationally debate the constitutionality of this specific issue, they simply ignore any mention of it..

How about an answer Sampleman ? You haven't bothered to have one of those in the last dozen or so of your posts.

"-- Running away from the issue isn't a good sign for your argument's strength. --- How about being brave and making one? --"

Or is this your new 'style' -- where you include me in your 'tar baby' imaginings, then don't have the guts to ping me to debate the issues you raise?
-445-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SampleMan now writes:
I'm breaking a new rule of mine here, but you might as well know, I haven't read a single one of your last 40-60 posts.
I frankly don't get past reading that its from you before I skip it. This one was just an accident, as you were unusually brief. Your posts are a colossal waste of time. You don't answer questions, you don't add anything, you are just a one trick pony stuck on transmit, with an irritating character to boot. Like a broken record of Howard Dean. As I said before, I don't think you are a total kook like some, but neither do you have anything to offer. My time is too valuable to waste it posting to someone that is disingenuous, while continually questioning my integrity and true intent. You can safely call me a liar tucked behind your computer screen, but just because I can't invite you outside, doesn't mean that I have to dignify it. If you want to continue speaking to people that are ignoring you, try the bus stop. This is a courtesy reply, but consider it my last to you, and only by accident will I be reading any of your posts.

-- Fine s-man, feel free to claim you don't read my posts.
However, as long as you continue to post your mischaracterations of our constitutional process, - and asides of what I and others post about that process, -- those comments will be answered.

In fact, your aside above to tacticalogic proves that you read my posts.
-- As does your remark imagining I've called you a liar; -- that's simply not true..
In an earlier aside to TL you claimed, & I answered:

-- 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?

Now I find that you want to play a 'one way' game.. -- You get to make personal remarks about me, but claim to be above "wasting time" reading my responses. -
Bizarre ploy.
-- Feel free to imagine you're making some sort of a rational point.

[halfright]

never could figure out why they allow bars to have parking lots.

[PaxMacian]

You like to call names and use dysphemisms so that you can justify your
dismissal of the other as another human being with equal rights granted by
God. You belittle other's beliefs out of ignorance as well as with full
knowledge of the basis of those beliefs in scripture. It is the book of Revelation, not revelations.

[SampleMan]

Dysphemism? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are just a kook, and not intentionally mocking Christianity. As for belittling your beliefs out of ignorance, you won't answer my questions about your beliefs, so how am I supposed to cure my ignorance. You could start by answering the questions from my last post.

Then I can get on with belittling your beliefs from a position of understanding.

[PaxMacian]

"I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are just a kook, and not intentionally mocking Christianity"

Galatians 6 :6-7
Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things. Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

God is not mocked by my sowing the seeds of peace nor by any citizen
sowing the seed which contains the most complete and absorbable
combination of amino acids on the face of earth. But those who sow the
seeds of discord and cheer DEAmen on to war with others of a different faith
shall reap what they sow by the grace of God.

Ephesians 6:11-15
Put on the whole armour of God,
that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against
powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual
wickedness in high places.
Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to
withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the
breastplate of righteousness;
And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;

[SampleMan]

Have you tried handing out pamphlets at the airport? Just trying to help.

[PaxMacian]

I prefer the relative anonymity of cyberspace.

[SampleMan]

I prefer the relative anonymity of cyberspace.

Can't say I blame you.

[KurtZ]

I'm breaking a new rule of mine here, but you might as well know, I haven't read a single one of your last 40-60 posts

This should surprise no one. But seriously, SampleMan, you should think about going back and reading them. You might learn something.

[robertpaulsen]

"You might learn something."

I hope you're being sarcastic.

[SampleMan]

This should surprise no one. But seriously, SampleMan, you should think about going back and reading them. You might learn something.

If you've read one you've read them all. Tell me, if I kept calling you a liar, would you keep reading my posts?

[tpaine]

S-man:

-- 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?

Now I find that you want to play a 'one way' game.. -- You get to make personal remarks about me, but claim to be above "wasting time" reading my responses. -

Bizarre ploy.
-- Feel free to imagine you're making some sort of a rational point.

Sman:
I'm breaking a new rule of mine here, but you might as well know, I haven't read a single one of your last 40-60 posts

KurtZ
This should surprise no one.
But seriously, SampleMan, you should think about going back and reading them. You might learn something.

S-man
If you've read one you've read them all. Tell me, if I kept calling you a liar, would you keep reading my posts?

Thanks for the comment KurtZ.
As we see, S-man has ~convinced~ himself that somehow this debate has become a personal insult game, and that any remarks I make about his constitutional misconceptions in effect 'call him a liar'; -- and that this allows him to make personal remarks in return.

I've run across this 'conviction' before with other opponents :
In the next stage, - when I continue to challenge his points [which he ~chooses~ to ignore], - he will call in the mods & insist on protection from my dissent.

Unable to defend his political misconceptions about prohibitions, S-man is refusing to debate. -- That is not a lie, it is a fact.