Paranoid American drug czar should butt out

The Province (Canada) ^ | December 15, 2002 | Jim McNulty

[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.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

When it comes to Federal government involvement, I stated that you make no distinction between marijuana and other drugs, and you don't.

Your "argument" is now so twisted you don't even know what you're arguing for anymore, do you . . .

[freedumb2003]

"Perhaps "save" is not the best word to use here"

I stand corrected. "Redirected" is probably better.

[HELLRAISER II]

I do not think that all drugs should be legalized either, I see a big difference in hard narcotics compared to a little herb. It's just my personal opinion because I don't think that Pot hurts anyone whereas some of the other drugs can definately put you in the hospital or kill you, but I don't think that it makes me or this fella a hypocrite.

[robertpaulsen]

I doubt that I would sign your petition if the argument was, "We, the undersigned, hereby vote to make marijuana a legal substance because it is less harmful than most other illegal drugs, including alcohol".

It may even be true, but is that it?

[MrLeRoy]

I could not in good conscience advocate the use of these hard narcotics.

Nor I---advocating legalization does not imply advocating use.

They are drugs that are physically addictive & easy to O.D. on, some people get hooked on them and it ruins there lives or flat out kills them. [...] I don't want my kids or yours to be hooked on that $hit.

All true of alcohol---should that be banned?

[Hemingway's Ghost]

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.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about and you're characterizing my stance incorrectly. For the record: I draw a distinction between marijuana and other drugs. Period.

As far as the federal government is concerned, I am not swayed by Roscoe's argument that the federal government has the power to make any drugs illegal under the Commerce Clause, but nonetheless I realize it has been a recognized (and fully capitalized) power for 30+ years now. I think the only legitimate source for such power would have been through an amendment, much like during alcohol prohibition, but those are the breaks in the post-FDR era United States.

As a matter of fact, due to issues surrounding addiction rates and health consequences, I think the federal government could make a compelling argument for the passage of such an amendment in the case of hard drugs. I have no idea why the federal government insists that marijuana remain a Schedule 1 (or "hard") drug when so clearly it's not.

It's your side's fanatical devotion to treating marijuana smokers like murderous coke dealers or crack pimps or meth killers that's got all of us on the other side bemused. This insistence is torpedoing your best intentions. You honestly don't see that?

[Trailerpark Badass]

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.

Those amendments invalidated state statutes (elections are state matters, even Federal elections). They did not rescind a Federal law, as the 21st Amendment did.

On what grounds can you favor the federal legalization of marijuana but not other drugs (without being a hypocrite)?

Well, speaking for myself, I think all drugs should be legalized Federally; the USSC has ruled that states have the power legitimately to regulate, even to the point of prohibition, dangerous and addictive drugs. Even with that power, no state currently prohibits alcoholic beverages. To be consistent those same states should allow the possession, use and sale of marijuana (or alternatively ban alcohol), since no credible evidence exists which indicates that marijuana is more dangerous or addictive than alcohol. With other drugs, such as heroin and methamphetamines, it is far more evident that these drugs are less likely to be used responsibly.

[robertpaulsen]

Your post #26 asked the question, "Why don't the drug warriors get this (distinction between marujuana and other drugs)?

Why do you have a problem with those who do not distinguish between marijuana and other drugs and believe that the federal government should keep both illegal?

My point was that you do not distinguish between marijuana and other drugs and believe that the federal government should not make them illegal.

In the past you have stated:"By ending the Federal War on Drugs, I mean just that---ending the Federal War on Drugs. It's unconstitutional. Outside amending the Constitution, the Federal government simply does not have the authority to make criminal a substance by prohibiting it."

I don't see any distinction on your part, do you? Sounds like a blanket statement to me. Yet you chide the drug warriors for not distinguishing between the two. Nice try.

[HELLRAISER II]

I don't think that you get hooked the very first time you try Coke or Heroin like some of these WOD people do, but I do think that the average person can drink alcohol in moderation whereas if you have access to these harder narcotics you have a higher addiction rate than alcohol. I think alcohol is fine the way the law reads now, I also think that M.J. should have the same rules & laws.

[MrLeRoy]

if you have access to these harder narcotics you have a higher addiction rate than alcohol.

Tobacco is more addictive than cocaine or heroin; should it be banned?

[robertpaulsen]

I went too far with the example of the voting amendments. Strike that argument.

If marijuana (or any other drug) is legalized, I'd prefer that it come about by a change in the law rather than a constitutional amendment.

That said, I believe a constitutional amendment could accomplish the same thing. Keep in mind that an amendment to the federal constitution would only apply to the federal government, and could be written to take away the power to regulate/restrict drugs. Only if the individual state adopted the amendment would it apply.

Case in point: California did not adopt the second amendment -- there is nothing in the State constitution regarding the RKBA. California can make all guns illegal tomorrow.

[-YYZ-]

And let me just bring this slug-fest back on topic by saying that regardless of all the pros and cons of decrim/legalization/whatever, it is really no business of the US gov't or its minions to tell Canada how to handle this issue internally.

And btw, the claim that they would need to check Canadians more closesly at customs if we decriminalized is ridiculous. They're already on the lookout for people carrying personal amounts, because they know it is commonly used and transported despite its illegality in the US and Canada. Or maybe I should take that comment as a threat, that if Canada does not toe the US war on drugs line, we can expect more hassles for our citizens crossing the border.

ps, I can't help that notice that rates of smoking and the average consumption of acohol have fallen in recent years, despite the continued legality of these products. Arguments involving health, responsiblity and other personal reasons seem to be much more effective in the long run in changing behaviour.

[robertpaulsen]

If your argument is that pot should be legal because it's not as harmful as other drugs, then, no, you are not a hypocrite. But if that's the only reason, I don't think that people will be motivated to vote to make a change from the status quo.

Now if you were to argue that pot should be decriminalized because it's not as harmful, or dangerous, or habit forming as other drugs, that might fly.

[robertpaulsen]

"I'm sorry, what Amendment was it that instituted drug prohibition?"

What's your point?

[gcruse]

Good find. Thanks for posting it. The drugwarrior/gungrabbing/lifestyle police are turning the US into a country run "for the children." I'm happy to see other countries opt for adult freedoms and responsibilities. In time, maybe we will, too.

[HELLRAISER II]

I don't agree, I think that nicotine is more addictive simply because it's accessible. I tell you what take a crack addict/cigarette addict and stick a rock on the table & a cigarette beside it. Which do you think he/she is going to reach for?

[MrLeRoy]

I tell you what take a crack addict/cigarette addict and stick a rock on the table & a cigarette beside it. Which do you think he/she is going to reach for?

I don't know and neither do you. Here's what I do know about the addictiveness of tobacco:

[tdadams]

I don't understand something. Drugs have been around for a long time. From the founding of the U.S. through the early 20th century, people have had access to marijuana, cocaine, and opium. All of this was legal and easily obtained.

Then the FEDGOV came along and deemed all of these things dangerous and decreed that they shall be illegal and took it upon itself to eradicate this problem of drug use (which in reality was never a very big problem).

How is it that we have so many people in this country lacking in this historical perspective and simply act like lobotomized drones who parrot the FEDGOV's line: "drugs are bad, drugs are dangerous, drugs should be illegal, and drug users should be in prison"?

It looks to me like this is a classic case of the FEDGOV creating a demon just so it can be the hero, rescuing people from the demon it created.

[MrLeRoy]

Drop in here and sample the anti-drug hysteria.

[HELLRAISER II]

That graph is very interesting, but I feel that the crack addict would grab the rock. Just a feeling.