Marijuana.com

Lothar121

Best Argument For Drug Freedom is ... Freedom
Vin Suprynowicz | Las Vegas Review-Journal | 05/28/06

There's another proposal to legalize marijuana being marshaled for the Nevada ballot, this time under the guise of "regulating it and making it harder for kids to get."

It's tempting to say they never asked me for my opinion. In fact, though, people keep doing so. And I keep saying the same thing.

Yes, I understand the focus groups fail to show 50 percent support when you just talk about "re-legalizing drugs; the War on Drugs does more harm than good; it doesn't stop drug use (even in the prisons) and it violates the Ninth Amendment." I understand the polling (presumably) climbs over 50 percent when you talk about capturing more tax revenues and "doing a better job of keeping drugs away from kids."

Nonetheless, the current effort fails on three counts:

1) Misdirection rarely works. The lawyers tried it with a couple of ballot issues here last time around; us ink-stained wretches blew the whistle on their duplicity and they failed.

Even if you have a partial success, people will feel betrayed when they find out; they'll turn on you and you'll have lost ground because in the future they're less likely to listen to you even when you deliver the STRAIGHT case for drug freedom. Better to fight on principle even if you lose in the short term. The truth is the truth and you sleep better at night.

Focus groups gave us "New Coke." I'm sure randomly selected focus groups would choose mint mouthwash over single malt Scotch. But would that convince you to fill a Laphroaig bottle with mint mouthwash and try to sell it for $65?

2) If such a scheme WERE to work, you'd be setting up a new tax-collection bureaucracy and feeding the state more money. Are we in favor of a larger bureaucracy with more money to spend? (This measure doesn't talk about reducing other tax rates to make legal pot "revenue-neutral.") Entrepreneurs without government contracts (which would eventually go to huge agribusinesses that would likely do to the quality of pot what they've done to supermarket tomatoes) would be MORE likely to be jailed.

Anyway, the G-man who starts salivating when he spots the money river represented by the pot and cocaine trades needs to be told, "Awww, you'd like a piece of that? Well then maybe you SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN PUTTING PEOPLE IN JAIL FOR GROWING AND MARKETING USEFUL PLANT EXTRACTS FOR THE PAST 70 YEARS, IDIOT! As your punishment, you CAN'T HAVE ANY OF IT! Bad doggie; bad doggie."

3) Finally, if this monster child ever were to succeed, the proponents would then be responsible for a legal environment in which a 20-year-old man could and would be more likely to go to jail for "supplying marijuana" (sharing a joint) with his 17-year-old girlfriend. We're sworn on the altar of freedom to oppose such piffle.

All that's required to end the War on Drugs is for the courts and the executive branch -- and especially juries -- to acknowledge that it's barred by the Ninth Amendment, and therefore all such laws are null and void under Marbury vs. Madison.

This would happen instantly in any nation that still honored and observed the Constitution of 1787. No, I don't know how to restore that knowledge and faith. I just know that promising to put more people in jail for "supplying marijuana" to 17-year-olds -- kids who are qualified to fight and die in Iraq -- isn't a step in the right direction.

(LothNote: See the full rebuttal from the Committee to Regulate and Control Marijuana here .)

__________________

Donate. Write. Make a difference.. Posting Guidelines | Marijuana Policy Project | NORML | DPA | Drug WarRant | Media Awareness Project

 

LibertyLover

Great article!

dedbr

I think that pretty much sums it up....don't you?


Somewhere in Ded Land....

__________________
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

Abraham Lincoln
Happy New Year.......

LibertyLover

There is no doubt in my mind that this legislation would be vastly preferable to that currently enforced, however, there are a great many fundamental flaws, such as denying equal rights to those adult citizens who are between 18 and 21 years of age. While it may be more politically appealing to limit the liberty of those of this age group it violates their rights as they have reached the age of majorityhood and thus should enjoy all rights not disabled by due process. In the pursuit of liberty one must always keep foremost in one's mind that if that liberty is gained by virtue of denying another their liberty then one injustice has merely been replaced by another and those noble hearted well intentioned libertarians have violated their principles and become the very thing they fought against.

The legislation also includes a number of provisions that will hamper consenting adults to obtain marijuana as they desire of their own free will, such as prohibiting the sale of marijuana at gas stations, convienance stores, bars, grocery stores, and within five hundred feet of schools and churches. These are the same type of "regulations" that have been used to persecute people for marijuana and other off topic substances. They serve no legitimate purpose and their only function is to attempt to appease those who support the current complete prohibition of marijuana and they impose a considerable burden and infringement upon free people.

There is also the tax of marijuana, which would allow for the continued indoctrination and propaganda against drugs and include an equal amount of kickbacks to the "general fund" meaning that the state government would suddenly gain a stake of making money off of the sale of marijuana - making the state government a drug dealer to spend upon whatever it should dream.

There is also the arbitary limit of one ounce of marijuana. That's interesting because you can buy enough tobacco or alcohol to kill yourself with (and people do both on a regular basis) yet marijuana which there have been exactly zero overdose deaths reported in history so far, you can only buy enough to reach perhaps 1/10000 of the theoretical dose needed to kill someone. That is senseless and means that many people would still be subjected to unreasonable search, seizure, arrest, and conviction.

The entire legislation seems to be written with the expectation of failure, imposing harsh limits upon people and continueing much of the present tyranny. It's true purpose is determined by the name of the group "Committee to Regulate and Control Marijuana". Marijuana can't be controlled, only it's producers, sellers, and users. Law and order is the legitimate purpose of government and legislation, excessive, burdensome regulation & prohibition and the control of those who abide by the laws and logic of law and order is the illegitimate usurpation and abuse of power by government. This statute might be somewhat better than the current regime, but it is still a far cry from what is the right thing to do.

dedbr

you seem to want the whole pie, when I know that we must settle for the small pieces, one at a time....


Their still allowing them to sell it, that seems like a big deal to me.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the state a drug dealer already? Don't they already tax alcohol and tobacco and anything else they can tax?



Here's an even better one for you, Liberty....If you can legally posses an ounce, and someone can sell you an ounce, but you can't legally posses more than an ounce, how is the guy that sells you the ounce going to keep stocked up if he can't stock more than an ounce?



Nevada used to be a zero tolerance state. I'm not for sure what the current law is, but anything is better than someone going to prison over a sack of herb.

I believe that any law passed that legalizes any amount of herb is a breakthrew for us. I remember thirty years ago when it was scary to be busted with a roach.

And we had to walk to school five miles, uphill....bothways.... ...in a blizzard........with only that roach to last me and my little sissy all day.....



Somewhere in Ded Land....

 

Lothar121

I disagree. Society has deemed the legal age to be 21 and up for intoxicating substances (alcohol). This is not likely to change since America saw it as a failed experiment when the drinking age was lowered to 18. Although I frequently hear the argument that someone that is able to go to war should be able to drink, the fact of the matter is once you are drafted or enter the military, you are able to drink on the bases and perhaps the same should apply to marijuana, but that is a different issue. The point of bringing it up is it is a baseless point of argumentation.

The initiative would allow vendors to hold more than an ounce of marijuana obviously. It is only unlicensed citizens that can have less than an ounce. Although I see the complaints as partially legit, I do not think there is any problem in restricting the sale of the substance to designated vendors rather than selling it in convenient stores. Many states already do the exact same thing with liquor stores and have extra restrictions on them. It does little to interfere with freedom and helps keep kids away from the substance.

The author of this article is living in a dream world if he thinks that marijuana prohibition is unconstitutional. One could claim it is, but the reality is we will never win through a court challenge. We already lost on that front with medical marijuana. His argument is extremely weak in this regard. The only way to change the law is via ballot initiative and Congress.

Anyways, like I said, I think the restrictions on where the vendors can be located is extremely sensible. In addition, one ounce of marijuana is plenty for personal use. The Netherlands only allows a few grams at a time. If anything, one ounce is too much for this step. The final argument against the initiative is simply baseless complaining. Right now criminals are receiving the profits for marijuana. A complaint against the state government getting those profits instead seems silly at best. The state could use the money for schools, roads, and whatever else needs fixing. In addition, the initiative would put more money into treatment programs that are vastly under funded across the country.

Buzzby

How would that differ from current laws which prevent a 21-year-old man from supplying a bottle of beer to his 18-year-old girlfriend? Drug laws will never be eased if people insist on the "right" to supply drugs to children.


Don't you have to be 18 to join the US military? I've never grasped the "logic" of this argument. What does the ability to follow orders on the battlefield have to do with the maturity to handle intoxicants?

__________________

LibertyLover

No, you are willing to settle for begging for crumbs, crumbs that you most likely will never actually obtain. Even if this initiative were to pass, it would be invalidated by the courts and or regulated to ineffectiveness by the rest of the state or federal government.

One should never settle for begging for a few crumbs of liberty for a few people to enjoy. That is not the right thing to do.



Yep, and it's a main source of government corruption. The lack of a law requiring that taxes be instituted to pay only for a specific constitutional legally ratified statute allows the government to steal money to expand it's powers. Extremely common and present in all governments to my knowledge throughout history, but just because immorality plagues our kind doesn't make it right.

Ayuh. All this is doing is trying to establish a tiny bit of permission from one state government to allow certain classes of people to enjoy a small measure of protection from the government racket of marijuana prohibition.

I do believe it's still "zero tolerance" for liberty with regards to marijuana. "One percent" tolerance is only slightly better and not truely preferable.

There is much more at stake than being able to smoke a joint or possess a roach or even an ounce. If we continue to regain our liberty at this rate by begging for one small crumb at a time then we shall be truely enslaved body and mind by the government. This is but a drop of water in the ocean of tyranny, and there are plans afoot that involve building truely scary police state technologies and implement them. It will be a much different matter when in but a few short years or decades the government can and will monitor our every move and every action. These things are taking place right now. Although they have been taking place for many decades only recently has technology leapt foward to the point where the nightmare sci-fi future becomes a likelyhood, a future that is ensured to happen so long as we believe the governments lies and play by it's rules rather than by the rule of law.

Speaking from personal expirence, I can tell you it is quite possible to walk five (or in my case, six) miles uphill both ways in a blizzard. All it takes is to live on one side of a enourmous hill and need to go by foot to the town on the other side of the hill. You go up, and down, both ways. I used to do this before I bought a car. Twice I got stopped by cops, one gave me a ride, the other time I matched the basic description of a cop killer (kid who ran over a cop in an attempt to escape with a pound of weed interestingly enough - another senseless death from marijuana prohibition) and they stopped me with only one knife and three bouncy balls on me... both of those times and all of the other times I've had personal encounters with the police they have treated me exceptionally well.

Peace...

anyone know if growing hemp for food, rope, or paper is "legal" under this legislation?

LibertyLover

That's not true. Society never deemed any such thing. The federal government decided to make that the "law" of the nation. Since there is no possible business of the federal government in regulating alcohol consumption in the United States, they extorted the states (and I believe still do) into passing the 21 year old drinking age limit by threatening to withhold highway funding. The federal government wasn't ever delegated the power to extort the state governments into disabling the rights of citizens. Classic example of the usurpation and abuse of power and classic attempt to maneuver around the Constitution by the use of an indirect law and the creation of a legal fiction - the power to commit extortion to pass laws. No such power exists.

When did that happen? As far as I know until the federal government decided to make this it's business the overwhelming majority of states had an age of 18.

As a veteran, I can assure you that is a common myth. While drinking by those under 21 in the military is extraordinarily common, and often condoned or actually ordered by superiors, it is a violation of the military laws.

The arbitary violation of people's rights is never a baseless point of debate, perhaps irrelevant with regards to most debates, but not baseless. Adults over 18 are not children, the government is not are those people's parents, they are responsible for their own actions.

It also means you can't grow marijuana for your own consumption, correct? That would also mean you can't grow it as a houseplant, or for medicine, or for reclaiming and cleaning a polluted field, or for making rope, etc.

The courts do not decide what is constitutional or is not constitutional. They may write their opinion, make their decision, but the reality of what the Constitution says and means is not determined by what they say or mean. Truth is not created because an "expert" says so.

Since they are already willing to deprive sick and dying people of their medicine, and block any real research into developing very useful much needed medicines from marijuana, good luck trying to convince those with hundreds of billions of dollars and immeasurable sums of power to let you smoke a joint for fun! If they don't care about the lives of the sick and dying they sure aren't going to care about people enjoying property, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Where's the sense in allowing a business to sell deadly poisons but not marijuana?

Where does the government get the power to decide that people should only possess enough property for "personal use"? I suppose they should put a 12 pack limit on beer... and prohibit kegs entirely. A twelve pack is plenty for personal use, don't you think, and since there isn't a right to party who cares if you can't bring a couple of cases to a party? And we should most certainly limit water if you drink too much water you can die, let's have a personal limit of two gallons which is plenty for personal use but not enough to kill most people...

That's a bad, bad, bad precedent. It puts the government in charge of people's private, personal decisions, an unnatural and unconstitutional role.

What is the legal basis for putting criminal limitations upon how much property you may acquire?

Ah, yes. Those evil pot farmers!
Since government is the problem, throwing more money at it isn't the solution. It will only encourage and enable more bad programs and polices.

LibertyLover

18 year olds are not children, legally speaking. If a person is still a child at 18, and is incapable of consuming alcohol responsibly, then why the hell are they allowed to star in pornographic films and magazines? Is that legal child porn?


You can be 17 with your parents permission.

The concept is explained at length here: http://www.constitution.org/soclcont.htm . I highly recommend reading that link, it will give you a much deeper understanding of what I am basing my views on.

If people at 18 have the maturity level to use firearms they sure as hell can handle alcohol.