Our forms of prohibition are more sins of omission than commission. Rather than trying to take away longstanding rights, they're instances of conservative laws failing to keep pace with a liberalizing society. But like Prohibition in the '20s, these restrictions have become indefensible as well as impractical, and as a result are fading fast. Within 10 years, it seems a reasonable guess that Americans will travel freely to Cuba, that all states will recognize gay unions, and that few will retain criminal penalties for marijuana use by individuals. Whether or not Democrats retain control of Congress, whether or not Obama is re-elected, and whether they happen sooner or later than expected, these reforms are inevitable—not because politics has changed but because society has.

A few reference points: In April, Obama lifted restrictions on travel and remittances by Cuban-Americans. Last month, the Justice Department announced that it would no longer prosecute cases involving medical marijuana in the 14 states where it is now permitted. Same-sex marriages are recognized in six states and counting. In a larger frame, loosening restrictions and lax enforcement reflect evolving social norms. Since Bush left office, American tourists no longer worry about being prosecuted for visiting Havana without a Treasury license. Gay unions have been celebrated on the New York Times "Weddings" page since 2002. And have you been to Los Angeles recently? You need only tell an on-site doctor at a cheerful, walk-in pot emporium that you've been suffering from anxiety to walk out with a perfectly legal bag of Captain Kush.

The chief reason these prohibitions are falling away is the evolving definition of the pursuit of happiness. What's driving the legalization of gay marriage is not so much the moral argument but the pressures from couples who want to sanctify their relationships, obtain legal benefits, and raise children in a stable environment. What's advancing the decriminalization of marijuana is not just the demand for pot as medicine but the number of adults—more than 23 million in the past year, according to the most recent government survey—who use it and don't believe they should face legal jeopardy. What's bringing the change on Cuba is not just the epic failure of the 48-year-old U.S. embargo, but the demand on the part of Americans who want to go there—whether to visit their relatives, prospect for post-Castro business opportunities, or sip rum drinks at the beach.

For similar reasons, there is not likely to be any retreat on the basic legal status—as opposed to tinkering around the margins—of the right to have an abortion or own a gun. Conservatives would be wise to give up on the one, liberals on the other. In each of these cases, popular demand for an individual right is simply too powerful to overcome. The Internet has been a crucial amplifier of all such claims. With pornography, and gambling, the Web itself became an irrepressible distribution tool for indulgences that were once perforce local. When it comes to gay marriage, the Web has accelerated the recognition of a new civil right by serving as an organizing tool and information clearinghouse. More broadly, the freest communications medium the world has ever known has raised expectations of personal liberty. In a world where everyone has his own printing press, restrictions on private behavior become increasingly untenable.

Republicans face a risk in resisting these new realities. Freedom is part of their brand; if the GOP remains the party of prohibition, it will increasingly alienate libertarian-leaners and the young. But the party as presently constituted has very little capacity to accept social change. Democrats face a danger in embracing cultural transformations too eagerly. Nearly four decades after George McGovern became known as the candidate of amnesty, abortion, and acid, cultural issues are still treacherous territory for them. Why get in front of change when you can follow from a safe distance and end up with the same result?

Jacob Weisberg is chairman and editor-in-chief of the Slate Group and author of The Bush Tragedy.

Follow him at: http://twitter.com/jacobwe

Newshawk: charmed quark
Source: Slate Magazine (US Web)
Author: Jacob Weisberg
Published: October 31, 2009
Copyright: 2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC
Contact: letters@slate.com
Website: http://www.slate.com/
URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2234017/

There's a place to ask lawyers questions and some are supposedly on line.

I haven't tried it yet. But it's interesting.

November 2, 2009

DENVER (CBS4) ― A Denver city councilman calls medical marijuana dispensaries one of the fastest growing industries in the region and says it's time the city got some control over the explosion.

Councilman Charlie Brown said Monday the new marijuana dispensaries should have licensing requirements similar to those in place for businesses like bars, restaurants and liquor stores. He says "cannabis capitalism" is growing out of control.

Many of the dispensaries just starting out don't want any government regulation, but some of them say it's needed to clear the air about who's providing a medical service and who's just selling weed to street-corner stoners.

"I'd limit dispensaries from being in school zones, college campus areas, near churches; just general respect for other people," said Andy Cookston with Cannabis Medical Technology LLC..

"This is the largest growing industry in our city," Brown said. "I talked to someone this morning who's going to sign a lease tomorrow to open up in Cherry Creek North."

Brown says the dispensaries need to be licensed and need to pay the city's tax rate of 3.62 percent. He says regulation will also make them safer from the potential crime targets they are right now.

"This really opens up to robbery; to people going in, not only stealing money, but also grabbing plants and product," Brown said.

Brown also wants criminal background checks on dispensary operators.

"I don't want felons operating these marijuana stores," he said. "I don't want the Mexican cartel controlling them."

"I think it'd be fine to pay some type of regulation tax on a general product or a licensing fee," Cookston said. "This clarifies the guys who are legal as well as not legal. That's the starting point of it."

Brown took his suggestions to Denver City Council on Monday just to get feedback on any proposed new city ordinance.

Some politicians want the state legislature come up with regulations in January, but Brown says the current growing season for dispensaries needs to be nipped in the bud.

"We need input from the neighborhoods; input from the people in the business; some input from the patients as well; input from law enforcement; but we need to go ahead and move on this in my judgment," Brown said.

Some City Council members are not only against regulation, but openly in favor of legalizing marijuana.

There is a public hearing scheduled before the council's Public Safety Committee on Nov. 18 at the Denver City and County Building where all parties with an interest will be invited to weigh in.

Copyright: MMIX CBS Television Stations, Inc.