|
|
| Half-Baked Questions |
|
Posted by FoM on September 27, 2001 at 20:01:56 PT By Alisa Gordaneer Source: Monday Magazine 
Here’s a riddle for you: What’s the difference between marijuana that’s grown in an old mine in Manitoba, and marijuana that’s grown in B.C.?The answer? Well, apart from the fact that one’s technically legal, and the other isn’t, nobody knows yet, because the first crop of prescription-only government pot isn’t ready for harvest. Wait until next spring and ask again. By then someone’s bound to have done some comparison smoking. You don’t need to indulge to figure out the difference between legal drugs and illegal ones. You just need to look at where the money goes. Does it travel through a pharmacy, a government, a multinational drug company and/or a patent holder? Do you see it paying for ads on TV and in magazines? Never mind those interminable lists of warnings and side effects—that money is connected with a legal drug. Or does the money travel through independent sellers, distributors and growers, leaving the government and corporate entities out of the loop? Bingo, that’s the illegal one. The powers that be don’t seem all that worried about the side effects or safety of any given drug, from thoroughly legal stuff like Tylenol and Viagra, to less-than-legal pot. They’re not out to safeguard consumer safety—they’re out to make sure they get their cut on any drug deal going. Which is why it wasn’t really all that surprising when the federal government allowed the prescription use of medical marijuana earlier this year. If it’s prescribed, and grown by the government, the money becomes easier to track: from patient (the upgraded term for user) to pharmacy to government. (And just wait till they allow patents on particularly good strains of marijuana. Yikes.) In this week’s cover story, Sid Tafler indicates that the medicalization of marijuana is the logical precursor to its legalization. It makes sense. Once some people, sick or not, are allowed to use dope without fear of repercussion, others will want to do the same. The floodgates are open. I’m not in favour of legalization, because legalization will inevitably bring regulation. And with regulation, you can bet your pot will provide about as pleasant a buzz as B.C. Ferries coffee. On top of that, it’ll be taxed, probably steeply, and I’m guessing that, like alcohol, you’ll probably have to go to a special government store to buy it. Gives new meaning to a “six-pack of Bud”, but that’s about it. Instead, I’m in favour of plain old decriminalization. By not arresting, charging, sentencing and imprisoning people for marijuana-related activities, the government will save tonnes of money, which could be better used for housing the homeless, feeding the hungry and giving—not selling—pot to the sick. Hell, they could even develop government subsidies for pot growers, like they do for farmers. You just know what’ll happen then. The market will be flooded. Instead of $2,400 a pound, you’ll be able to score high-test weed at every farmers’ market for less than the cost of mesclun salad mix. And then what? Sure, people will still smoke it, eat it, probably even mulch their gardens with it. And the only riddle then will be, why was this ever such a big deal? Source: Monday Magazine (CN BC) Related Articles & Web Site: FTE's Canadian Links Canadian Marijuana Madness Could Infect U.S. Medicinal Pot Users Hail Wonders of Weed Canada Legalizes Marijuana For Medical Purposes Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Comment #3 posted by bruce42 on September 28, 2001 at 10:06:29 PT |
| I always manage to forget that. But it still boggles my mind how the majority of public antis can consider pot to be a "dangerous drug"! These people are out of their minds. Thank you for whipping me back in line, though. My morning coffee must have been a bit strong. i got a little hyper there. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #2 posted by Morgan on September 28, 2001 at 09:48:26 PT |
| Please don't take this as an insult Bruce. I in no way think you're stupid, but to paraphrase an old Clintonian campaign slogan: "It's about the OIL, stupid." (... and the timber...and cotton...and pharmaceuticals... and on and on and on....) ************************************************************ [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by bruce42 on September 28, 2001 at 08:35:17 PT |
| "And then what? Sure, people will still smoke it, eat it, probably even mulch their gardens with it. And the only riddle then will be, why was this ever such a big deal?..." Why is pot such a big deal? Why? Why? Why? Why? WHY? I simply cannot fathom the concept. I can't. I really can't. Why does the government insist that pot is this crazy nasty thing? It's a freakin weed, dammit! An herb, a shrub, a P-L-A-N-T PLANT! Why should they give a rat's ass about it? Who cares if people smoke, grow it, or eat it? No one questions me while I grow coffee trees in my basement or chili peppers in my garden. Both of those things have identified chemical compounds that effect physiological changes on the human body. Why aren't those particular plants illegal? Cause no one gives a slippery shite if you drink coffee for a quicker picker upper or use chili extracts for pain relief. It seems to me that such practices are openly encouraged! Egads! Why is it that we continue to single out this one plant as a harbringer of evil? It's a plant. It doesn't care. It has no feelings. It cannot be evil. Period. It is not bad in and of itself. Would maple trees be illegal if someone found out that you got a great buzz if you smoked the leaves? Probably not. Why? people would really not be happy if you came by a started hacking down their neighborhood trees. People are complaining about pot, too. It's only a matter of time before people start to riot. Why can't these arseheads just free the weed? Wouldn't life be a lot simpler for everyone involved? [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |