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 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 541-555 next last
To: bpjam
Libertarian? Please. These are potheads. Libertarians are just dupes in this. There is nothing - NOTHING - admirable about promoting the use of dangerous narcotics.

Yeah. I hear if you smoke the stuff enough, you go out and listen to negro jazz music and rape white women.

Anyways, we can't have pot legal in Nevada. People might be too stoned to gamble and receive drinks after they just came back from the drive in marriage.......Nevada has morals, you know.

81 posted on 10/23/2006 9:23:33 PM PDT by Nate505
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
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.

As if they just decide to do this out of thin air. They were coerced by the Feds.

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?

That's your types answer to everything, don't work for that company if you don;t like it. How about if they don't like your internet postings on your free time? Of if you own a gun? Or smoke cigarettes? This desire by people like you to turn companies in quasi-government enforcement agencies is absurd. BTW, 0.04 BAC is grounds for termination at my company. That's "a beer" for many people. Oh yeah, don't work for them if you don't like it....

Accidents due to smoking pot and/or drinking alcohol are low because employers don't tolerate it.

No, wrong. Alcohol is the only substance that even rates on the chart for accidents, and again drug testing does not test for impairment. Companies that do not have stringent drug testing policies do not have any measurable increas in workplace accidents. You can do your research to prove that.

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.

Crapulence. Government does tell you what you can't ingest, does tell you what you can ingest, and does tell you what you must ingest. Now, at this juncture, most of these "rules" are fairly reasonable. For now. When has government ever voluntarily restrained its' expansion of powers? (Hint: You can't smoke IN A BAR anymore)

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?

No, you're wrong. Morphine and opium dens were a problem, but restricted to certain segments and areas of society. Creating black markets always is worse than the previous paradigm. Always. The "cure" was far, far worse than the "disease". As soon as it became prohibited, then the problems really started. Just like with alcohol prohibition. As for the motivations of drug prohibitionists, read up on a "gentleman" named Anslinger, and what his motivations were for his war on pot.

In fact, there are many fine scholary works on these subjects; perhaps you should read some of them so you can make some rational points. So far, you've scored a zero.

Good night, and have a busybody-ing tomorrow.
82 posted on 10/23/2006 9:32:23 PM PDT by motzman (Giants Crush Cowboys!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
That's just crazy talk.

I do not know. The way I look at it, they should not be putting American citizen teenagers in jail for smoking pot when illegals can come to America and commit several crimes (Social Security Fraud, illegal entry, and God knows what else) and get an absolute free pass from all levels of government.

What really needs to happen is that if illegals can come in and commit two felonies each than every American citizen should get a card that allows them to commit two felonies before they face charges.

If it is not an equal protection issue, it sure stinks on many other levels.
83 posted on 10/23/2006 10:06:11 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Tailback
I love your plan, that way when I retire I can stop drinking and start smoking pot legally.

Why stop drinking? Nobody wants a drunk on the job either...

84 posted on 10/24/2006 1:58:09 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: microgood
The constitutional part of my original reply was based on drug testing being advocated and my objection based on the Fourth Amendment, which it clearly violates.

You don't think other people have rights in the workplace to be free of dangerous individuals that can cause them injury or death?

85 posted on 10/24/2006 2:00:57 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Crooked Constituent
Cypress Hill... Let's see, it is not Temples of Boom. Which album was that?
86 posted on 10/24/2006 2:05:10 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: microgood
The way I look at it, they should not be putting American citizen teenagers in jail for smoking pot when illegals can come to America and commit several crimes...

Like smuggling dope?

87 posted on 10/24/2006 2:07:41 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: motzman
As if they just decide to do this out of thin air. They were coerced by the Feds.

A requirement of employment does not constitute coercion. Your argument also conveniently ignores hundreds of thousands of employers that have no connection to any government work that also see fit to put substance use limits as a condition of employment. As a tax payer, I'm all for requiring people who get public money to be free of debilitating chemical influence at work. You can argue about what constitutes "debilitating influence", but your line of argument that anything that is otherwise legal cannot be restricted by a private or public employer is silly. Of course illegal substances are no different.

That's your types answer to everything, don't work for that company if you don;t like it. How about if they don't like your internet postings on your free time? Of if you own a gun? Or smoke cigarettes? This desire by people like you to turn companies in quasi-government enforcement agencies is absurd. BTW, 0.04 BAC is grounds for termination at my company. That's "a beer" for many people. Oh yeah, don't work for them if you don't like it....

Imagine that, my stock answer is free will. Grow up, stop whining that daddy won't let you smoke weed, and get another job. So one beer on the job can get you fired? Imagine that! Welcome to the real world, where employers can expect you to not drink for the eight hours you are on the clock. As for my turning companies into quasi-government enforcement agencies, you have a bad case of "the man's oppressing me". Let me repeat very simply. If you don't like your employer's rules find another job, or put your own capital at risk.

Companies that do not have stringent drug testing policies do not have any measurable increas in workplace accidents. You can do your research to prove that.

Wrong again. When the military started testing accidents dropped substantially. But again you're arguing that companies shouldn't do it. Good for you, argue all you want, but that argument is completely separate from stating that companies don't have the right to do it. You just don't seem capable of understanding that the employer has the right to set terms of employment, even if they are unwise or overly stringent. Its VOLUNTARY on your part. But you desire to swirl a stew of apples and oranges to try and force your employer to accept your pot smoking.

Government does tell you what you can't ingest, does tell you what you can ingest, and does tell you what you must ingest.

Please tell us what the government tells you that you must ingest? Was there a black helicopter involved? I think your hysteria just flew you out the window.

Morphine and opium dens were a problem, but restricted to certain segments and areas of society.

Restricted how? It wasn't at all restricted except by terms of employment, making it hard to continue the habit without a job (which you are against by the way).

Creating black markets always is worse than the previous paradigm.

So in your view, it would be a safer world if C4, small pox virus, and plutonium sales were over the counter, because we are just creating a lucritive black market with restrictions. Or does your logic only apply to things that you like to do?

I don't need to read drug literature to know my mind. As an employer, I'll set the expectations. As a worker bee, you can go somewhere else if you don't like it. I hear High Times is hiring.

88 posted on 10/24/2006 5:47:57 AM PDT by SampleMan (Do not dispute the peacefulness of Islam, so as not to send Muslims into violent outrage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
I don't want THC users living... anywhere in my neighborhood.

I don't know where you live, but wherever you live, they are already there.

89 posted on 10/24/2006 6:00:05 AM PDT by green iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: microgood

There are several good arguments for legalization. Unfortunately, they are seldom brought out on these threads.

Pot should be legal for American teenagers because illegals get away with too much? Seriously, what kind of argument is that? Its certainly not a rational connection of related issues, nor is leveling the playing field to the lowest common denominator a good model for the justice system.

Think of a coherent argument, and then stick to it. It would also help if you think about the valid concerns of the opposition. E.g. If its unconstitutional for any government to regulate food and drugs, how do you keep all antibiotics from becoming worthless within ten years (due to overuse), or are the return of deadly epidemics simply the price that needs to be paid for getting good pot?


90 posted on 10/24/2006 6:01:22 AM PDT by SampleMan (Do not dispute the peacefulness of Islam, so as not to send Muslims into violent outrage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

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

Here we go again. Please educate us on the dangers of pot. People keep saying pot is dangerous, but when I ask them just how so, they cannot tell me. Hopefully you will be able to shed some light on this subject.

91 posted on 10/24/2006 6:23:20 AM PDT by monkfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

Comment #92 Removed by Moderator

To: SampleMan

What a rude and irrelevant response to what was, in fact, a direct response to the question you posted (if not the one you meant). I guess I shouldn't have taken you seriously when you asked what I thought was a legitimate question.

Next time, if you want to start a flame war, at least start it with something inflammatory and hostile so that those of us willing to have actual conversations can ignore it, instead of pretending to ask an honest question in a manner indicating you were interested in other perspectives.


93 posted on 10/24/2006 6:46:01 AM PDT by Turbopilot (iumop ap!sdn w,I 'aw dlaH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Turbopilot
What a rude and irrelevant response to what was, in fact, a direct response to the question you posted (if not the one you meant).

I said you dodged the question, which you did. You instead went off on a tangent argument that made it clear only by my inference that you are willing to accept any outcome, as long as the WOD is put to an end. Duly noted.

What part of that was irrelevant? And what was rude?

94 posted on 10/24/2006 6:54:49 AM PDT by SampleMan (Do not dispute the peacefulness of Islam, so as not to send Muslims into violent outrage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Turbopilot
Let me clarify my question for you with a specific example. I might not have been clear.

Would a breakdown of the prescription drug system be acceptable? Putting everything over the counter. Antibiotics becoming useless within years and the return of mass death by epidemic as a not uncommon human experience.

Would that be an acceptable outcome as long as the WOD was ended, or is this possibly a concern that has merit?
95 posted on 10/24/2006 7:02:40 AM PDT by SampleMan (Do not dispute the peacefulness of Islam, so as not to send Muslims into violent outrage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
For those who advocate legalization on practical grounds, NOT constitutional grounds, what outcome of legalization would constitute a failure in your book?

That is your post. Those are your words. If, in response to the question "what outcome of legalization would constitute a failure", you receive a list of outcomes that the poster believes would constitute a failure, you have received a direct response, not a dodge. I do not know how that fact could be any more clear.

If you're still unsure how, exactly, my list of undesired outcomes is the direct response to your question of a failure of legalization on practical grounds, think about the question in reverse: what are the practical problems caused by having marijuana illegal? Those are the problems that one who advocates legalization from a purely practical perspective would hope to solve. Therefore, if those problems were not solved by legalization, that legalization would have been a failure from a practical perspective. And that is the exact answer I presented to you, which you rejected out of hand, presumably because you did not in fact want an answer, but merely wanted to bait someone into arguing over your anti-marijuana views.

96 posted on 10/24/2006 7:13:54 AM PDT by Turbopilot (iumop ap!sdn w,I 'aw dlaH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: 11B40

That sounds bad...but I don't believe it. Most THC addicts get busted and rightfully so.

One step at a time.


97 posted on 10/24/2006 7:15:38 AM PDT by eleni121 ("Show me just what Mohammed brought:: evil and inhumanity")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: mysngrace

Rest assured someone knew you were using THC. I'm glad you stopped. And welcome to Freerepublic.


98 posted on 10/24/2006 7:18:42 AM PDT by eleni121 ("Show me just what Mohammed brought:: evil and inhumanity")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

To use your specific example, I guess I have to say that such an outcome just wouldn't worry me. That's largely because I know how remote and foolish it is, and I'm not willing to accept the real and concrete problems with an overly big and powerful government to protect me from some infinitesimal chance that the entire country loses its collective mind and the vast majority of people act with no heed to their own self-interest.

In any case, I guess my answer to your final questions would be "no" - no, it's not an "acceptable" outcome (nor one that really has much to do with legalizing marijuana), and no, it's not a concern that has merit.


99 posted on 10/24/2006 7:23:09 AM PDT by Turbopilot (iumop ap!sdn w,I 'aw dlaH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Turbopilot

I asked "...what outcome of legalization...". Your answer did not address outcomes of legalization, but rather failures to legalize.

I get your point, but it didn't address my question. If I asked, "What outcome of overeating would you consider to be a failure?" It doesn't answer the question to say, "Not getting to eat as much as you want."

When I qualify that it would be "legal", then that is the premise of the question. You can move on from that point.


100 posted on 10/24/2006 7:29:13 AM PDT by SampleMan (Do not dispute the peacefulness of Islam, so as not to send Muslims into violent outrage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 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