-- Polls show support falling for Nevada's legalization of marijuana
Smitty B.
Black Belt wrote:
>
> What a shame! I had such high hopes....bummer!
--
"The United States is in no sense founded upon
the Christian doctrine." - George Washington,
Zark
> are now learning the truth."
>
> "All the proponents want to do is legalize marijuana so they can smoke
> dope," Gammick said. "Now that people realize their motivation, they
> are making a rational decision about it."
Well Duh! I only go to work to earn money too.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.384 / Virus Database: 216 - Release Date: 21/08/2002
Mr Sane
3rdd...@kickboxing.com says...
> What a shame! I had such high hopes....bummer!
>
>
>
> Today: September 01, 2002 at 13:25:15 PDT
>
> Polls show support falling for Nevada's legalization of marijuana
>
> ASSOCIATED PRESS
>
> CARSON CITY (AP) - Support is fading for a proposal to make Nevada the
> first state to legalize marijuana, according to a statewide poll by
> the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
>
> The survey found 55 percent of likely voters oppose Question 9 on the
> November election ballot. Forty percent of respondents back the
> measure, and 5 percent are undecided.
>
> The results are a dramatic shift from a similar poll in early July,
> when 44 percent of the respondents said they favored legal pot, while
> 46 percent were opposed.
>
I'd like to know how they conducted their polls. A 10% shift is not
outside the bounds of a simple case of just asking different people.
> Passage this year and again in 2004 would change the state
> constitution and allow adult Nevadans to legally possess 3 ounces or
> less of marijuana.
>
> The telephone survey of 625 likely voters was conducted Monday and
> Tuesday by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc. of Washington, D.C. The
> results have a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
>
> Support has waned because law enforcement leaders have begun to focus
> on the issue, said Brad Coker, managing director of Mason-Dixon.
>
> Coker said he was not surprised at the numbers. "All it takes is a
> little push from law enforcement and people back off," he said. "It
> certainly won't pass."
>
> Washoe County District Attorney Richard Gammick said he thinks "people
> are now learning the truth."
>
> "All the proponents want to do is legalize marijuana so they can smoke
> dope," Gammick said. "Now that people realize their motivation, they
> are making a rational decision about it."
>
> Possession of 1 ounce or less or marijuana in Nevada is a misdemeanor
> subject to a $600 fine for the first two offenses.
>
> Gammick said pot supporters left the false impression that passage of
> Question 9 was necessary to implement the state's medical marijuana
> program.
>
> Two years ago, 65 percent of voters passed a constitutional amendment
> that led to establishment of a state medical marijuana program.
>
> Although Question 9 would require the state to provide low-cost
> marijuana to medical marijuana recipients, its main focus would be
> setting up a system to allow adults to possess small amounts of pot
> without reprisal. The ballot question provides a vehicle for the state
> to tax and sell marijuana.
>
> Gammick has said federal laws would prohibit the state from doing so,
> but Billy Rogers, who leads the drive to make marijuana possession
> legal in the state, has argued the nation's drug czar is already on
> record as saying he won't step up enforcement of federal drug laws if
> the measure passes.
>
> Rogers said his own polls show Nevadans remain split on the marijuana
> question.
>
> His group, Nevadans for Responsible Law Enforcement, collected nearly
> 110,000 signatures on petitions from residents seeking to place
> Question 9 on the ballot.
>
> Rogers said the latest poll shows his organization must do a better
> job of explaining the issue to voters. The group has raised $525,000
> in contributions and intends to launch a fall campaign, including TV
> spots, to explain the question.
>
> In particular, he said the group must emphasize that passage of the
> question only would allow adults to possess marijuana in the privacy
> of their homes, not in public places or while driving. Use of the drug
> by minors also would remain illegal.
>
> "If that is what voters are hearing on election day, we will win the
> election," Rogers said. "We have to let them know exactly what is in
> the initiative."
>
> Rogers' organization has maintained the public will be better served
> if police concentrate on more serious crimes than wasting time
> arresting and booking people for small amounts of marijuana.
>
> --
>
--
-Wonko
na...@mindspring.com
<3rdd...@kickboxing.com> wrote:
>
>
>Zark wrote:
>
>>>Washoe County District Attorney Richard Gammick said he thinks "people
>>>are now learning the truth."
>>>
>>>"All the proponents want to do is legalize marijuana so they can smoke
>>>dope," Gammick said. "Now that people realize their motivation, they
>>>are making a rational decision about it."
>>>
>>
>> Well Duh! I only go to work to earn money too.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>Gee, all that time I thought the goal was to legalize dope because it's
>a Constitutional right, it's Civil Liberties issue, to prevent gang
>violence, and all types of noble causes. Guess it's all about getting
>buzzed.
Of course it's about getting high. If no one wanted to get high there
would be no War on Drugs.
Yes, it is a "Constitutional right" to be free to choose what you put
into your own body.
Yes, when the government trys to deny people their Constitutional
rights, that creates a "Civil Liberties issue".
Re-legalizing drugs may not "prevent gang violence", but gangs will
not be killing each other and innocent bystanders over drug-sales
territory.
Obviously, though you appear to have missed it, the fact that someone
wants to use marijuana to get high does not detract from any of the
moral or Constitutional issues surrounding the drug war. In fact,
wanting to get high is central to the whole issue of prohbition.
Dave Hill
> wants to use marijuana to get high does not detract from any of the moral
> or Constitutional issues surrounding the drug war.
Yeah actually it does. Obviously, though you appear to have missed it, it
is this very *LACK* of underlying moral or Constitutional issues involved in
drug use that has kept marijuana illegal for the past several decades.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
na...@mindspring.com
wrote:
>> Obviously, though you appear to have missed it, the fact that someone
>> wants to use marijuana to get high does not detract from any of the moral
>> or Constitutional issues surrounding the drug war.
>
>Yeah actually it does. Obviously, though you appear to have missed it, it
>is this very *LACK* of underlying moral or Constitutional issues involved in
>drug use that has kept marijuana illegal for the past several decades.
>
Reason just rolls off you like water off a duck.
Dr. Zarkov
news:3d750955$1...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> > Obviously, though you appear to have missed it, the fact that someone
> > wants to use marijuana to get high does not detract from any of the
moral
> > or Constitutional issues surrounding the drug war.
>
> Yeah actually it does. Obviously, though you appear to have missed it, it
> is this very *LACK* of underlying moral or Constitutional issues involved
in
> drug use that has kept marijuana illegal for the past several decades.
You don't consider persecuting people for what they choose to put into their
own bodies a moral issue?
Dave Hill
their
> own bodies a moral issue?
It depends what the substance is they're putting into their bodies. If it's
food, water, nourishment, another person's sexual organs..... well of course
I would consider it a moral issue if people were persecuted for that.
If it's dope......no I don't.
Look, we are talking about drug use here. We're not talking about anything
else, and so many of the "what-if?" analogies people attempt to construct in
the name of consistency are simply attempts to avoid the issue. Usually
these analogies have absolutely nothing to do with drug use at all, and
often they are downright bizarre. "What-if" hamburger sellers were
prosecuted for making a living? "What-if" runaway slaves were on the
loose---would you return them to their owners? "What-if" you fell in love
with a person of another race, and lived in a state where a marriage between
mixed race couples was illegal....etc. "What-if" the government decreed
that anchovies on your pizza should be illegal? (The anchovy analogy had to
be the weirdest one of all).
Even the above comment: the person did not talk about persecuting people
*FOR DRUGS*, take note: but rather, persecuting them "for what they put
into their own bodies"--- implying that food or water or something *good*
might be outlawed.
To all of them, my response is: We are not talking about ANY of these
things here. We're talking about dope. Of course, if hamburger sellers and
anchovies and runaway slaves or whatever were outlawed, I would protest
those laws. They would be dumb laws. The drug laws are not dumb. I've
seen the harm that drug use does, and it can be really bad. Even at its
most benign, it does no good for the individual, or society.
Yes I know---neither does alcohol, or cigarettes, or caffeine, or [insert
non-illegal-substance of your choice here]. Well....here's a news flash:
the legalness or non-legalness of those other things is completely beside
the point and not relevant to the issue being discussed. The people reading
this are not in talk.politics.booze.prohibition, and they are not in
rec.caffeine, or outlaw.runaway.slaves. The people reading this are in
rec.*DRUGS*, talk.politics.*DRUGS*, alt.*DRUGS*.pot.
Now.....if I was arguing that drug use *should be* illegal, then you might
have a reason to bring up alcohol and cigarettes and all those other things.
But that's not what I'm arguing---and we have to be clear on that. I've
never argued here that drug use should be illegal, because that argument is
already won. Drug use IS illegal.
So the debate here is not in the theoretical realm of whether drugs should
be illegal or not. They already are. The debate is whether we should
CHANGE the current drug laws to make drugs legal instead. And arguing the
legal merits or de-merits of alcohol, cigarettes, slaves, and anchovies (!)
does absolutely nothing to move the debate along.
Hagbardr
So drugs should be illegal because they're *DRUGS* and they're illegal? That's the logic I'm
getting out of this.
--Hagbardr
Oren Zero
> It depends what the substance is they're putting into their bodies. If
it's
> food, water, nourishment, another person's sexual organs..... well of
course
> I would consider it a moral issue if people were persecuted for that.
Even same-sex partners' sexual organs?
As for food, do you assume that all food is good for you?
If not, why wouldn't you support outlawing unhealthy
food? Does the AMA fund your campaign coffers?
> If it's dope......no I don't.
That's apparent, but your argument is increasingly
reliant on circular reasoning, as others have pointed
out to you, again and again -- "it's bad because it's
illegal because it's bad because it's..."; no sale, mister.
> Look, we are talking about drug use here.
I haven't seen you talk *about* drug use; only that you
think it is bad. I notice you didn't say "drug ABUSE." Do you
fathom a distinction between the two?
> We're not talking about anything
> else, and so many of the "what-if?" analogies people attempt to construct
in
> the name of consistency are simply attempts to avoid the issue.
Which issue? That people do, and always HAVE used
substances for recreational purposes?
The alcohol analogy DOES hold up, if you'll take a minute
to break out of your circular logic loop. Alcohol was once
illegal in the U.S. (and is banned in many places in the
U.S. and around the world, even today); the "drugs" you
seemingly revile were all legal in the U.S. as recent as 75
years ago. There are known harms and risks associated
with licit & illicit substances, but the "laws" you so revere
insist that adults are incapable of weighing those risks,
and further, to make informed decisions over what risks
they're willing to accept, in re: some substances. I've yet
to see you refute any of that.
> Usually
> these analogies have absolutely nothing to do with drug use at all, and
> often they are downright bizarre. "What-if" hamburger sellers were
> prosecuted for making a living? "What-if" runaway slaves were on the
> loose---would you return them to their owners? "What-if" you fell in love
> with a person of another race, and lived in a state where a marriage
between
> mixed race couples was illegal....etc. "What-if" the government decreed
> that anchovies on your pizza should be illegal? (The anchovy analogy had
to
> be the weirdest one of all).
The issue is not the drug-of-choice; it IS about whether
all laws are good all the time, or have we ever, at any point,
had HORRENDOUS laws on the books that caused massive
suffering and the perpetuation of injustice to those living under
them. Just saying "it's against the law now" is disingenuous --
well, duh! I did not KNOW that! Some choose to exceed speed
limits on our roadways, and even cops will tell you they're not
breaking down speeders' doors at 3 a.m., in spite of the fact
that speeding is 1000x more of a public safety disaster-in-waiting
than smoking a joint & watching "The Simpsons" will EVER be.
So cut the crap, Dave. Let's talk about good laws vs. BAD
laws. What good effect do you think the current drug laws
have? Please list them... as many as you can.
> Even the above comment: the person did not talk about persecuting people
> *FOR DRUGS*, take note: but rather, persecuting them "for what they put
> into their own bodies"--- implying that food or water or something *good*
> might be outlawed.
You don't think that could happen? I can see fast food
being outlawed, but not for the reasons one might think
of immediately. Plus, you ignore the fact that in many
U.S. states, it IS STILL illegal to perform many natural,
healthy, beneficial sexual acts. Didn't you say you'd
consider that a moral issue? Are those laws good
because they're on the books because they're good
because...?
> To all of them, my response is: We are not talking about ANY of these
> things here. We're talking about dope.
Maybe *you* are, but I thought *we* were discussing
laws, morality and acting out of one's own conscience (see
subject line). If you like, I'll gladly allow you to feel
ashamed of my actions for me. :)
-oZ
Dr. Zarkov
> > You don't consider persecuting people for what they choose to put into
> their
> > own bodies a moral issue?
>
> It depends what the substance is they're putting into their bodies. If
it's
> food, water, nourishment, another person's sexual organs..... well of
course
> I would consider it a moral issue if people were persecuted for that.
>
> If it's dope......no I don't.
The point is--Whether it's drugs or anything else, what right do you or the
government have to tell people what they can put into their own bodies?
Without bringing some other factor (like driving) into the argument, how is
it any of your business?
> Look, we are talking about drug use here. We're not talking about
anything
> else, and so many of the "what-if?" analogies people attempt to construct
in
> the name of consistency are simply attempts to avoid the issue. Usually
> these analogies have absolutely nothing to do with drug use at all, and
> often they are downright bizarre. "What-if" hamburger sellers were
> prosecuted for making a living? "What-if" runaway slaves were on the
> loose---would you return them to their owners? ....
Those are not evasions but examples to show the inconsistency of the
prohibitionist position. If you're going to discuss the morality of an
issue it has to be within some framework, so comparisons to other situations
are perfectly appropriate.
Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman put it well:
"The proper role of government is exactly what John Stuart Mill said in the
middle of the 19th century in 'On Liberty.' The proper role of government is
to prevent other people from harming an individual. Government, he said,
never has any right to interfere with an individual for that individual's
own good.
The case for prohibiting drugs is exactly as strong and as weak as the case
for prohibiting people from overeating. We all know that overeating causes
more deaths than drugs do. If it's in principle OK for the government to
say you must not consume drugs because they'll do you harm, why isn't it all
right to say you must not eat too much because you'll do harm? Why isn't it
all right to say you must not try to go in for skydiving because you're
likely to die?
It [drug use] does harm a great many other people, but primarily because
it's prohibited."
...
> To all of them, my response is: We are not talking about ANY of these
> things here. We're talking about dope. Of course, if hamburger sellers
and
> anchovies and runaway slaves or whatever were outlawed, I would protest
> those laws. They would be dumb laws. The drug laws are not dumb. I've
> seen the harm that drug use does, and it can be really bad. Even at its
> most benign, it does no good for the individual, or society.
And what we're saying is that it's the illegality rather than the drugs
themselves that is responsible for the vast majority of the harm. Anyone
who wants to verify that can check out the numerous references that have
been posted in tpg many times.
...
> Now.....if I was arguing that drug use *should be* illegal, then you might
> have a reason to bring up alcohol and cigarettes and all those other
things.
> But that's not what I'm arguing---and we have to be clear on that. I've
> never argued here that drug use should be illegal, because that argument
is
> already won. Drug use IS illegal.
That "argument" is so obviously circular it's not worth refuting.
> So the debate here is not in the theoretical realm of whether drugs should
> be illegal or not. They already are. The debate is whether we should
> CHANGE the current drug laws to make drugs legal instead. And arguing the
> legal merits or de-merits of alcohol, cigarettes, slaves, and anchovies
(!)
> does absolutely nothing to move the debate along.
You're suggesting that looking at the historical parallel of alcohol
prohibition is irrelevant? That asking why smoking and alcohol are legal
but other drugs are not is irrelevant? That's nonsense. How about looking
at what's happened in other countries or other time periods (say when drugs
were legal in the U.S.)? Are those also irrelevant?
And why is it irrelevant to consider the morality of obeying immoral laws
using slavery as an example?
You can take up the anchovy example with whoever posted it--sounds like a
straw man argument to me.
na...@mindspring.com
wrote:
>> You don't consider persecuting people for what they choose to put into
>their
>> own bodies a moral issue?
>
>It depends what the substance is they're putting into their bodies. If it's
>food, water, nourishment, another person's sexual organs..... well of course
>I would consider it a moral issue if people were persecuted for that.
>
>If it's dope......no I don't.
>
In other words, the morality of persecuting people for what they're
putting into their own bodies depends not on the morality of
'persecution' per se, not on the moral issue of who can determine what
one puts into one's body, but rather, on what the particular substance
is.
If, in Dave's opinion, the substance is bad then yes, persecution is
moral, but if the substance, in Dave'sd opinion, is good then no,
persecution is bad.
Morality is relative.
>Look, we are talking about drug use here. We're not talking about anything
>else, and so many of the "what-if?" analogies people attempt to construct in
>the name of consistency are simply attempts to avoid the issue. Usually
>these analogies have absolutely nothing to do with drug use at all, and
>often they are downright bizarre. "What-if" hamburger sellers were
>prosecuted for making a living? "What-if" runaway slaves were on the
>loose---would you return them to their owners? "What-if" you fell in love
>with a person of another race, and lived in a state where a marriage between
>mixed race couples was illegal....etc. "What-if" the government decreed
>that anchovies on your pizza should be illegal? (The anchovy analogy had to
>be the weirdest one of all).
>
>Even the above comment: the person did not talk about persecuting people
>*FOR DRUGS*, take note: but rather, persecuting them "for what they put
>into their own bodies"--- implying that food or water or something *good*
>might be outlawed.
>
>To all of them, my response is: We are not talking about ANY of these
>things here. We're talking about dope. Of course, if hamburger sellers and
>anchovies and runaway slaves or whatever were outlawed, I would protest
>those laws. They would be dumb laws. The drug laws are not dumb. I've
>seen the harm that drug use does, and it can be really bad. Even at its
>most benign, it does no good for the individual, or society.
Have you seen the harm that poor diet causes? Obesity is the second
leading cause of preventable death (right after tobaccco use).
Obesity is "bad", therefore persecuting people for being obese does
not involve a moral issue, right Dave?
>Yes I know---neither does alcohol, or cigarettes, or caffeine, or [insert
>non-illegal-substance of your choice here]. Well....here's a news flash:
>the legalness or non-legalness of those other things is completely beside
>the point and not relevant to the issue being discussed. The people reading
>this are not in talk.politics.booze.prohibition, and they are not in
>rec.caffeine, or outlaw.runaway.slaves. The people reading this are in
>rec.*DRUGS*, talk.politics.*DRUGS*, alt.*DRUGS*.pot.
And alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine are "not relevant" to a discussion
about "DRUGS" being illegal because they are not "DRUGS"?
You argue that drugs are illegal because they are bad and cause
damage.
When it is pointed out to you that a number of the *most damaging*
DRUGS are legal, you then claim these other "substances" (you can't
even bring yourself to admit they are drugs) are irelevant to a
discussion about the morali issues, or lack thereofo, of making DRUGS
illegal.
Unknown
>
>If, in Dave's opinion, the substance is bad then yes, persecution is
>moral, but if the substance, in Dave'sd opinion, is good then no,
>persecution is bad. Morality is relative.
These relativistic morals are primarily a matter of culture. Our drug
war isn't a fight for universal morality -- it's a petty culture war.
Only, Amerikans don't know it's petty since our propaganda has
falsified it as something big, an illusion that's reenforced by its
multi-billion dollar do-nothing budget.
>Obesity is "bad", therefore persecuting people for being obese does
>not involve a moral issue, right Dave?
Only a socialist/eugenicist considers persecuting fat folk or dopers
ethical. Only a socialist/eugenicist allows himself to manage
peaceable folk like cattle -- manage, that is, by threat of force.
Szasz
<snip>
> Only a socialist/eugenicist considers persecuting fat folk or dopers
> ethical. Only a socialist/eugenicist allows himself to manage
> peaceable folk like cattle -- manage, that is, by threat of force.
The analogy of dopers being treated like cattle is a fairly apt
one, I think, but I always likened society's treatment of dopers to
vermin that society is bent on eliminating. Dopers aren't people, they
are infectious rats that society believes need summary (and if
necessary, unConstitutional) execution.
This, by the way, is how society saw Jews in Nazi Germany, and how
Spanish saw non-believers and homosexuals in theocratic Spain.
You really have to rhetorically destroy the personhood of a doper
before you can physically destroy them (with guns, cops and jails).
This, of course, is why tons of money is spent on propaganda by the
government every year. They know what they're doing.
Adam Meadows
> > Obviously, though you appear to have missed it, the fact that someone
> > wants to use marijuana to get high does not detract from any of the moral
> > or Constitutional issues surrounding the drug war.
>
> Yeah actually it does. Obviously, though you appear to have missed it, it
> is this very *LACK* of underlying moral or Constitutional issues involved in
> drug use that has kept marijuana illegal for the past several decades.
>
What the hell are you talking about?
confused,
Adam
Neil
>
Szasz? As in Thomas Szasz? I'm new to this group, but Szasz isn't a
common name and he's a famous expert on public policy issues of mental
health. Do you know who I'm talking about? Is that why you chose that
name for your e-mail address?
Neil
Unknown
>
>"Dave Hill" <dave...@mwt.net> wrote:
>>
>> Yeah actually it does. Obviously, though you appear to have missed it, it
>> is this very *LACK* of underlying moral or Constitutional issues involved in
>> drug use that has kept marijuana illegal for the past several decades.
>
>What the hell are you talking about?
I get the feeling Dave considers law and morality synonymous, which is
bizarre given that slavery was once legal. And I have no idea why he
considers the Constitution irrelevant to consentual behavior.