« Justice Ginsburg expresses fondness for Furman's halt to capital punishment | Main | The exact price of federal confinement in FY 2010 »

September 16, 2011

"ACLU endorses marijuana legalization in Colorado"

The title of this post is the title of this news report out of the Centennial State.  Here are the basics:

The ACLU of Colorado Thursday announced it has endorsed the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana like Alcohol.

“In Colorado we believe our laws should be practical and they should be fair. Yet we are wasting scarce public resources in our criminal justice system by having police, prosecutors and the courts treat marijuana users like violent criminals. It is unconscionable for our state to spend tax dollars to arrest, prosecute and crowd the courts, and jail people for possession of a small amount of marijuana, especially when those being arrested and jailed are disproportionately people of color,” said the ACLU in a statement on its web site.

“The war on drugs has failed. Prohibition is not a sensible way to deal with marijuana. The Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol will move us toward a more rational approach to drug laws,” the statement continued.

Rosemary Harris Lytle, communications director at the ACLU of Colorado, said legalizing small amounts of marijuana for adults is a civil rights issue. “Current drug laws contribute to the mass incarceration of people of color, especially young people of color.” She said that drug use is roughly equal among ethnic groups in the U.S., but that a disproportionate number of those incarcerated for possession of small amounts of drugs are people of color.

Moreover, she said the effort to legalize small amounts of marijuana is in keeping with the ACLU’s mission of promoting and defending individual rights and freedom. “We believe that prosecuting people for low-level possession of marijuana is a waste of the taxpayers’ resources,” Harris Lytle said.

The full ACLU of Colorado statement is available at this link.

September 16, 2011 at 03:52 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e2014e8b9c9579970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "ACLU endorses marijuana legalization in Colorado":

Comments

That the ACLU puts out a statement saying it supports marijuana, in Colorado or elsewhere, is as newsworthy as CJLF putting out a statement that it supports the death penalty. Some things are already quite well known.

If the ACLU ever put out a statement that OPPOSED a drug, any drug, now that would be news.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Sep 16, 2011 4:40:18 PM

Here we go.... The Great Bill Otis has spoken.

Posted by: Huh? | Sep 16, 2011 6:52:38 PM

None of the "facts" in this statement have even a scintilla of truth.

In no state are marijuana users treated like violent criminals. Neither courts nor prisons are clogged with offenders whose only charge is possession of a small amount of marijuana. Diversion programs are the disposition of choice.

The ACLU may have a right to their opinion but they don't have a right to manufacture their own facts.

Posted by: mjs | Sep 16, 2011 7:45:48 PM

Huh? --

"The Great Bill Otis has spoken."

I don't know about the "Great" business, but I post here, yup, as do you. Is there some part of my comment with which you disagree? What would that be? Or is this just your way of handing personal antagonism?

Posted by: Bill Otis | Sep 16, 2011 11:10:06 PM

Here we go... The insufferable "Huh?" has whined.

Ironically, he essentially tells Bill to "shut up" in a thread about the ACLU. I have never seen anyone with less self-awareness about their own totalitarian instincts than the modern liberal.

And they actually have the nerve to lecture about things like "tolerance" and "compassion" when the only thing they have experience with is being "pathetic."

Posted by: TarlsQtr | Sep 17, 2011 12:42:23 PM

TarlsQtr --

The odd thing is that the post -- the one that seems to have Huh? once again in his near-perpetual state of huffiness -- was not even controversial. The idea that the ACLU would back a law liberalizing access to marijuana is barely newsworthy, which is all I said about it.

Huh? has admitted (or is it proclaimed?) that he's a current pot smoker, so I guess we shouldn't be surprised that his posts are, uh, off the beaten path.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Sep 17, 2011 5:15:16 PM

Here we go... The insufferable "TarlsQtr" has whined.

Ironically, he essentially tells Huh? to "shut up" in a thread about the ACLU. I have never seen anyone with less self-awareness about their own totalitarian instincts than the modern authoritarian freak.

And they actually have the nerve to lecture about things like "tolerance" and "compassion" when the only thing they have experience with is being "pathetic."

Posted by: Anon | Sep 17, 2011 5:18:53 PM

mjs says in no States marijuana users are treated like violent criminals?? That is when they try to get a job of significance and can't because of a small marijuana charge on their criminal record. It is time to update our marijuana laws.

Posted by: Anon | Sep 17, 2011 5:43:04 PM

Anon --

Huh? has said that he occaisonally gets stoned. To do that, he has to at least temporarily possess dope, which is a violation of the CSA.

There is a perfectly legitimate debate about whether that aspect of the CSA should be changed. As things stand, it is the law.

Some questions:

Do you think a person should be at liberty to disregard democratically adopted laws he views as unwise?

If yes, what remains of the rule of law? Why doesn't that same standard apply to everyone and every law? And if everyone is free to disregard such laws as he views as unwise (or unfair or ungrounded in science, etc.), what stands between us and the rule of the jungle?

If no, are you willing to say that you disapprove of Huh?'s admittedly outlaw behavior and urge him to change it?


Posted by: Bill Otis | Sep 17, 2011 7:09:48 PM

LOL @ anon.

You see, there is one problem with your post. I never said or implied that "Huh?" should shut up. I merely pointed out the irony of him essentially telling Bill to shut up in a post about the ACLU. Thus, no "totalitarian instinct" on my part and your entire post falls into the category of buffoonery.

Posted by: TarlsQtr | Sep 17, 2011 7:24:37 PM

Bill,

Let's just call it more evidence that pot smoking is not as harmless as some like to claim.

Posted by: TarlsQtr | Sep 17, 2011 7:26:13 PM

Anon stated: "mjs says in no States marijuana users are treated like violent criminals?? That is when they try to get a job of significance and can't because of a small marijuana charge on their criminal record. It is time to update our marijuana laws."

Sorry, but it is not the "states" that are refusing to give convicted pot smokers jobs. Should a privately owned company be refused that right? Just as a citizen may have doors closed to them because of a DWI, pot smoking can have the same consequences. The answer is to weigh the consequences against the pleasure of smoking and make a decision. Just don't cry about it when it is time to face those consequences.

Posted by: TarlsQtr | Sep 17, 2011 7:38:53 PM

TarlsQtr --

Again you show how behind the times you are. Just as it's OK to force people to buy health insurance they don't want, it's also OK to force them to hire empolyees whose criminal behavior they disapprove.

This in the name of freedom, mind you.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Sep 17, 2011 7:55:35 PM

Bill Otis: "I don't know about the "Great" business, but I post here, yup, as do you. Is there some part of my comment with which you disagree? What would that be? Or is this just your way of handing personal antagonism?"

Its funny that the ONLY thing Bill Otis is NOT against is 14-year-old boys sitting bare-assed on the heads of 12-year-old boys... weird.

TarlsQtr: "Ironically, he essentially tells Bill to "shut up" in a thread about the ACLU. I have never seen anyone with less self-awareness about their own totalitarian instincts than the modern liberal."

I'd never tell weird Bill Otis to shut up. I'd be too concerned that he would and I'd have no one to make fun of. At any rate, coming to his defense did little good for you, must be because you are behind the time?

Posted by: Huh? | Sep 17, 2011 9:26:42 PM

"Huh? has admitted (or is it proclaimed?) that he's a current pot smoker, so I guess we shouldn't be surprised that his posts are, uh, off the beaten path."

You hate that an occasional pot smoker is able to punch holes in all of your flimsy arguments, don't you?

Posted by: Huh? | Sep 17, 2011 9:33:50 PM

Huh? stated: "I'd never tell weird Bill Otis to shut up."

Sure you did. That's exactly what comments like your original are meant to do. It is the old Alinsky tactic of ridiculing a person (rather than meet them head on in substantive issues) into silence.

You stated: "I'd be too concerned that he would and I'd have no one to make fun of."

As long as you do not beat him up on the playground. After your episodes of intoxication, do you play video games all day long with Grit's teenage kids? Just wondering...

You stated: "At any rate, coming to his defense did little good for you, must be because you are behind the time?"

There is probably no person posting here in less need of my "defense" than Bill Otis, especially against the likes of you. Like I already stated, I just made an observation. In a single thread referencing the ACLU, you tried to belittle Bill into silence and anon apparently has a problem with private companies having the right to choose if they want to hire a drug addled buffoon. If you cannot see the irony, then maybe you need to let the smoke clear a little.

As far as me being "behind the times", guilty as charged. I am proud to be a living, breathing anachronism.

You stated: "[Bill] hate(s) that an occasional pot smoker is able to punch holes in all of [Bill's] flimsy arguments..."

LOL Exactly, what argument in this thread did you "punch holes" in? Not one person has even attempted to refute his "argument", that the ACLU supporting marijuana legalization is obvious and not newsworthy.

Posted by: TarlsQtr | Sep 17, 2011 10:00:29 PM

Huh? --

Since you didn't answer, I'll ask again. Is there some part of my comment about the ACLU's support for this initiative with which you disagree?

"Its funny that the ONLY thing Bill Otis is NOT against is 14-year-old boys sitting bare-assed on the heads of 12-year-old boys... weird."

Would you quote the language where I said I'm not against that behavior? Well no, you won't, there being none. You're fabricating it. What a surprise! Instead, I said, in agreement with all the other commenters except Ginny, that it was preferable to handle the episode by discipline imposed by the family instead of the criminal justice system.

"You hate that an occasional pot smoker is able to punch holes in all of your flimsy arguments, don't you?"

Do you have even a clue of how self-buttressing and juvenile you sound?

Well, don't let me keep you from your bong. Time to get on with the important things in life!

Posted by: Bill Otis | Sep 18, 2011 1:25:26 AM

Twins BO Beavis and TQ Butthead - yes, classic examples of juvenile name calling

Posted by: Passing through | Sep 19, 2011 8:19:07 PM

TarlsQtr ~

I've punched holes in ALL his arguments - and not just his Supremacy Clause excuse for failed drug policy.

Bill ~

"This is classic 14 year-old behavior. Was it designed to humiliate? Of course! Welcome to the schoolyard, guys"

Posted by: Huh? | Sep 29, 2011 4:16:52 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB