Millions of human beings sitting in prisons because of a substance that you(lesser) do not like?

Millions of dollars in your pocket because of a substance that you(lesser) do not like?

The reality is that you(lesser) have vested interests in maintaining the prohibiton.

And yes, cannabis is safer than red wine.

Hmmm. The goodly government police officer said a mouthfull there.

''No standing and enforced policy of the United States is more vicious and indefensible than the War on Drugs. The most immediate purpose of draconian drug policy is to keep from mainstream citizens, substances which foster disillusionment with the propaganda of the elite, render the citizen markedly less prone to follow the directives of the elite (and implement those directives with obedient productivity), and increase the likelihood that individuals will have innovative thoughts that threaten the hegemony of the dominant elite.''

The Drug War
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/drugwar/index.html#metatop

"Until we've got some good, solid research so that we know what the effects of cannabis are..."

The newscast of the previous night also led with the story, and being just as reductive as our media outlets in the States, made it sound as if you just had to sneeze at the doctor's office to be given a prescription.

Yeah right. While yesterday's mainstream headlines read:

FDA approves generic Prozac

And America cheers new low cost anti-depressant!

Trust me kiddies they have all the research they need on marijuana! They just refuse to acknowledge it because they cannot charge you anything for something grow in your herb garden with the mint and chamomile. Pot has been relaxing and calming people for thousands of years and Prozac has been nasty side effecting people for maybe 15-20 years. Sorry, I don't have the facts on the date of the first Prozac pill. Which by the way is a synthetic man made derivative instead of something natural and God given!

Chew on this, moron. We have nothing substantial and
in fact, ONLY anecdotal evidence that cannabis
prohibition does anything to decrease the use and
supply of cannabis. Oops!

Chief Supt. Lesser said there has not been enough
scientific study into the health effects of marijuana.

I say that there has been less than no scientific
study into the health effects of arresting cannabis users
and/or just plain stealing their bud. Oops!

If research conclusively shows the drug is not
harmful, he said the association would consider
support for decriminalization.

Well, we certaily don't want that. What would happen to the world if people weren't always stuck in the police chief's view of reality. It's hell in a handbasket for sure.

Knives. Chainsaws. Bush-hogs. Now my damn' laser's worn out. And the turkeys just keep coming, gobble-gobbling their nonsense. Gotta find a new method of carving.

In the meantime, this will have to do:

Okay, lets begin at the beginning.

"Until we've got some good, solid research so that we know what the effects of cannabis are, for us it would be irresponsible to do anything that would increase the use and supply of cannabis."

Standard anti propaganda move Number Two, predictable as sunrise. To imply that not enough research concerning the effects of cannabis exists. Patently false. Yet they base their actions as LEO's upon an officially, governmentally derived, stated and accepted knowledge of what cannabis's effects are.

Oh I forgot, the Chief said ‘good, solid research’. Meaning anything that came from prohibitionist apologists is valid (Pot makes men grow D-cup sized knockers!) and anything groups like the American Institute of Medicine (Cannabis is not a gateway drug, has not killed a single human being, etc.) is not.

I wish I could be as selective about the size of my paycheck as the Chief is about which facts he relies upon to justify his actions.

Now, on to the ‘irresponsible’ part. The Chief decries ‘irresponsibility’. But if the Canadian Federal Government’s entire position on cannabis is based upon the ravings of “Janey Canuck” and her American doppelganger Winifred Black, without a single shred of scientific evidence to support them, then is any action taken by the State against the individual not reprehensibly flawed from the git-go?

In short, ‘irresponsible’?

It should be noted here that the Chief belongs to the only Canadian Law enforcement organization that has spoken out against re-legalization. A very definite minority. One perhaps concerned that all their lovely plans to ape the US’s forfeiture schemes that they try to push through Parliament may go down the legislative toilet after cannabis prohibition is thrown in first?

Drug charges have almost doubled since 1996 -- 10,550 charges were laid last year against 4,100 persons -- although more than half the charges are for simple marijuana possession. One can see why the Toronto police are not in favour of decriminalizing marijuana possession: without those charges, there would be a visible enough drop in the numbers to weaken police calls for more money. . .

CN ON: Don't Let The Police Fool You About Crime Stats, Aug 2, 2001
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n1418/a04.html

That something is a vice is no reason to put people in jail, fine them, arrest them, subject them to strip searches . . . I could go on ad nauseum. You get my point.

Many believe that religion is a vice; should we, then, make the practice of any religion a crime subject to criminal sanctions and penalties? Many believe that the government itself is a vice; should we, then, make all practice of government a crime subject to criminal sanctions and penalties?

Anything can be a vice, therefore everything should be illegal. This is the mentality of the antis.

But he said any policy that increases the widespread use of marijuana would lead to more crimes currently associated with alcohol, such as theft, break-ins and impaired driving.

"It's an illegal substance that gives an alternative feeling to what reality is about," he said.

There are four arguments here: (1) legalization would lead to an increase in use, (2) use of marijuana leads to crime, (3) cannabis should be illegal because it is illegal, and (4) cannabis should be illegal because it alters one's perceptions of "reality."

(1) Legalization may, in fact, lead to an increase in use. This has not been the case anywhere it has been legalized, but let's say, for the sake of argument, that it would be true in Canada. What would the impact of this increased use be? Well, for starters, many could well shift their choice of intoxicants from alcohol to the more benign substance, cannabis, resulting in less violence (cannabis itself is not associated with violence, although the black market behind it now is) and fewer traffic accidents (per three studies, including one conducted in Canada). But Lesser has another point of view:

(2) Lesser believes that marijuana use itself leads to "theft, break-ins and impaired driving." There is no evidence to corroborate such claims. As stated above, the only variable that creates an association between violence and cannabis is the black market, which is heartily supported by Lesser (not More).

(3) The argument that something should be illegal because it is illegal is so moronic that I won't even honor it with a significant response.

(4) Regarding cannabis's ability to alter one's sense of reality, does not fervent prayer do the same thing? Does not the Bible give specific examples of music played by David soothing the troubled mind of King Saul, and is this soothing not also an alteration of one's sense of reality? Does not transcendental meditation alter one's sense of reality? Should prayer, music and meditation be made illegal in an attempt to force everyone to accept RCMP Chief Supt. Robert Lesser's version of reality, however warped by propaganda and profiteering it may be? Certainly not.

What we are left with, then, are hollow, empty platitudes of no import and even less meaning. As a composition instructor, I would give such rhetoric an F.

Dan B