posted on July 18, 2001 08:46:49 PM
The American Drug Enforcement Agency has asked the R.C.M.P. in British Columbia if they will close their border to the U.S. because of heavy marijuana smuggling. A Canadian spokesman said (in so many words) that we have to put up with heroin and cocaine being smuggled in from the U.S. and haven't asked for assistance, so why should we try and fight the U.S. drug war over marijuana. The American officials are mad at us, saying WE don't take the drug war seriously! Our officials say that the U.S. knows that we are trying to soften our marijuana laws, so they're 'out of line'.
I've written about this before but it seems like de-criminalization WILL become a reality here in Canada. How do you think this will work with the U.S. being so opposed?
posted on July 18, 2001 09:11:10 PM
You are going to be inundated with tourists from the states regardless of what the US Government says. We, in the US will be subject to many more delays in getting back in from Canada. I think I'll go to Mexico, even if the Federales carry guns as long as you are quiet and polite you get through customs pretty quickly.
posted on July 18, 2001 10:24:53 PM
Have you been rolling and smoking the drapes, why would you want to go to war? With what they have to offer it would be the peace movement all over again.
posted on July 18, 2001 10:36:02 PM
Well, I say that drugs *should* be legalized. People should be able to grow or make any drugs they want for themselves.
BUT: Anyone whose drug use (or manufacture)injures others should be prosecuted to the max--drug users should take total responsibility for themselves & their actions. Anyone caught selling drugs to kids should be shot on sight.
posted on July 18, 2001 10:43:13 PM
Hi Bunni, you know I worry about you, you really have to work on expressing yourself, don't hold back, let it all out!! How do you really feel?
posted on July 18, 2001 10:54:16 PM
What a fun country this would be if drugs were legalized. Instead of just having to deal with an uncontrollable tide of alcoholics who can easily and legally keep themselves drunk, we'd be adding (and creating) hordes of drug addicts to the mix. Imagine all the new traffic fatalities, ruined careers, destroyed families, neglected and abused children, etc. Yes indeed, there are so many as-yet untapped innocents out there waiting to become victims of legalized drugs ... I can't imagine why we haven't legalized them yet.
posted on July 18, 2001 11:29:46 PM
It's a difficult thing, isn't it? I totally agree with you bunnicula and so does most of the country, BUT there is also the side that feels the way spaz does.
If drugs (I'm only talking about pot) were legalized, people wouldn't lose their jobs, houses, etc. trying to pay for their habits. That alone would change the stigma attached to drug use. Would its accessabilty make more people become smokers, including children? I doubt it, but I'm not sure.
posted on July 19, 2001 12:26:24 AM
I don't care if adults smoke pot legalized or not. But, the same people that are pushing to legalize pot are the same people that complain about cigarette smoking and health. Isn't pot just as bad or worse for the lungs? What about second hand smoke especially around kids? Doesn't make any sense to me.
posted on July 19, 2001 12:27:42 AM
As though "Imagine all the new traffic fatalities, ruined careers, destroyed families, neglected and abused children, etc. Yes indeed, there are so many as-yet untapped innocents out there waiting to become victims of legalized drugs" aren't already happening despite the criminality of drug use. Would those things be increased by legalization? I doubt it. As there are people who do not use alcohol so would there be who would not use drugs. With criminal sanctions though, there can be the societal, and perverse, satisfaction that thos who use drugs will 'pay a penalty' for their crime while their innocents are trucked away to uncaring foster substitute homes where they develop all of the resentful and counterproductive characteristics that they'll need to become part of the continuation of the problem.
The criminalization of drug usage has shown it's poor record of prevention and displayed quite well it's lack of efficacy.
As with alcoholism penalization of drug use doesn't work.
posted on July 19, 2001 01:05:57 AMWould those things be increased by legalization? I doubt it.
I don't doubt it. And as long as illegal sale and use of drugs remains illegal, there's the chance that some of those tragedies may be prevented early on by tossing users' asses in jail for offenses like possession or selling.
With criminal sanctions though, there can be the societal, and perverse, satisfaction that thos who use drugs will 'pay a penalty' for their crime while their innocents are trucked away to uncaring foster substitute homes where they develop all of the resentful and counterproductive characteristics that they'll need to become part of the continuation of the problem.
The fault lies not with the law but with the parent who is too stupid or too selfish to kick for the sake of their children. Haul the kids away to foster homes while the parent's in jail? I'm all for it. Any kid born to a drug user gets a sh*tty deal from day one. The best you can do is minimize the damage, and personally I think they're a lot better off with a non-user than a user any day of the week.
posted on July 19, 2001 03:14:36 AM
My mother had an irrational fear of moths and other flying insects. Although I am a huge tough man who would not hesitate to wrestle an alligator I feel a stab of fear if a moth flutters around my head because my Mom would have panicked and I saw it so many times.
Most of our opinions about drugs and other social issues are formed the same way - Your Mommy loadly proclaimed what you should believe in fearfull tones.
Well guess what? Someday you have to grow up and look beyond what Mon taught you and really think things through for yourself.
Sometimes you realize there was no rational basis to you Mom's fears. Sometimes there are risks but you go ahead anyway. Otherwise we would have solved alcohalism and sexually transmitted disease because we would all be teatotaling virgins living at home. Safe but sorry.
posted on July 19, 2001 09:07:45 AM
According to a news show I recently saw on pot in Canada, there is extremely wide spread growing, all indoors with hydroponics. The THC (active ingredient) level is 10 to 20 times higher that that of pot grown in the US or Mexico. Thus, the Canadian pot is very desirable, which would explain the high level of trafficing (sp?).
As far as legalization goes, IMO, it should be done. Pot is no worse, and in some cases like driving, not as bad as alcohol. The country could collect a fortune from the sales in permits for growing, taxes on manufacturing plants, taxes on sales (equal to or greater than cigs or liquor) VS spending a fortune on a drug war that they will never win.
posted on July 19, 2001 10:35:32 AM
Chococake, marijuana is NOT as bad as cigarettes as far as smoke goes. As a matter of fact, from what I've read, many people with emphysema find smoking marijuana to be helpful--presumably because it dilates the capillaries in the lungs and thus improves the oxygen levels.
There are few side effects from marijuana, unlike with alcohol. No one has ever died from an overdose of marijuana. The highly touted studies showing brain cell death were done with monkeys in smoke filled chambers--the brain cell death was from lack of oxygen, not drugs.
Having a marijuana patch outside your kitchen for herbal medicines was common a hundred years ago. During WWII, the government encouraged farmers to grow hemp. It's only been recently in our history that marijuana was demonized...and it wasn't because of medical reasons. It was because money talks, and deep pockets wanted (and still want) hemp out of the picture.
Today, the pharmaceutical companies don't want Americans to have an effective herbal medicine that they can grow in their own backyard. That's why disinformation will be given out and legalization, even for medical usage, will be fought tooth and nail in this country.
Lisa
posted on July 19, 2001 10:41:58 AM
Actually, marijuana can damage your lungs just like cigarettes. The only difference is that, unlike cigarettes, you might only smoke 1 or 2 joints of pot a day, compared to 20 or more a day. There is no nicotine in pot, so it's not chemically addictive, but like jtland said, the benifits far outweigh the negative.
spaz - I completely understand your thoughts, but I don't group marijuana with hard drugs. I believe they are two separate issues, of which are just difficult for many people to separate. There is a stigma attached to the word "drugs" that people have to get over. Drugs don't always equal crack babies and homeless gutter dwellers. There will always be irresponsible people in this world no matter what choices they are given. On the other hand, there are responsible adults out there who only want to be able to have a choice.
Don't forget too, that de-criminalization is NOT legalization - far from it. But I do think it's a step in the right direction.
This article states that usage has not increased in the Netherlands since decriminalization, and in fact, fewer Dutch people (only 16%) have tried pot than people trying marijuana in the U.S.
posted on July 19, 2001 12:01:11 PMToday, the pharmaceutical companies don't want Americans to have an effective herbal medicine that they can grow in their own backyard. That's why disinformation will be given out and legalization, even for medical usage, will be fought tooth and nail in this country Lisa
posted on July 19, 2001 12:23:24 PMVery true. And unlike alcohol...tough for the government to tax. Can't you just see agents inspecting your vegetable garden?
I knew folks in the Seattle area that were growing some supremely healthy plants...in between their rows of corn.
posted on July 19, 2001 12:49:26 PM
I am all for the legalization of drugs, but only IF
..........You pay for it yourself, no government programs, no government subsidies of the manufacture and distribution. Keep my taxes out of it.
..........You screw up your life with drugs, then just lie down in the gutter and die. No social services, no welfare, no Medicare. Keep my taxes out of it. Harsh, true, but we as a society have got to learn to distinguish enabling from compassion.
..........If I decide I do not want a drug addict, or even user, as an employee, that is MY perogative and no court in the world should make me hire the impaired and unpredictable.
..........If I decide I do not want a drug addict or user around me or in my place of business, I should not be forced to. I should not be required to cater to the impaired and unpredictable.
..........If you decided you use drugs, do not breed. Don't even attempt to breed. Children do not need absent, unpredictable or impaired parents. Also, maybe they would like the decision to use drugs left to themselves and not have it force-fed to them in the womb.
If the above were true, then have at it. Call it thinning the herd of the undesirables and dreck of society.
[ edited by mark090 on Jul 19, 2001 12:50 PM ]
posted on July 19, 2001 12:59:40 PM
Well, mark090, you'll be delighted to hear that it is now being disclosed that the tobacco companies have been loosely regulated because the government finds them useful in reducing the obligations of the social programs that you mention as well as those of the social security administration, medicare, and medicaid. In short, producers of tobacco products that kill people is encouraged so that your tax dollars may be saved for weapons that kill people.
posted on July 19, 2001 01:24:38 PM
I nearly choked to death on my sandwich when I saw that. But isn't that in foreign counties that they are making that claim? Countries that do not have large government-run, taxpayer-funded Enabling Programs in place? I think it was Czechoslavakia???? As an incentive for these foreign countries to open up their borders to more cigarette imports.
[ edited by mark090 on Jul 19, 2001 01:26 PM ]
posted on July 19, 2001 05:29:15 PM
mark090 - [i]"..........You screw up your life with drugs, then just lie down in the gutter and die. No social services, no
welfare, no Medicare. Keep my taxes out of it. Harsh, true, but we as a society have got to learn to distinguish enabling from compassion."[/i]
If drugs were legal, there would be more than enough money to help out anyone who was in trouble. Do you realize how much money is spent to fight drugs?
People that started drinking and smoking cigarettes, way back when, started because they didn't realize the long-term effects. Now that they do, people are in AA and just look at how many people in the country have quit smoking! The same holds true for drug use. We pretty much know the dangers associated with drug use, so we can now teach our kids this, along with the other dangers in life. But taking away the right to choose only makes people want something more.
Plus, I give people more credit than that. I don't think people look for ways to destroy their lives but when big money's involved people can become victims of some harsh realities pretty fast. The money involved promotes this stigma.
posted on July 19, 2001 05:45:54 PM
The only reason anyone would want or need to use drugs is to alter their "reality". Are their lives so miserable that they need a drug to change the way they think and physically feel?
posted on July 19, 2001 05:50:08 PM
Actually I guess the answer to my question is yes. I quit smoking 3 months ago and I still NEED a cigarette on a daily basis. But I'm not gonna have one.
[ edited by mark090 on Jul 19, 2001 12:50 PM ]