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
So Libertarians will stop posting on Free Republic. That's reason enough for me.
You really ought to try to get a little use out of yuor brain. Really, thinking doesn't hurt very much after you get used to it.
Illegal drugs are criminal and intoxication can in many cases be illegal as well.
Intoxication is only typically illegal when operating a moving vehicle, and it isn't the intoxication that is illegal in itself. Name me one example where intoxication of liquor itself is illegal. You can't, because unless it is something that directly involves the public saftey, it isn't.
Sorry that went soaring above your head as it did. I try to write at a low comprehension level to help people like you understand better.
You do have a knack for saying a whole lot of nothing with a large amount of words.....perhaps you could work for the Washington Post...
Do ordinances count? "Public intoxication" is a misdemeanor where I come from.
What offends you more, pot itself or what you perceive as the "drug culture"?
He's not offended, IMO. He may come across that way but it's all he's got. I mean, he has minimized his usefulness towards the lowest end of a continuum. I suspect that if drugs were decriminalized he'd perish. Whether he's a DEA JBT or an ex-postal worker collecting a government disability check or a troll or ______, is irrelevant.
This country is founded on mostly Christian principles and God is written into many of the founding documents. There isn't a mainstream Christian faith that is for illegal drug use.
What do you think about bearing false witness?
It is funny watching you Libertarians play your little paranoid games.
Paranoid of you? Get real. You're a pipsqueak.
BTW, I've stated several times on this forum and a few times to you that I'm not a libertarian. Apparently you lied or are just incompetent. Take your pick.
To me VA's JBT statement ranks #1 in absolute stupidity and statism followed by CJ's right to happiness.
That's the same rank I've attributed them.
If recreational drug use abruptly stopped, there would still be initiation of force -- it would be minimally effected. If initiation of force abruptly stopped recreational drug use would steadily decrease to almost nothing.
A CA Guy wrote: This country is founded on mostly Christian principles and God is written into many of the founding documents. There isn't a mainstream Christian faith that is for illegal drug use.
There ya go, claiming that God has somehow commanded you to use guns and violence to lock people in cages for having vices. You will have a lot of explaining to do at the judgement.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
He claims to hate them because they remind him of his use of all kinds of drugs. He has committed crimes because of drugs and he is reminded that he is a weak willed loser whenever he sees someone use them who isn't overcome by them.
I'm interested in finding out whether you think:
A) the act of smoking pot makes one a leftist, socialist, Marxist member of the Drug Culture, or
B) those attracted to leftist, socialist, or Marxist causes and politics might also be attracted to the counterculture, aka the "Drug Culture."
Okay, enough of that. You're being down-right logical.
He claims to hate them because they remind him of his use of all kinds of drugs. He has committed crimes because of drugs and he is reminded that he is a weak willed loser whenever he sees someone use them who isn't overcome by them. 416
I mean, he has minimized his usefulness towards the lowest end of a continuum. I suspect that if drugs were decriminalized he'd perish. Whether he's a DEA JBT or an ex-postal worker collecting a government disability check or a troll or ______, is irrelevant. #609
Timothy Leary isn't particularly relevant to the issue at hand. 435
LOL! That's like saying that Hitler isn't particulary relevant to World War II.
If what you said were true then a survey would show that there's as many people that know who and what Hitler was as there are people that know who and what Timothy Leary was. What a hoot you are. Your "batting average" is about a .023 and you think that's stellar.
So you wanting to stick your nose in other citizens business by putting them in jail for using non-approved substances doesn't count? 463
The WODer accuses someone else of "sticking his nose in other people's business". I think that calls for one of Dane's patented "LOL!"s.
I never read a post where CJ used the "sticking your nose in other people's business" terminology prior to when the below quote was posted. Shortly after was the first time I saw CJ use the idea/phrase/terminology. Since then it has become a regular part of his terminology. Obviously the terminology is common so he could have picked it up anywhere. The first time I saw him use it he inverted the original intent -- similar to what you pointed out. Here's the first time I used it on this forum:
"Fortunately, there is firm grounding in this: Do not abide by the notion of do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Leave people alone to create their life as they see fit so long as they do not initiate force, fraud or coercion.
"When a person initiates force the victim and his or her agent (police or good Samaritan) may exercise their highest mortal right -- the right of self-defense and physical survival. And that ought to be all that a person sticks their nose into another person's business unless invited to associate with another person." 110
www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/583546/posts?page=110#110
110 posted on 12/11/01 12:07 AM Pacific by Zon
Woman says son unfairly punished for not reporting student with gun
I posted that or similar several times over the following few weeks. Each time it included the "sticks their nose into another's business" terminology. I checked my database and below is the dialog from whence I first noticed CJ using the terminology. In particular note his #91 post.
Cultural Jihad injects into a discussion: And maybe you should quit being judgmental and learn to mind your own business.46
Zon: Gesh. They're carrying on a discussion and around about the sixth exchange you jump into their discussion and tell one of them to mind their own business. Idiocy knows no bounds.90
Cultural Jihad: It raises an interesting point, how empty the chest-thumping of the rugged individualists is among the ideologues who squat on FR. "Everyone is to be left alone to do their own thang!" is their clarion cry, but then we hear them acting like nosy-bodies, sticking their noses into everyone else's bidness: "How much extortion were your taxes this year?!" and "That man over there is getting harrassed by the pigs for scarfing his spliff, man!" We soon learn how un-lizard-like their detachment from their surroundings really is, and their cherished label of individualism is invalidated by their very participation in political discussions. 91
Zon: I don't get it. You're extrapolating on how you jumped in the middle of a discussion between two people to tell one of the persons to mind their own business. That's what you're extrapolating on? Wow!! 95
Culutural Jihad: Exactly my point! The fact that you are being critical of another person's free speech means you are no individualist, but rather someone busy sticking his nose into other people's affairs. Good for you! 93
Zon: "Don't p*ss down my back and tell me it's raining" -- Outlaw Joie Wales 96
So you'd have me and the other readers believe that you intended to jump in to play the kettle and call the pot black. LOL!!! Sorry dude, that dog won't hunt here. 96
www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/595517/posts?page=90#90
Trashy Yard still bothers neighbors; man says he just needs more time
Posted on 12/22/01 7:33 AM Pacific
The other guys don't know much about God if they come onto every thread and bear false witness. I always ask them why they think God wants them to use guns on people who have vices, they never answer. They will get a chance to stand in front of him and say, "Don't worry God, I took your place down on earth when you were tardy in cleaning up the mess, aren't you proud of me? I handled the stuff you obviously couldn't handle, so where is my room?"
It should be an interesting scene.
I wonder their reaction looking upon the mirror and are thunderstruck by their realization at how 180% wrong they've been. They may hurry their meeting with God by blowing their brains out in self-disgust at who they really are. Probably not the pipsqueaks on this forum but I think several JBTs and other assorted politicians and bureaucrats will.
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.