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 entire crime scene associatd with drugs, including most thefts in the U.S., could be done away with by adopting two simple measures:
1. Legalize marijuana and control it like alchohol. It is less harmful.
2. Give addicts to hard drugs a prescription for the drug they use and let them buy it at a pharmacy. If they are truly addicted, they are going to get the drug illegally if they can't get it legally. And if they can get it legally, they won't have to steal the radio out of your car to pay for their drugs.
Lets spend the $30 billion per year we now spend of the War on Drugs on education against drug use, and rehabilitation for existing addicts.
In a recent US Supreme Court decision regarding the "medical necessity" defense as an exception to the Controlled Substances Act, Justtice Thomas writing for the majority made a point of stating that the Court was not ruling on the Constitutionality of the CSA. The Court was only ruling that medical marijuana did not qualify for a "medical necessity" exclusion to the law.
Perhaps I am just hearing what I want to hear, but it sure sounded to me like the conservative wing of the Court was just begging for someone to challenge the entire Constrolled Substances Act on Constitutional grounds.
By the way...what does the a in your name stand for?
No one grower will ever be responsible for their crop if there are millions of growers. Sure the price of MARIJUANA may go down due to legaization but where are the regulations for mom and pop growers? Are they going to be responsible for the negative side effects of smoking MARIJUANA?
Then I would leave it up to each individual state as to whether they want to allow the sale of it or not.
And that's the only way they will get it.
Either we legalize it, and fast, or we get busy locking up millions of Canadians.This is the elephant in the room that Drug Warriors won't discuss. Well, actually it is the largest elephant in the room among the other elephants of police corruption, addiction rates among police, suicide rates among police, divorce rates among police, criminality rates among children of police, a 16-year shorter than average life expectancy among police, etc.
The fact is there is no way to "win" the Drug War, so we better start thinking of what else we must do. The number of Drug Warriors required is infeasible. The number of prisons required is infeasible. The people who would have to be imprisoned would cause insurrection.
I've never smoked pot, and don't plan on doing it even if it is legal. I hate watching my tax dollars go to waste, however.
If banning something works, it's hard to explain that I drank more in the 5 years before I was 21 than I have in the 10-years since I turned 21. And it's probably by a factor of 3 or 4.
The official stance is that the "general welfare" clause in Article 1, Section 8, grants carte blanche to the Federal Government to do anything they jolly well want. The founding fathers evidently overlooked this loophole.
This mirrors my opinion exactly (although I'm a Canuck, not American). Decriminilization has the dual benefit of leaving people alone who indulge in the privacy of their homes or wherever else it's deemed acceptable, but still giving authorities the power to take a person off the street who may be so stoned as to pose a potential danger to themselves or others. The basic message becomes "Don't get in someone else's face with it, don't be a mush head in public, stay out of your car and for crying out loud don't give it to kids or we'll screw your thumbs to the wall." Before long the street trade would dry up as people replaced their friendly suppliers with hydroponic gardens, etc.
The trick will be to lift the criminal penalties without turning our cities into open air dope markets. This will then leave the cops the ability to go after hard drug dealers and importers, and hopefully provide help (society, not the cops) for those unfortunates who are wrecking their lives through addiction. Just MHO.
Try that and you have heavily armed ATF thugs knocking in your door so fast it'll make your head spin!
AMEN to that!!! Most arguments miss this point. It is not a question of, "are drugs dangerous?", "do the laws work?", "what is the cost/benefit analysis?", or anything like that. It is a matter of the constitution and inalienable rights of the individual to smoke, snort, drink, or inject anything he darn well pleases.
And no, social programs to help such individuals ought not exist either.
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.