Posted on 11/15/2004 6:54:57 AM PST by MikeEdwards
On most issues affecting the U.S. and Canada, Paul Cellucci is a model of common sense. Despite our differences over things like same-sex marriage and lumber, he says, what sets us apart is only that "Canada is a little more liberal than the United States; the United States is a little more conservative."
But turn to the subject of marijuana, and the outgoing U.S. ambassador loses his logical composure. He also comes perilously close to interfering in the way we conduct our domestic affairs.
"Why, when we're trying to take pressure off the border, would Canada pass a law that would put pressure on the border?" Cellucci asked last week.
Translation: If we persist in making possession of a minuscule amount of pot no longer a crime, Canadian tourists and exporters are going to face even longer delays at the border.
The ambassador predicts U.S. border authorities will be stopping more vehicles, especially if they're being driven by young people — young people, apparently, are automatically suspected of drug-smuggling.
His excellency points out that U.S. customs, immigration and security officials already have their hands full at border crossings trying to keep prospective terrorists out.
In that case, why would they divert all this extra attention suddenly to the already thriving cross-border trade in marijuana?
Just because Parliament has decided treating kids like criminals for passing around a joint at a party doesn't really do much to stop drug trafficking either here or in the U.S.
There's an element of kettle as well as pot to all of this. About a dozen U.S. states, including California and New York, have removed criminal sanctions from marijuana possession and there's little evidence of border slowdowns between those that have and those that haven't.
Under our proposed law, criminal sanctions would still apply for anyone caught with more than 15 grams of pot. In most U.S. states that have adopted some measure of decriminalization, people are still be able to get off with fines for having up to 28.35 grams.
Besides New York and Ohio, other states bordering Canada that have eased pot laws more than we're about to do include Minnesota, Maine and Alaska where the lowest penalties are imposed for possession of up to 226 grams. It's a wonder we haven't put delays on Americans at our borders to keep the potheads out — but, of course, we don't have the resources.
In the land of the free, U.S. presidents can't bully the states into their own conservative agendas.
That's what makes the attempts of a U.S. ambassador to bully a bordering nation out of its more liberal policies so much more outrageous.
Kindly butt out, Mr. Ambassador.
-----------------------
This is an edited excerpt of an editorial from the Times Colonist, Victoria, B.C.
You have a very naive view of its affects. I freely admit that I smoke dope but I only smoke it when I ski and I'm actually well known for the type of skiing that I do. It doesn't affect me adversely and I don't consider myself sick or in need of punishment. My actions don't harm anyone else. I am successful in life and as an adult I should be allowed to make my own choices. In fact I know a lot of people that feel the same way, and a surprising number of them voted for Bush.
What will there be? Will there be a fine?
Because with no arrest, no trial, no ticket, no conviction, no jail time, no criminal record, and no fine ... well, I call that a legal product. You don't?
And don't forget that it makes white women want to have sex with negro jazz musicians.
I was under the impression that Canada was trying to legalize possession of small amounts.
First, people are forced to pay for public schools which are unconstitutional.
Forced to pay for them even if they never use them. Then they are refused
access to them if they don't ingest certain drugs. Now the parasitical elites
are pushing fort mandatory mental health exams/physicals for school
children. It demonstrates that politicians' and bureaucrats' intent is not
education. Rather, their intent is to control people so that they -- the parasitical
elite -- can continue to hold usurped power and garner unearned paychecks.
That's what it's really about. And whether you acknowledge that's what it
is you still support it. You're either ignorant or incompetent. --
possibly both. You choose.
You live in a community, Zon. You're not Jeremiah Johnson. People pitch in a pay for things even though they, themselves, may not use them.
You ever use your fire department? Ever call the police? Do you use your library? Community center? Well, you're payin' for them also.
Only one of those is a valid government function -- police. Obviously you're a collectivist that supports the government sacrificing the individual by initiating harm on person's that have harmed no one but perhaps themselves. BTW, where I grew up there was and still is a volunteer fire department -- not a government function. They provide exemplary service to the community.
If you think a person has harmed you take the person to court before an impartial jury. Do your best to prove that you were harmed. If the jury decides in your favor you will be due restitution for your loss and suffering. That's way too honest for you. You'd rather support the government control over people.
You live in a community, Zon. You're not Jeremiah Johnson. People pitch in a pay for things even though they, themselves, may not use them.
Yeah like the local volunteer fire department, right?
And no person is forced to pay for it because it's not under government control. Gosh, I bet you hate that.
Wrong. Not against the law to inhale, against the law to possess or traffic in.
Law off the sauce WildTurkey. ;)
BTW, welcome to FreeRepublic.
"I am successful in life and as an adult I should be allowed to make my own choices."
To borrow from Ace Ventura, "Congratulations on all your success, you smell terrific!" (Ooooh ooohh that smell, can you smell that--cough, cough--smellll...)
You're right, you made your own choice when you hooked up with your dealer and scored your weed. And you scored it, no prob, right?
Then whatsup with you tokaz hassling us straights about decriminalization? You aren't entitled to societal approval, and aren't likely to get it. The fact that you have to do your business in the shadows works out for the best--it certainly does not prevent use and abuse of marijuana (case in point, you), but it does place a barrier of forbidenness that MOST people will not cross, thus limiting the level of use and abuse.
Most people actually do respect the concept of law and its limits, even though it seems successful persons such as you are able to break it successfully. Limiting use to the minority is all reasonable people ever did expect from the much ballyhooed, much maligned War On Drugs.
What really cracks me up is Cellucci's delusion that this is going to screw with trade. Nothing screws with trade. The big boys won't let it.
Since it is impossible to verify that "more than half of all adults born from 1954 on have tried marijuana"--since you yourself stated "...people who do respond (to surveys) in many cases probably are not entirely honest about illegal activities they have engaged in"--I'll take those stats lightly.
If they're true, perhaps I should have said "crossed the barrier of forbidenness and STAYED"?
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.