cannabisnews.com: Adults Should Be Allowed To Choose










  Adults Should Be Allowed To Choose

Posted by CN Staff on October 01, 2006 at 16:21:33 PT
By Mason Tvert  
Source: Denver Post  

Colorado -- Amendment 44 poses a simple question: Should the adult possession of up to 1 ounce of marijuana be legal under state law? Or, as our campaign prefers to phrase the question, should adults be punished for making the rational choice to use marijuana instead of alcohol, if that is what they prefer? On its face, there seems to be no logical reason to oppose this. What we have are two recreational substances. The difference is that alcohol is more addictive and more toxic. It is also associated with aggression and violence, which means it is far more likely to lead to the harm of someone other than the user.
In addition, according to the Centers for Disease Control, approximately 20,000 Americans die annually as the direct result of alcohol consumption. The comparable figure for marijuana: 0. The marijuana debate has been framed the wrong way in the minds of Americans for too long. When asked to think about the subject, the first reaction for many is, "Why should we add another vice?" The opponents of marijuana legalization have helped create this mindset by exaggerating and distorting the harms associated with marijuana. The list of discredited assertions about marijuana - from the "gateway" theory to a causal relationship with violence to links to lung cancer - is too long to review in this column. Accepting marijuana for the relatively benign recreational substance it is, the appropriate question is not, "Why add a vice?" Instead, the question is, "Why prohibit a safer alternative for adults?" Our opponents have no answer to this direct question. This is because it is not possible to defend allowing adults to use alcohol but not marijuana. One would have to call for a return to alcohol prohibition to make a rational argument against our initiative. So instead, they want this debate to be about kids. They argue our initiative will make marijuana more available to teens, ignoring the fact that marijuana prohibition has created a situation in which 86 percent of high school seniors now say it is "very easy" or "fairly easy" to get marijuana. They say we will send the wrong message to kids, hoping no one will notice that they have been so successful in their message that kids think it is safer to binge drink than to use marijuana. This in no way suggests we advocate teen use of marijuana. But in the real world, kids will be exposed to both regardless of the outcome of this initiative. And if your kids engage in binge drinking, they could die of an overdose. If they use marijuana, they cannot. That's reality. Here is the message we should be sending our kids: "The plain honest truth is that marijuana is an intoxicating substance. As a minor, it is simply not appropriate to use any intoxicating substance for recreational purposes. But if you happen to be exposed to these substances, here is how each one can harm you." Amendment 44 has nothing to do with kids. If it passes, it will still be illegal for anyone under 21 to possess marijuana, and it will still be a felony to provide a minor with any amount of marijuana. Rates of use will be affected by education and guidance from parents, not marijuana's legal status for adults. I urge you to vote yes on Amendment 44 so that we can stop punishing adults in order to deceive children. A new policy based on logic and truth will benefit both groups in the long run. Mason Tvert is campaign director for SAFER and the lead proponent for Amendment 44. More information on Amendment 44 is available at: http://www.SAFERcolorado.org/Source: Denver Post (CO)Author: Mason TvertPublished: September 29, 2006Copyright: 2006 The Denver Post CorpWebsite: http://www.denverpost.com/Contact: openforum denverpost.com Related Articles & Web Sites:Safer Choicehttp://www.saferchoice.org/Safer Coloradohttp://www.safercolorado.org/Colorado Voters Face Key Choice on Marijuana http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread22224.shtmlMeasure Threatens Drug-Use Declinehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread22223.shtml

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #53 posted by FoM on October 03, 2006 at 09:24:54 PT
Whig
It is beautiful country and beautiful down to earth people. I spent a lot of time in the Lancaster area. Where I spent my teenage years was mostly Mennonite and also very good people. The Amish community shows me that we can function in a community that is not controlled by our government and it works. The Amish of Lancaster County are the wealthiest Amish as far as I know. Their land is worth so much money for developers that if they didn't work to hold it together money could destroy them but they are strong, loving, forgiving and are unmoved. They are kind to us English.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #52 posted by whig on October 03, 2006 at 09:10:49 PT
FoM
I went to school for a few summers at Franklin & Marshall in Lancaster. It's beautiful country, and beautiful down to earth people.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #51 posted by whig on October 03, 2006 at 09:08:24 PT
BGreen
You are presuming synonymity between sanity and morality, I think. A person may be considered legally sane but be immoral.On the other hand, true sanity and morality are pretty much synonymous. We agree with one another, I think, but we use slightly different metaphors sometimes.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #50 posted by FoM on October 03, 2006 at 07:56:22 PT
Off Topic: Link About The Amish in Lancaster
http://www.padutchcountry.com/our_world/see_our_world.asp
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #49 posted by FoM on October 03, 2006 at 07:44:49 PT
Off Topic: Amish
We grew up near Lancaster PA and the Amish country in Lancaster is some of the most beautiful anywhere that I have ever seen. The reaction to the school massacre is admirable. They as a community will survive and go on and love one another and forgive the murderer. Wouldn't it be something if Republicans could just learn from the Amish? The way of peace is filled with self control something that politicians are seriously lacking in my opinion. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #48 posted by Celaya on October 03, 2006 at 07:19:12 PT
BGreen
I'm glad you were able to see the debate!"AG Suther stated that the number one reason given by kids who didn't use drugs on why they didn't was that they were illegal."I think we may need to go back a little further to address this point. If you're a "cool" teenager being grilled about drugs by probably clueless adults, you, first of all, probably don't tell the truth if you've used "illegal" drugs. Once you decide it's none of their business, then you realize you've got to tell them something for the question about "why" you don't use them. So, the easiest thing to say is "because they're illegal." This seems pretty obvious. Additionally, the point becomes moot if the future scenario makes it clear that kids will have equal punishment for using drugs even after they become legal for adults."Suther stated that the only way to keep the downward trend in kids using cannabis is by keeping it illegal for adults, but then he said that since 2002 teen use of marijuana AND alcohol has dropped. How has teen alcohol use dropped without arresting 786,000 people for alcohol possession per year if that's the only way to keep kids from using cannabis?"Again, alcohol becomes the great control to measure against. The fact is, trends in drug use are affected by many things. Of course the prohibitionists are going to take the credit when they go down. When they go up, then they claim that shows "tough measures" are even more needed. They get to win either way. -- But only in their deluded minds and in those of the gullible who lack critical thinking skills.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #47 posted by BGreen on October 03, 2006 at 06:47:28 PT
I said the only reason, whig
You put words into my mouth.Sane people don't usually steal because it's wrong to take stuff that isn't yours. It violates the person who you steal from. It also violates the commandments of God if you're religious.Cannabis possession and use does none of the above and as a result they have to make legal ramifications the ONLY deterrent. That kind of victimless and harmless activity is not a crime and participants should not be punished.Theft is wrong and is rightly outlawed. Thieves suck!When the sane become so desperate that they steal or harm another person, I would argue that they have, temporarily at least, lost their ability to function sanely.I don't see how you can draw any kind of comparison between crimes against people and the so-called crime of cannabis possession and use. I certainly never did.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #46 posted by whig on October 03, 2006 at 05:50:10 PT
BGreen
"If the only reason a sane person doesn't do something is because it's illegal then there is absolutely no basis for criminalizing that activity in a free society."I don't think I'd go that far. There are certainly reasons a sane person might steal, for instance. While there could be a very substantial conversation about the morality of property, I don't want to have to go there right now.What your argument boils down to, if accepted fully, is that we need no laws at all. And that is true, in a certain sense. But I'm not sure if you meant to say that, or if it is helpful to our argument right now.There do need to be social penalties for antisocial behavior, and right now we can't enforce that with respect to many things that are wrong. People feel free to be immoral as long as they comply with written law, and that is wrong. The only law that should exist is love.Okay, it looks like I went as far as you did and then a bit farther, but I never know where the thought will take me until it does.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #45 posted by BGreen on October 02, 2006 at 21:45:06 PT
AG Suther failed miserably
AG Suther failed miserably.That's what it should have read in my previous post and it deserves to be repeated.AG Suther failed miserably.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #44 posted by BGreen on October 02, 2006 at 21:39:16 PT
I finally saw the debate
I could never get it to stream, but through the miracles of modern science I was able to actually download the video. I made an SVCD disc so Mrs. Green and I watched it on our TV.Three points stood out that need mentioning.First, AG Suther stated that the number one reason given by kids who didn't use drugs on why they didn't was that they were illegal.That may be true, but it made me wonder this: If you asked the same kids why they don't kill their mommy and daddy, how far down the list do you think "because it's illegal" would be? I don't think it would even make the list.If the only reason a sane person doesn't do something is because it's illegal then there is absolutely no basis for criminalizing that activity in a free society.Second, AG Suther stated that the only way to keep the downward trend in kids using cannabis is by keeping it illegal for adults, but then he said that since 2002 teen use of marijuana AND alcohol has dropped. How has teen alcohol use dropped without arresting 786,000 people for alcohol possession per year if that's the only way to keep kids from using cannabis?Finally, AG Suther also said that "no treatment people would advocate legalization," but once again NO sane person would ever say their job needed to be eliminated.If body language means anything (and it does,) AG Suther failed miserable. He was Squirmy McSquirmster when Mason Tvert was talking and his comb-over shows his deceptive nature.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #43 posted by Max Flowers on October 02, 2006 at 17:27:02 PT
Thanks everybody
I watched it. What a smackdown! Tvert represented common sense, the other guy represented old-guard, uptight conservative "thought."
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #42 posted by Celaya on October 02, 2006 at 15:20:12 PT
BGreen
Sorry you couldn't get it to work. Maybe the VLC will do it for you. If not, perhaps you could check it out on a friend's computer.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #41 posted by Dankhank on October 02, 2006 at 14:52:07 PT
Codec
If the player says need Div3 codec, or whatever, just google "Div3 codec for Window Media" should find, then download and install.When I went to the link it jumped up in WinAmp for some reason, but played perfectly.VLC is a great little player, freeware, that plays a lot of formats.http://www.videolan.org/vlc/
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #40 posted by FoM on October 02, 2006 at 13:15:54 PT

Celaya and BGreen
I tried the last link you posted and it worked for me. The first link worked too. I have good luck with WMP. I use Windows Movie Maker sometimes to put pictures and music on and it's a fun and easy program to work with. I uninstalled Real Player because I had so much trouble with it. The only trouble I run into with WMP is sometimes it says I need a codec and I never tried to figure out how to do that. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #39 posted by BGreen on October 02, 2006 at 13:14:26 PT

I had already tried that but thanks anyway
I just can't get past the "connecting to media" stage. It may have to do with my firewall settings but I've given Media Player permission to access the internet. I'm not going to disable my firewall just for this one program to do whatever it wants to.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #38 posted by Celaya on October 02, 2006 at 13:02:21 PT

BGreen
Someone at the Cannabis Culture forums told me they couldn't see it and somehow found this link:http://wm.kusa.gannett.edgestreams.net/news/1159424792782-DU-Debate-Amendment44-final.wmvHowever, I tried it, and it wouldn't work for me. Hopefully, it will for you.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #37 posted by BGreen on October 02, 2006 at 12:36:19 PT

Windoze Media Player SUX
I've even installed version 10 and I still can't get this video to play. Grrrrr!They spend so much time and effort on Digital Media Rights Management at the expense of the end-user who tries to watch this copy protected crap.Please let me know if this debate gets posted on YouTube or some other website so I can watch it.Thanks.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #36 posted by Celaya on October 02, 2006 at 11:05:49 PT

Yes...
It was amazing that Suthers would not admit it's currently legal to possess marijuana in Alaska, even when directly challenged by Tvert on it. It just shows you how committed prohibitionists are to deception - and so dependant on it. - You might say, addicted 8^)
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #35 posted by FoM on October 02, 2006 at 10:51:38 PT

Max Flowers
This link opens up into the video.http://tinyurl.com/lfs87
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #34 posted by FoM on October 02, 2006 at 10:49:17 PT

Max Flowers 
Here it is.http://tinyurl.com/zg2fs
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #33 posted by Max Flowers on October 02, 2006 at 10:46:27 PT

Video of Tvert?
You guys' comments seem to indicate that you watched a video of a debate with Mason Tvert. I just checked all the links in this thread and couldn't find video of this. Can someone clue me in? Thanks.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #32 posted by FoM on October 02, 2006 at 10:16:23 PT

Dankhank
Judge Rules Against Alaska Marijuana Law http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21983.shtml
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #31 posted by Dankhank on October 02, 2006 at 10:10:19 PT

Good Man ...
yesm Mason's got potential ...re: alaska recrim crap ...last I heard, recrim had taken place, but a court overturned only one of the original four ounces allowed to posess ...meaning that only one or two? ounces are currently allowed ...anyone know where thay stand up there/Mason, though, was more right than his opponent, since Suthers thinks it is illegal again, and even I am sure that is not the case ...
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #30 posted by FoM on October 02, 2006 at 09:38:56 PT

Dankhank
What I noticed about him is he is really smart. He knows when to talk, when to listen and when to show a little sarcasm. He will make a good politician when he is older.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #29 posted by Dankhank on October 02, 2006 at 09:03:23 PT

Mason looked good.
It's tough to speak forcefully at a public gathering, especially when trying to maintain a train of thought that is dependent on what the other guy just said.I am impressed at Mason's ability to focus under pressure and maintain his train of thought.SAFER
P.O. Box 40332
Denver, CO 80204we should send them some money ...M.O. to address .....
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #28 posted by Genthirdday on October 02, 2006 at 08:36:32 PT

#21 Intoxicating
From a medical viewpoint what are the effects on the liver.....toxic?????
intoxicating redirected to toxic wikipedia
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #27 posted by mayan on October 02, 2006 at 07:06:33 PT

It's Easy To See
Suthers is defending his self-interest and the truth is irrelevant to him. Tvert is defending truth and justice. Thanks for the debate link, Celaya.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #26 posted by Celaya on October 02, 2006 at 06:51:40 PT

mayan
Absolutely. Tvert is laying open the great hypocrisy by hammering the marijuana/alcohol comparison. Suthers was so defensive about the approach he made a big deal out of injecting the religious concept of "moral relativism" into the debate. This, and the hiding-behind-the-children nonsense, indicates they have no leg to stand on. He has clearly given up on reason and is simply trying to agitate all the religious fundamentalists. Morality, relative or otherwise, has no place in the legal debate. A "crime" is something that hurts another person or their property. -- Like what marijuana prohibition does.

[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #25 posted by mayan on October 02, 2006 at 03:41:14 PT

What A Debate
Now I know why the prohibitionists have been ducking us for so long! What a thrashing by Tvert!
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #24 posted by Taylor121 on October 02, 2006 at 03:06:07 PT

Donate to Colorado Effort!
Since some of us can't vote in Colorado, the next best thing is to donate to the efforts. From what I understand, they are in desperate need of funding, so let's help them out!http://www.safercolorado.org/donate
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #23 posted by whig on October 02, 2006 at 00:52:07 PT

Please watch
Make love, not war, that's all we're saying, just remember that.http://tinyurl.com/ed6gu
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #22 posted by whig on October 02, 2006 at 00:21:51 PT

OT: Freedom of Religion
They are shutting down freedom of religion, in light of the case of Dan and Mary Quaintance.http://cannablog.wordpress.com/2006/10/02/shutting-down-freedom-of-religion/There is no end to what they will do to stop us. We are not going to be stopped this time because this has to be a revolution that takes power away from those people forever. It has to be peaceful and it has to be based in love, because that is the only way we can hold our power through peace and love.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #21 posted by whig on October 01, 2006 at 23:13:51 PT

Intoxicating
I think my problem is with the literal meaning of this word and not its figurative use.Intoxication has, as a root, the word "toxic." A thing which intoxicates is presumed toxic. Obviously love is not toxic and neither is any kind of experience which intoxicates the senses, in that figurative sense.But by calling cannabis intoxicating and comparing it to alcohol in the same sentence, it drives home the toxic implication even further because alcohol most definitely has toxicity at higher doses.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #20 posted by lombar on October 01, 2006 at 23:07:32 PT

A few points
Earlier this afternoon as I walked, it occurred to me that in Colorado, it is only a $100 fine for 1 ounce of Cannabis? When the liberals here proposed harsher penalties, the US ambassador was making threats! That is a far more liberal law than Canadas CDSA! People here can get time for that little.. well in the prairies, not really in the large population provinces.Mr. Suthers did hide behind the 'for the children' bull and attempted to use the 'more people in treatment' argument. At the end, he stated that Mason was impugning his motives but I think Mason had him pegged. Besides, it is hard not to 'impugn' someone who fights to keep you a criminal.. judges you worthy of prison/intervention/punishment for exercising your choice to use cannabis. Go get 'em!
Mason Tvert on the Drug Truth Network after debate.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #19 posted by afterburner on October 01, 2006 at 22:35:51 PT

The Beauty of the SAFER Approach
Every time I got mad at the drivel AG Suthers spouted, Mason had a well-thought, well-spoken response. Mr. Tvert rightly pointed out that Mr. Suthers was opposed to "carding" consumers of cannabis. The card, unlike a medical cannabis card, could be a simple driver's license or age of majority card, like those used to obtain alcoholic beverages! No need for fear of how the authorities would use the database, because the cannabis consumers would not be forced to "wear" the equivalent of a "yellow star of David" as mandated by the Nazi German government and occupiers of Poland during WW II. "Global ganja culture should now be going on the offensive. We have the prohibitionists on the run, we have momentum and public opinion on our side, and we must articulate a vision of how we want our culture and our plant defined in the new millennium." 
-- Dana Larsen, Editor of Cannabis Culture
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #18 posted by freewillks on October 01, 2006 at 21:02:35 PT

Suthers looked rattled!
Mason Tvert An adimitted pot smoker just owned Colorado AG Suthers. Suthers looked like a deer in headlights when Mason pointed out the tens of thousands spent to persue a $100 fine and forfiture of assets to fund his office (priceless).
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #17 posted by ekim on October 01, 2006 at 20:31:10 PT

just wait till Leap comes to town
Oct 26 06 SAFER Initiative Event 06:00 PM Norm Stamper Denver Colorado USA 
 LEAP speaker and advisory board member Norm Stamper speaks to an audience at a NORML sponsored event in conjunction with SAFER initiative. The event takes place in Boettcher Hall at the University of Denver. This event is open to the public. 
www.leap.cc/events/ 
----------------------------------------------------------------
www.drugwarrant.com
The Drug War and Tarnished BadgesIn Fayetteville, NC: 
The widening investigation has revealed deputies stealing hundreds of- thousands of dollars from drug stops on Interstate 95, beating and robbing people in their homes, swindling money from county coffers and working with drug dealers to steal money and drugs from other dealers. Some deputies are accused of kidnapping drug dealers and holding them for ransom. One is accused of giving someone two trash bags full of marijuana to burn a pawnshop to settle a personal vendetta. The home of a man who was set to testify against that deputy was firebombed shortly before trial. Sinclair is accused of trying to extort money from a man he suspected of selling drugs by pouring lighter fluid on the man's arm and setting him on fire. Prosecutors say Sinclair had gone to the wrong house and terrorized the wrong man. Court records say the man was seriously injured. In Chicago, IL: Prosecutors have alleged the men stole hundreds of thousands of dollars and falsely arrested many people. Although the Police Department had been investigating numerous misconduct claims against the men for years, the criminal case against them did not gain traction until prosecutors became suspicious because the officers consistently failed to show up in court to testify on significant drug arrests they had made, officials said. Authorities said they now believe many of those arrests were bogus, and any cases the officers handled are suspect. The memo links Herrera to 67 cases. Finnigan, accused of being the ringleader of the schemes, is linked to 10 cases. Sherry is linked to 29 cases and Suchocki is linked to three cases. Some cases were linked to more than one of the officers. This is just one of the many destructive influences of the drug war. Just as it attracts criminals to the profits of drug trafficking, it attracts and feeds the corruptible in public service. And both prey upon the citizens whose hard-earned tax money pays for the war.
http://www.drugwarrant.com
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #16 posted by Celaya on October 01, 2006 at 20:15:02 PT

Tvert On Drug Truth Network
Tvert discusses the debate and other things on Drug Truth Network
Tvert at Drug Truth Network
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #15 posted by Celaya on October 01, 2006 at 19:47:24 PT

BGreen
Right! The term intoxicating has been getting a real bad rap lately. As anyone who loves life knows, all of our great moments are intoxicating!
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #14 posted by FoM on October 01, 2006 at 19:43:45 PT

BGreen
You are a gentleman. What a lovely compliment about Mrs. Green.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #13 posted by BGreen on October 01, 2006 at 19:42:00 PT

Intoxicating does NOT mean bad
Mrs. Green and I went to the Van Gogh museum a couple of weeks ago and it was most definitely intoxicating to stand a couple of feet away from such incredible art that is priceless in our scheme of money.Many things are intoxicating, such as when I look at my beautiful wife, so if cannabis is tantamount to the feeling of love then it must be good.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #12 posted by Celaya on October 01, 2006 at 19:34:51 PT

FoM
No problem about the children. It's ludicrous to think that children would be more at risk with marijuana in the home than with alcohol. Enough of this hiding behind the children garbage!whigI agree marijuana is not primarily intoxicating. In fact, it's like Jimi Hendrix alluded to. If you don't have the "experience" you can't understand it. I'd say it's a time-slowing, senses enhancing effect. It does have a euphoric aspect, though, so I think Tvert is right in relating it to the public in terms they can understand. It is crucial to drive home the marijuana/alcohol comparison.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #11 posted by whig on October 01, 2006 at 19:26:11 PT

Mason Tvert
He's really good, except I disagree with one thing he said. Marijuana is not an intoxicating substance.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #10 posted by whig on October 01, 2006 at 19:24:02 PT

Celaya
Thanks. Posted on the blog.
http://cannablog.wordpress.com/
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #9 posted by FoM on October 01, 2006 at 19:22:01 PT

Celaya
I know I sounded harsh in my post about children but it's the truth. I love children and have taught them in church and to ride a horses and compete. I don't anymore so I have lived with lots of children around and none around. I would never have thought of leading a child to drugs or alcohol ever. That's wrong and it never entered my mind. Adults have lost so many rights because of what about the children and it needs to be hammered home.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #8 posted by Celaya on October 01, 2006 at 19:12:19 PT

FoM
You're right! It is soooo wrong! And I think Tvert has found the way to pound that message home. Things are getting very interesting!
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #7 posted by Celaya on October 01, 2006 at 19:10:05 PT

Tvert's latest letter debunks "for the children&qu
"Amendment 44 poses a simple question: Should the adult possession of up to 1 ounce of marijuana be legal under state law? Or, as our campaign prefers to phrase the question, should adults be punished for making the rational choice to use marijuana instead of alcohol, if that is what they prefer? On its face, there seems to be no logical reason to oppose this. What we have are two recreational substances. The difference is that alcohol is more addictive and more toxic. It is also associated with aggression and violence, which means it is far more likely to lead to the harm of someone other than the user. In addition, according to the Centers for Disease Control, approximately 20,000 Americans die annually as the direct result of alcohol consumption. The comparable figure for marijuana: 0. The marijuana debate has been framed the wrong way in the minds of Americans for too long. When asked to think about the subject, the first reaction for many is, "Why should we add another vice?" The opponents of marijuana legalization have helped create this mindset by exaggerating and distorting the harms associated with marijuana. The list of discredited assertions about marijuana - from the "gateway" theory to a causal relationship with violence to links to lung cancer - is too long to review in this column. Accepting marijuana for the relatively benign recreational substance it is, the appropriate question is not, "Why add a vice?" Instead, the question is, "Why prohibit a safer alternative for adults?" Our opponents have no answer to this direct question. This is because it is not possible to defend allowing adults to use alcohol but not marijuana. One would have to call for a return to alcohol prohibition to make a rational argument against our initiative. So instead, they want this debate to be about kids. They argue our initiative will make marijuana more available to teens, ignoring the fact that marijuana prohibition has created a situation in which 86 percent of high school seniors now say it is "very easy" or "fairly easy" to get marijuana.
 
They say we will send the wrong message to kids, hoping no one will notice that they have been so successful in their message that kids think it is safer to binge drink than to use marijuana. This in no way suggests we advocate teen use of marijuana. But in the real world, kids will be exposed to both regardless of the outcome of this initiative. And if your kids engage in binge drinking, they could die of an overdose. If they use marijuana, they cannot. That's reality. Here is the message we should be sending our kids: "The plain honest truth is that marijuana is an intoxicating substance. As a minor, it is simply not appropriate to use any intoxicating substance for recreational purposes. But if you happen to be exposed to these substances, here is how each one can harm you." Amendment 44 has nothing to do with kids. If it passes, it will still be illegal for anyone under 21 to possess marijuana, and it will still be a felony to provide a minor with any amount of marijuana. Rates of use will be affected by education and guidance from parents, not marijuana's legal status for adults. I urge you to vote yes on Amendment 44 so that we can stop punishing adults in order to deceive children. A new policy based on logic and truth will benefit both groups in the long run." 

Tvert: Prohibitionists Hide Behind Children
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #6 posted by FoM on October 01, 2006 at 19:06:10 PT

Celaya
I think the alcohol comparison is honest and for that reason it is a common sense approach. I believe that if you keep talking and talking common sense will prevail. Common sense makes sense period. In a Democracy everything shouldn't be about the children. If a minor gets drunk he or she can get in trouble many different ways and I think that is ok because this is an adult issue not an issue about children. When do adults with no children have a say about their own destiny? When can a person who isn't around children and doesn't give children much thought anymore have a say about their own future? I am tired of everything being for the children because then adults will always be punished using children as the scapegoat. That's wrong.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #5 posted by Celaya on October 01, 2006 at 18:55:04 PT

FoM
Yes. I think Tvert did a tremendous job! I think much good for marijuana reform will snowball from this.I've always thought the marijuana/alcohol comparison would be the approach that will nail prohibition. -- We are winning!
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #4 posted by FoM on October 01, 2006 at 18:39:53 PT

Celaya
He is very articulate. Nice job. 
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #3 posted by FoM on October 01, 2006 at 18:25:23 PT

Celaya
Thank you. I'm watching it now.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #2 posted by Celaya on October 01, 2006 at 18:01:29 PT

Tvert/Suthers Debate Now On Line!
I was just advised by the folks at Denver's 9News that they now have the video of the 
Marijuana Initiative debate between Mason Tvert and Colorado Attorney General John Suthers
on line. 
It's a tremendous one! Tvert clearly wins on points but Suthers tries to make up for it on image. I think he imagined he was in a church pulpit. Suthers exploits the lack of time limits also. Tvert opened with a couple of minutes and then Suthers preached on for more than five. All in all, though, a great 
REAL debate! The kind that has been sorely lacking for so many years.
Tvert - Suthers Debate
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #1 posted by global_warming on October 01, 2006 at 16:52:49 PT

I wish I could vote in Colorado
You have my "yes" vote.
[ Post Comment ]






  Post Comment