cannabisnews.com: Safety of Drug Incorrect & Irresponsible Argument Safety of Drug Incorrect & Irresponsible Argument Posted by CN Staff on October 21, 2006 at 08:26:15 PT By John Suthers Source: Rocky Mountain News Colorado -- The proponents of Amendment 44 base their assertion that possession of marijuana should be legalized on the premise that it is a safe alternative to alcohol. That message is both incorrect and irresponsible and I hope the voters of Colorado will reject it.Our American society is plagued by moral relativism, and the campaign in support of Amendment 44 is a classic example of it. They suggest that society should condone the harm brought on by marijuana intoxication because, in their view, it is surpassed by the harm brought about by alcohol intoxication. That is an irresponsible message, particularly for our children. When small amounts of marijuana were legalized for adults in Alaska between 1978 and 1990, the National Household Survey of Drug Use in America showed that by the late '80s 52 percent of Alaskan teenagers used marijuana. That was almost three times the rate of marijuana use by teenagers in the rest of the nation. That was part of the reason that marijuana was recriminalized in Alaska in 1990. In the Netherlands, the "coffee shop" legalization of marijuana resulted in use of marijuana by Dutch teenagers nearly tripling in just eight years. Marijuana is not the benign drug that proponents of Amendment 44 portray it to be. In 1981, the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content in marijuana was 1.83 percent, which rose to 5.62 percent in 2003. (THC is the hallucinatory chemical that is the principal and most active ingredient in marijuana.) The THC content of high-grade marijuana rose from 6.58 percent in 1981 to 14.1 percent in 2003. Corresponding to the increased potency of the THC content in marijuana was a sixfold increase in emergency room admissions because of marijuana use during the decade of the '90s, even though the number of marijuana users remained relatively the same. Between 1992 and 2002, there was a 162 percent increase in treatment admissions for marijuana use as the primary substance of abuse. Today, 62 percent of teens in drug treatment are there for marijuana use. The proponents of Amendment 44 contend that the law is not a deterrent to illicit drug use. In fact, the National Household Survey indicates that many of our citizens, including our children, are deterred from drug use because it is against the law. Sixty percent of teenagers who do not use drugs indicate that the primary reason they do not do so is because it is illegal. The adverse impact on their health is the second most frequently cited reason. The proponents of Amendment 44 have also recklessly created a significant legal issue. Under current law the transfer of less than an ounce of marijuana from someone over the age of 18 to someone over the age of 15 is deemed possession of marijuana and not distribution. So in legalizing possession of less than an ounce of marijuana for people over 21, the proponents are unwittingly advocating legalization of the transfer of less than an ounce of marijuana from someone over 21 to anyone over 15. Their retort is that such activity could still be prosecuted under the felony offense of "contributing to the delinquency of a minor." But I assure you that a creative defense attorney will make the argument that the voters, if they pass Amendment 44, specifically directed that such activity be legalized. Despite the claims of critics to the contrary, the battle against drug abuse in the United States can claim significant success. In 1979, the National Household Survey indicated that 14.1 percent of Americans had used an illicit drug in the last 30 days. This year that number will likely be between 6 percent and 7 percent. A 50 percent reduction in illicit drug use in America is not something that you read about on editorial pages very often. We have also reduced teenage use of marijuana by 20 percent in the last four years. This is simply not the time to raise a white flag and give up the battle against drug abuse in Colorado. We need to send a very clear message to our children, and that message is that the only safe alternative to intoxication is sobriety. John Suthers is Colorado's attorney general.Complete Title: Relative Safety of Drug an Incorrect and Irresponsible ArgumentSource: Rocky Mountain News (Denver, CO)Author: John Suthers Published: October 21, 2006Copyright: 2006 Denver Publishing Co.Contact: letters rockymountainnews.comWebsite: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Safer Choicehttp://www.saferchoice.org/No Logical Reason To Punish Adults for Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread22312.shtmlMarijuana Use a Safer Choice Than Alcohol http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread22310.shtmlAdults Should Be Allowed To Choosehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread22225.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #56 posted by global_warming on October 23, 2006 at 14:48:56 PT 2 weeks and a day Will see the start, of the unraveling of these draconian laws against cannabis. Though it has been a mere 70 years since Ansinger lived, and Nixon is soundly buried deeply where he belongs, maybe in those faded days, it was allowable to punish poor and non-white people, which are the basic tenets that allowed laws to be struck against cannabis.Today it is not Black satanic jazz, it is not dirty hippies, it is Mr. and Mrs. White Christian Americans who are standing up and saying that it is time for change.Cannabis has been around for thousands of years and it will survive another thousand years, Vioxx has had a very short life, along with those who used it and prescribed it.It is Time, Amendment 44 in Colorado has been awaited, it "will pass" and send a message, not to the children, it will send a message to the fattened lords of justice.Make good laws and you will be honored as a just human being. Serve ignorance, greed and hatred, and you shall be numbered as fools who used and abused your position of power and become deserving of the lowest place in the world, and some low place in Eternity.YES44 [ Post Comment ] Comment #55 posted by whig on October 23, 2006 at 12:16:43 PT PublicBulldog Wow. [ Post Comment ] Comment #54 posted by PublicBulldog on October 23, 2006 at 11:36:57 PT: Suthers Job Security is at stake Without the Marijuana enforcement industry,He will have nothing to do except holler to his staff about the Air conditioning. Suthers wants to be on that wall. Suthers needs to be on that wall. Give Suthers the wants he needs and the needs he wants. keep filling the federal trough for Suthers to keep feeding off of. Don't leave Suthers with anything to do but holler about the Air conditioning. FILL THE TROUGH for Suthers. He will make it safe to walk the dark alleys of Colorado. by putting spicoli(potheads) in prison. After all America is so much safer filling the trough for Suthers to put potheads in prison. We don't need the potheads working anymore ,The mexicans will flip burgers and do the dishes. [ Post Comment ] Comment #53 posted by FoM on October 23, 2006 at 06:37:16 PT Welcome To All The New People I want to say that I really appreciate the input. This has been a long hard battle and I know that many people are afraid to post because of the way things are now so I appreciate the bravery above all things. [ Post Comment ] Comment #52 posted by Toker00 on October 23, 2006 at 03:36:03 PT Our wagon is getting bigger! These new posters come here not with questions, but with well informed comments. And good grammar.Excelent observation, Nausicaa. Careful what you wish for, you just might get it. Mason seems to come up with a new angle to attack from each week. The man is amazing.Don't forget Americans, November Seventh is Trash day! Take 'em to the curb!Wage Peace on war. END CANNABIS PROHIBITION NOW! [ Post Comment ] Comment #51 posted by Max Flowers on October 23, 2006 at 00:15:09 PT Welcome to all these new members Our influence here is growing, thanks to you. The time is now. Pile on!Smother these lying sacks of excrement with your truckloads of truthCannabis karma is in effect! [ Post Comment ] Comment #50 posted by whig on October 22, 2006 at 22:30:45 PT Publicbulldog Welcome to CNews. The prison-industrial complex is a lot more than a billion dollar industry, and the "drug treatment" industry is also huge, before you even get into what they take from all the forfeitures and forced labor. [ Post Comment ] Comment #49 posted by Publicbulldog on October 22, 2006 at 21:40:17 PT: Marijuana is a billion dollar a year industry. Suthers is part of that industry. The Marijuana enforcement Industry. Of course, any form of legalization or decriminalization is a bad idea for anyone that feeds from the marijuana enforcement Industry trough. Just keep buying the fear and filling the trough and ole Suthers will make it safer to walk the dark alleys of Colorado, by dispatching the Dare corvette to save the day.. [ Post Comment ] Comment #47 posted by Nausicaa on October 22, 2006 at 21:21:58 PT as an aside I would like to comment on a number of arguments the prohibitionists have been throwing out into the arena lately. One of them is that alcohol can be consumed at sub-intoxicating levels. This is a complete and utter lie - and a downright dangerous one at that. If you take one sip of beer, you will get intoxicated to some degree, however minute. Those adpet to changes in consciousness through the use of psychotropic substances can most likely notice a change in perception after the first few slugs. Right now, for instance, I have consumed two beers this fine evening. While I would by no means claim to be drunk, I can assure you I am intoxicated. As a college student, I would also like to imagine my tolerance is a little higher than the average adult as well. Furthermore, I am six feet and four inches tall. I would not drive in this state. Making misleading statments such as this - which I believe Mr. Suthers has done on numerous occassions, might lead people to assume that it is okay to drive after the "sub-intoxicating" consumption of a few beers or glasses of wine. I imagine this kind of attitude leads to more than a couple traffic accidents - and it most certainly sends the wrong message. Not just to children, but adults as well.Also, I would like to address this dubious claim about the "increased potency" of cannabis. As someone who has just recently found joy in this herb, I cannot attest personally to the cannabis potency of yesteryear. I suppose I would be inclined to believe the studies which claim that on average the potency has increased over the decades. However, regardless of the authenticity of these statistics, the point they are trying to make is misleading and untrue. Cannabis does not function the same way that alochol does. It's my understanding that alochol has a marginal increase of intoxication depending on the amount of alcohol you consume - ultimately leading to blackouts and potential death. It seems that Mr. Suthers and others are trying to claim that cannabis functions in a similar way - that the more cannabis you smoke - the higher you get. This is simply not true, as I'm sure all of us know. There are varying degrees of intoxication that can be achieved through the use of cannabis, for sure; however there is a limit. One or two hits of some fine maui will give you a nice buzz, and polishing off the bowl well leave you feeling high. Do two and you might call yourself blazed. However, after a certain point, you're just increasing the longevity of the experience, and not it's strength. I'm sure there is a logical pharmacological explanation to this phenomanon involving CB1 and CB2 receptors and the like, but I digress. The point is, the potency of cannabis is irrelelvent. All it really means is that one has to smoke less higher potency marijuana to get high, and likewise more cannabis if it is less potent. Both will ultimately achieve the same effects. Certainly different strains produce different highs as any connoisseur knows, but this is not the same thing.This is just another failed talking point that the prohibitionists love to use. I wish Mason Tvert would start addressing this sort of thing in more detail. [ Post Comment ] Comment #46 posted by Dankhank on October 22, 2006 at 16:59:40 PT excellent study ... Charmed Quark ...did you notice a line missing from that graph ...???everyone should get a printout of that graph, color each line a nice hue and insert the data for "expenditures for the drug war" as a plotted line year by year, too.Should be interesting and possibly a tool to show the futility of the way this drug war has been conducted.Ok, folks ... you have your mission, I will start mine now.Hint: data for some years can be inserted from the movie Grass. Will be interesting to see if the "Grass" data conforms to other data.Peace, and thanks for finding that study ...Peace ... [ Post Comment ] Comment #45 posted by Toker00 on October 22, 2006 at 12:18:05 PT GCW Stupidity = BushitityThis Bushitity must stop!Toke. [ Post Comment ] Comment #44 posted by observer on October 22, 2006 at 11:31:38 PT American society is plagued by moral relativism Our American society is plagued by moral relativismWhat the heck is that supposed to mean? Sounds like a classic glittering generality. It is a platitude, a high-sounding but meaningless statement.Our American society is plagued by moral relativism"moral relativism"? Like a president and sycophantic coterie of partisans who swear to uphold the Bill of Rights, yet turn right around and torture mere suspects, whilst loudly beating their chests over their righteousness? [ Post Comment ] Comment #43 posted by charmed quark on October 22, 2006 at 06:55:11 PT Alaska They are cherry picking a study to come up with that Alaska number. Numerous studies have concluded that cannabis use is fairly independent of decrim. Here's a link to a pediatrics journal that tried to look at the subject honestly. They point out that tow different studies got totally didfferent numbers:http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/113/6/e632 [ Post Comment ] Comment #42 posted by potpal on October 22, 2006 at 06:21:53 PT The message OTSeems kids have gotten the message loud and clear that prohibitions have been sending out for years along with our goverment...http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/10/16/20061016-C3-03.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #41 posted by global_warming on October 22, 2006 at 02:54:27 PT more news from Colorado Amendment 44 a cloud of smoke"Amendment 44, which would legalize possession of a small amount of marijuana, should be rejected. It's a national issue, not a state one."snipped from http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_4525473The editor who wrote this article is not thinking straight.A Yes vote for 44 would send a clear message to all the other states and the U.S. Federal Government that it is time for change which is long overdue, since the Federal Government has refused to act on this matter than it is time for the individual states to act.YES44 and Q7 [ Post Comment ] Comment #40 posted by The GCW on October 22, 2006 at 01:11:43 PT Incorrect & Irresponsible Arguments; stupidity... Incorrect & Irresponsible Arguments have perpetuated cannabis prohibition beyond it's natural timeline. See present example...Likewise:Diplomat Cites U.S. 'Stupidity' in Iraq BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- A senior U.S. diplomat said the United States had shown "arrogance" and "stupidity" in Iraq but was now ready to talk with any group except Al-Qaida in Iraq to facilitate national reconciliation.In an interview with Al-Jazeera television aired late Saturday, Alberto Fernandez, director of public diplomacy in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the State Department offered an unusually candid assessment of America's war in Iraq."We tried to do our best but I think there is much room for criticism because, undoubtedly, there was arrogance and there was stupidity from the United States in Iraq," he said.Cont. By HAMZA HENDAWI Associated Press Writerhttp://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_US_INSURGENTS?SITE=COFRI&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT(The US government has perpetuated stupidity; a little ..bushity???) [ Post Comment ] Comment #39 posted by The GCW on October 22, 2006 at 00:58:40 PT *moral irrelativism moral irrelativismCaging humans for using plants; Page 1 of the Bible.Killing / murdering humans; page 3 of the Bible.Like what Arlo Guthrie says: It's moral enough to kill and burn men women and children and blow things up, but immoral to litter. (not quoted) Alices Restaurant. [ Post Comment ] Comment #38 posted by afterburner on October 21, 2006 at 23:43:02 PT Sam Adams #10 RE Moral relativism Is that when GWBush says the States can decide on medical cannabis during the campaign and then sends in the DEA goons after he's appointed?Is that when the Geneva Conventions are ignored by the weasels in the Executive and the military, and now Congress?Is that when a sovereign nation is overthrown on the basis of lies?Is that when GWBush proclaims the benefits of democracy abroad while shredding the Constitution and the voting process at home?Is that when the UN is attacked as a "toothless debating society" regarding Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction," but held up as an inviolable entanglement regarding the international war on some plants? [ Post Comment ] Comment #37 posted by whig on October 21, 2006 at 21:09:51 PT OT: judge kills policeman with car No drug/alcohol tests performed.http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/10/21/officer_struck_by_federal_judge_dies/ [ Post Comment ] Comment #36 posted by The GCW on October 21, 2006 at 20:34:15 PT 1 thing, plus... "the only safe alternative to intoxication is sobriety."DUDE, USING CANNABIS IS SAAAAFER, THAN USING BOOZE.DUDE.HELLoooow. Anybody home?People want to unwind and one thing many people unwind with is cannabis instead of booze because it is SAFER & less of a problem!!! These people would just like to not be persecuted for it.So many citizens use cannabis and after a while it blows them away when the come to realize and finally accept cannabis IS NOT as bad as booze as the dinks say...They don't want citizens to find that out; BUT THE CAT'S OUT OF THE BAG, THEY ARE NOT GOING THERE NOW, ARE THEY.LIARS.44plus:FoM,In #2, I just can't get video and even the sound from those 2 videos is almost shot on My computer...BUT;I brought this subject up many dozens of times in Summit Couty today and the only person that said they did not support Amendment 44 was joking.I can not speak for the rest of Colorado, but in Summit County, I believe Amendment 44 will pass.Another thing to notice is that unlike in previous instances, many citizens know this issue IS on the ballot.The word is out and it's not finished getting out.At this time, it is too late to register to vote. So I have mentioned to unregistered people the next best thing for them is to bring it up in conversation. Do not wait for it to come up.Another thing voters can do is go and vote early. In this state You never know what the weather will be like and getting business done early is good. If planning to vote early and it gets put off, there is still the V day.I can hardly wait.420 & 1 more thing:Suthers holds a HIGH office, but He speaks like a foolish person. [ Post Comment ] Comment #35 posted by FoM on October 21, 2006 at 17:57:26 PT goneposthole I like that. Thanks. [ Post Comment ] Comment #34 posted by goneposthole on October 21, 2006 at 17:51:01 PT moral stakes Don't kill anybody'Jesus don't like killing, no matter what the reason's for'- John PrineDon't steal, if it doesn't belong to you, leave it alone. Don't be coveting what your neighbor has, especially his cannabis. Your neighbor will share. My neighbors do.Also, according to the gospel of John Prine, your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore.Be good, not bad.That goes for everybody, especially the US gov. Maybe they'll get on the right track yet. They're on a hellbound train these days. [ Post Comment ] Comment #33 posted by whig on October 21, 2006 at 17:45:49 PT JSM I think we don't always get to experience one another's karmic consequences, but count on your own. [ Post Comment ] Comment #32 posted by JSM on October 21, 2006 at 17:35:57 PT Karma Well Whig, I certainly hope you are right, because there are some big time karmic debts floating around right now and I just hope I will be here at payment time.As you sow, so shall you reap. Prohibitionists had better be afraid, very afraid indeed. The balance will always be restored. [ Post Comment ] Comment #31 posted by whig on October 21, 2006 at 17:27:19 PT Good morals Again, this is personal belief that you can take or leave as you like. There are good morals in the universe but they are only susceptible of discovery along the way, like scientific principles. We did not know of gravity for many thousands of years yet the earth still kept us on its surface.Anyone who professes to have a complete moral code that is absolute and unchanging is deluded and confused. Nobody knows all the laws of the universe. We just follow them, without knowing them much of the time, because that's how they work. Like karma, it's as much a real thing as gravity, and it works regardless of your belief. [ Post Comment ] Comment #30 posted by whig on October 21, 2006 at 17:22:02 PT Toker00 #11 Sounds like a movie script, man. Roll film, director. :) [ Post Comment ] Comment #29 posted by whig on October 21, 2006 at 17:17:58 PT Moral absolutism The problem with this view, as I see it is that there are moral standards which are proclaimed that do not admit of exceptional circumstances or just plain human error, and nobody can live up to them. Therefore we all become hypocrites and hope for some later forgiveness.My solution, for good or not as you may decide for yourself, is to communicate my thoughts and feelings openly, and hear other perspectives, and decide only as to my own actions, not on behalf of others. There are lines that, when crossed, will result in my not wanting to be anywhere near another person who has done them, but I would not kill or compel a punishment except for that, unless the person chose to be corrected. [ Post Comment ] Comment #28 posted by whig on October 21, 2006 at 17:14:44 PT goneposthole I have to say I don't know all the answers to moral dilemmas unless it is presented to me as a matter to be resolved on the particulars, and even then I do not claim infallibility. [ Post Comment ] Comment #27 posted by kaptinemo on October 21, 2006 at 16:43:14 PT: Another sign of desperation They must be getting desperate; they're trotting out the pseudo-philosophers, now.We do not need to be lectured to about relative morality, Mr. Suthers; you do. Tell me sir, what 'morality' is there in ruining a person's life for the use of a fairly innoccuous weed? Particularly when the legally available alternative is both conducive to violence and breakdown of those very societal values you neoconservatives pay such lip service to? It would appear that the 'moral relativism' you and yours decry so much appears to be the foundation of your own thinking, not ours. We seek rationality and equal treatment under the law, not favoritism as you and yours dsplay towards your own class. For example: here's a link to a very interesting page regarding the special treatment afforded scions of the political class who have run afoul of the cannabis laws: http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4440 It is interesting that equally staunch proponents of moral absolutism as Mr. Suther, such as the recently disgraced "Duke" Cunningham, who was all for executing drug dealers, when his own son was identified as such, sought clemency for him. Evidently, blood is thicker than principle.And this was not an isolated case. One must wonder how many young people who were not "Fortunate Ones" as the old Creedance Clearwater Revival song went, are now rotting in prison for the same offenses these Children of Power committed?Do not seek to lecture us about moral relativism until the kind shown by the political class is permanently expunged. Which will be the day icicles hang from Hade's ceiling... [ Post Comment ] Comment #26 posted by mayan on October 21, 2006 at 16:31:24 PT Suthers He's just furious because he was completely destroyed by Mason Tvert in the Amendment 44 debate. Each point he brings up in this hit piece on 44 was either proven to be an outright lie or totally misleading in that debate. Mason took Suther's weak argument and rammed it back down his throat. Now, Suthers is resorting to tactics in which he cannot be debated. Go figure. Sorry John, but it's too late because your arguments have already been debunked and you are now only creating backlash against your own dishonest cause. THE WAY OUT IS THE WAY IN...LETTER TO THE EDITOR - by Steven E. Jones: http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/PressReleaseJonesLTE.htmlScholars For 9/11 Truth To Speak In Colorado: http://911blogger.com/node/3948Former CIA Robert Steele Concludes There's Enough Evidence To Indict Cheney And Rove For Coup D'etat: http://websearch.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Ftinyurl.com%2F [ Post Comment ] Comment #25 posted by konagold on October 21, 2006 at 16:07:42 PT: moral 'absolute'ism AlohaThere is but one rule, the great law of human fairness; and two commandments which are morally absolute and the basis of all ethics.Were these followed by all individuals then there would be no war, no hunger, no crime, and no poverty, and there would be world wide abundance. The rule, the great law is that: the way we would like to be treated is the way we treat othersThe commandments are:1. Love God2. Love your neighborAlohaRev. Dennis Shields http://thereligionofjesuschurch.org [ Post Comment ] Comment #24 posted by global_warming on October 21, 2006 at 12:21:40 PT In the tme Too many human beings are in prison for smoking cannabis. [ Post Comment ] Comment #23 posted by global_warming on October 21, 2006 at 12:14:20 PT you are so beautiful fomme [ Post Comment ] Comment #22 posted by FoM on October 21, 2006 at 12:05:57 PT global_warming Well, thank you very much. [ Post Comment ] Comment #21 posted by global_warming on October 21, 2006 at 12:01:24 PT Hey Fomme I don't give a rats ass if you are married or not,I still love you,It is time for all those fatted lordsTo taste the worldIt is comingIf not in NovemberThen look over your shoulderIt is coming [ Post Comment ] Comment #20 posted by FoM on October 21, 2006 at 11:51:00 PT Just My Thoughts Morality is what each of us thinks is moral or immoral. How can we assume that we all think the same? Killing is wrong. Molesting a child is wrong. Some people don't feel guilty living together but others feel a need to be married. Harming others physically or mentally is wrong. Hate is wrong. The rest of the issue should be personal and not dictated by a government. That's all for now. [ Post Comment ] Comment #19 posted by global_warming on October 21, 2006 at 11:50:27 PT I give Suthers Nothing.He is lost, and his owners are calling in his debt.It is time for Suthers to plead for mercy. [ Post Comment ] Comment #18 posted by BGreen on October 21, 2006 at 11:44:19 PT Let's give Suthers this one re: moral relativism Since Mr. Suthers believes in a rigid moral structure with no variations whatsoever, then we should take his reasoning that nothing that was morally acceptable, freely grown and widely used for thousands of years should have been deemed "immoral" in the first place, and that the thousands of years of lawful use should be the precedent that we accept regarding cannabis.Mr. Suthers argues our position well but he's too brainwashed to know it.The Reverend Bud Green [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by global_warming on October 21, 2006 at 11:34:52 PT I could Post some link to some mindless and useless piece of music video, but I cannot.It is time for change, 44 in Colorado, 7 in Nevada, it is coming in these United States, it is coming faster and faster, there is a day when them good old days like them good old boys will be some faded ink on some old parchment. [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by Nausicaa on October 21, 2006 at 11:34:46 PT Moral relativism a joke As an aside...Moral relativism makes little logical sense. Consider that the moral relativist, while at once decreeing that morals should be examined in a cultural context, at the same time imposes his standard of moral relativism on all others. In the act of stating their thesis they openly contradict it. One might claim that atrocities in the Middle East cannot be judged by the standards of the West, or actions of the past judged by standards of the present. Implicit in these statements there is a claim that is not relative but absolute.So on one hand, I agree with Mr. Suthers that moral relativism is a lazy standpoint (although, I don't see how the principle is applicable to any of the points he brings up). However, while I am a moral absolutist, I do take a humanist approach. I value human freedom above all else, so long as a person's choices do not interfere with another's ability to make the same choices. I do not derive my morality from religions that for thousands of years have been the single impediment to personal freedom and in turn progress (as we can see historically that all progress has been the direct result of expanded personal liberty).Mr. Suthers might be on the right path, condeming a moral relativist point of view, yet I would ask where, as a moral absolutist, he finds his standards. I don't know what sorry point of view one must hold to place smoking cannabis as a crime which warrents the most severe punishment - the absolute restriction of personal freedom by means of imprisonment. I would suggest that he examine his own moral base honestly, and see that it is in all probability inconsistent. [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by museman on October 21, 2006 at 11:14:28 PT terms and conditions; moral slavery The terms; any great 'intellectual'- sounding phrase that combines words with ambiguous or rarified definitions of equally ambiguous, rarified words to create the perfect confusion to thus support any particular finite and cyclical logic that one needs to back up their political illusions.There is no 'intelligence' represented, anywhere down the line, no 'logic' resembling the true form, from the very inception of this polgrom, this selective spiritual and political persecution called marijuana 'prohibition'- to this very day.There is no substance to any of the contrary, research contradicted claims of the DEA, the FDA, the big-brother corporate-power-elite, and their mob of willing minions. In this as in ALL THINGS ELSE they do, there is no truth. Liars one and all.The conditions; Moral servitude. An eye for an eye, or in this case, an eye for a whim. Bound by the "law" to bend and be molded into all kinds of un-natural states of being. If not then cages will suffice. Imprison the truth, and lies are free to spin their way. The token of compliance to this condition of servitude is directly measured in ones accounting of their accumulated wealth and property. It's a formula that works well for the ultra-rich, who are above and beyond the enforcement of the same 'law' by which they hold our liberties in check.I do so hope that within our republics' political domain, there are still some remnants of humanity. I do so hope that there still resides some power of the people to set these errant fools who lead us on a sure road to destruction, straight. I do so hope that Americans have seen enough of corrupted power, and false authority to actually use their one feeble power- the vote - to begin undoing the grave doings of the rulers.If november proves the people, then a new day may be here. Otherwise, it may be time to dust off the ol' underground. [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by global_warming on October 21, 2006 at 11:05:51 PT I;m starting to think Old man Suthers is probably a good man, who probably doesn't care if an adult smokes or drinks, he is caught up in the system, when them boyzs come flying in from DC to protect their business interests" you have to feel sorry for old man Suthers, who is another cog in the wheel, much like all of us, cogs in the wheel, maybe the problem is that there are two2 wheels, and those two2 wheels are not in "harmony".Render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's and render unto God what is for Eternity, what man or women is not faced with this curse?Though a mere cog on this wheel, a million Christs on Crosses hurts, it is time to change, I pray to God and the Eternal Universe. [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by lombar on October 21, 2006 at 09:49:43 PT or better yet Ask which 'absolute' decree, command, what law of the universe forbids cannabis? [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by lombar on October 21, 2006 at 09:45:42 PT Opposite side If they throw 'moral relativism' up ask, "Is it socially acceptable to execute prsioners?" I dont know if Colorado is a death-penalty state but consider, if they say yes, then they are moral relativists because the 'absolute' decree that determines the 'morality' of murder (state sanctioned or otherwise) is "Thou shalt not kill" not "thou shalt not kill unless..."Seems to me, anyone who supports the death penalty is a 'moral relativist'. Those who support caging people for profits also... The moral relativism comes in when the 'police' deserve jobs more than the people deserve freedom. There is no basis for the belief that taking cannabis is immoral other than predjudice. Moral absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act. "Absolutism" is often philosophically contrasted with moral relativism, which is a belief that moral truths are relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references, and to situational ethics, which holds that the morality of an act depends on the context of the act.According to moral absolutists, morals are inherent in the laws of the universe, the nature of humanity, the will of God, or some other fundamental source. Moral absolutists regard actions as inherently moral or immoral. Moral absolutists might, for example, judge slavery, war, dictatorship, the death penalty, or childhood abuse to be absolutely and inarguably immoral regardless of the beliefs and goals of a culture that engages in these practices.In a minority of cases, moral absolutism is taken to the more constrained position that actions are moral or immoral regardless of the circumstances in which they occur. Lying, for instance, would always be immoral, even if done to promote some other good (e.g., saving a life). This rare view of moral absolutism might be contrasted with moral consequentialism—the view that the morality of an action depends on the context or consequences of that action. Moral absolutism [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by Toker00 on October 21, 2006 at 09:31:08 PT Whig Care to here a Cannabis Prohibition/Seventies/Black/White/Motown Soul/Radical White Rebel Youth Story from my Sordid Southern Seventies past? It involves knives and guns and Spades and Tequila and theft of a pound of Acapulco Gold which my good friend Bear brought from Austin Tx., to share and sell in a small town in Arkansas, in the county of Columbia. It begins in a commune and wanders through Black Town, a basketball court, an illegal "Alcohol Cafe" (Think bootleg). It involves honor among thieves, very friendly black chicks, a social brotherhood that I haven't seen since, humor, and a true description of southern Macho naivety.Toke. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by Sam Adams on October 21, 2006 at 09:28:54 PT Moral relativism Is that when President Bush does coke and weed and drives drunk for 20 years and then his father gives him another company, and then your middle-class kid gets arrested and kicked out of school for 1 gram of cannabis herb?Wait, I think that's just blatant hypocrisy. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by Sam Adams on October 21, 2006 at 09:25:06 PT Ignore the man behind the curtain Can't wait to watch football tomorrow with my friend and his three children, all aged under 10.The best part will be the colorful beer ads, with sexy women, bright colors, and lots of jokes to keep us laughing. We'll probably get to see dozens during the 3 hours the game is on. We'll definitely be drinking beer and getting drunk in front of the little ones all afternoon, just like the other 50 million American men do every Sunday.Of course, big signs at the stadium and graphics on the screen will remind us about beer during the game as well. And then when I go the liquor store later, there will be big NFL logos and signs featuring the local team's logo superimposed on a giant Budweiser logo is right next to the walk-in cooler.I'll pause for a moment before I walk into the cooler though, and think of all those poor Dutch teenagers smoking the cannabis plant back in the 70's. Damn, it's amazing we even made it to 2006 with all that disgusting moral relativism going on. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by goneposthole on October 21, 2006 at 09:00:59 PT The Rocky Moutain News They say not to vote for Amendment 44. They like stupid laws.You know, Unicor will not be happy if cannabis is legalized in Nevada and Colorado. Convicted cannabis users make good workers.Here is why the people of Colorado and Nevada need to vote 'yes' to make life better for them:http://www.prisonerlife.com/page_writings2.cfm?writingsID=8&WebpageID=21&MemberID=51Moral relativism - Is it right or wrong to watch somebody starve to death? It's a stark example, but it fits.I think of Terry Schiavo. Was it wrong to starve her to death? Since she was a vegetable, no brain wave activity, was it the right thing to do? No.She clung to life for nine days without any food or water. She had an unparalleled will to live In my opinion, it was one of the most despicable acts of inhumanity that has ever been done to a human.For others, it was the right thing to do. Moral relativism leads to moral decay.Was it right to convict Steve Kubby of cannabis growing? A medical marijuana patient, a cancer survivor who was keeping himself alive wasn't treated very kindly by California authorities. Was it the right thing to do? No. The Rocky Mountain News doesn't know the difference between right and wrong. I'll tell them: They're wrong.Now they know. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by Wayne on October 21, 2006 at 08:57:48 PT Re: gw #5 Sorry about the double post. You beat me by a minute! [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by Wayne on October 21, 2006 at 08:56:46 PT Re: Moral Relativism "In philosophy, moral relativism takes the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries or in the context of individual preferences. An extreme relativist position might suggest that judging the moral or ethical judgments or acts of another person or group has no meaning, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory. Some moral relativists — for example, the existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre — hold that a personal and subjective moral core lies or ought to lie at the foundation of individuals' moral acts. In this view public morality reflects social convention, and only personal, subjective morality expresses true authenticity."It seems to me that those who are against moral relativism believe that society as a whole holds moral and ethical standards, and they are to be accepted as scripture. It sounds like it goes against the idea that people can have different moral and ethical standards, and yet can still contribute to the whole society. Moral relativism says that only one's personal moral and ethical views are the ones that matter, and that social norms are only supported by history and tradition. I conclude that this is why the prohibs are against moral relativism, because it supports the idea that social norms could be changed fairly easily. And according to Mr. Suthers, change is BAD!! Moral Relativism - Wikipedia [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by global_warming on October 21, 2006 at 08:55:36 PT moral relativism "In philosophy, moral relativism takes the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries or in the context of individual preferences. An extreme relativist position might suggest that judging the moral or ethical judgments or acts of another person or group has no meaning, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativismOld man Suthers on the other hand is "certain" and wants to continue to hurt people who use cannabis, he wants to put them away into more and more prisons, for smoking a relatively harmless plant, old man Suthers wants to destroy these peoples lives by forcing then into his courtroom.Hopefully the good people of Colorado will slap him down this November..YES44 [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by mamawillie on October 21, 2006 at 08:53:16 PT George Michael lit up during an interview http://www.edmontonsun.com/Entertainment/OtherEntertainment/2006/10/21/2087307-sun.html"Pot keeps me sane" (AP)LONDON -- George Michael praised marijuana and apparently smoked a joint during a recently taped TV interview, prompting criticism from anti-drug campaigners yesterday. British television network ITV said the singer lit up while being interviewed for the arts program The South Bank Show. The interview is due to be broadcast Oct. 31. "This stuff keeps me sane and happy," Michael, 43, told the program. "I'd say it's a great drug - but obviously it's not very healthy. You can't afford to smoke it if you've got anything to do." A spokesman for The South Bank Show said the interview had been conducted in Madrid, Spain, where marijuana consumption is legal. In September, Michael launched his 25 Live tour - his first in 15 years - in Spain. Earlier this month, the former Wham singer was given a formal warning for possessing marijuana, after police found him slumped over the steering wheel of his car in north London. He was also cautioned for possession of the drug in February. Marijuana users can be sentenced to up to two years in jail for possession in Britain, though, in practice, most people found with small amounts are given a warning. Paul Corry, a spokesman for mental health charity Rethink, said Michael's comments were "stupid and naive." Michael's publicist said the singer had no comment. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by global_warming on October 21, 2006 at 08:47:12 PT Statistics "When small amounts of marijuana were legalized for adults in Alaska between 1978 and 1990, the National Household Survey of Drug Use in America showed that by the late '80s 52 percent of Alaskan teenagers used marijuana. That was almost three times the rate of marijuana use by teenagers in the rest of the nation. That was part of the reason that marijuana was recriminalized in Alaska in 1990."I thought it was still legal in Alaska, didn't Murky Murkowski just get stiffly defeated this year trying to sneak in an anti cannabis bill??? Does anybody know what the population of Alaska is? It can't be too large, so 50% of the teenagers has to be?? Well enough to get Suthers draws tied into a knot.Now lets talk Ritalin.."“According to [neurologist Dr. Fred] Baughman, 500,000 children [in the USA] were diagnosed ADHD in 1985 and between 5 and 7 million were today."How many of these 5 to 7 million children are "forced" to injest Ritalin, which by the way is a very addictive and dangerous drug?http://tinyurl.com/ydkulbIt is still accurate to say that Cannabis is SAFER than most legal prescription drugs. I think that it only a matter of perception, most people have been brainwashed to believe that cannabis is this terrible drug, I include old man Suthers on that list. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by FoM on October 21, 2006 at 08:45:43 PT Videos on Amendment 44 http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20061020/NEWS/61020003 [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by FoM on October 21, 2006 at 08:33:25 PT Moral Relativism What actually is moral relativism? [ Post Comment ] Post Comment