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
I will re-phrase that. I stated that I was not for the legalization of pot but for decriminalization.
Then I was called EVIL for not wanting to condemn the potsmokers. I asked why I was evil and that is what a CA Guy told me. This they would laugh at. I am not sure that they accept pot, most probably do not. I am sure that they would consider it INSANE that I am evil.
My mistake.
Uh yes. Goerge Soros is the main "benefactor" for the Lindesmith center, which has been a main source for many of the pro-drug threads on FR.
Hell, bassmaner tried a fund raiser for them a few months back.
A know plenty of Liberals that are all for the WOD, does that make YOU a liberal?
You still have not answered my position on your stance on Abortion. For if I am no longer a conservative because I want to decriminalize pot because it is against the law then YOU sir are no longer a Conservative because YOU do not support the law of the land.
Huh? Which reply did you ask that? I thought this thread was about marijuana?
Anyway, I am pro-life and look at the candidates stance on the issue.
The question I directed at you was, are there any **libertarians** (not lobbyists for special interests, libertarians - you know, think tanks, candidates, that sort of thing) whom the socialist Soros has supported? Are there any at Lindesmith Center, for that matter?
Has Soros given money to Cato Institute or American Enterprise Institute? The LP? The Browne campaign? Didn't think so.
Has Soros given money to Cato Institute or American Enterprise Institute? The LP? The Browne campaign? Didn't think so.
I believe that Soros has given money to the Cato Institute.
Anyway that is not the point. You can belive this or not, but most people associate "Libertarians" with drug legalisation and validation.
When their Presidential candidate(Harry Browne) goes on O'Reilly and says he wishes to go back to the days where a 10 year old can go into any pharmacy and get heroin no questions asked, you have a problem, IMHO.
Sure he is "pure" about his intentions, but let me ask you a question.
Would you like having a pharmacy in your town selling heroin to 10 year olds, no questions asked?
Yeah, "I dig", dude.
Look, I am pro-life. Just because I am pro-life doesn't mean that I hope that all the children not aborted turn into little Cheech & Chongs.
You dig?
I admire your ... "diplomacy" with CA .... I would have used an entirely different word.
Mark Twain wrote, and I paraphrase, "It is better to sit in silence and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." So I laugh at the show. But then when I think about him actually believing what he writes, it's just sad.
What do you think, will CJ jump to my defense and defend a person's right not to feel sad?
Remembering what CJ wrote, suddenly the laughter resumes to overcome the sadness. But it's only temporary because then I think about CJ actually believing that he has a right not to feel sad and... it's just sad.
It's a "vicious" cycle.
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.
Okay CJ, I'm going to do this once and only once. I'm going to post the paragraph you quoted and explain each part. Remember it was you that advertised the Neo-Tech information on this thread, not I.
"Indeed, parasitical elites are subhumans or humanoids who lack the requirements for supporting human life. They lack honest character, long-range principles, real power. They live by manipulating truth to bleed others -- by undercutting objective law, societal well-being, and human happiness. They bring society only losses and suffering. Thus, all memories of those parasites and their hoaxed civilization will vanish as the Civilization of the Universe brings to Earth the excitement of boundless prosperity and happiness."
Indeed, parasitical elites are subhumans or humanoids who lack the requirements for supporting human life.
Who are the parasitical elite? In general, people whose livelihoods/jobs widely advance the initiation of force, fraud and coercion. Every instance that force, fraud or coercion is pressed against a person that person/victim is striped of a certain amount of value. Like physics law, it is absolute. A parasite by nature cannot support life for it requires a host. The only legitimate government services are those that protect individuals and their property from the initiation of force.
They lack honest character, long-range principles, real power.
No doubt politicians and bureaucrats with very, very few exceptions, lack honest character and honest long-range principles. Nor is their power real because they cannot support human life for they require a host. They prefer a docile, sheep-like host but by their own choice they "bleed" the host by initiation force, fraud and coercion.
They live by manipulating truth to bleed others -- by undercutting objective law, societal well-being, and human happiness. They bring society only losses and suffering.
Their lies go far beyond the WOD. Twenty-thousand unconstitutional gun laws is a start with probably an equally long list that follows. Whereas the highest moral, human and individual right is the right to self-defense.
Thus, all memories of those parasites and their hoaxed civilization will vanish as the Civilization of the Universe brings to Earth the excitement of boundless prosperity and happiness.
You'll have to read the Neo-Tech Web site to understand how and why that is. Noting your obvious discomfort I do suggest you read the Web site because if you honestly want to know who your worst "enemy" is and what they have in their arsenal the quickest way to educate yourself to their strengths is to read The Neo-Tech Discovery II.
I've read most of the site and from reading your post on FreeRepublic over the years I can say for certain that Neo-Tech is your worst "enemy". Ironically, baring bio-chemical/nuclear holocaust or you committing suicide, Neo-Tech will only benefit you and cannot harm because it is the antithesis of the initiation of force, fraud and coercion.
Sorry to have to tell you this CJ, but Neo-Tech doesn't acknowledge your self-proclaimed right to not have your feelings hurt.
That's it. In the future when you want to attack Neo-Tech post your attacks at their Web site instead of dragging information from the Neo-Tech Web site onto Jim Robinson's forum and attacking it in his "living room". You can do that two ways, post your comment by clicking through the "Cast Your Vote For or Against Neo-Tech" link and you can also post to Neo-Tech Networking Board #12, titled: Attack Neo-Tech.
If in the future you want to attack me, since you apparently can't be honest perhaps you should stick to quoting scriptures.
There was one in my hometown that sold me beer and cigarettes if I said the old man was waiting in the truck for me. (he usually was). But yes, I'd rather have that than what we have now, 14 year olds selling it at school.
My real preference is age-limited sales, like we have now for beer and cigs.
True enough (though I've never understood 'validation'), but what I was musing about above was, what if people start associating "Democrat" with pot-only relegalization, leaving the heroin and crack issues to the LP? Do you honestly think the GOP could (or would) do anything but say 'me too', like they have so often with Dim foolishness?
Yeah so.
Did your Dad ever say to you(as he was waiting in the truck), hey kid go in the drug store and get me a vial of heroin.
That is Harry Browne's(Libertarian Presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000) dream.
The question I asked you is if you agree with Harry Browne's dream for America?
Seriously, when the WosD is ended, we're going to have to make a political decision as to what we do with these people. Open the informer files, prosecute everyone in the chain of command who was crooked, pass an amnesty, or what? Also, should drug warriors be allowed to collect welfare (I'm assuming they'd have a *slight* problem finding non-gov't employment)?
Mercy, vengeance, and justice are hard to combine appropriately here, when some of the worst crimes were committed by long-dead congresscritters and judges. And, for all I know, there might be an honest narc or two somewhere
That is a silly opinion. But here is a fact.
Drug users and drug dealers like you are very much aligned with them.
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.