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.
There is a distinction. You just don't draw one, so why should anyone else?
Correct---including the lethal, addictive drugs alcohol and tobacco. Just because I draw a distinction between marijuana and other drugs, it in no way follows that I must favor different laws.
There is a distinction. You just don't draw one
Liar. I already pointed out how often I've drawn it.
Is that a fact? I'm sure you can point out a ruling to support that statement. I can, and have, pointed out numerous court rulings that have found, unanimously, that it is constitutional.
Or, are you just saying that, in your opinion, it's unconstitutional? If so, you may want to add IMO next time. You're giving people the impression you know something they don't.
I agree with you that there is a distinction between marijuana and other drugs when it comes to addictiveness, lethality, etc.
I can do better: the Tenth Amendment.
I can, and have, pointed out numerous court rulings that have found, unanimously, that it is constitutional.
So what? As true conservatives recognize, the courts have been pissing on the Constitution for years (cf. Roe v Wade).
Money, however the last time I checked its legal and regulated.
The rest of you don't have to---the rest of you choose to. I recommend a different choice.
Really, could you please tell that to the IRS.
US has a big drug problem and in a typically US manner, act as if they are the land of the righteous and enlightened.
No, good analogy.
There was never an amendment outlawing a woman's right to vote, or an eighteen-year-old's either. Yet the XIX and the XXVI were passed.
As to the rest, I don't hear people talking about the War on Marijuana, do you? I hear the War on Drugs. On what grounds can you favor the federal legalization of marijuana but not other drugs (without being a hypocrite)?
I don't see any inconsistency in my position. Vote to pass an amendment or change the laws and I'll honor the outcome.
No, it wasn't. Here's the text: "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 not?
Sadly they will just waste the money on something else that is counter productive to society as a whole. You can count on politicians to do the worst thing in any given circumstance. We would be better off if politicians had no money to spend on anything.
As other drugs should be.
Really, could you please tell that to the IRS.
I have a better idea: you tell it to your congresscritter. Using one infringement of individual rights as a rationale for further infringements is not a conservative argument.
Grounds? Isn't it enough that marijuana is less harmful than most other illegal drugs? (And indeed, alcohol.) Why is it hypocritical to think that that matters?
When it comes to Federal government involvement, I stated that you make no distinction between marijuana and other drugs, and you don't.
I have no idea how the states will make the distinction (and I agree there is one), assuming they ever get the opportunity.
It wasn't the federal government preventing women and 18-year-olds from voting, whereas it IS the federal government conducting the federal WOsD.
Yes, in order for the federal government to force the states to allow women and 18-20 year olds to vote, an Amendment was passed. And in order to repeal the (nationwide) Prohibition Amendment, another Amendment was passed.
That does not mean that to legalize drugs at the federal level an Amendment would have to be passed. Even under a strictly federal system (which I would favor, but which has been sadly leacking since FDR's presidency) an Amendment legalizing drugs would only be needed if the federal government wanted to not only legalize drugs at the federal level, but also make it unconstitutional for the states to keep drugs illegal. I'd leave drug laws -- like virtually all the criminal code -- up to the states. So I do not need to advocate a constitutional Amendment.
That said, my point to MrLeRoy and HG was that they are the ones who make no distiction between marijuana and other drugs when calling for federal legalization.
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.