cannabisnews.com: Marijuana is Bad, Mmm'kay? Don't Smoke Marijuana





Marijuana is Bad, Mmm'kay? Don't Smoke Marijuana
Posted by CN Staff on September 01, 2002 at 08:21:38 PT
By Steve Sebelius, Political Columnist
Source: Las Vegas Review-Journal 
The ballot arguments in favor of marijuana-legalizing Question 9 never use the phrase "personal freedom," nor do they assert that since one's body is the most basic form of private property, the government shouldn't be able to tell a person what he can do with it. It's understandable. If you say that, people are going to start wondering why we don't just legalize all drugs. And that could be controversial enough to sink Question 9, which permits people only to have three ounces of marijuana without fear of arrest. 
But even if the arguments for the initiative are tepid and utterly pragmatic (allowing cops to focus on other crimes; more tax revenue for the state) the arguments against it are downright vacuous. Consider: • Marijuana is a "gateway" drug, which leads users to try harder drugs. U.S. Rep. Jim Gibbons dropped by the Review-Journal the other day to warn that America could become a nation of drugged out, unproductive wards of the state if marijuana were legalized. But what about all the current users who go to work, pay their taxes and attend PTA meetings, all without anyone even knowing about their choice of recreation? (To say nothing of the fact that prohibition is a curious position for a small-government Republican to take, especially one who is pro-choice. Doesn't the free market prescribe that you make choices, take chances and reap the consequences? Why should that be any different with drugs than with stock market investments?) • Legalizing three ounces of marijuana will have serious health consequences. And no, they probably don't mean more overweight people suffering from bouts of what the hip young people call "the munchies." But to compare marijuana to cigarettes is a stretch. First, there's no settled science that proves marijuana is even addictive. (U.S. drug czar John Walters dropped by the other day to claim that marijuana changes the "brain chemistry" of teens. I asked his office for reports on that research, but thus far, they've failed to get back to me.) Second, marijuana isn't infused with addictive nicotine (at least not until Big Tobacco starts growing it). • Decriminalization will lead to more crime. This is, as they say, the Big Lie. Crime related to marijuana can be entirely traced to prohibition. Since marijuana is illegal, it's scarce, and therefore valuable. There's money to be made in growing, smuggling, processing and selling the drug on the black market, and ripoffs cannot be reported to the cops. If marijuana were legal, crime related to it would vanish. When's the last time you heard of someone going to the dark back alleys of East Fremont Street to get a fifth of Jack Daniels? Not since Prohibition was repealed. And when's the last time you heard of someone mugged outside 7-Eleven for money to buy Red Vines? (Licorice is, by the way, a gateway candy; users have been known to progress to Reese's Peanut Butter Cups, Three Musketeers bars and even Snickers.) • Tourism would suffer as Nevada became the nation's marketplace for drug sales and usage. Well, if by "suffer" they mean "go through the roof," then yes, it will suffer. Just as tourists visit Amsterdam in part to enjoy liberal drug laws, they would visit Nevada for the same reason. Casinos would set up hookah lounges by the end of the first week to capture the new market. Curious tourists -- who expect a little sin in their Sin City -- would flock to town. One legitimate argument opponents have is that the driving-under-the-influence provision ("driving dangerously" after having smoked marijuana) is too vague to enforce. And, they argue, legalization shouldn't require a constitutional amendment, since the constitution is supposed to set down basic principles, not the specifics better left to state law. And that's true. But what are the odds of a state judge striking down marijuana laws on constitutional grounds? (That would be ... none.) This is literally the only way to accomplish something that Nevada should have done long ago. The system makes an initiative the only way to resist a drug war in which government is the aggressor and citizens are considered unfriendly combatants. Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist. His column runs Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday.Complete Title: 'Marijuana is Bad, Mmm'kay? So Don't Smoke Marijuana' Source: Las Vegas Review-Journal (NV)Author: Steve Sebelius, Review-Journal Political ColumnistPublished: Sunday, September 01, 2002Copyright: 2002 Las Vegas Review-JournalContact: letters lvrj.comWebsite: http://www.lvrj.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:NRLEhttp://www.nrle.org/Marijuana Policy Projecthttp://www.mpp.org/Marijuana Initiative Promise High Adventure http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13910.shtmlVegas Measure Gambles on Marijuana http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13896.shtmlNevada Voters Decide on Legalizing Marijuana http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13884.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #6 posted by freedom fighter on September 03, 2002 at 01:00:42 PT
To those who
think that Fed have the last say!!Just understand somethin, if a person get charged statewise, still can be charged Federally for the same charge. In other word, you could be in a state prison for ten years and by the time you are released, the fed steps in and put you in the slammer for another 20 years on the same "charge". Believe it or not, it is happenin... Do you know why???Fed goes around pretendin that the fed are seperate from the state. If that is the case, why cannot the "State of Nevada" tell the Fed. to back the fuck off!It's called the Double Jep............ff
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by boballen13 on September 02, 2002 at 00:44:34 PT:
JOBS,JOBS,JOBS,JOBS...
Nevada would be foolish to pass up this extraordinary time in history... The revitalization of Nevada is at hand... get the f*ck outta the way this is real progress! I have always loved this state for its rock hard spine. Never has nevada bled red for the feds... i dont reckon she will now! To be in Nevada! God Bless YOU!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by The GCW on September 01, 2002 at 19:10:30 PT
If normaly You shun the election process,
THIS IS TIME TO MAKE AN EXCEPTION!There is app. 1 month to register 
TO VOTE!One of the things that needs to be done, is to make sure that people that are not registered are registered 30 DAYS in advance, of the election.The last 30 days, will require a lot of work, but at that time it will be too late for getting people reg... 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by knox42897 on September 01, 2002 at 12:53:23 PT:
We will pass this initiative
There is no way that this wll fail. I have spoken to the NRLE. They are mounting a political campaing "with which Nevada has never seen". We are talking pollsters going to every door to get support. Offering rides to voting stations the whole nine yards. I predict it wins with 60%, take the survy ad find out yourself  
http://www.klastv.com/Global/story.asp?S=868267&nav=168XAHvmPierre
Las Vegas Nevadans for Responsible Law Enforcemet in the United States of America
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Robbie on September 01, 2002 at 10:00:49 PT
I think Question 9 might just pass
on THIS go round...the problem is that there will be an all-out prohibitionist attack on Question 9 over the 2 years before they vote on it again. I wish it was a one time vote.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on September 01, 2002 at 08:33:07 PT
My apologies
I commented on the last LVRJ article that they seemed to be against Q9. Some C-News readers pointed me to the original article from the LVRJ which is pro-Q9. This article is even better! So I must admit that the LVRJ is giving some time to both the proponents and opponents of the initiative. 
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment