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
"The fact remains that Leary is simply a private citizen. My tax dollars don't pay his salary, and he's not the one setting public policy. You've done nothing but try to change the subject and try to deflect attention away from the issue of the government lying to us about marijuana from the very beginning. You can't make a case defending marijuana prohibition based on any kind of objective criteria, because you don't have any. All you have is ad hominem attacks and a lot of emotional hand-wringing about the evils of pot that have no basis in fact."
And you won't answer the question I've asked like 3 times already:Does smoking pot turn one into a lefty, or do certain lefties smoke pot?
Didn't I just tell you, "enough of that. You're being down-right logical."
Boy, if brains were dynamite, I doubt you'd be able to blow your nose...
ROTFL!!!
That's a good one. I've never heard it before. And so fitting.
To: Hemingway's Ghost
It's easy to dissect and analyze Dane's stance, and when you come right down to it, it's nothing more than prejudice.
LOL! I guess I am a "bigot" now, because I think that drugs should be illegal.
Well at least you are consistant Libertarian, they think the Boy Scouts are "bigots" also.
"Even bigots(Boy Scouts) have rights," he(Santa Barbara LP Secretary Robert Bakhaus) said.
The exact quote from the article is this:
"Even bigots have rights," he said. "Private organizations [should have] the right to make their own membership and leadership rules."
Bakhaus meant that since even bigots have rights, no matter how detestable that may be to a person, certainly Boy Scouts of America has the right to accept or refuse members or employees.
In fact, it was Dane that infused bigotry and the Boy Scouts.
One thing I really dislike is dishonesty. What I detest more than dishonesty is injustice. But what is more detestable than dishonesty and injustice is vile, so vile that it is almost beyond words, is when a person is dishonest in the name of justice (Dane intentional twisting a quote out of context) when in fact they are intentionally committing injustice.
BTW, it's not my Web site but every little bit helps. Even negative comments advance the goal. In fact, they help more than positive comments. It's a thing of beauty. ...The more Neo-Tech is attacked the more powerfully it advances.
After 9-11, people are getting leery of others with these really weird ideas floating around in their heads.
Ahh... the Cultural Jihad thought police is here to inspect ideas floating around in people's heads. Here's some ideas that no doubt you'll want to crush...
The highest moral, human an individual right is the right to self-defense and survival. The best way to ensure that individual rights are protected is to have a constitution or amendment to the constitution and courts based on the following:
Principle One: No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual.
Principle Two: Force may be morally and legally used only in self-defense against those who violate Principle One.
Principle Three: No exceptions shall be allowed for Principle One and Two.
And this:
All jurors shall be informed that they have the option of jury nullification.
Principle One is first a law. For every instance that a person has force initiated against them there is a loss to that person. Only the person/victim knows the true value of their loss. The law underlying Principle One is as true as physics law.
All a person need be concerned with is whether he or she has been the victim and who violated Principle One. Then prove that to a jury. Thus the ultimate purpose of the jury is to decide if harm has been done to the person claiming to be a victim and to what extent the person has been harmed. All jurors will be informed that they have the option of jury nullification. Objective law; The Point Law.
He's [Dane] at it again. He's equating the violent thugs you were obviously referring to in your post to a guy on the street in SF who happens to have AIDS. Then he takes your words out of context and tells outright lies to support his second grade suppositions so he can then spew his petulant hyperbole. Thus avoiding reasoned debate and a true defense of his position. What's really sad is I think he actually believes he has any credibility at all. Most seem to have found that it is best to ignore him. He normally gets bored, piddles on the rug and leaves.
Sometimes I think it's better to encourage him. He's the drug war incarnate - infantile, illogical, self righteous, and obsessed. No one with an IQ above room temperature could read anything he posts and not come away with serious questions about what kind of mentality it takes to support the WOD.
I've long thought that that is the reason why JR allows him to stay on his forum. The juxtaposition is worth ten times Dane's weight in gold.
Yesterday you seemed sane. What happened?
"Schizophrenic", I think is the appropriate terminology. I don't know the statistics but with 70,000 registered Freepers it's probable that he is "our" resident Schizophrenic. ;^)
Could any of you actually produce some liberals who want to relegalize?
You may have overlooked the tactic being used. Here it is: Identify something that has already been demonized, Democrats/Liberals, EnviroNazis or whatever is demonized on this forum... then link/lump what you want to demonize -- anti-WOD FReepers -- to the thing that has long been demonized. In other words, by falsely linking anti-WOD Freepers to Liberals the anti-WOD FReepers are supposedly then demonized right along with Liberals. In short, the tactic disregards cause and effect relationship.
IMO, the only people that actually swallow/follow that dishonest tactic are sheeple, who by nature follow rather than think critically for themselves.
There will never in our life time be permission for illegal drugs to be abolished. It will be there because everybody knows it is an evil deal that hurts the users, those around them and society at large.
Talk about delusional or schizophrenia. If what you say was true you would have no reason to be pushing the WOD-is-good mantra. IMO, most likely you'll claim that you're doing it for the children who will inherit society after your lifetime, right? What do you think about bearing false witness?
We were founded as a mostly Christian nation.
No doubt you consider yourself a good Christian, right? What to do think about bearing false witness?
Name me one example where intoxication of liquor itself is illegal. You can't, because unless it is something that directly involves the public safety, it isn't. 607
Do ordinances count? "Public intoxication" is a misdemeanor where I come from.
That's "public intoxication". There is a public safety issue. Thus it is not intoxication alone. Intoxication alone would be for example, intoxicated at home.
It's the power of Zon once again! LOL
Cut n paste to you and me though! LOL
Legalizing illegal drugs is not a conservative goal. Meaning you two have no minds.
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.