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
Didn't Barry Goldwater say "Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice". What is Liberty anyway? Is it the freedom to put your neighbor in jail if he grows a plant in his backyard?
Even bigots have rights," he said. "Private organizations [should have] the right to make their own membership and leadership rules.
was equating the Boy Scouts as bigots. Basically the same mindset as Hillary.
Wow, you typed a bunch of responses up all nice on the word processor for each of us and launched the responses in rapid succession like you are just that fast.
I read the thread off-line from about post #300 to the end. I made comments as I read along. When I got to the end of the thread I posted all my responses. Not as you say "like you are just that fast". But we both know that you aren't really that stupid and intentionally misconstrued so that you could make your following comments. I say comments because a joke catches one by surprise and the fact that you so often misconstrue doesn't surprise me so your following comments/"jokes" are childish at best.
It's the power of Zon once again! LOL
Cut n paste to you and me though! LOL
Why, do you disagree with both Ann Coulter and I on that topic?
Just thought you'd throw a little extra support in with yourself, right? What exactly is your reason for mentioning Ann Coulter? As if I didn't already know.
BTW, what exactly is it that you claim I disagree with. Here's the post you responded to...
A CA Guy: We were founded as a mostly Christian nation.
Zon: No doubt you consider yourself a good Christian, right? What to do think about bearing false witness?
Zon to ThomasJefferson: ROTFLMAO!!!
No, claiming God was profoundly in the origins of the country and in many of the ethics involved with right and wrong which you have problems telling the differences of.
Wow! You sure do know how to stretch. You got all that from my lone "ROTFLMAO!!!" response to ThomasJefferson.
No, claiming God was profoundly...
You're saying "no" to my comment "ROTFLMAO!!!" that was in response to ThomasJefferson. I laughed my a$$ off because of something ThomasJefferson wrote, and you respond with "no". I don't get it. Are you now telling me that I can't laugh?
Man, you are a hoot!
ethics involved with right and wrong which you have problems telling the differences of.
Oh really, I know that telling reality distorting lies to young children with innocent minds is wrong. How about you, what's you're take on bearing false witness?
Legalizing illegal drugs is not a conservative goal. Meaning you two have no minds.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
Why the gut-buster of a laugh? Because I have absolutely no idea how a person could rationally equate a conservative non-goal to a person not having a mind. Note the emphasis on the word "rationally". The fact is, what you wrote cannot be equated rationally.
You really, I mean really, are a hoot!
Funny...none of you Drug Warriors have been able to produced a list upon request of all the Democrats in recent memory who have vocally called for legalization of Marijuana.
With their (drug warriors) massive failure to rationally present their side of the debate makes for good juxtaposition. Think about the "ammunition" each side would bring to a debate. Imagine if you will, a nationally televised debate with both sides being given equal time, say 90 minutes each, to present their respective positions. It would be like selecting the best posts from FreeRepublic over the past three years. Select the best post from both sides of the WOD debate. I mean, pretty much everything has been covered. Some post obviously more concise than others.
You claim to be a christian?
I admire your ... "diplomacy" with CA .... I would have used an entirely different word.
Interesting that the Declaration talks about the inalienable right to life which all people have, but the writer of this social-Darwinist screed depicts people as subhumans and parasites not worthy of living, much as the social-Darwinist Nazi Party did in Germany. You can only feign delight that anyone would expose these horrid writings to the light of day.
You think? You think? Could have fooled me. Yes, the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th, in December 1933 (mainly because Prohibition was a far worse cure than the supposed "disease") but also with the proviso that states and localities were reponsible for creating and enforcing their own liquor laws, and that the federal government would be limited to collecting an excise tax on liquor sales. This whole business was a deal cut to appease diehard "drys"--many of which were still around even in 1933.
Moreover, the 18th Amendment, ratified Jan. 16, 1919 and becoming effective a year later did not specifically prohibit consumption of liquor, but only the manufacture, importation, sale, or export of alcoholic beverages.
That was what I was suggesting that you do.
Also it is insulting a historic person who you are not even .000001% as when you post in their name.
He is dead and therefore no longer insultable. I use his name as a tribute to many of his ideas and contributions to liberty. It's all explained in my profile.
I noticed you didn't answer the question about whether you concider yourself are a christian or not.
It isn't where I live, but honestly, how many people get arrested for public intoxication, unless they are being a nuscience?
Ever the busy-body, sticking your nose into other people's business, eh?
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.