cannabisnews.com: Why Do Many Nevadans Favor The Drug War?





Why Do Many Nevadans Favor The Drug War?
Posted by CN Staff on November 24, 2002 at 07:11:37 PT
By Vin Suprynowicz
Source: Las Vegas Review-Journal
I took heat from some Libertarians for coming out in favor of Question 9 on the Nov. 5 ballot. Not because The Remnant favors the Drug War, mind you. It's this "half measures" thing. No authorization can be found in either the state or federal Constitution for the government to fight any "Drug War" in the first place. So the only acceptable course, the argument goes, is to hold out for a simple declaration that freedom of medical commerce is now restored -- what's all this business of "legalizing" only up to 3 ounces, then requiring that said pathetic dollops of herb be peddled out of monopoly "state stores," and so forth? 
When you vote for a slightly less onerous version of the Drug War, you're still voting in favor of a Drug War, with all its statist evils ... right? The objections are valid. Question 9 was far from "pure" from any Libertarian perspective. Had Question 9 passed, however, the headlines would likely have read, "Pot legalized in Nevada; is Drug War on its last legs?" Instead we were treated to chortling TV newscasters reporting that, "Legalizing pot was among a number of bizarre initiatives shot down by voters Tuesday." Why, even in anything-goes Nevada, the story line ran, a sensible 3-to-2 majority decided that sending young dopers to prison to be anally raped remains the wisest course. Given that no one asked me to help write the ballot question -- we simply had to vote up, down or abstain -- I favored newscast Option "A." But the bigger mystery, it seems to me, is why the extremely modest Question 9 failed so miserably. If about half of adult Americans have smoked pot themselves -- and thus know from personal experience that all the "Reefer Madness" stories are so much hogwash -- why do 61 percent of the voters in a state that allows prostitution and quickie divorce and invites grandmas dragging oxygen tanks behind them on little wheeled carts to chain-smoke while playing all-night slot machines vote to continue a Drug War which nationally sends 77,000 people to prison to be raped and/or turned into hardened, career criminals for merely possessing an ancient herb more medically and socially harmless than Captain Morgan's Spiced Rum? "If you're going to follow the money trail, it appears that there is a major industry in this country that is funded by the continued growth of the Drug War," replies Paul Armentano, publications director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), in Washington, D.C. "Years ago we talked about the military-industrial complex. Well, people today talk about a prison-industrial complex. I'd be hard pressed to find another branch of government that's grown at such exponential levels -- branches of the Justice Department that deal just with the Drug War that were funded at $1.5 billion per year in 1980 are now funded at $20 billion per year, and the bulk of that funding is going for enforcement." But the question was why the Drug War -- doors broken down in the middle of the night; CIA employees vectoring Peruvian Air Force jets to shoot down a small, unarmed plane and kill American missionary Veronica Bowers and her 7-month-old daughter Charity -- still gets a vote of confidence from the American people. "I didn't see anyone in Nevada voting to continue the Drug War to keep the prison guards in work," I challenged Armentano. "The other side has made a very smart argument, from a Machiavellian perspective," Armentano agrees. "The federal government has to somehow convince folks that their experience, which is the norm, does not apply. And it has succeeded. It has convinced even people who smoked marijuana that today it's a totally different drug. ... It's made them in some ways dismissive of their own marijuana-using past. "It's the only thing that makes sense to me. How else can you explain people going to the polls and voting to keep a policy in place that says that they should have gone to jail?" "They totally used the fear message," agrees Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, the former schoolmarm and teachers union executive who has carried the torch for legalization in Carson City, "the second-hand smoke argument, and the fear of DUIs. It was disingenuous and it was a hard one to counter; those who do not want to get into a substantive policy debate will grab an easy sound bite ... These objections have to be reasoned with, and we couldn't even get to those discussions." But of course, the "Nevadans for Responsible Law Enforcement" TV campaign for Question 9 didn't tell the horror stories of innocent people killed or having their lives ruined by the Drug War. Instead, it merely stressed the ever-so-soft slogan, "In the privacy of a home, or with a doctor's recommendation" ... opening up proponents to accusations they were trying to slip in full legalization for recreational use under the guise of "mere" medical marijuana. "We focus-grouped all of that," Giunchigliani explains. "The focus groups told us not to even try the other arguments. It was about police officers wasting their time writing a citation; we had some retired police in the focus groups and those were the arguments that played well." "One thing that the other side did was to humanize the issue better than we did," Armentano agrees. "When they roll out victims of drug abuse, like that editor of the Las Vegas Sun who was rear-ended at a red light and killed by a driver who had marijuana in his system ... they put a human face on potential victims that could arise if this law was passed. And I don't know that the (legalization) side did a good job of showing the human victims that are harmed by the drug laws." Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Review-Journal and author of the books "Send in the Waco Killers" and "The Ballad of Carl Drega." For information on his books or his monthly newsletter visit: http://www.privacyalert.usSource: Las Vegas Review-Journal (NV)Author: Vin Suprynowicz , Review-Journal Capital BureauPublished: Sunday, November 24, 2002Copyright: 2002 Las Vegas Review-JournalContact: letters lvrj.comWebsite: http://www.lvrj.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:NRLEhttp://www.nrle.org/NORMLhttp://www.norml.org/Marijuana Policy Projecthttp://www.mpp.org/Drug Reformers Are Regroupinghttp://freedomtoexhale.com/abocr.htmMarijuana Rights Group Wants to Sue Drug Czar http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14790.shtml The New Politics of Pot - Time Magazinehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14574.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #7 posted by FoM on November 24, 2002 at 21:57:38 PT
News Article from The Cato Institute
How Did Freedom Fare on the Ballot?By Patrick BashamNovember 25, 2002Patrick Basham is senior fellow in the Center for Representative Government at the Cato Institute.In an inconclusive electoral bout, freedom took a few blows while landing some punches of its own on Election Day. Over 200 ballot measures gave voters in 40 states a temporary voice in the policy decision-making process. In recent weeks, considerable newsprint was devoted to informing us how this year's crop of initiatives leaned to the liberal, rather than the conservative, side of the spectrum. But instead of categorizing ballot questions by arguably outdated ideological labels, a more appropriate yardstick is whether or not the success or failure of a ballot measure advanced or hindered the cause of limited government, personal freedom, and individual responsibility.For example, four states, plus Washington, D.C., were given the opportunity to relax their drug laws, thereby emphasizing rationality and compassion over coercion. But Ohio voters rejected providing treatment rather than incarceration for non-violent drug offenders. Nevada voters, living in a state that is the gambling and prostitution capital of the nation, rejected -- with a straight face -- a proposal to decriminalize the possession of three ounces or less of marijuana for adults. Then, South Dakota voters rejected a proposal to legalize marijuana-like industrial hemp. Most surprisingly, in Arizona voters rejected a pro-medical marijuana initiative. Drug policy reformers may find some solace, however, in the passage of two citywide marijuana measures. In San Francisco, voters approved medical marijuana, while voters in Washington, D.C., approved a treatment-instead-of-jail measure for drug offenders. It's clear that Florida voters got out on the illiberal side of the bed on Election Day. Exhibit A is their overwhelming approval of a constitutional amendment banning smoking in indoor public places, including offices, restaurants, and bars. Arizona voters also chose to more than double the state's cigarette tax and to use the additional revenue for anti-smoking programs. Somewhat more sensibly, in Missouri voters narrowly rejected a quadrupling of the cigarette tax.Initiatives in eight states sought to expand the freedom to gamble. In Tennessee, voters repealed a 168-year old ban on a state lottery. North Dakota voters approved a proposal for their state to join a multistate lottery. One day, perhaps, voters in these (and other) states will be asked to fully privatize the lottery business.A moral victory was achieved in Massachusetts, where a proposal to eliminate the state personal income tax was barely defeated. Impressively, and somewhat surprisingly, Northern Virginia voters soundly defeated a proposal to increase the local sales tax to pay for regional transportation improvements. Voters in California and Washington wisely rejected similar proposals. A slim majority of Oregon voters must have decided they wanted fewer entry-level jobs in their state as they went ahead and approved an increase in the job-destroying minimum wage. However, the same electorate went some distance to redeeming itself when, by a massive four-to-one margin, voters rejected a single, government-funded, universal health care program.Unfortunately, Florida voters weren't content regulating the decision-making of private businesses. They also decided, albeit narrowly, to constitutionally limit class size in Florida schools. Score another one for the teachers' unions. Florida's voters also approved a measure offering free preschool to every four-year old in the state. Meanwhile, out on the West Coast, California voters followed the compassionately conservative instruction of actor-turned-would-be Republican gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger and approved an increase in funding for before- and after-school programs.On the campaign finance reform front, the most encouraging news came from, of all places, liberal Massachusetts, where voters rejected the idea of taxpayer money being used to fund political campaigns. However, in Republican-leaning Colorado, voters approved a reduction in the size of permissible individual, political action committee, and party campaign contributions to candidates. Further limits on campaign donations will only serve to further diminish electoral competition.And, finally, for those who may have missed the result, Oklahoma voters approved a ban on cockfighting. Evidently, one bird's freedom was found to end at the tip of another bird's beak. But an analysis of ballot measures nationwide finds that, by contrast, the average midterm voter remains highly ambivalent when calculating where his own freedom ends and his neighbor's begins. http://www.cato.org/dailys/11-25-02.html
What's New
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by FoM on November 24, 2002 at 11:52:42 PT
My Opinion
I have an opinion about why the Initiative lost and I could be wrong but I'll try to explain it. Our society is different now. We were attacked for the first time within the United States. I know we don't think of it much anymore because we heal and life goes on but the administration has done a great job of controlling us with fear. We have no time in history to compare 9-11 too. Not even Pearl Harbor was as horrifying as what happened that day in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. People do a check on what is ok and what isn't ok in times of war and that's what I feel is happening. If 9-11 hadn't happened the Initiative would have passed because civil liberties were important to many people but now self discipline is the call of the time. People still understand compassion but it must be explained to them even more now then ever. Even drug addiction is something that will be hard to approach because people will look at drug addicts as a drain on out moral fiber. Does this make sense?Thank You Toker00.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by The GCW on November 24, 2002 at 11:37:02 PT
"One thing that the other side did was to humanize
the issue...Remember in Indiana a bit back to get rid of Soulder, when that one older woman who is sick was on the commercials? That helped win that spicific fight. We did not do that sort of thing in NV but the prohibitionists did.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Toker00 on November 24, 2002 at 11:24:30 PT
First of all,
my belated condolensces. It's good to see people take care of each other. You have a great family, FoM.As for this article, I think they need to shoot a commercial showing a young cannabis possesor being ushered into a cell with a cheesy inmaate, then flash to a white screen with black letters saying, "This is what prohibition does to your childeren." (Have a go at it, MaryB?)We need to be more effective with the ads. I trust Norml to do the best they can. The anti's think they have won. The legalization high-water mark Walters refers to, is really our starting point. We're smarter now. More Americans are waking up to the truth about the DEAth beast.Perhaps one ounce would have been a better goal.Thanks for all you do, FoM, and please know you are making a difference. Condolensces, again.Peace. Realize, then Re-Legalize.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by FoM on November 24, 2002 at 10:20:02 PT
Mary
That was so nice of you. I'm looking forward to seeing you when you get back home next month. For those who might wonder how Stick can also be my sister's step brother I'll tell you. My mother married Stick's father after Stick and I were already married for 5 years. We went to their wedding. I should write a book. Just kidding. Love Ya Mary.Thanks BGreen.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by BGreen on November 24, 2002 at 09:10:25 PT
MaryB
I just figured that anybody that was close to your sister was probably pretty special. Thanks for your story.Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by MaryB on November 24, 2002 at 08:53:39 PT
Stick's Dad
For all you folks out there who offered their condolences at the passing of Stick's Dad, I want to tell you something about him. Stick and his Dad had a relationship that most people would envy. And for that matter Stick and FoM have a relationship that most people would envy. Stick took care of his Dad and FoM took care of Stick. How do I know? FoM is my sister and Stick is besides being my brother-in-law is also my step brother. ( Now if you would like to you can try to figure that one out) Anyway, I want to tell you about something that Stick's Dad did for me. In 1985, I was chomping at the bit to become a professional videographer and Stick's Dad believed in me and loaned me $2600. to buy my first camera. Eighteen years later, I am still videotaping and am told that I do some pretty good work. I owe him a big thank you for getting me started in the business. If your Dad is still living, call him or give him a kiss today, 'cuz Stick can't do that anymore. 
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment