Posted on 12/17/2002 7:17:04 AM PST by MrLeRoy
It's high time that ranting American drug czar John Walters canned his insulting attacks on Canada and British Columbia.
The White House's man on a mission to expand America's hopelessly failed war on drugs is trashing his northern neighbour in a most paranoid way.
Paranoia, of course, is a staple of the "reefer-madness" culture that believes marijuana causes evil on a satanic scale.
Walters is losing it as he high-dudgeons his way from microphone to microphone, hammering Justice Minister Martin Cauchon's plan to decriminalize pot in the new year.
"You know Vancouver's referred to as Vansterdam. Go up, go get loaded," he prattled from Buffalo the other day.
I didn't know this, but apparently we are awash here in Lotusland with stoned American tourists.
Walters fears lax attitudes "left over from the Cheech and Chong years of the '60s." And the next decade: "Some people seem to be living with the view of the reefer-madness '70s."
Wasn't it disco and Donna Summer that made folks crazy in the '70s?
Madness is clearly a hang-up for the guy, who cautions against falling into the trap of "reefer-madness madness."
Some of us would argue that he's the poor fellow with the reefer-madness madness. And he doesn't stop there.
Warning of even more crackdowns at the U.S. border for travelling Canadians, Walters says, "Canada is a dangerous staging area" for high-grade pot that has an insatiable market in America.
Dangerous staging area? What are we, Afghanistan? Iraq?
No. We're a benign, peace-loving, law-abiding country with a falling crime rate that pales in comparison to the murder and mayhem in America's big cities.
Less and less are we beholden to the White House view that marijuana is on a par with weapons of mass destruction. Or that prohibition, which worked so well against alcohol in the last century, is working any better against pot.
In recent months, Canadians have received two major reports that followed dozens of earlier reports suggesting a new approach to the U.S. failure, which is copied by Canadian police. A Senate committee recommended legalization of pot; a House committee called for decriminalization that would remove possession of small amounts from the Criminal Code in favour of a simple fine.
Cauchon says we're not ready for legalization, even though the Senate report noted it is the only way to end pot crime that law agencies battle -- as they lost to rum-runners in the old days.
The fact is that decriminalization won't make any real difference on the street. The only way to do that is to legalize pot, as Newfoundland Premier Roger Grimes suggests.
"Put an age limit on it and recognize there's some use of it out there, make it safer, make some money from it."
As we did with alcohol a long time ago.
"What is critical," says United Church minister Bill Blaikie, "is that we make the distinction between cannabis and other drugs, and our drug war doesn't do that.
"If you keep lying to kids, they know the difference," says the NDP leadership candidate. "We've got too many people going out there telling kids, 'If you smoke marijuana, you'll end up on heroin.'"
Just like John Walters. Butt out, sir; your failed mission and rhetoric is tiresome.
And if you really want the USA to "mind it's own business" and the people to lose their "cozy little billets", then certainly all drugs should be legal. Isn't that what you favor? Be bold! Don't limit yourself to "hemp".
America had a big alcohol problem during The Prohibition. Thanks to the dry movement then, we now have the DEA (if alcohol, what else?), the BATF (got to give them revenuers something to do, and anyway gangsters used guns), the Mafia (who had to get their foot in the door somehow), the Kennedy family (who got both rich and into corrupt politics thanks to bootlegging).
"What is critical," says United Church minister Bill Blaikie, "is that we make the distinction between cannabis and other drugs, and our drug war doesn't do that.
Why don't drug warriors get this?
Perhaps "save" is not the best word to use here. "Save" implies that the government will not spend that money and will give it back to the taxpayers. Do you think this will happen?
It would be more accurate to state, "Ending the WOD will allow the government to 'invest' those billions of dollars into __________, which is much better than 'wasting' it in an attempt to keep harmful drugs out of our society.
If consistency requires the marijuana legalizers to also want to legalize heroin and cocaine, then does not the same requirement for consistency require you to also want to bring back the Prohibition of alcohol?
If not, why not?
Who doesn't? I've pointed out over and over again that marijuana is less addictive than caffeine and that one can't OD on marijuana.
I really don't think that is behind this although the alcohol lobby may have something to do with it. There are plenty of other crimes out there to enforce and there is plenty of work for everybody. The real drug threat that scares the hell out of me is meth.
The jails are overflowing and pot offenders just take up space. However anyone today who gets any real time to serve is dealing in substantial amounts and I have no sympathy for them. For them its not about individual freedom or liberty its just about easy money.
I don't think the world will end if they legalize pot, but there will be significant social costs just as there are with alcohol. I don't care if someone want to light up in the privacy of his or her own home. It's just sad that many people can't be responsible and the rest of us have to pick up the costs.
I think the time has come to consider the costs in a thoughtful way and determine as a nation if we are willing to pay the price for legalization.
But us complaining about the Canadian drug problem is the pot calling the kettle black. (No pun intended)
It's possible.
It would be more accurate to state, "Ending the WOD will allow the government to 'invest' those billions of dollars into __________, which is much better than 'wasting' it in an attempt to keep harmful drugs out of our society."
Given the following effects of the WOsD, digging holes and filling them in is a better use of that money.
If you insist on making an alcohol analogy, then how about this as a response: The XXI Amendment ended prohibition. Why don't you get the necessary states to pass a XXVIII Amendment legalizing all drugs?
You get the votes, you get the States, you get your drugs. Just like alcohol.
Incorrect---I most certainly do make this distinction. Only a complete boob would equate marijuana with cocaine, heroin, LSD, or any other "hard drug" out there. As a matter of fact, I believe individual states, not the federal government (barring an amendment to the Constitution), can make a clear and compelling case for the need to control hard drugs through proper legislation, because hard drugs, on the whole, are both physically addictive and even fatal under the right doses and conditions.Marijuana passes neither of these thresholds---as a matter of fact, it doesn't even come close to passing either one of them. There is no logical reason why marijuana should be viewed by the same (artificial) legal standard as hard drugs. By insisting it should, Walters looks like a hickish idiot straight from the 1930s.
Are the owners of the Seagrams or Budweiser companies championing individual freedom or liberty or are they just out for money?
I don't care if someone want to light up in the privacy of his or her own home. It's just sad that many people can't be responsible and the rest of us have to pick up the costs.
The rest of you don't have to---the rest of you choose to. I recommend a different choice.
Because an amendment banning them was never passed---the federal WOsD is unconstitutional.
Well, we know "why".
Personally, I think we need to make a dictinction between pot and other drugs from an education standpoint, but not from a legal one.
Bad analogy, since there was an Amendment which outlawed alcohol, but there was never an Amendment which outlawed drugs.
So back to your bogus "consistency" argument. Why is it your position that fans of marijuana's legalization must also want to legalize heroin, etc., yet opponents of MJ legalization can, at the same time, favor legal alcohol? Aren't you at least as inconsistent?
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.