Conservative William F. Buckley Jr: "Penalties for marijuana use hard to defend" - Dallas Dance Music - Dallas nightlife, music, tickets, and more

Jimbo · 07-11-04, 07:03 PM

I would encourage people to write a 100-150 word letter to the Houston Chronicle on this.

LETTERS POLICY: We welcome and encourage letters from readers. Letters can be mailed to Viewpoints, C/O Houston Chronicle, P.O. Box 4260, Houston, Texas 77210. Letters may also be sent by e-mail (sent as part of the text preferred) to viewpoints@chron.com or by fax to 713-362-3575. Letters (250 words or less to be considered for publication) must include the name, full home address and daytime and evening telephone numbers for verification purposes only. All letters are subject to editing.

-----------------------------------

Penalties for marijuana use hard to defend

July 5, 2004
By WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY JR.
Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle News Service

Conservatives pride themselves on resisting change, which is as it should be. But intelligent deference to tradition and stability can evolve into intellectual sloth and moral fanaticism, as when conservatives simply decline to look up from dogma because the effort to raise their heads and reconsider is too great.

The laws concerning marijuana aren't exactly indefensible, because practically nothing is, and the thunderers who tell us to stay the course can always find one man or woman who, having taken marijuana, moved on to severe mental disorder. But that argument, to quote myself, is on the order of saying that every rapist began by masturbating.

General rules based on individual victims are unwise. And although there is a perfectly respectable case against using marijuana, the penalties imposed on those who reject that case, or who give way to weakness of resolution, are very difficult to defend. If all our laws were paradigmatic, imagine what we would do to anyone caught lighting a cigarette, or drinking a beer. Or -- exulting in life in the paradigm -- committing adultery. Send them all to Guantanamo?

Legal practices should be informed by realities. These are enlightening in the matter of marijuana. There are approximately 700,000 marijuana-related arrests made very year. Most of these -- 87 percent -- involve nothing more than mere possession of small amounts of marijuana. This exercise in scrupulosity costs us $10 billion to $15 billion per year in direct expenditures alone.

Most transgressors caught using marijuana aren't packed away to jail, but some are, and in Alabama, if you are convicted three times of marijuana possession, they'll lock you up for 15 years to life.

Professor Ethan Nadelmann, of the Drug Policy Alliance, writing in National Review, estimates at 100,000 the number of Americans currently behind bars for one or another marijuana offense.

What we face is the politician's fear of endorsing any change in existing marijuana laws. You can imagine what a call for reform in those laws would do to an upward mobile political figure.

Gary Johnson, as governor of New Mexico, came out in favor of legalization -- and went on to private life. George Shultz, former secretary of state, long ago called for legalization, but he was not running for office, and at his age, and with his distinctions, he is immune to slurred charges of indifference to the fate of children and humankind. But Kurt Schmoke, as mayor of Baltimore, did it, and survived a re-election challenge.

But the stodgy inertia most politicians feel is up against a creeping reality. It is that marijuana for medical relief is a movement that is attracting voters who are pretty assertive on the subject. Every state ballot initiative to legalize medical marijuana has been approved, often by wide margins.

Of course, we have here collisions of federal and state authority. Federal authority technically supervenes state laws, but federal authority in the matter is being challenged on grounds of medical self-government. It simply isn't so that there are substitutes equally efficacious.

Richard Brookhiser, the widely respected author and editor, has written on the subject for the New York Observer. He had a bout of cancer and found relief from chemotherapy only in marijuana -- which he consumed, and discarded after the affliction was gone.

The court has told federal enforcers that they are not to impose their way between doctors and their patients, and one bill sitting about in Congress would even deny the use of federal funds for prosecuting medical marijuana use.

Critics of reform do make a pretty plausible case when they say that whatever is said about using marijuana only for medical relief masks what the advocates are really after, which is legal marijuana for whoever wants it. That would be different from the situation today.

Today we have illegal marijuana for whoever wants it. An estimated 100 million Americans have smoked marijuana at least once, the great majority abandoning its use after a few highs. But to stop using it does not close off its availability.

A Boston commentator observed years ago that it is easier for an 18-year-old to get marijuana in Cambridge than to get beer. Vendors who sell beer to minors can forfeit their valuable licenses. It requires less effort for the college student to find marijuana than for a sailor to find a brothel.

Still, there is the danger of arrest (as 700,000 people a year will tell you), of possible imprisonment, of blemish on one's record. The obverse of this is increased cynicism about the law.

We're not going to find someone running for president who advocates reform of those laws. What is required is a genuine republican groundswell. It is happening, but ever so gradually. Two of every five Americans, according to a 2003 Zogby poll cited by Dr. Nadelmann, believe "the government should treat marijuana more or less the same way it treats alcohol: It should regulate it, control it, tax it, and make it illegal only for children."

Such reforms would hugely increase the use of the drug? Why? It is de facto legal in the Netherlands, and the percentage of users there is the same as here. The Dutch do odd things, but here they teach us a lesson.

Buckley is a nationally syndicated columnist based in New York.

MysteryMeat · 07-11-04, 07:06 PM

My local pot dealer says fuck the man, its all natural. The popos just want to take away something that they're not making money on. What they don't know is if they legalize it, they'd create jobs and cut down on crime, and....oh fuck man, I could sooooo make a bong out of that!

Keith P · 07-11-04, 07:11 PM

good article.
surprised we got someone like this writing for a paper in houston.
I personally don't do marijuana or even advocate its use.
but we definitely need to begin reform in regards to this matter

Adam D · 07-11-04, 08:40 PM

Well, for once I have to agree with Buckley.

The time we met I think the universe almost imploded.

07-11-04, 10:51 PM

YOU MET MR. BUCKLEY?! *sigh*

He's dreamy.

I hate that I have to look to conservatives for intellectual role models (save Chomsky).

BTW, he doesn't write for the Houston Chronicle, it was simply run through their news service. It was also published in Nat'l Review and countless other publications.

Adam D · 07-11-04, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hyoomen
YOU MET MR. BUCKLEY?! *sigh*

He's dreamy.

I hate that I have to look to conservatives for intellectual role models (save Chomsky).

BTW, he doesn't write for the Houston Chronicle, it was simply run through their news service. It was also published in Nat'l Review and countless other publications.

Yeah, I met him when I was 15 or 16.

Chris Allen · 07-13-04, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jimbo
The court has told federal enforcers that they are not to impose their way between doctors and their patients, and one bill sitting about in Congress would even deny the use of federal funds for prosecuting medical marijuana use.

Critics of reform do make a pretty plausible case when they say that whatever is said about using marijuana only for medical relief masks what the advocates are really after, which is legal marijuana for whoever wants it. That would be different from the situation today.

this bill was rejected!! it went through last wed and they said no cause they insist it is only a ploy to get cannabis legalized - even though it really does help very sick people.. so in the states where they have legally approved of medical pot, the feds will still continue to bust prescribed patients and caregivers.

i was eagerly awaiting this case to go through, and for some reason i thought they would act like decent people and do the right thing for some seriosly ill people, but duh we live in the US...

they always bitch about needing more testing... why the fuck dont they do it already??? how long does it take for some synthetic pill with side affects that could end your life to be tested and put on the market??? cannibis's has no deadly side-effects(yeah if you smoke ounces a day you might get some lung trama- but you can eat it and drink teas) and still is treated like its effects are unknown...

i got a court date tomorrow concerning my felony maryjuana charge- i really hate ignorant government policies..

im moving to nevada or cali when im done with all my legal bs for sure... oakland, cali is taking steps to legalize for ANY adult users... sure the feds will be pissed, but fuck them bastards.. and nevada rescently keeps pushing for reforms as well... they got some problems with sig's not being accepted right now to get new measures on the ballot i believe, but in a few years im sure they will straiten all that out...

MysteryMeat · 07-13-04, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by unreal
this bill was rejected!! it went through last wed and they said no cause they insist it is only a ploy to get cannabis legalized - even though it really does help very sick people.. so in the states where they have legally approved of medical pot, the feds will still continue to bust prescribed patients and caregivers.

i was eagerly awaiting this case to go through, and for some reason i thought they would act like decent people and do the right thing for some seriosly ill people, but duh we live in the US...

they always bitch about needing more testing... why the fuck dont they do it already??? how long does it take for some synthetic pill with side affects that could end your life to be tested and put on the market??? cannibis's has no deadly side-effects(yeah if you smoke ounces a day you might get some lung trama- but you can eat it and drink teas) and still is treated like its effects are unknown...

i got a court date tomorrow concerning my felony maryjuana charge- i really hate ignorant government policies..

im moving to nevada or cali when im done with all my legal bs for sure... oakland, cali is taking steps to legalize for ANY adult users... sure the feds will be pissed, but fuck them bastards.. and nevada rescently keeps pushing for reforms as well... they got some problems with sig's not being accepted right now to get new measures on the ballot i believe, but in a few years im sure they will straiten all that out...

07-11-04, 07:03 PM	#1 (permalink)
Jimbo Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 109	Conservative William F. Buckley Jr: "Penalties for marijuana use hard to defend" I would encourage people to write a 100-150 word letter to the Houston Chronicle on this. LETTERS POLICY: We welcome and encourage letters from readers. Letters can be mailed to Viewpoints, C/O Houston Chronicle, P.O. Box 4260, Houston, Texas 77210. Letters may also be sent by e-mail (sent as part of the text preferred) to viewpoints@chron.com or by fax to 713-362-3575. Letters (250 words or less to be considered for publication) must include the name, full home address and daytime and evening telephone numbers for verification purposes only. All letters are subject to editing. ----------------------------------- Penalties for marijuana use hard to defend July 5, 2004 By WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY JR. Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle News Service Conservatives pride themselves on resisting change, which is as it should be. But intelligent deference to tradition and stability can evolve into intellectual sloth and moral fanaticism, as when conservatives simply decline to look up from dogma because the effort to raise their heads and reconsider is too great. The laws concerning marijuana aren't exactly indefensible, because practically nothing is, and the thunderers who tell us to stay the course can always find one man or woman who, having taken marijuana, moved on to severe mental disorder. But that argument, to quote myself, is on the order of saying that every rapist began by masturbating. General rules based on individual victims are unwise. And although there is a perfectly respectable case against using marijuana, the penalties imposed on those who reject that case, or who give way to weakness of resolution, are very difficult to defend. If all our laws were paradigmatic, imagine what we would do to anyone caught lighting a cigarette, or drinking a beer. Or -- exulting in life in the paradigm -- committing adultery. Send them all to Guantanamo? Legal practices should be informed by realities. These are enlightening in the matter of marijuana. There are approximately 700,000 marijuana-related arrests made very year. Most of these -- 87 percent -- involve nothing more than mere possession of small amounts of marijuana. This exercise in scrupulosity costs us $10 billion to $15 billion per year in direct expenditures alone. Most transgressors caught using marijuana aren't packed away to jail, but some are, and in Alabama, if you are convicted three times of marijuana possession, they'll lock you up for 15 years to life. Professor Ethan Nadelmann, of the Drug Policy Alliance, writing in National Review, estimates at 100,000 the number of Americans currently behind bars for one or another marijuana offense. What we face is the politician's fear of endorsing any change in existing marijuana laws. You can imagine what a call for reform in those laws would do to an upward mobile political figure. Gary Johnson, as governor of New Mexico, came out in favor of legalization -- and went on to private life. George Shultz, former secretary of state, long ago called for legalization, but he was not running for office, and at his age, and with his distinctions, he is immune to slurred charges of indifference to the fate of children and humankind. But Kurt Schmoke, as mayor of Baltimore, did it, and survived a re-election challenge. But the stodgy inertia most politicians feel is up against a creeping reality. It is that marijuana for medical relief is a movement that is attracting voters who are pretty assertive on the subject. Every state ballot initiative to legalize medical marijuana has been approved, often by wide margins. Of course, we have here collisions of federal and state authority. Federal authority technically supervenes state laws, but federal authority in the matter is being challenged on grounds of medical self-government. It simply isn't so that there are substitutes equally efficacious. Richard Brookhiser, the widely respected author and editor, has written on the subject for the New York Observer. He had a bout of cancer and found relief from chemotherapy only in marijuana -- which he consumed, and discarded after the affliction was gone. The court has told federal enforcers that they are not to impose their way between doctors and their patients, and one bill sitting about in Congress would even deny the use of federal funds for prosecuting medical marijuana use. Critics of reform do make a pretty plausible case when they say that whatever is said about using marijuana only for medical relief masks what the advocates are really after, which is legal marijuana for whoever wants it. That would be different from the situation today. Today we have illegal marijuana for whoever wants it. An estimated 100 million Americans have smoked marijuana at least once, the great majority abandoning its use after a few highs. But to stop using it does not close off its availability. A Boston commentator observed years ago that it is easier for an 18-year-old to get marijuana in Cambridge than to get beer. Vendors who sell beer to minors can forfeit their valuable licenses. It requires less effort for the college student to find marijuana than for a sailor to find a brothel. Still, there is the danger of arrest (as 700,000 people a year will tell you), of possible imprisonment, of blemish on one's record. The obverse of this is increased cynicism about the law. We're not going to find someone running for president who advocates reform of those laws. What is required is a genuine republican groundswell. It is happening, but ever so gradually. Two of every five Americans, according to a 2003 Zogby poll cited by Dr. Nadelmann, believe "the government should treat marijuana more or less the same way it treats alcohol: It should regulate it, control it, tax it, and make it illegal only for children." Such reforms would hugely increase the use of the drug? Why? It is de facto legal in the Netherlands, and the percentage of users there is the same as here. The Dutch do odd things, but here they teach us a lesson. Buckley is a nationally syndicated columnist based in New York.

07-11-04, 07:11 PM	#3 (permalink)
Keith P Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Dallas Posts: 11,123	good article. surprised we got someone like this writing for a paper in houston. I personally don't do marijuana or even advocate its use. but we definitely need to begin reform in regards to this matter __________________ http://www.deadandre-buried.blogpost.com http://www.brokenteeth.org http://www.unitoneonline.com http://www.myspace.com/keithvip Last edited by Keith P; 07-11-04 at 10:30 PM.

07-11-04, 08:40 PM	#4 (permalink)
Adam D Feline Leukemia Survivor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Law School Posts: 7,750	Well, for once I have to agree with Buckley. The time we met I think the universe almost imploded. __________________ This is my signature.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

night-lifestyle sites clubplanet wantickets newyears nochelatina cooljunkie

07-11-04, 07:06 PM	#2 (permalink)
MysteryMeat Ain't your momma's meat Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 1,364	My local pot dealer says fuck the man, its all natural. The popos just want to take away something that they're not making money on. What they don't know is if they legalize it, they'd create jobs and cut down on crime, and....oh fuck man, I could sooooo make a bong out of that!

07-11-04, 10:51 PM	#5 (permalink)
hyoomen Guest Posts: n/a	YOU MET MR. BUCKLEY?! sigh He's dreamy. I hate that I have to look to conservatives for intellectual role models (save Chomsky). BTW, he doesn't write for the Houston Chronicle, it was simply run through their news service. It was also published in Nat'l Review and countless other publications.