cannabisnews.com: Canadian Marijuana Madness Could Infect The U.S.










  Canadian Marijuana Madness Could Infect The U.S.

Posted by FoM on August 13, 2001 at 19:36:41 PT
By Robert L. Maginnis  
Source: Watertown Daily Times  

On July 30th, Canada became the first country in the would to allow its citizens to possess marijuana for "medical" purposes. Canada has already legalized the production of hemp, a form of marijuana, for industrial purposes. Derek Lee, a member of the ruling Liberal Party, said that decriminalizing marijuana for recreational users is "not a complex issue" and "it is possible that possession of marijuana may soon be no more serious than getting a speeding ticket." 
Even though many Canadians oppose liberalization, it may be only a matter of time before Canada puts a match to most marijuana prohibition. This will add momentum to liberalization efforts in the United states. There is a European precedent for this conclusion. In 1984, the Dutch government adopted a liberal cannabis policy whereby possession of small amounts of marijuana of hashish was decriminalized and distribution at hundreds of so-called coffee shops was permitted. This policy ushered in droves of tourists from neighboring counties seeking drugs, and today many of those counties have followed the Dutch lead. Canada is already a major supplies of marijuana to the United States, and decriminalization will make it worse. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police estimates that much of the 800 tons of marijuana produced illegally in Canada every year is shipped to the United States. Decriminalization of marijuana will certainly encourage Canada's pot producers to increase output. More "maple-leaf" marijuana will flow into the United States a lower prices and perhaps in more powerful varieties. We can expect some U.S. citizens to travel north of the border to engage in drug tourism and a number of these will, no doubt, attempt to return home with cars stuffed with cheap pot. Customs officials beware! Although Canada prohibits marijuana production, its laws aren't rigorously enforced. Magazines such as High Times, which is written for the marijuana subculture, are filled with advertisements for Canadian-based marijuana seed companies and drug paraphernalia merchants. Canada's "medical" marijuana decision is another step toward drug legalization. In the past. the use of marijuana for medical purposes required a special government exemption. Now, Allan Rock. Canada's health minister. who alleges that he was forced by the courts to expand his country's marijuana program says, "This compassionate measure will improve the quality of life of sick Canadian, particularly those who are terminally ill." Under the new rules, three criteria must be met before the use of "medical" pot will be approved: the user must be very sick or close to dying; a doctor's voucher must be presented that says all remedies but marijuana have failed' and a reliable supplier must be available. While many patients will grow their own marijuana, others will turn to the government. This contractor will grow 880 pounds of marijuana annually in an abandoned mine in Manitoba and receive $3.7 million to do so. Not everyone is pleased with Canada's policy. Peter Barrett, president of the Canadian Medical Association, complains that doctors will bear the brunt of deciding who should be allowed to use the drug. "We're being asked to be the gatekeepers for a product that hasn't gone through any rigorous testing." The reluctance of physicians is based on the fear that "everyone who wants marijuana for recreational use will be on the doorstep, and then we'll be the ones who have to say no," Darrett said. Canadian courts have contributed to the drug liberalization trend. Last summer, the Canadian health ministry blamed the Ontario Court of Appeals for forcing its hand on the medical use of marijuana. Now, Canada's Supreme Court is considering whether criminal charges for the personal use of marijuana violate constitutional rights. Conservative parliamentarian Joe Clark urges the elimination of criminal penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana. "It's unjust to see someone, because of one decision one night in their youth, (to) carry the stigma," Clark said. Even Canadian Justice Minister Anne McLellan said she is "quite open" to a debate on decriminalizing marijuana. The Canadian Police Association represents 30,000 police officers and provides rare caution to these politically driven pro-drug views. They released a statement saying there is a "weakening perception of risk of harm in drug use, and weakening moral disapproval of drug use." Dale Orban, the association's spokesman, said, "The costs of drug liberalization will be astronomical, not only in terms of health care and social services, but in true human terms." Unfortunately, the United States is sliding down the same drug slope as Canada. Nine states have embraced the use of pot as medicine. Even though our Supreme Court recently ruled that the Controlled Substances Act made no exception for the use of marijuana by ill people, that decision was narrow and will certainly be tested further. More ballot initiatives aimed at "medicalizing" or decriminalizing marijuana will test our resolve. For the sake of both Canadian and U.S. citizens, Canada must reverse its pro-drug direction. Note: U.S. officials should discourage Canada from adopting liberal drug policies that could spill over into the United States.Maginnis is Policy Vice President for the Family Research Council.Complete Title: Canadian Marijuana Madness Could Infect The United StatesNews Article Courtesy of Mapinc.http://mapinc.org/drugnews/v01.n1484.a06.html Source: Watertown Daily Times (NY) Author: Robert L. Maginnis Published: Saturday, August 11, 2001Copyright: 2001 Watertown Daily Times Contact: letters wdt.net Website: http://www.wdt.net Related Articles & Web Sites:Family Research Councilhttp://www.frc.org/ FTE's Canadian Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/can.htmReading, Writing And Propagandahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10560.shtmlCanada Legalizes Marijuana For Medical Purposeshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10468.shtmlCannabisNews Articles - Canadahttp://cannabisnews.com/thcgi/search.pl?K=canada 

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help







 


Comment #21 posted by firedog on August 14, 2001 at 16:30:49 PT

My letter to the editor...
Feel free to use any part of this, or the whole thing, if you like. Maybe it would be useful to have an archive of letters to use for campaigns like this? Hit every newspaper and magazine that publishes a pro-War viewpoint with hundreds of letters? I bet they'd notice.Like someone said, maybe it's just an editorial staff that reads the letters, but they can't help but to notice what the letters say. And they're the ones that decide what goes on the editorial page besides letters... they might get "infected" with "marijuana madness"... Firedog---------------------------Dear Watertown Daily Times: I am writing in response to a letter to the editor written by Robert L. Maginnis titled "Canadian Marijuana Madness Could Infect The United States." The title alone is bad enough, suggesting that the rational discussions underway north of the border are "madness". The article itself is worse.The entire War on Drugs is on the way out. Call it Prohibition circa 1932, Vietnam circa 1972, or the Berlin Wall circa 1988. Like those distant memories, the Drug War will also soon be a footnote in world history. Other countries are increasingly fed up with U.S. pressure, bullying, and malfeasance. After booting the U.S. off the U.N. Narcotics Control Board, other countries are finally choosing new, rational, sane approaches to drug issues.Mr. Maginnis himself points out that after the Dutch paved the way in allowing the use of cannabis, many other European countries followed suit. Certainly this would not have happened if the Dutch experiment were a failure! It follows that the experiment must have been a success, or at least a better option than the status quo. Now more countries, including Britain and Canada, wish to replicate that success.Drug use among Dutch youth – in all categories – is about half what it is in the United States. The average age of heroin users in Holland is 40, and rising. The violent crime rate there is a fraction of what it is in the United States. The imprisonment rate is also a fraction of what it is in the United States. Holland is a very family-oriented country and one that takes the raising of its children seriously. Let's take a look at the results of our "zero tolerance" policy. America, "land of the free" as we like to call it, has more prisoners, both in raw numbers and per capita, than any other country in the world. Texas and California alone have more people in prison than all of Europe. One of four prisoners worldwide languishes in a U.S. jail. More than half of them are nonviolent. More than half of those are nonviolent drug offenders. This, in an enlightened, "free" country?We drop untested combinations of toxic chemicals on Columbian farmers and the Amazon rainforest in order to solve our cocaine problem, and we are on the verge of entering their decades-old civil war. DEA agents and SWAT teams raid tomato gardens, guns drawn, because "tomatoes look like marijuana from the air". They kill eleven-year-old boys because they have the wrong address on the warrant. In the same spirit, Christian missionaries are shot down based on U.S. intelligence reports. We deny clean needles to heroin users, forcing them to share dirty ones and spread AIDS not only to themselves, but also to innocent third parties who may not know of their behavior. Every year, the DEA and other groups find new ways to infringe on our civil liberties, ostensibly in the name of the "war on drugs", but the infringements affect everyone, and are soon expanded into other, unrelated areas. And the courts continue to ignore the Constitution.Despite all this, the black market in drugs becomes increasingly more entrenched, the drug cartels accumulate massive amounts of cash and power (8% of our GDP goes to purchase illegal drugs, by some estimates), and drug prices continue to drop, even as usage levels remain virtually static from year to year.And people still have the audacity to call our policy a "success"? A more appropriate term would be "barbaric". And that's exactly what the Europeans think of our Drug War, too.In this and many other areas, the U.S. is quickly losing its leadership role in the world. I am deeply afraid of what my country is becoming, and I only hope it's not too late to return to the American ideals of freedom, democracy, and self-determination. Reread the Constitution and see what it says, word for word, then start researching the Drug War and decide for yourself if American freedom is an endangered species.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #20 posted by Kevin Hebert on August 14, 2001 at 14:33:27 PT:

This is how we will win
75% of Americans feel the war on drugs is not working. Unfortunately, very few know what we should be doing instead. I find that when you talk to people and explain harm reduction, etc., usually they will "get it". However, I also find people are a little nervous about being thought of as "pro-drugs". That is why we are here. If we show people that you can be against the drug war, yet not a burnout, we will win. We need to carefully guide people through the logic of how prohibition creates more problems than it cause. It can be hard to understand; people think "drugs bad, bad people need to go to jail, druggies need to go to jail." It's a simplistic notion that begins with the logical fallacy that drugs are bad. Drugs cannot be bad, no more than trees can be bad or sandpaper can be bad. Inanimate objects cannot by themselves have human characteristics. Yes, some people, using some drugs, may do some bad things or have some bad experiences. However, that is not usually the case. We all know this, yet with the mass brainwashing performed by the U.S. government over the past 30 years, we have an uphill climb. Every letter we write and send is an act of courage. All these acts of courage combined will eventually lead to success. It is inevitable. How long will it take? It is hard to say. But it will happen sooner than anyone right now thinks, of that much I am positive. Until then, let us continue to enjoy the same knowledge that what we are doing is right that motivated the Patriots, the abolitionists, the civil rights movement. We ARE right, we SHALL overcome, and when we do, let it be said that we gave our all, our most absolute and perfect effort to defeat the notion that any government has any right or obligation to control what any of its citizens chooses to do with his or her own body.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #19 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on August 14, 2001 at 14:17:20 PT:

Canadiana Attacks!
Pretty soon, all Amerika will be talking like this:That's my 2-4, you hoser, eh!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #18 posted by kaptinemo on August 14, 2001 at 14:13:02 PT:

Bravo, scmeff, Bra-vo!
"n the wake of Mad-Cow disease, propagandists like Maginnis find the specter of mad Canucks infecting us with reefer-madness hard to resist.Oh, Jeez, you had me rolling. I had a vivid visual impression of the stereotypically well-behaved, polite Canadians becoming raving marauders and sweeping down from the 49th Parallel and forcibly sticking joints in people's mouths was too much. Nice shot!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #17 posted by Dan B on August 14, 2001 at 12:44:24 PT:

I Agree, Folks
We should be sending letters to editors across the country, whether we get published or not. I was just expressing my frustration with the whole process. Thanks, Kevin Hebert, for reminding me that "even if no one reads your letter other than a couple editorial page worker bees, that's still something." I've made that argument before; I know you are right.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #16 posted by schmeff on August 14, 2001 at 12:20:40 PT

My LTE
The more people who write rejoinders to drivel such as this, the more the media will come to realize that drug law reform is far from a fringe idea. Besides, where else are you going to have a chance to preach to someone other than the choir, AND blatantly steal great ideas, thoughts and bon-mots that you read here on CN? (Land of the pee is just too catchy not to pass on....thanks! Here's the text of my LTE, sent today:The unfortunate title of the Robert Maginnis editorial, “Canadian Marijuana Madness Could Infect The United States” ironically mirrors the racist underpinnings of the Drug War. It was yellow journalism-spawned fears of drug-crazed Blacks molesting white women, or reefer-smoking Mexicans, or Asians high on opium that prompted the Harrison Act of 1937 and it’s bastard offspring, the Controlled Substances Act. Before this, adults were generally trusted to make their own decisions about what to put in their bodies.In the wake of Mad-Cow disease, propagandists like Maginnis find the specter of mad Canucks infecting us with reefer-madness hard to resist. You will note that Maginnis failed to offer a single argument to justify marijuana prohibition, just as he failed to learn a single lesson from alcohol prohibition. Imagine the “astronomical costs” if alien ideas like “freedom” and “liberty” elude Customs Officials and seep into the U.S. The horror! Already, the Canadian Supreme Court has ruled that Canadian workers do not have to surrender their urine to obtain employment and earn a living.We must be vigilant, lest these seditious ideas infect the land of the pee and home of the brainwashed.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #15 posted by r.earing on August 14, 2001 at 11:40:30 PT:

missing acronyms
They mention that the can. police assoc. is opposed,but don't mention that the can assoc. of CHIEFS of police are pro,as is the RCMP.Pot being a FEDERAL law-the RCMP is the most important police assoc. The guy who runs the Can.police assoc. is a low browed simian who has his hands full defending his officers who have a nasty habit of dumping aboriginals out of town in freezing weather to die.He is a bad "streets of San Fransisco" wannabe,complete with open shirted chest hair and medallions.His whole department is being investigated by Amnesty International.(our odds of being murdered are higher for police officers than criminals ,4 deaths by police murder VS. 3 deaths by all criminals combined)
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #14 posted by FoM on August 14, 2001 at 10:21:09 PT

Good People
I just want to say that you all are good people in my book. Thanks Everyone!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #13 posted by MDG on August 14, 2001 at 10:06:52 PT

Kaptinemo mentioned...
"Just the history of the racist underpinnings of the DrugWar alone are explosively volatile enough to foment positive change; should certain leaders of minority groups open their eyes and read the original words of the promulgators of these laws and rally their 'constituents', the DrugWar could be over in a single year."This made me think again for a moment (and that's always a good, yet sometimes painful thing). Recently, I mentioned my confusion in response to Chris Tucker telling Bill Klinton that "he always wanted to be the first black president..." but Klinton beat him to it. This confusion was due to the fact that Klinton put more black people in jail than Reagan and Bush Sr. combined.To make a long comment short, I'm starting to believe that, in the same sense that a person who knows about, yet fails to stop/report, a pending crime (like the Oklahoma City bombing) is just as guilty as the "master-mind", any politician/citizen that furthers the progress of the Drug War is responsible not only for the obvious deaths/lives ruined, but also guilty of being an ignorant racist. I add the "ignorant" as a qualifier because they haved ignored the true origins of their precious Drug War at the expense of moralistic posturing.Yet, as Dan B mentioned, this is a good place to post ideas about which one isn't exactly certain. I'll have to do a bit more thinking about it, but this is the direction I'm leaning. Chris Tucker might as well have booty-smooched the Grand Wizard (who has probably been responsible for wrecking far fewer lives than Klinton).
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #12 posted by Doug on August 14, 2001 at 09:50:27 PT

One More Lie
Canada is already a major supplies of marijuana to the United States, and decriminalization will make it worse.Granted, spotting a lie in this article is like the proverbial shooting fish in a barrel, but since no one brought of this one, I thought I'd mention it. Richard Cowan (marijuananews.com) has pointed out on more than one occasion that official figures show that the amount of marijuana coming in from Mexico is many, many times the amount coming in from Canada. And then of course there is home-grown, which in several states is their number one crop, and in many others number two. So possibly Canada ranks up there with one of the states, but Maginnis' statement must be considered just an attempt to instill fear of the Other, though in this case the Other is very much like us.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #11 posted by Kevin Hebert on August 14, 2001 at 08:07:54 PT:

Writing and Being Published
I have to admit, it is great getting your words in print. However, even if no one reads your letter other than a couple editorial page worker bees, that's still something. I write many letters and only have had a couple published. However, I recommend that any time you write a good comment here on CannabisNews, send it along as a letter to the editor too. It can only help us, and if it gets published -- so much the better.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #10 posted by Kevin Hebert on August 14, 2001 at 07:58:03 PT:

My response to the Watertown Daily Times
Note: this article will likely appear in newspapers across the country. My goal is to write one letter to each paper that prints this garbage. If we all follow suit, well, that's a LOT of letters!--Dear Editors:Robert Maginnis' "Canadian Marijuana Madness Could Infect The U.S." was nothing more than meaningless propaganda.The people of Canada have every right to discard the disaster known as marijuana prohibition.Maginnis did not offer a single reason why marijuana should be illegal. Marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. It has no lethal dose.The only truly harmful aspect of marijuana is that if you are caught with it, you will be put in prison. That aspect must be changed.The war on drugs is primarily a war on marijuana and its users. We should follow Canada's lead and throw out this worthless policy once and for all.                Sincerely,                  Kevin M. Hebert
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #9 posted by J.R. Bob Dobbs on August 14, 2001 at 05:30:27 PT

Bard
  He couldn't star in Othello - that play's been proven to have been written by a pothead!!  I'd also like to see Barry McCaffrey as Richard III. Heck, I'd even help cut his arm off.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #8 posted by dddd on August 14, 2001 at 05:27:31 PT

mornin' Kap
 a couple of items in reference to your typicalygreat comments...."The American public is so easily distracted by the latest cause celebre."...So true,,but they are also purposely distracted,,and your example ofthe Sepulveda murder is good.Nary a whimper was heard throughoutthe media when this happenned,yet Elian Gonzales stopped the presses!....also,,,I think Jorma is a "him"Peace....dddd
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #7 posted by kaptinemo on August 14, 2001 at 04:44:02 PT:

Ah, the sweet sound of of an anti moaning
Mr. Maginnis is understandably concerned; given that the anti stock-in-trade is composed of equal parts lies and histrionics, the outbreak of truth and sanity that Canadian efforts represent is a direct challenge to their most vulnerable underpinnings.If only because it may cause those who are fence sitters or otherwise uninvolved to pay attention to what they normally couldn't care about.Ignorance and apathy have always been the strategic handmaidens of antis; the ignorance of the general American public regarding the War on (Some) Drugs - and what that 'war' has done in savaging rights they have largely forgotten. And the simple apathy of those who are ignorant of the extent to which their rights as a ostensibly free people have been so diminished…The American public is so easily distracted by the latest cause celebre. The antis know this; they figure that any gross violation of human decency they commit (such as the murder of 11 year old Alberto Sepulveda by police as he was laying face down on the floor during an 'ooops! wrong house!' drug raid) will be quickly forgotten.Sadly, they are all too correct in their assumptions. Events that would have sparked bloody revolutions in other nations elicits little more than a yawn, some tut-tutting, and a resumption of scratching and bleating.Ah, but let the public become focused upon something, to the exclusion of normal concerns, and then step back. As Jorma has so thoughtfully reminded us with her quote from Alexandre Dumas, nothing can stop an idea whose time has come.As this one has so evidently has.A prediction: it will take an entire year for the corporately controlled American media to realize that something of major importance has happened within Canada. By that time, cannabis may well be re-legalized in there. 'Traveller's Tales' of those who enjoy their stay in a land (which as Richard Cowan so adroitly puts it, "is too White to invade and too close to ignore") with a sensible attitude towards cannabis will further fuel the impetus towards a re-examination of our own drug laws.Which people like Mr. Maginnis are praying doesn't happen.Because that examination, previously the sole domain of scholars, will cause those fence-sitters and those formerly apathetic to call for changes. Changes that will put Mr. Maginnis and his ilk out of work.Just the history of the racist underpinnings of the DrugWar alone are explosively volatile enough to foment positive change; should certain leaders of minority groups open their eyes and read the original words of the promulgators of these laws and rally their 'constituents', the DrugWar could be over in a single year. But what will we do with all the unemployed professional anti mouthpieces? Well, I think that Mr. Maginnis may not have to worry too much; with his penchant for melodrama, he could get a role in a 4th rate dinner theater production as Iago in Shakespeare's Othello.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #6 posted by dddd on August 14, 2001 at 04:05:22 PT

I know exactly what you mean Dan
..I have written dozens of letters to various publications andjournalists in response to their articles.In most of them,I wascareful to obey their protocals,including,in many cases,the requiredmailing address,phone #,Moms maiden name and bra size,,,,youknow what I mean,,,,and whether by email or snail mail,theyusually end up unaknowledged........It's kindof similar to writingto your local or national political entities,but at least with themyou usually get some type of response.It frequently comes in aform letter like;Dear dddd......Congressman Assbutt is concerned about the issuesyou wrote about.He is working hard to help change things,and heappreciates your letter.......A few years ago,I got into writing to people who wrote articles thatI agreed with,encouraging them to keep on keepin' on.I got alot moreresponses to these letters.When Daniel Forbes broke the story in Salonabout the ONDCPs media payoffs,I emailed him a complimentary letterof encouragement.He sent me a really cool reply,talkin' about his family,and newfound notorious success,,,and he told me how positive inputmeans alot,,which I guess is true for most everyone.I feel the same way you do about commenting here.It's an excellentway to formulate ideas,,and,I think that the comments here areread by more people than we know.peace....dddd
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #5 posted by Dan B on August 14, 2001 at 03:30:40 PT:

Thanks, dddd
I find that I, too, spend considerably more time writing responses here on Cannabis News than I do writing letters to editors. I think I do that because I have yet to see a drug war related letter of mine in print at any of the publications to which I have sent letters. Here, I know that people will have the opportunity to read what I have written, and I might even get some feedback to help me think about issues differently.I have found that most newspapers are incredibly biased. Case in point: the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal has printed several letters I have written on other topics over the years, but the first letter I wrote against the drug war was also the first letter they did not print. While they once printed a letter I sent in protesting the Methamphetamine Antiproliferation Act, in that letter I was arguing against a breach in the 1st Amendment, and many would not have understood it as also being anti-prohibitionist. They emailed me to make sure that I got my word count under the 250 word limit (My word processor counted less than 250 the first time, so they must have been counting words they were going to use for the title, too). They have since ignored my drug war related letters to the editor. A few days after I sent my last letter, the A-J did print two drug war related articles: one was a very poorly written letter against the drug war; the other was a grammatically-correct (but poorly argued and propagandistic) letter in favor of the drug war written by a local high school student. The letter by the high school student was more than 20 words over the limit. I cancelled my subscription.So, I do struggle with sending out letters. I sometimes feellike I have to decide whether to send to publications that will likely reject them as being "off message," or to send to pubs where I'll essentially be "preaching to the choir." Finally, sometimes I'll post here at Cannabis News because I have not yet thought through a particular aspect of the drug war and want feedback. I only send out letters when I am sure I believe in what I am saying, but here at Cannabis News I feel much more free to offer conjecture or play "devils advocate" (as I did recently on another thread in response to one of your comments). This is really long-winded, but I think what it all boils down to is this: Regarding writing more comments here than letters to the editor--me too. And I'm not so sure that's a bad thing.Peace.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #4 posted by dddd on August 14, 2001 at 02:04:19 PT

 responding to blathering tripe.
Dr. Dan.....your responding letter is very good.It inspired me,and reminded me that this type of 'defensive offense',is a verygood way to chip away at the drug-pigs disinformation tactics.I have a tendency to allocate too much time into spouting out myverbose opinionations here,and not enough into writing responsesto the writers,and publishers of such abundant "blathering tripe"as in this article.gotta keep on keepin' on........dddd
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #3 posted by Dan B on August 13, 2001 at 22:46:26 PT:

My Response
First of all, this article is written by Robert L. Maginnis from the Family Research Council, a right-wing, fundamentalist group aimed at destroying anyone who thinks outside their fascist, conservative ideological framework. That means, in a nutshell, that they believe destroying the lives of innocents in the name of protecting the "sanctity" of what they consider to be "family values" is a-okay by them. They believe, as did Hitler before them, that they have the right to impose their narrow viewpoints on others, at whatever cost to others may be necessary (including death) as a means to their ends. To say they are biased is an understatement, thus what they say is null and void, IMHO. Check out their stance on any number of "moral issues" (there terminology) at http://frc.orgActually, the problem with article really is not the fact that it comes from the Family Research council, but that the Watertown Daily Times made the editorial decision to run as a letter to the editor what amounts to a public service announcement from the ostensibly not-for-profit public relations wing of the drug war. The Watertown Daily News deserves no mercy in our responses to this blathering tripe.Therefore, here is my letter to the editor:Dear Watertown Daily Times:I am writing in response to a letter to the editor written by Robert L. Maginnis titled “Canadian Marijuana Madness Could Infect The United States.” Although Mr. Maginnis includes quite a number of factual errors and outright propagandistic innuendo in his letter, I wish to concentrate on two critical points.First, I take issue with Mr. Maginnis’s use of quotations when referring to medical marijuana. Cannabis has been used as a medicine for thousands of years; in fact, it has only been outlawed for medical purposes in Canada since the 1920s. Before that time, it was used for dozens of ailments and discomforts, to surprising success by today’s standards. Furthermore, the reason why Canada has now legalized marijuana for limited medical purposes is that the Canadian government has failed to prove that cannabis has no medical value, while those who claim that it has medical value have provided a convincing case to the Canadian courts. It seems to me, then, that the placement of quotation marks around the word “medical” serves only a very weak rhetorical purpose—an attempt to de-legitimize the medicinal value of cannabis. That is, rather than actually proving that cannabis has no medical value (remember, it is only possible to prove a negative, which should make it easier to prove cannabis is not effective, were that true), Mr. Maginnis resorts to amateurish propagandizing via improper use of quotation marks. Pathetic.Second, Mr. Maginnis says “Now, Canada's Supreme Court is considering whether criminal charges for the personal use of marijuana violate constitutional rights,” as though that is a bad thing. Since when is defining the extent to which a person has the right to determine what does and does not enter his or her own body a deplorable concept? The only crime in owning or using cannabis for any reason is insubordination to the government. That is, the only justification Canada or any other country can give for putting a person in jail for using or possessing a substance is that the country in question fears giving individuals rights to their own bodies. That, too, is pathetic. No free person should be required to gain permission from his or her government to place any substance in his or her body. To fabricate such requirements is to eliminate free decision making, to destroy confidence in the governmental system, and to undermine civilized society. Sincerely,(me)
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #2 posted by p4me on August 13, 2001 at 22:30:19 PT

politicians need to take a trip
You know how politicians are always flying all over the world to check things out, like Secretary of State Harris for Florida spending 3 million dollars in travel? They need to have a committee of volunteers get high 2 times a week for a couple of months. Then they could determine what it is like and wee if they want to go on to heroin and cocaine or if they become immediately addicted.You know when we were kids we used to say " Don't knock it until you have tried it." I hate to say it but they need to try it. Seriously, they do. And yes I realize some of them already have.America is no longer the land of the free, it is the land of pee.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #1 posted by aocp on August 13, 2001 at 20:12:19 PT

narcs
The Canadian Police Association represents 30,000 police officers and provides rare caution to these politically driven pro-drug views. They released a statement saying there is a "weakening perception of risk of harm in drug use, and weakening moral disapproval of drug use."First of all, "drug use" is not "cannabis use", but y'all are narcs, so this sort of thinking is mandatory. As for "moral disapproval" ... we have managed to significantly reduce tobacco use and abuse in both Canada and dealand through the years WITHOUT prohibition of anything like what cannabis has to endure, so just shut the hell up. Sheesh.Dale Orban, the association's spokesman, said, "The costs of drug liberalization will be astronomical, not only in terms of health care and social services, but in true human terms."My, that's suitably vague. "Costs ... astronomical" says nothing and relating them to scary areas like "health care" and "social services" only elicits knee-jerk reactions. Then we get "human terms". What a joke. If only it were actually funny. These people know exactly what reaction they're aiming for and how to get it without providing ONE fact. Disgusting.
[ Post Comment ]





  Post Comment