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.
A rational man would rebut any posts calling him a liar..
-- Which of course would mean he would have to find & repost those alleged comments. -- Which cannot be done, as they do not exist.
Everything exciting seems to happen to the other students in Zoe's class, and its enough to make her see red.
But when she starts making up stories to compete with the other students, everybody just calls her a liar, and she ends up getting in all kinds of trouble.
What Zoe decides she needs is proof.
So when the class is discussing Eagles, and Zoe mentions that one is nesting in her backyard, when her story is met with more cries of Liar, Liar, she decides to prove it … even if it means creating an eagle's nest.
But what is Zoe to do when her proof falls through, as well, and she finds nobody in her class willing to believe a word she says?
Can Zoe find a way to regain their trust?
Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire
Address:http://gordonkorman.com/liarliar.htm
Good decision.
Thank you. Its just putting into practice the old addage that you shouldn't wrestle with a pig.
In person, there is a long time honored method for dealing with people who lack character, while casting dispersions on another's. But on the Internet, any ranting clod is safe from such repercussions. The beauty of it is, you can pretty much thoroughly ignore them, once identified, just another type of junk mail.
A rational man would rebut any posts calling him a liar.
-- Which of course would mean he would have to find & repost those alleged comments. -- Which cannot be done, as they do not exist.
As we see, any "ranting clod" on the Internet can claim 'liar, liar, pants on fire', -- because they've failed in debating the issues.
Apparently there is a lack of understanding of what, "I'm not reading your posts" means to some people. Is it still stalking if no one reads it?
I've run across this 'conviction' before with other opponents:
In the next stage, - when I continue to challenge his points [which he has ~chosen~ 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.
If I'm not answering your posts, its because your behavior has led directly to me not reading them. I say again, I AM NOT READING THEM. Likely, no one is reading them. Cease annoying me with your desperate pleas for attention.
"-- Most of the energy put into a debate is spent on just communicating what your point of view is, and very little energy, in comparison, is left to arguing the merits of those views once both sides understand what they are. It's here that most debates are won or lost, simply because one side may be right, but doesn't have the verbal dexterity to explain why.
This is also the case where someone nervous of losing will go into nitpicking mode and try to contest misconstrued representations of the details.
It's unfortunate that the Internet can't also eliminate trolls, infant provocateurs, and the stubbornly ignorant, so it seems that if you do want to use it as a forum for debate, you should treat it like a buffet of uneven quality to be sampled from carefully. --"
Thesis, antithesis, synthesis
Address:http://www.disenchanted.com/dis/humanity/debate.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"It's unfortunate that the Internet can't also eliminate trolls, infant provocateurs, and the stubbornly ignorant," -- those on -- "Nitpicking mode".
If it's any consolation, you're just one of a number of posters being obsessively stalked.
So says one of the most active 'stalkers' on FR, famous for his one line snide asides, - addressed to others but directly opposing the points of his victim of the day.
Yes, it is an obsession. Where is Dr. Phil when he's needed.
He's no longer posting. He was being obsessively stalked by you-know-who.
Why can't the guns/speech/religion decisions be made at the state level also, where the Founding Fathers originally intended they be made?
You're allowing those decisions to be made at the federal level, but not drugs. Why is that?
What's with you? You think everyone who disagrees with you works for the federal government?
If the states decided the drug issue, why do you think that would work? Or don't you care if it works or not, as long as that's the way it's done?
I bring this up because, prior to Prohibition, the states alone made the decision whether to be "wet" or "dry" and they split 50-50. Problems arose when the "wet" states illegally smuggled to "dry" states next door.
The "dry" states pressured Congress for assistance and got the Webb-Kenyon Act making this smuggling illegal at the federal level, but that didn't help. Eventually, we got Prohibition.
But you're saying this wouldn't happen with easy-to-smuggle drugs? Or, again, are you saying you just don't care?
Public health issues seem to have been intended to be the pervue of the States. Just trying to comply with the original intent.
I think people who work for the federal government have a conflict of interest when it comes to determining the appropriate limits of the power of the federal government.
True. The States' traditional police power is defined as the authority to provide for the public health, safety, and morals. But if the threat comes from beyond state borders (from a country or another state), the courts have ruled that Congress may intervene and also provide this function.
"Just trying to comply with the original intent."
How noble. If so, then you would agree that the BOR only applies to the federal government, leaving these issues (eg., guns/speech/religion) to the purview of the states?
Perhaps. Then again, money is tight.
If federal department A has to share dollars with federal department B, I'd be willing to bet good money they're in favor of eliminating department B.
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.