Posted on 02/20/2002 6:08:45 AM PST by Magician
My first reaction is WHY NOT?
It’s a question of common sense.
Our marijuana laws do not work. They never have, and they never will.
Their stated goal being to rid society of the so-called affliction of marijuana use, the harsh reality is that since prohibition, usage rates have increased drastically.
Either we legalize it, and fast, or we get busy locking up millions of Canadians. With one out of three Canadians admitting to having tried marijuana, we may very well be locking up our best and brightest, not ruined by drugs, but ruined by the criminal sanctions that go with getting caught for what amounts to a common social practice. I can’t even begin to count how many elected officials admitted to having used it, yet everyday hundreds of average citizens are arrested for marijuana offences.
So, why are there so many users, and why is marijuana so easy to acquire?
In a strange twist, prohibition is to blame.
When a product is illegal, the profit margin skyrockets. Prohibition turns an agricultural product (a plant that’s very easy to grow) into a drug worth its weight in gold. Without prohibition, marijuana would cost pennies to produce. No wonder some adventurous modern day prospectors are setting up in their own back yards and basements to try and get in on the gold rush. Who could blame them? They aren’t hurting anyone, they’re making good money, and most of all customers are willing, grateful participants in the process.
We must come to grips with the fact that the demand for marijuana is never going away and find a better way of dealing with it. Imagine the billions of dollars spent on marijuana and enforcement going to more noble causes like health care and other social programs.
The general public understands this. Support for legalizing marijuana recently reached the much sought after 50%+1 majority. Recent polls show that 51% of Canadians support legalizing marijuana, a slim, but very real majority.
And with more and more advocates, the trend is just taking off. Several European countries like Belgium, Switzerland, Holland and Germany are successfully leading the way towards tolerance with legislation aimed at helping drugs users, not by treating them as criminals, but as human beings deserving of respect. There is no reason why Canada should lag behind. We should be on the cutting edge of this new international movement.
Now it is time to step onto the world stage and assert our sovereignty by legalizing marijuana once and for all. I would venture a friendly wager that the international community would stand by Canada on this issue. Our inevitable success would then make us a world leader in marijuana reform—an example for others to follow.
(I can hear it already): But marijuana is dangerous!
For the record, marijuana is NOT dangerous. It is no worse than coffee and much safer than alcohol. Marijuana is also much less addictive then cigarettes. Chronic use is rare as the majority do not smoke it everyday. Try that with tobacco!
What little risks that may be present with marijuana are no worse then any other risks deemed "morally acceptable". Should we ban music because, if played too loud it might hurt your hearing?
French fries and gravy are far more dangerous for our health then marijuana. Should we ban fast food and send overeaters to mandatory fitness camps?
Who are we, as a society to judge? What exactly are marijuana users guilty of? Who are they hurting? What have they done wrong?
To deny marijuana users the right to choose what they want to consume is nothing more than an arbitrary decision based on moral values, not public interest......
Legalization does not mean promoting use. It means providing medical care, support, education, quality standards and proper labeling. We then trust that responsible adults will make their own choices. This is what makes legalization healthy for our society. At least legalization would force retailers to be accountable for what they sell.
Under prohibition, the government has waived its responsibility for the well being of marijuana users, and is only responsible for their arrest and persecution.
This total disregard for their rights drives a wedge between them and the rest of society and breeds contempt for our legal institutions. If society does not tolerate pot smokers, how are pot smokers supposed to tolerate society? This does not make for a healthy social climate and even less a basis for sound policy.
If a policy so deeply flawed as prohibition not only fails to reach its goals, but actually makes the situation worse, it should be radically changed.
Prohibition is the problem, and legalization the solution.
In places where marijuana is tolerated use actually decreases.
Of course, don’t count on the politicians to have the courage to change the law—it’s not in their nature. Look instead to the Supreme Court. That is where most significant legal change comes from anyway. Gay rights and abortion issues were resolved there, and, some time this year our land’s highest court will also rule on the constitutionality of marijuana prohibition. I strongly urge government to make a wise decision and end this madness now. Millions of bright, productive, patriotic pot-smoking Canadians are counting on it.
Most sincerely, Marc-Boris St-Maurice Le Parti Marijuana
About the only test that is not backed up are the home ones, which don't get you discounts on workers comp rates so no buisness uses them. Only nervous parents.
Dane is not totally stupid, but is extremely dishonest. He or she deliberately pretends to misunderstand logical and rational discussions concerning the War on Drugs. He or she uses deliberate disruption tactics on every thread in which the WOD is discussed. Changing the subject, misquoting or falsely attributing quotes and positions, starting fights, etc. All done deliberately.
Even the newbies learn real quick not to trust Dane. There's Dane and perhaps a half-dozen others on FR vying for the Most Dishonest title.
Many of us who oppose the drug war do so not out of a desire to do drugs
Why do most all drug warriors accuse people on these threads that are non-drug users of using drugs? Because they don't have a rational argument to stand on so they figure most any irrational accusation will do. You and I realize that it makes no sense, but still, that's what the drug warriors do.
More importantly, the WOD minion is a minor problem compared to the congress that empowered tens-of-thousands of drug warriors.
"I haven't been punished? I grew up in a culture where drug use was considered benign. I had Cheech and Chong pushed on me. I grew up in the late 70's when the drug culture was reaching it's "high" point. I grew up in a society where stories of the drug use of Studio 54 and rock stars were considered cool. " 130
Can't have people high on pot because it sets a bad example for children in the community, right. It takes a village to raise a child, right?
In favor of Hillary's bogus claim that it takes a village to raise a child, here's the hypocritical dark side of "people who share similar standards" 316. How about it start at home where most parents tell their children the three reality distorting lies -- flying Santa Clause, Easter Bunny and tooth fairy. Ah, but it takes a village to further distort reality in young innocent minds via telling/living the three lies. But those three lies are all told/lived in the name of having fun, right?
Is it any wonder that children are prone to telling lies considering that parents are first to teach their children by example how to lie and that it's a means to having fun -- not to mention teaching by example that getting a reality distorting buzz from alcohol is fun. Then parents try to teach their children that it's wrong to lie and do reality distorting drugs. Is it any wonder that some children chose to take reality distorting drugs to have fun. I mean, parents and the "child raising village" have taught by example that distorting reality in the name of fun is a good thing.
And there is the mentality of the drug warrior. "I will decide what type of fun you shall have."
But he did. He was punished enough because he grew up in an era where he was forced to watch Cheech and Chong movies, and hear about the goings on at Studio 54. Sounds cruel and unusual, if you ask me.
Is it any wonder that children are prone to telling lies considering that parents are first to teach their children by example how to lie ...
Children tend to learn to lie because they want to avoid the consequences of what they do wrong.
Illegal drug users want everybody to be free to do evil so they can go about their evil.
324 posted on 2/20/02 7:06 PM Pacific by Zon
SUBJECTIVE! SUBJECTIVE! SUBJECTIVE! YOUR OPINION! YOUR OPINION! YOUR OPINION!
You really do think you are God. It's sad, really.
Article [X.]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.
I believe the ball is now in your court, now you need to find the authority to regulate intoxicants.
To: Zon
Can't have people high on pot because it sets a bad example for children in the community, right. It takes a village to raise a child, right?
Because it is an evil product that hurts users and those around them. It would take a village of sociopaths to support illegal drug use.Is it any wonder that children are prone to telling lies considering that parents are first to teach their children by example how to lie ...
Children tend to learn to lie because they want to avoid the consequences of what they do wrong.
Illegal drug users want everybody to be free to do evil so they can go about their evil.
324 posted on 2/20/02 7:06 PM Pacific by Zon
A CA Guy intentional injected his words into a quote and then posted it as though his words were mine. I have highlighted in red the text that A CA Guy dishonestly attributed to me. Read post #324 to verify. No doubt A CA Guy will conjure up a tail-chasing rationalization to explain how it's not a "duck" despite it looks like a "duck", walks like a "duck" and reads like a "duck".
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
None of that prevents drug law.
Why did alcohol prohibition require a constitutional ammendment?
Why are the feds putting themselves through mental contortions to make the commerce clause apply if they have the power anyhow?
Your words are in italic and my response to your empty views which I post are in non-italic directly under them. What is in red as well as in black non-italic above are what my words think of your words. That is obvious and done of FR all the time.
You are out of your tree in your remark. You should apologize. We may disagree, fine, but that was a moronic statement you made.
I also direct you to clause 8 of the constitution. Which is a laundry list of the things the congress has the right to regulate (and does'nt include intoxicants). Are you saying the first ammendment made that list moot? That all things not specifically restricted by the first are now under the congresse's balliwick?
I'll go check out the 8th now.
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.