Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Potheads, puritans and pragmatists: Two marijuana initiatives put drug warriors on the defensive
Townhall ^ | October 18, 2006 | Jacob Sullum

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.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: addiction; bongbrigade; dopers; drugaddled; druggies; drugskilledbelushi; explainsclinton; goaskalice; letsgetstupid; libertarians; potheads; potheadsvotedemocrat; reverendleroy; smokybackroomin10; userslosers; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 541-555 next last
To: FUBAR12
Does that mean if it was a choice btw a non-user or a user you would want to have a user next door?

No, it means it IS NOT MY CHOICE ABOUT WHO IS NEXT DOOR. UNLESS I BUY THEIR PROPERTY FROM THEM OR UNLESS THEY PRESENT A CLEAR THREAT TO ME.

And right now, we do NOT treat consumers of alcohol as a threat unless they go beyond just drinking. So why should weed be different?

61 posted on 10/23/2006 7:52:32 PM PDT by dirtboy (Good fences make good neighbors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
That's bad too. Put them away and lock them up for ever.

Well, then, let's make all alcohol illegal because some might abuse it. That is your rationale here, isn't it, when it comes to pot.

The only problem is, alcohol prohibition didn't work, did it?

We only have so many law enforcement resources. Best to use them for real problems, such as meth, and decriminalize weed.

I've known plenty of regular pot users who are highly productive members of society. People who own businesses or who have responsible jobs.

Me, I can't smoke the stuff and do my work the next day. But that's me. I know others who don't have that problem.

Oh, and you have pot-smoking neighbors already. They just ain't about to let you know it with your kind of attitude.

62 posted on 10/23/2006 7:53:48 PM PDT by dirtboy (Good fences make good neighbors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Tolsti
I'll tell you what they want. To be able to get high easier without legal hassles and for cheaper. QED.

Yes? And. . .?

63 posted on 10/23/2006 8:01:59 PM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Well, you unfortuately have a real problem with the 10th amendment, then.

Because, according to the 10th, it IS a state's decision about such. Or should be, until SCOTUS decides that words mean what they wish them to mean.

Reread my post. The 10th Amendment does NOT make smoking pot a right. You can argue that there is no federal case if the pot is grown and consumed within a given state, but the 10th Amendment does not prohibit the states from passing such laws.

I'm always fascinated to hear that the founders, ratifiers, and citizens of the first 200 years were simply ignorant of what the Constitution actually said.

64 posted on 10/23/2006 8:04:12 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 60 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
The 10th Amendment does NOT make smoking pot a right.

Gawd, I hate the smell of 10th Amendment igorance in the evening. It smells like ... ignorance.

The 10th Amendment does NOT make pot smoking a right, as you noted, but for the WRONG REASONS. It simply says that the fedgov DOES NOT HAVE A VOICE IN THE MATTER. If a state says you have the right to smoke pot within their jurisdiction, the FEDGOV IS SUPPOSED TO BE SILENT under the 10th.

But, like so many self-professed limited government conservatives, you say you want limited government - as long as the concept does not limit what you want government to do.

65 posted on 10/23/2006 8:08:37 PM PDT by dirtboy (Good fences make good neighbors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: JTN
Libertarian? Please. These are potheads. Libertarians are just dupes in this. There is nothing - NOTHING - admirable about promoting the use of dangerous narcotics. In Nevada, this thing is losing and all of the 'clergy' being quoted are huge, huge liberals (not libertarians) and socialist types.

Soros and company have spent a hundred million easy trying to figure out how to get the entire nation to legally approve dope smoking in all fifty states since there is no way in hell that Congress or any other elected official who wants a future in politics is going to support potheads. So they came upon the initiative process and started with the 'medical marijuana' cannard. In each state where they managed to trick voters into biting off that one, they then started on the 'one ounce' and 'regulation and tax' angle - as if the taxpayers are so desparate for more taxes that they would sell children or televise executions if it would create more tax revenue - to advance the ultimate goal which is an Amsterdam-style drug haven throughout America.

These dopers would argue that THC makes you smarter if they thought it would get the Teachers Union onboard.

66 posted on 10/23/2006 8:08:44 PM PDT by bpjam (Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaida - The Religion of Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
The biggest problem with drug testing is that it does not test for impairment. In some cases, it does not even test for the actual substance, just lingering metabolites.

The company I work for has ridiculous drug testing policies. To see certain customers at certain facilities, I have to take a drug test. A few weeks ago, a rock hit the front grill of my company car, causing minor damage. I had to take a drug test. A month ago, I had a flat tire. We had to clear it with legal before they could say I didn't have to take a drug test. If you cut your your finger, or bump your shin, or do anything requiring medical attention, you have to take a drug test.

Recently, we lost a good sales rep because someone rear-ended him. He had to take a drug test. He wasn't impaired at all, but had traces of THC metabolites in his system from previous use a week prior. Company wasted thousands and thousands of dollars training him for nothing.

My company spends big bucks every year for unnecessary drug testing. I'm not in any danger of failing, but I honestly don't care to work in this kind of atmosphere, and will probably leave when the time is right for me. It just creates a suspicious and tense work environment, and I have options.
67 posted on 10/23/2006 8:10:30 PM PDT by motzman (zoom zoom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: bpjam
There is nothing - NOTHING - admirable about promoting the use of dangerous narcotics

Like alcohol? The most destructive drug out there. And we allow advertising for such. Guess we should ban such. And ban the sale of booze as well.

68 posted on 10/23/2006 8:11:09 PM PDT by dirtboy (Good fences make good neighbors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: NurdlyPeon

Cypress Hill is the group who sings it.

I can hear it in my head, let me think real hard and see if you can hear it.

;-)


69 posted on 10/23/2006 8:12:25 PM PDT by eyespysomething (Thou art only mark'd for hot vengeance and the rod of heaven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: motzman
Recently, we lost a good sales rep because someone rear-ended him. He had to take a drug test. He wasn't impaired at all, but had traces of THC metabolites in his system from previous use a week prior. Company wasted thousands and thousands of dollars training him for nothing.

Oh yeah, the worst part about this is that I (and many others) were told about it. As if was my business to know someones else's personal business.
70 posted on 10/23/2006 8:17:15 PM PDT by motzman (zoom zoom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: eyespysomething
I can hear it in my head, let me think real hard and see if you can hear it.

Something....something....I'm hearing some kind of a tune in my head......

71 posted on 10/23/2006 8:19:58 PM PDT by NurdlyPeon (Wearing My 'Jammies Proudly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: motzman
You have a case for perhaps changing your companies policies, but not for legalization. Last time I checked, employers had the right to set strict standards for employment, even if they weren't justified.

By the way, airline pilots don't have to be impaired by alcohol to get fired. They have strict policies on when they must cease drinking before a flight and that's that. As for your employer, it is likely their liability insurance rates that drive policy. If I was a trucking employer, I'd require mandatory testing for any substance which led to impairment. As long as I could get clean employees without problem, I'd set a very low tolerance limit on drugs with an impairing effect. I might also prohibit tobacco use, if the cost factors on benefits were significant.

It appears that your desire for legalization is to force your employer to do as you wish. Legalization should play no role in what your employer requires with respect to drug use.

72 posted on 10/23/2006 8:26:01 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 67 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
You've made some broad assumptions. I've had company cars before and never had to submit to drug test for a rock hitting my car, or another driver causing an accident. I do not operate heavy machinery, nor do I have a CDL.

Again, the biggest problem is that drug testing does not test for impairment, and in some cases, does not even test for the actual "illegal" substance.

The point is, it wastes billions of dollars per year with absolutely no effect on safety, and the only people who ever get caught are pot users who are not impaired in the first place. It also creates a poor work environment.

All started by the sainted Ronald Reagan.

And, yes, I am for legalization of all drugs on constitutional, practical, moral, religious, and what ever other grounds you'd like.

If you allow government to dictate what you cannot ingest, then logically they can also dicate what you can ingest, and of course then they can also dictate what you must ingest.

This country existed longer without income taxation than it has had income taxation, and prior to 1913, we had the highest standard of living, no national debt, and attracted the productive. This country has also existed longer without drug prohibition than with it, and there was no drug problem when drugs were legal. Now we attract the unproductive, have huge national debt, and a massive "drug problem".

First, control of your earnings was taken, and then control of your body was taken. If you're all for that, well God bless you then.
73 posted on 10/23/2006 8:43:16 PM PDT by motzman (Giants Crush Cowboys!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
It simply says that the fedgov DOES NOT HAVE A VOICE IN THE MATTER. If a state says you have the right to smoke pot within their jurisdiction, the FEDGOV IS SUPPOSED TO BE SILENT under the 10th.

And I said differently where? You appear to not understand the difference between something being allowed versus something being protected. I hate the smell of someone that doesn't read or understand what they're accusing people of.

But interstate commerce and regulation of foreign trade are a bit of a bugaboo to your overall tactic.

I suggest you stick with the argument that the federal government cannot regulate the manufacture, sale, or use of drugs which occur solely within the confines of a single state.

But, like so many self-professed limited government conservatives, you say you want limited government - as long as the concept does not limit what you want government to do.

Is this where I'm supposed to cry? Give me a break. I want the people of any given state to be able to decide whether a certain substance (pot, C4 explosives, or plutonium) requires regulation for the purpose of public health. What of weapons? Interestingly, weapons were singled out by the framers and those who ratified the Constitution as so necessary as to be protected.

If all substances were to be protected, why were weapons singled out?

I'm all for more liberty, and I'll entertain arguments to legalize some substances that are currently prohibited, but I won't entertain the notion that getting high is a Constitutionally protected right.

74 posted on 10/23/2006 8:44:25 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 65 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
You have a case for perhaps changing your companies policies, but not for legalization. Last time I checked, employers had the right to set strict standards for employment, even if they weren't justified.

No, the Feds have coerced my company and many others into adopting these policies due to govt contracts, OSHA regs, insurance mandates, and a myriad of other requirements that I'm not sure if anyone really knows about. The only way to change it would be to go out of business.
75 posted on 10/23/2006 8:59:40 PM PDT by motzman (Giants Crush Cowboys!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: motzman
You've made some broad assumptions.

No. I've stated that your employer has the right to set the requirements of employment, and that you have the right to say no. As for company liability, you already stated that it was a company car and that the company requires you to travel. That makes the company liable.

Again, the biggest problem is that drug testing does not test for impairment, and in some cases, does not even test for the actual "illegal" substance.

So don't work for that employer if you don't like it. They write the checks, so they, not you, decide what is reasonable. It frankly has nothing to do with the substance being legal or illegal. Won't you get fired for having a legal amount of alcohol in your system while you're driving the company car?

The point is, it wastes billions of dollars per year with absolutely no effect on safety, and the only people who ever get caught are pot users who are not impaired in the first place. It also creates a poor work environment.

Now who's assuming? Your assumption requires us to believe that either the known consequence of termination has no effect on the decision process OR that pot users are just too responsible to ever come to work impaired. The facts are much different. Accidents due to smoking pot and/or drinking alcohol are low because employers don't tolerate it.

If you allow government to dictate what you cannot ingest, then logically they can also dicate what you can ingest, and of course then they can also dictate what you must ingest.

Hogwash. Like saying that if you let the government decide who can't vote (felons), then "they" can also dictate who can vote, and of course then they can also dictate who you must vote for. Just a nonsensical diatribe of nonsequitor logic.

...there was no drug problem when drugs were legal.

Again, hogwash. Morphine was a tremendous problem as soon as it was available. The fact is that very few drugs other than alcohol were available to anyone in the U.S. before about 1865. As soon as they became available, their irresponsible use became a problem. How exactly do you explain the issue of opium in China? Did they only imagine that there was a problem?

76 posted on 10/23/2006 9:03:11 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 73 | View Replies]

To: motzman
No, the Feds have coerced my company and many others into adopting these policies due to govt contracts, OSHA regs, insurance mandates, and a myriad of other requirements that I'm not sure if anyone really knows about. The only way to change it would be to go out of business.

Oh, I forgot to add, none of these drug tests actually test for impairment.
77 posted on 10/23/2006 9:03:25 PM PDT by motzman (Giants Crush Cowboys!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: motzman
the Feds have coerced my company and many others into adopting these policies due to govt contracts,

Again a condition of employment that you don't like. You should really find a different employer if not smoking pot causes you such distress. Stop trying to force other people to accept your behavior.

You don't want just legalization, you want to force people to employ you against their will.

Here's a news flash, legalization won't in itself change a single employer requirement. Employers are well within their rights to have a zero tolerance policy on alcohol if they want. If they are a Christian school, they can have a zero tolerance policy on employing Muslims.

You have a serious issue with wanting to force people to accept your norms in the workplace. You'd be best to stick simply with legalization, and accept that many things which are legal are not allowed in the work place.

78 posted on 10/23/2006 9:11:27 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 75 | View Replies]

To: eleni121

I didn't specify a next door neighbor. Point is that in your immediate neighborhood there are daily cannabis users.
This is true virtually everywhere,nationwide.


79 posted on 10/23/2006 9:16:50 PM PDT by 11B40 (times change, people don't)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: NurdlyPeon

Hits from the bong, by Cypress Hill

It's kinda catchy. I quit listening to that stuff shortly after I gave up the reefer.


80 posted on 10/23/2006 9:20:53 PM PDT by Crooked Constituent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 541-555 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson