Posted on 08/06/2006 6:04:24 AM PDT by Wolfie
Reefer is Worth Getting Mad About
Vienna -- Supporters of the legalization of cannabis would have us believe that it is a gentle, harmless substance that gives you little more than a sense of mellow euphoria.
Sellers of the world's most popular illicit drug know better. Trawl through websites offering cannabis seeds for sale and you will find brand names such as Armageddon, AK-47 and White Widow. "This will put you in pieces, then reduce you to rubble -- maybe quicksand if you go too far," one seller boasts. This is much closer to the truth.
In Canada, as in most parts of the world, cannabis is by far the drug of choice. An estimated 4 per cent of the world's adult population -- that's about 162 million people -- consume cannabis at least once a year, more than all other illicit drugs combined.
Does that matter? I firmly believe it does, because the cannabis now in circulation (like Canada's BC Bud) is many times more powerful than the weed that today's aging baby boomers smoked in college. The characteristics of cannabis are no longer that different from those of other plant-based drugs, such as cocaine and heroin.
Evidence of the damage to mental health caused by cannabis use -- from loss of concentration to paranoia, aggressiveness and outright psychosis -- is mounting and cannot be ignored. Emergency room admissions involving cannabis are rising, as is demand for rehabilitation treatment. These health problems are increasingly being seen in young people.
North America is the world's largest cannabis market and most of its cannabis is homegrown. The U.S. market alone has been valued at more than $10-billion. As Canadians are starting to discover, a market that size inevitably attracts organized crime. So cannabis is a security threat as well as a health risk.
Amid all the libertarian talk about the right of the individual to engage in dangerous practices, provided no one else gets hurt, certain key facts are easily forgotten.
Firstly, cannabis is a dangerous drug, not just to the individuals who use it. People who drive under the influence of cannabis put others at risk. Would even the most ardent supporter of legalization want to fly in an aircraft whose pilot used cannabis?
Secondly, drug control works. More than a century of universally accepted restrictions on heroin and cocaine have prevented what would otherwise have been a pandemic. Global levels of drug addiction -- think of the opium dens of the 19th century -- have dropped dramatically in the past 100 years. In the past 10 years or so, they have remained stable.
Cannabis is the weakest link in the international effort to contain the global drugs problem. In theory, it's a controlled substance. In practice, it's running rampant. It grows under the most varied conditions in many countries, a high-yielding plant that can be grown indoors. This makes supply control difficult.
But we can tackle demand, particularly among the young. That need not mean sending them to jail. Young people caught in possession of cannabis could be treated in much the same way as those arrested for drunk driving: fined, required to attend classes on the dangers of drug use and threatened with loss of their driving licence for repeat offences. Prison would be a last resort. Schools and universities should apply zero tolerance.
National policies on cannabis vary and sometimes change from one year to the next. The experience of countries that were more tolerant of cannabis use is ambiguous and not persuasive. The distinction between "soft" and "hard" drugs is, at best, artificial, especially with such a damaging psycho-active substance as modern-day cannabis. Even some advocates of cannabis as a "soft" drug are now reconsidering as they observe the devastating health consequences of abuse.
Canada was a pioneer in introducing systematic anti-smoking policies, which are now being copied around the world. Their success demonstrates that preventive measures can help to change attitudes. Similar policies are needed to prevent cannabis use getting completely out of control.
Let's draw the right conclusions. Cannabis is dangerous. We ignore it at our peril.
Antonio Maria Costa is executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.
-- pretends he's read, and understood, - the US Constitution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You mean, (gasp) Our beloved "limited powers" federal government muscled a world peace organism into making it a crime against the world to smoke marijuana ?
(oh - I read what they did)
quote below:
"Presence of criminal penalties for Possession and Use of Marijuana was a rigid requirement of US drug laws and was successfully made a world standard via US sponsored International Treaties promulgated by the UN.
Marijuana is accordingly listed as a Schedule 1 drug, not to be used under any circumstances, except under special government license for research. In practice, the government has refused to authorize such research unless designed to demonstrate marijuana toxicity."
US sponsored International Treaties
(I see - you can only do marijuana if you are trying to find bad things about it.) I probably need a yard sign that says -
I'm testing cannabis to try and find bad things about it.
(grin)
No source, naturally.
On behalf of the intelligent indulgers, please shut up. You have a big mouth.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You mean - I mean - you signed up with freerepublic June 23, 06 and have chosen to honor me with your very first post!
What an honor! I think I'm going to light up a J to celebrate!
Welcome aboard - and yes I am quite vocal. I hope you are too. Have fun!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my post # 522 - if you will click on the blue letters that say "US sponsored International Treaties" it will take you to drugsense.org. They are the site with the cool drug war clock. Check it out - you might like it.
Once again,on behalf of intelligent indulgers, please shut up.
I am 22 years old. I have indulged. I put it down, because I had 4 years to play in college. Play time is over. I start to work for Accenture in 3 weeks.
I don't want to end up like you. My friends and I used to partake once a week. From your postings, you could never and still can't, put it down.
Toking for 30 years, several times a week, while proclaiming you don't have a problem, is called denial. Or addiction.
No treaty names, no ratification dates, no evidence of "muscle", no quotes, no links to text.
No source.
Once again,on behalf of intelligent indulgers, please shut up.
I am 22 years old. I have indulged. I put it down, because I had 4 years to play in college. I start to work for Accenture in 3 weeks.
I don't want to end up like you.
I am 22 years old. I have indulged. I put it down, because I had 4 years to play in college. I start to work for Accenture in 3 weeks.
I don't want to end up like you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It sounds like you are off to a great career and don't want me to post to you.
I shall try and grant you that wish.
Best of fortune and happiness to you!
Given the fact that offensive behavior harms no one (it merely offends their sensibilities), do you believe that libertarians (who wish to restrict laws to those which actually harm another) would support laws against behavior that merely offends others?
lol...
Being revocable by collective action, those are clearly not "rights," despite what you and other liberals say.
That's BS! Know your rights - used the expression "nor even offends" simply to exemplify the minimal impact of cannabis used in privacy. He never claimed it as a "right".
You must have much more time on your hands than others to carry on such as this.
Given the fact that offensive behavior harms no one (it merely offends their sensibilities), do you believe that libertarians (who wish to restrict laws to those which actually harm another) would support laws against behavior that merely offends others?
MoreBS!
I stand by my post #510 and it's relevance to your off the wall bantering. For the record - It does seem that a federal nanny state government is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind. (By that I mean the the federal government should not be worried about what citizens are doing in the privacy of their own homes.) "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." My post # 510 quoted below for all to judge it's merits in the argument which you carry on and I call ridiculous.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Governments and constitutions recognize rights (or not) but do not create them."(Know your rights) Allow me to rephrase, nitpicker. "Where is that protected in the U.S. Constitution?(robertpaulsen)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems to me that this is covered in :
X - Rights of the States under Constitution
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It does seem that a federal nanny state government is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind.
# 510 (winston2)
"-- with was some invented right not to be offended"
Look at post # 393
for yourself.
So you won't reply to post #509, where I rebut your distortions ... but you'll repeat them to another poster and not even ping me. How utterly craven.
Both of the bozo twins are proving by their posting patterns their utter disdain for common courtesy and honor.
They have outed themselves as anti-constitutional advocates of majority rule. Their main goal is to spam FR's forums with socialistic agitprop.
Gotta love em as punching bags tho.
Oh stop your whining. When I refer to you I'll ping you. Your "rebuttal", by the way, consisted of nothing more than a repetitive, pouting claim of strawman.
This coming from one whose MO is repeating assertions that I've decimated. You don't dare ping me on those, lest you be embarrassed again.
digger, I take it you are a South Park fan too? Towlie is one of my favorite characters. Right behind Mr. Hankee the the Christmas Poo.
Marijuana never agreed with me. It just made me really paranoid.
Replying to my paranoid self:
Me: What do you mean you're paranoid? There's nothing to be worried about.
Self: Why is everyone looking at me?
Me: They can't even see you, you're on a computer.
Self: No, I just know they're watching somewhere.
Bill Clinton: But I didn't inhale. I just suck.
Ted Kennedy: At least you didn't kill anyone.
OJ: What? Who said that.
Ted Kennedy: I wasn't talking to you.
OJ: Sorry. Why don't we all go out and go to a McDonalds drive thru.
Bill and Ted: Sounds good. I have the munchies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.