CN AB: Editorial: Canadian Senators Must Have Been Smoking
Oren Zero
[ a repost of a Canadian editorial ]
Well, allow me to retort.
> How about the increased costs of insurance and health care. There
> will be people who will "dope and drive".
Yes, it's true! It was true 40 years ago, it was true
last month, it's true today and it will be true in the
future... REGARDLESS of licit status. Disingenuous
assertion.
> How will police test
> someone to see if he or she has been smoking a joint before driving?
How do they test now?
> And what will the "legal limit" for marijuana smoking be? One? Two?
> Does it depend on your gender, height, weight and whether you had a
> meal with your joint?
The writer of the editorial probably doesn't realize
how inaccurate and subjective BAC levels are in relation
to a given individual's impairment. Since the writer
conceives no other methods of testing than those used
to detect alcohol, it's understandable to see this
comparison. However, inexpensive portable eye-hand
coordination tests are used routinely (the 'field sobriety
test,' while admittedly subjective, is a crude example).
Electronic versions of these tests can provide more
qualitative data, as well as give officers better guidance
in detecting impairment due to *any* reason -- that IS
why we're worried about this, right?
> What about restaurants and bars? Won't they all have no choice but to
> become no smoking or will there be three sections instead of two?
I'd say there will be no public consumption allowed,
or conversely, the Amsterdam coffeeshop model might
otherwise apply.
> There has been discussion about the decriminalization of marijuana for
> awhile, but that is different than legalization.
>
> Pushing to legalize pot before offering any solutions to these
> questions ( and others ) is crazy.
Most of the questions raised by the writer are red
herrings. Those issues exist today, and law enforcement
seems to deal quite well with them (I don't have the
Canadian stats, but more than 700,000 pot arrests in
the U.S. last year seems to prove cops have little
trouble 'interacting' with cannabis users!).
> Pushing to legalize a drug, which is just as addictive as cigarettes
> and alcohol is scary.
The writer doesn't have a clue. Not even heroin is as
addictive as nicotine. Cannabis doesn't even get an
honorable mention in the list of addictive drugs.
> Why aren't we talking about stiffer penalties for marijuana
> possession?
Yes, the writer wants to follow the U.S. example, and
thus start a prison construction boom up north. It may
not stop pot smoking, but look at all the jobs it'll create!
> Senators need to slow down and take another look at their idea, and
> the Canadian public need to respond to outrageous ideas thought up by
> these people.
>
> Let your member of parliament, Grant Hill, know your opinion on the
> legalization of marijuana before it's too late. His mailing address
> is Box 430, Okotoks, Alta., T0L 1T0. You can also write to David
> Hancock, the provincial minister of justice, at 208 Legislature
> Building, 10800 97th Ave., Edmonton, Alta., T5K 2B6.
Hear, hear.
-oZ
Lurch
@bangbang.com>:
>Media Awareness Project
>CN AB: Editorial: Canadian Senators Must Have Been Smoking
>URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n1724/a11.html
>Newshawk: Join CMAP (http://www.mapinc.org/cmap/lists.htm)
>Pubdate: Tue, 10 Sep 2002
>Source: Claresholm Local Press (CN AB)
>Copyright: 2002 Claresholm Local Press
>Contact: clp...@telusplanet.net
>Website: http://claresholmpress.awna.com/
>Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2382
>
>CANADIAN SENATORS MUST HAVE BEEN SMOKING SOMETHING
>
>Canada's senators have come up with an interesting idea. Let's
>legalize marijuana.
Finally politicians with balls.
>
>Let's see if we can save $300 million to $500 million per year
>enforcing laws against this drug.
Let's!
>
>Let's take that money and spend it on drug abuse programs ( and admit
>that marijuana is addictive ).
Jumping to conclusions... The drug abuse programs would target those with
OCD or other social disorders. People can be predosposed to addictive
behaviours, this is not proof that marijuana is addictive, mearly that
anything can be abused and not providing a means to help those people would
be socially irreaponsable.
>
>Let's spend that money on preventative health programs ( encouraging
>people not to start smoking the legalized drug ).
Sure. This is a great idea. Unlike the current and past heavy handed scare
them don't educate them attempts to keep teens from smoking cigarettes.
Smoking is not good, however with pot prices such as they are it is the most
effective way to use the drug, but it is not the only way. If I could buy a
n OZ of good bud for $60 I'd cook with it rather then smoke. It lasts
longer in your system too.
>Let's spend that money on border surveillance ( because it's not legal
>in the United States )
The drinking age here is 3 years lower then the US. Do we deal with that?
Maybe the US should tighten up their side of the bridge rather then us
having to deal with their ubtrusive drug laws.
>And because we've just thrown this idea out there and already spent
>all the money we've saved, let's talk about where else we'll have to
>spend money.
>
>How about the increased costs of insurance and health care.
I doubt that.
>There
>will be people who will "dope and drive". How will police test
>someone to see if he or she has been smoking a joint before driving?
>And what will the "legal limit" for marijuana smoking be? One? Two?
>Does it depend on your gender, height, weight and whether you had a
>meal with your joint?
Perhaps the author needs to loose their 'virginity' so to speak.
>
>What about restaurants and bars? Won't they all have no choice but to
>become no smoking or will there be three sections instead of two?
Smoking in public places has been banned in most areas, this includes
restaurants and bars, so I don't understand the point of this statement.
Nor do I think that the Senate's implied that people would be toking at the
A&P or over at the McDonalds.
>
>There has been discussion about the decriminalization of marijuana for
>awhile, but that is different than legalization.
So you are right with saying it's not illegal, isn't that the same as saying
it's legal?
>
>Pushing to legalize pot before offering any solutions to these
>questions ( and others ) is crazy.
>
>Pushing to legalize a drug, which is just as addictive as cigarettes
>and alcohol is scary.
A popular peice of propoganda, read the report again, you will see how wrong
this statement is.
>
>Why aren't we talking about stiffer penalties for marijuana
>possession?
Why? There are already 600,000 Canadians with records, there are tens of
thousands of charges laid each year, and for what? Does the author of this
article ever drink a beer or a glass of wine? Does he/she smoke cigarettes?
A pot smoker is no worse then that. It's time to get over your "reefer
madness" and spark up, atleast inform yourself before using the press to
perpetuate your fears and closed minded ideals.
>
>Senators need to slow down and take another look at their idea, and
>the Canadian public need to respond to outrageous ideas thought up by
>these people.
These are not mearly the thoughts of the Senate, the report sites studies
from every corner of the globe, and it includes research dating back to the
early 1900's. To say that the Seante needs to slow down is ridiclous.
>
>Let your member of parliament, Grant Hill, know your opinion on the
>legalization of marijuana before it's too late. His mailing address
>is Box 430, Okotoks, Alta., T0L 1T0. You can also write to David
>Hancock, the provincial minister of justice, at 208 Legislature
>Building, 10800 97th Ave., Edmonton, Alta., T5K 2B6.
>
Just goes to show that most people skimmed the 600+ pages and didn't bother
to absorb any of it. Or at least took away what they felt was 'good press'
for their view on the matter. I frankly don't understand why people are so
quick to reach for the panic button. The reports mandate was to make
recommendations based on facts. The facts are that possession of 'pot' does
not fit the guidelines for a "criminal offence", it is less harmful then
alcohol or tobacco, usage in Canada has soared and Canada being a democracy
has to recognize this and possibly accept the fact that Canadians would
rather see the plant legalized then have families and lives destroyed by
prohibition, and it does have valid therapeutic applications. The report
also states that decriminalization is hypocritical, and therefore
legalization is the best solution.
The report does discuss the harmful effects of marijuana, such as increased
risks of throat, lung and brain cancer, and it also points out that there
would have to be a method developed to test drivers at spot checks. There
are a number of issues that will have to be addressed, but the fact remains
that prohibition is a greater evil then the drug its self, but there are two
very active sides to this debate, and the side that makes the most noise may
very well win, so call your MP and express your desire to end prohibition.
Hiccum Blurpaedius
"Flash Bang!" <kab...@bangbang.com> wrote in message
news:3D8490EF...@bangbang.com...
> Media Awareness Project
> CN AB: Editorial: Canadian Senators Must Have Been Smoking
> URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n1724/a11.html
> Newshawk: Join CMAP (http://www.mapinc.org/cmap/lists.htm)
> Pubdate: Tue, 10 Sep 2002
> Source: Claresholm Local Press (CN AB)
> Copyright: 2002 Claresholm Local Press
> Contact: clp...@telusplanet.net
> Website: http://claresholmpress.awna.com/
> Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2382
>
> CANADIAN SENATORS MUST HAVE BEEN SMOKING SOMETHING
>
> Canada's senators have come up with an interesting idea. Let's
> legalize marijuana.
>
> enforcing laws against this drug.
>
> that marijuana is addictive ).
>
> people not to start smoking the legalized drug ).
>
> in the United States )
>
> all the money we've saved, let's talk about where else we'll have to
> spend money.
>
> will be people who will "dope and drive". How will police test
> someone to see if he or she has been smoking a joint before driving?
> And what will the "legal limit" for marijuana smoking be? One? Two?
> Does it depend on your gender, height, weight and whether you had a
> meal with your joint?
LIONS
>
> What about restaurants and bars? Won't they all have no choice but to
> become no smoking or will there be three sections instead of two?
TIGERS
>
> There has been discussion about the decriminalization of marijuana for
> awhile, but that is different than legalization.
>
BEARS
> Pushing to legalize pot before offering any solutions to these
> questions ( and others ) is crazy.
Huff n Puff
>
> Pushing to legalize a drug, which is just as addictive as cigarettes
> and alcohol is scary.
BOO
>
> Why aren't we talking about stiffer penalties for marijuana
> possession?
KKK
>
> Senators need to slow down and take another look at their idea, and
> the Canadian public need to respond to outrageous ideas thought up by
> these people.
THE WORLD IS FLAT, THE WORLD IS FLAT.
granto
Hiccum Blurpaedius
"granto" <a...@123.net> wrote in message
news:K0lh9.693$r63.1...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> Cannabis would be legal in Canada if it weren't for Alberta and small
town
> Ontario. Look on Mapinc, practically all the anti letters and
editorials
> come from either Alberta or small town Ontario.
>
> .:granto:.
Let me guess, Catholic?
granto
other religious nuts, just from small, bitter, close minded people. People
who for some reason or another believe that those who use cannabis are in a
lower class then them.
I can't speak much about the pro-legalization battle in Alberta (other
than what I've read from Mapinc; which doesn't seem good; either the papers
don't support the people or the people don't support cannabis-law-reform;
hell even the editorial that we are commenting on is Albertan) but in small
town Ontario the situation really isn't as good as most people proclaim.
Just as can be seen in the US (again this is from reading various newspaper
clippings and results from online newspaper search engines and newshawk
sites (like Mapinc)), small town cops tend to be very power hungry and
hateful toward non-violent drug consumers; perhaps because we represent a
slice of the public that the cops cannot control who aren't engaged in
anything overtly criminal (aside from using illegal-drugs)? Thankfully,
Canadia municipalities don't have the monies to sponser huge anti-drug
operations; also we don't really have a federal anti-drug agency like the
DEA (we have the RCMP, but they actually do __real__ police work, so they
don't have the time to do as many anti-drug ops).
We still have a really long way to go in Canada before we even
officially decrim; the antis have huge lobbying powers (probably sponsered
in some way by the USA). The war is far from over; it's time to fight hard
now...
.:granto:.
"Hiccum Blurpaedius" <Free...@Liebertee.Just-ice> wrote in message
news:Minh9.607$c87....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Zark
"Hiccum Blurpaedius" <Free...@Liebertee.Just-ice> wrote in message
news:Minh9.607$c87....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
No offence Hiccy but you're a TWAT! I've been reading your posts now for a
few months. At first they were quite amusing. Then I realised you're
serious. Most of my friends are Catholic. Most of us smoke. Catholicism
is not anti-pot. I know several priests, or trainee preists who smoke the
weed. (And some of them aren't paedophiles either - how about that?)
Zark
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.384 / Virus Database: 216 - Release Date: 24/08/2002
Hiccum Blurpaedius
"Zark" <za...@leavethisbitout.blues.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:GZrh9.64$h5.1...@news.randori.com...
>
> "Hiccum Blurpaedius" <Free...@Liebertee.Just-ice> wrote in message
> news:Minh9.607$c87....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "granto" <a...@123.net> wrote in message
> > news:K0lh9.693$r63.1...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> > > Cannabis would be legal in Canada if it weren't for Alberta and
small
> > town
> > > Ontario. Look on Mapinc, practically all the anti letters and
> > editorials
> > > come from either Alberta or small town Ontario.
> > >
> > > .:granto:.
> >
> > Let me guess, Catholic?
> >
>
> No offence Hiccy but you're a TWAT! I've been reading your posts now
for a
> few months. At first they were quite amusing. Then I realised you're
> serious. Most of my friends are Catholic. Most of us smoke.
Catholicism
> is not anti-pot. I know several priests, or trainee preists who smoke
the
> weed. (And some of them aren't paedophiles either - how about that?)
>
> Zark
Catholicism is against the seven leaved weed but not wine.
The Constitution of the US was written to prevent the abuse of religious
dictation. The wars fought were against the Catholic religion. The
Catholics continue to cram their anti-marijuana and other prissy
opinions across the globe.
Go worship your sexual torture device.
Zark
Where does that Catholic church say that?
> The Constitution of the US was written to prevent the abuse of religious
> dictation.
I'm not a Yank but i don't think that's entirely true. Surely it was to
free you from all us EVIL BRITS! The freedom to practice or not practice
came in an amendment. (ie AFTER the constitution was written)
> The wars fought were against the Catholic religion.
Which wars? The American War Of Being Given Away was not fought against
Catholics. Britain is not a Catholic country and wasn't then.
> The Catholics continue to cram their anti-marijuana and other prissy
> opinions across the globe.
Which anti-marijuana opinions?
> Go worship your sexual torture device.
I've seen you mention this before but still don't get it.
Answers on a postcard to:
Hiccum Blurpaedius
> > Catholicism is against the seven leaved weed but not wine.
>
> Where does that Catholic church say that?
>
All Catholic Universities.
Most recently Lynn University was caught dissecting bodies that were
meant to be cremated. Cannibis consumers are punished severely. The Head
of the DEA I believe is catholic.
> > The Constitution of the US was written to prevent the abuse of
religious
> > dictation.
>
> I'm not a Yank but i don't think that's entirely true. Surely it was
to
> free you from all us EVIL BRITS! The freedom to practice or not
practice
> came in an amendment. (ie AFTER the constitution was written)
King James Version was written for the sole purpose of divorce.
Protestants were the result of catholic protesters. Episcopalian church
is the off branch of a more lenient religion. The wars in Europe during
the Dark Ages and onward were the result of tyranical popes.
Pilgrims who were sick of being told how to worship escaped to settle
the new world. The ideals lasted shortly.
THe catholics now run much of the philipines and are the instigating
force behind the birth of Mohammad.
>
> > The wars fought were against the Catholic religion.
>
> Which wars? The American War Of Being Given Away was not fought
against
> Catholics. Britain is not a Catholic country and wasn't then.
>
All the Wars.
> > The Catholics continue to cram their anti-marijuana and other prissy
> > opinions across the globe.
>
> Which anti-marijuana opinions?
>
All the opinions that threaten the blood of Jesus.
Winos rule the US.
Cannibis is much better than wine.
> > Go worship your sexual torture device.
>
> I've seen you mention this before but still don't get it.
>
Everyone put on the cross was castrated. I have a natural reflex to
cross my legs when a sculpture of a sexual torture device is stuck in my
face. -Count Dracula.
bobb
by... Just kidding. :)
I really do think Priests should be able to marry though. How else can they
help counsel their married constituents? Would you trust the advice of a
marriage counsellor who is not married, or is divorced?
bobb
"Zark" <za...@leavethisbitout.blues.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:GZrh9.64$h5.1...@news.randori.com...
Zark
"Hiccum Blurpaedius" <Free...@Liebertee.Just-ice> wrote in message
I stand corrected. You are, of course, right.
You haven't answered one of my questions, or rebutted any of my points.
zark
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.389 / Virus Database: 220 - Release Date: 17/09/2002
Zark
"bobb" <bo...@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:am6h4...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> Not pedophiles.... yet! Lets see what happens after 20 years of celibacy
goes
> by... Just kidding. :)
> I really do think Priests should be able to marry though. How else can
they
> help counsel their married constituents? Would you trust the advice of a
> marriage counsellor who is not married, or is divorced?
>
> bobb
>
So do I. my brother was a priest but left the priesthood because he fell in
love. The church's loss I guess.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
bobb
I actually received a reply today. I think they're gonna publish it. Haha.
FYI, it turns out the editor of the paper is the one who wrote the editorial,
it was not a letter TO the editor (not that it really makes a difference).
She seems like a very nice lady and was very happy to have received a reply
from me (even after I accused her of smoking something!). Ohwell, all's well
that ends well :P
--- Editorial Reply ---
Oh boy, where do I start? YES! Let's legalize marijuana.
This saves government $300-500 million according to our friend, RHS, but wait,
some of that money has to be used on prevention and awareness programs. I
concede this, but also consider the following.
We already have drug awareness and prevention programs. Therefore a slight
change will be required to reflect it's legal status. This should not take
much more money than what is already being spent. Definitely not $300
million!
I concede again, marijuana can be addictive, psychologically. Physically, one
never 'needs' a joint as one does with cigarettes or alcohol or cocaine or
opiates. Anybody can stop smoking weed IF THEY WANT TO. How does this affect
drug abuse programs? Not very much considering they, again, are already in
place. Why does it's legal status suddenly require more money be dumped into
programs that already exist? Besides, how many people go into rehab for weed
(excepting court order, if applicable)?
Border security? Let the States deal with it. They don't want it, they can
keep it out of their country themselves. Lots of weed gets through the border
everyday as our laws currently stand. Even if we maintain our current level
of security to help them reduce trafficking, it shouldn't necessitate large
sums of money being allocated to 'new security measures.'
"Dope and Drive?" I concede, marijuana affects motor ability in some people.
Most smokers I know tend to drive _more cautiously_ when stoned. Unfortunatel
y, I have no scientific proof, only circumstantial evidence. Still, it's a
LOT safer than people who "Drink and Drive." Alcohol impairs people's motor
ability FAR worse than marijuana and is LEGAL. Alcohol also affects your
judgement far more than marijuana.
Marijuana's effects have been scientifically found to be temporary and benign.
No worse than that of smoking. Since smoking is legal, chances are there will
not be a high increase in health care spending due to marijuana. You seem to
assume that once it's legal, usage will go up significantly. While this may
be true as legalizing it makes it novel, usage will eventually even out as the
novelty wears off, and with the prevention and awareness programs already in
place, as with cigarettes, usage will begin to diminish.
Is there a legal limit for smoking cigarettes?
Pot smokers are not without manners. Most would never light up inside a
restaurant or bar unless the bar makes provisions for doing so. Most would
continue to smoke outside, where it should be enjoyed. Cigarette smokers
could take a few lessons from our cannabis smoking friends.
You also seem to forget that after marijuana is legalized, it is then TAXABLE
by the government. If you don't believe this will be a huge source of revenue
for the government, what have you been smoking?
I do agree with one thing, let your member of parliament know how you feel
about the issue of legalizing marijuana.
"Zark" <za...@leavethisbitout.blues.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:OFOh9.6$X_1....@news.randori.com...
Bill
"Oren Zero" <oren...@comRG59cablecast.net> wrote in message
news:Xi2h9.45223$5r1.1...@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> "Flash Bang!" <kab...@bangbang.com> wrote
>
> The writer doesn't have a clue. Not even heroin is as
> addictive as nicotine. Cannabis doesn't even get an
> honorable mention in the list of addictive drugs.
Cannabis doesn't need any mention in the addictive substance arena.......
I have smoked MJ in the past, I also know a great number of people who
smoked and still do, I can tell you from experience that POT IS NOT
ADDICTIVE!!!!!! I don't get where everyone gets this idea that pot is
addictive or is a stepping stone to other drugs??? Cigarettes ARE addictive,
even alcohol to a degree (if you have an addictive nature all things are
addictive even candy, Jell-O, ice cream), so are cocaine, and heroin, but I
can take or leave MJ any day and same with all the people I know. Now if the
smoke is cut with some unknown substance, then is could be addictive, (which
is why the Gov should control it keep it pure and uncut), but on it's own no
way. I smoked cigarettes for 15 years and that was the hardest thing in my
life to quit, I have also done a number of other drugs in the past like
cocaine and LSD and find them addictive as hell, but even these are not as
addictive as cigarettes. I still crave cigarettes almost daily( but it does
get easier as time goes by), but pot doesn't even phase me, if I want a toke
I'll have one if I don't then fine. MJ doesn't eat your liver like alcohol,
or at a pot party you most likely will NOT get into a fight by the end of
the night as anywhere there is alcohol you most likely will. I hope they do
legalize and decriminalize MJ, but I don't agree with senate on the age. I
think all controlled substances i.e.; tobacco, alcohol, and future
possibilities, should not be sold to anyone under 21 which is what the
drinking age should be all across this country (Canada that is).
The biggest problem is there are not enough young people in politics, all
the older fellows will always just winding up shelving anything that could
be controversial, and keep the rest of living in the 1920's, they should
just realize that the war on drugs will NEVER be won, so they should just
work with it, teach about drug abuse, EDUCATION, and if you raise your
children right, they will make the right decisions, but in case they do try
to experiment once in their young lives, I don't think they should wind up
with a criminal record over a frigging joint.......
I apologize for rambling, but I'm tired of the governments of the world
telling me what I can and can't do, when I can and can't do it, that's total
shit.
I feel bad for my neighboring countrymen to the south they have to put up
the DEA which in themselves are drug lords of a sort, except their drug is
POWER, and they push it where ever they can.
I don't even smoke pot for that matter anymore, but people should be FREE to
CHOOSE.