|
[an error occurred while processing this directive] |
| Debate Over Pot Cuts Across Political Lines |
|
Posted by CN Staff on March 12, 2006 at 06:47:59 PT By Kirk Caraway, Appeal Internet Editor Source: Nevada Appeal 
Nevada -- There are a number of good debates taking place in the comments section on nevadaappeal.com, with something new every day. People have a lot to say about a whole range of issues, and believe me, they aren't shy about expressing themselves. It may get a little wild on these comment boards, but I think it's one of the best things we ever did. News should be a conversation, not a lecture, and the online comments are a way for everyone to join the discussion. One debate that has persisted for a number of days has been the battle over legalizing marijuana. It's been testy at times, with a lot of invective hurled back and forth. But what makes it interesting for me is how this issue cuts across the standard partisan lines that define most contemporary issues. There is still a strong liberal-conservative divide, but there is also another dynamic at work. You have the more religious conservatives teamed up with a number of nanny-state liberals who are against legalization. On the pro side, you have a strong liberal contingent joined by the more libertarian conservatives. And those stuck in the middle you might as well flip a coin to figure out where they stand. It makes for an odd fight. You can have prominent conservatives like William F. Buckley Jr, urging legalization, going up against Bill "I didn't inhale" Clinton, who supported continued prohibition. Issues like legalizing marijuana cause upheaval in the ideological strata, and give you a glimpse at the basis for these political views. Many of the online debaters who are against legalization hit upon the moral aspects of the law. Smoking pot is morally wrong, and for the government to legalize it would be condoning immorality. Government should uphold high moral standards, and enforce them vigorously. Throw the pot smokers in jail, they say. If the punishment is harsh enough, eventually people won't smoke it anymore. But there is a problem with this stand that shows why so many people even among conservatives are in favor of legalization. For moral standards to take hold, there has to be clear lines drawn between moral and immoral acts. Alcohol consumption is legal, accepted and even encouraged by our culture, even though it is arguably more harmful than marijuana. Telling people they can use alcohol but not marijuana is like telling children they can have Pepsi but not Sprite. It's a difference without distinction. The mixed message it sends breaks down the moral boundaries, leaving 39 percent of Nevada voters opting for legalization during the last election, and a clear majority favoring legalizing marijuana for medical use. While 39 percent isn't a majority, it spells trouble for keeping the drug illegal. Think of any other criminal law on the books where such a large percentage disagrees with the law. Other than gambling and prostitution, I can't think of any. And look how we handle those issues in Nevada. Setting criminal standards takes a clear consensus of the population for it to work, not just a bare majority. When you have a contentious issue like marijuana, making it illegal just breeds contempt for the justice system in general. I would argue this disrespect for the authority of government outweighs any benefit from keeping the drug illegal. Balancing freedom and morality is a difficult task. Many people say you can't legislate morality, but that is what we often demand from our government. We all want the freedom to pursue what we believe is moral, but then we seek the enforcement of our moral boundaries, otherwise immorality might spread like disease. Freedom is a disease, also, and I feel it is spreading faster than those who oppose it can erect walls to stop it. Will Nevada voters approve the reform of marijuana laws this year? I don't know. But I do think it's just a matter of time. Kirk Caraway is Internet editor of the Nevada Appeal. Complete Title: Debate Over Pot Cuts Across Traditional Political Lines Source: Nevada Appeal (Carson City, NV) Related Articles & Web Site: Regulate and Control Marijuana Marijuana Campaign Started Legalization Backers Launch Nevada Campaign Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Comment #21 posted by FoM on March 12, 2006 at 10:49:10 PT |
| Many years ago when they were increasing the drug penalties for Crack I had this strange thought. I was not in the slightest bit involved in any drugs but I remember thinking. Slavery is a hard thing to give up so by making the laws hard they can continue slavery by putting blacks in jail and then they work cheap once again. It keeps the blacks under the thumb of the white ruling class. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #20 posted by whig on March 12, 2006 at 10:37:20 PT |
| "So...when some prohib informs you that the drug laws must remain as they are out of deferrence to morality, you might consider asking them if they support racial bigotry as being moral...for that's EXACTLY what they are doing." I think the antis would, today, deny any racism. Even though we know it's a large part of what motivates them, if we can't get them to admit this kind of discrimination, it's mostly useful in this context to point out the disparate impact of the drug war on blacks. I really think the gay issue is one which resonates more today, because the culture war is still very much alive on this. It is politically incorrect for anyone to admit an anti-black bias, but in conservative circles I think it's still acceptable to be against gay rights. Like I said, though, I did some thinking in terms of our upcoming move about where and how I could be more effective, and in the Bay area this one is a sure winner, I think. It might not play as well in Peoria. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #19 posted by kaptinemo on March 12, 2006 at 10:27:16 PT:
|
| If one researches the earliest writings of DrugWarriors, you find an almost frantic concern about such matters as 'miscegenation'. It was considered immoral for a Black person and White person to have a child. Period. Such was supposed to lead to the destruction of the White race, and must not be permitted, lest the racial purity of the supposedly superior White race is diminished. Illicit drugs were thought to especially tempt White women to seek sexual congress with Black men. I am not making this stuff up; go here http://www.drugwar.com/blackfiends.shtm and here http://www.drugwar.com/whitehope.shtm and read the words of the first DrugWarriors for yourself. Anslinger's testimony is another source of this insanity. The sad truth is, this racial bigotry is at the core of the DrugWar, but has largely been forgotten in the mists of time as minorities within society began to achieve a level of equality with those who once openly oppressed them. In many nations around the world that have been former belligerants in war, there are millions of land mines left behind from conflicts long over, and these still maim and kill the unlucky ones who literally stumble upon them. The DrugWar is like that for minorities; the racist rationale for the 'war' has been long forgotten, but the 'land mines' of the former conflict are still around, still being stepped on, still destroying people's lives. So...when some prohib informs you that the drug laws must remain as they are out of deferrence to morality, you might consider asking them if they support racial bigotry as being moral...for that's EXACTLY what they are doing. EXACTLY. It makes no difference how long ago it began; the 'why' is almost always more important than the 'how'. The laws were based upon that bigotry, and as the old legal phrase goes, the present day War on (Some) Drugs is the 'fruit of the poison tree'. 'Fruit' that has poisoned society to this day...
[ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #18 posted by FoM on March 12, 2006 at 10:15:39 PT |
| Yes they would. Hate of different values leads to all kinds of bad things. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #17 posted by whig on March 12, 2006 at 09:58:58 PT |
| Wouldn't they kill all the drug users too? [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #16 posted by FoM on March 12, 2006 at 09:53:47 PT |
| Maybe we should make those who are against the Gay lifesyle come up with a solution to the problem. Either we accept that people are different or we can kill them all and be done with it. It's either accept what we don't believe is right for us as an individual or we kill them off because that would be the only way to control it. Sounds terrible doesn't it? PS: I love talking points. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #15 posted by whig on March 12, 2006 at 09:48:46 PT |
| I know, I know, I hate the idea of talking points in general, but it's nice to have an argument in reserve for special circumstances. Suppose you are involved in or witnessing a debate or a conversation with an anti, and you have the opportunity to ask a question. It may seem like a change of subject, but I think it would be extremely revealing to ask their opinion of gay rights. I bet 99% or more of the antis would also prohibit homosexuality if they could. They might not want to admit that publicly, but if cornered on the question, I don't think most antis believe it is a biological difference, and even if they did, they would preach abstinence if they could. Let's put the puritans on the spot, and build every alliance we can. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #14 posted by FoM on March 12, 2006 at 09:34:46 PT |
| Yes whig I understand what you are saying. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #13 posted by FoM on March 12, 2006 at 09:32:23 PT |
| That depends on how you look at it. If a person dies from climbing a mountain and falling they might leave a wife and children. They are victims in a sense ( hurt by husband's actions ) and it is sad but it is allowed. Why can't the use of marijuana be allowed? [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #12 posted by whig on March 12, 2006 at 09:30:55 PT |
| There is no morality without the freedom to choose. If a person desires to do that which another considers immoral, prevention does not change the desire. But I don't think this is at the root of human-made "laws" against "immoral" behavior. Rather, I think it is the fear of temptation itself which drives the antis. Having been recently to the Bay area and planning a move there, I cannot help but acknowledge the parallel issue of gay rights which has had such an impact particularly in that part of the country. I mentioned this the other day in passing, but I think maybe we should talk more about it. We too are advocating an alternative lifestyle choice for consenting adults. The opposition to gay rights has been (I think, correctly) portrayed as driven by homophobia. It is not fear of gays, it is fear of homosexuality itself -- "religious" and political leaders who fear their own attraction to members of their same sex. Note how the antis are always concerning themselves with the idea that if cannabis were legal, more people would use it -- maybe they are really saying they fear it would be too much of a temptation for themselves. Look at Bill Bennett and his gambling problems, Jim Bakker's sexual indiscretions, etc. Those preaching a straightjacketed lifestyle are presumably filled with lusts and desires they try to deny themselves, "oh Lord, please do not tempt me." It was not so very long ago that homosexuality was classified as a mental illness, that sodomy was a crime. I think the antis would very much like to reinstate that state of affairs. Reaching out in this way may make some even in our own community uncomfortable, but I think it is a discussion worth having. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #11 posted by FoM on March 12, 2006 at 09:16:49 PT |
| Why does our government want to alienate people who don't think like they want? What is freedom? How can we say we are a free country with so many in jail for non violent actions? Why are personal choices against the law? [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #10 posted by Hope on March 12, 2006 at 09:08:32 PT |
| Amen! Amen to that entire post. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #9 posted by whig on March 12, 2006 at 09:07:49 PT |
| The Answer brief by the government seems to be up, but the Opening and Reply by Raich seem to be missing at the moment. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #8 posted by FoM on March 12, 2006 at 09:06:13 PT |
| Putting someone like Jerry in a Federal prison at the age of 59 over a plant that has been on the earth since the beginning of time is immoral to me. Taking people's property because of marijuana is immoral to me. Forfeiture is just a fancy word for stealing. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #7 posted by FoM on March 12, 2006 at 08:53:52 PT |
| That word has been thrown around so much it makes my head spin. What is not immoral to me might be immoral to someone else. It depends on what a person has experienced and what a person believes. Hurting another person is immoral to me. If I want to climb a dangerous mountain to see what might be at the top even though it is dangerous is fine with me. The person might fall and die but that should be an individuals right. I rode and jumped horses. It is a dangerous sport but legal. Christopher Reeve lost his life from a fall. I have been thrown over fences too but didn't get seriously hurt. We need to allow people to experience life and stop putting people in boxes and then call it immoral. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #6 posted by Max Flowers on March 12, 2006 at 08:53:34 PT |
| Freedom is a disease, Well if freedom is a disease, let's hope it becomes a massive pandemic, because right now it is heavily quarantined, controlled and contained. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #5 posted by Hope on March 12, 2006 at 08:26:29 PT |
| Immoral? Cannabis use is no more "immoral" than breathing or drinking orange pekoe. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #4 posted by FoM on March 12, 2006 at 08:23:58 PT |
| http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21335.shtml [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #3 posted by FoM on March 12, 2006 at 08:22:01 PT |
| Does this article help? http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21334.shtml [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #2 posted by Hope on March 12, 2006 at 08:19:04 PT |
| What's this about? I didn't find anything over at Angel's site that explained it. I do remember hearing they were going to fight from another angle. But I'm completely ignorant of what this actually means. Anybody able to explain it to me? [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by FoM on March 12, 2006 at 07:49:47 PT |
| DPFCA: Raich v. Gonzales Hearing in Ninth Circuit - Mar 27th, Pasadena Hello Everyone, On January 13, 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals set a hearing date for Raich v. Gonzales for Monday, March 27, 2006, at 1:30 in hearing room Three, at the Richard H. Chambers U.S. Court of Appeal building, 125 South Grand Avenue, Pasadena, California. http://angeljustice.org/downloads/RemandOrderOralArgumentScheduled011306.pdf The justices are for some reason calling up this case very fast. They did something they do not normal do, they set a hearing date before the briefing was completed. We got notice from the court in January, and our briefs were not completed until March 6, 2006. Most case they hear only get 10 to 20 minutes for each side. Our case gets 30 minutes for each side. We are the only case being heard on March 27. So it appears the justice are really wanting to hear this case in an emergency fashion. Hopefully, we will have another good decision. If we were to take a guess on when the decision will come out, I would guess around June or July 2006, remember this is only a guess. I feel good about this phase of the case and we made good sound arguments. If you are in the Pasadena area and you want to attend the hearing I will see you there. If you have any questions please send an e-mail to angel@angeljustice.org. All the briefs from Raich v. Gonzales on Remand from the US Supreme Court are now available for you to read. http://angeljustice.org/article.php?list=type&type=11 These briefs are fun to read. In the governments supplemental brief you will find interesting, they mischaracterize, wrongly state and demand the gravity of the facts in this case and other cases they site trying to use against the Appellants, in so many ways it is hard to know were to begin. They left the door open and we step right through in our reply brief. Compassion and Justice, Angel Raich angel@angeljustice.org -- ---- California NORML (415) 563-5858 // canorml@igc.org 2215-R Market St. #278, San Francisco CA 94114 [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |