cannabisnews.com: Put That In Your Pipe and Pass It Around 





Put That In Your Pipe and Pass It Around 
Posted by CN Staff on September 24, 2002 at 08:59:55 PT
By Ben Rayner
Source: Toronto Star 
For the better part of a century, the great marijuana debate has been a source of puzzled bemusement for many and a trigger for complete, blithering outrage amongst others who fail to see why any debate should exist at all in the first place.The argument remains, and always will remain, an irresolvable one. Such is the nature of the entire drug question.
For every rational, reasoned point one can raise in favour of a permissive attitude towards the use or sale of mood-altering substances, there'll always be someone collapsed on the sidewalk outside a nightclub somewhere, twitching and foaming at the mouth in the throes of an overdose, to present an equally valid argument in opposition.Talk of liberalizing the laws governing pot in Canada has flared up off and on for about as long as the laws themselves have been in place. Our very own Prime Minister recommended a change in legislation while serving as Justice Minister under Trudeau. If, however, any progress has actually been made against bureaucratic stall tactics — a lengthy, inefficient "official commission" is the most common — it's usually been rendered meaningless when a change of government swats the whole, tiresome process back to square one again. Which is, of course, exactly what each nervous administration to wade into the marijuana fracas was praying would happen all along.The players change, the arguments on both sides are updated to fit the temper of the times, but some things have always held true. The most vocal and passionate opponents of pot use have likely never smoked a joint in their lives, and probably should. Meanwhile, those who've enthusiastically adopted pot legalization as their cause cιlιbre are all too often genial, dreadlocked space cases in Rusted Root T-shirts who fit and define a rather obvious but enduring marijuana-advocate stereotype that doesn't preach terribly well to the unconverted. And, no matter how many "smoke-ins" are held and legal hemp "test crops" are cultivated and cautiously pot-positive government reports are tabled, at the end of the day nothing ever changes.Since the mid-'90s, though, pro-cannabis forces have gained new legitimacy thanks to the gradual institutional acceptance of marijuana's medicinal qualities. Compassion for the sick, suffering and dying has softened the hearts and made grudging supporters of traditionally conservative forces in the public and in office. And, since the federal Liberals will apparently be in power until the end of history, they've had no choice but to acknowledge that a growing majority of the public really doesn't think weed is necessarily an instrument of the Devil, a psychotic agent or the "gateway" to heroin addiction. The government has to do something soon, anyway, since it's sitting on an enormous crop of medicinal marijuana grown deep in an abandoned mine in Flin Flon, Man. — amidst, of course, the kind of impregnable security typical of U.S. missile bases — that it can't legally distribute to those who need it.Let's get on with it, already. And, not to undermine medicinal marijuana's worthy cause, let's also stop pretending that this is all about AIDS patients, wondrous hemp products and a renewable fuel source. Let us, once and for all, concede that the recreational smoking of pot is no big deal, that some drugs are much less potentially harmful than others and that it's ridiculous to legislate against a weed that can grow easily in ditches.I'm exceedingly fond of pot, myself, and I'd be hard-pressed to name more than a couple of people I know who don't light up from time to time. My mother, bless her, is about the only person I know personally who feels the act is particularly unnatural or dangerous. To me, it's a means of chemical relaxation preferable even to my beloved beer, a facilitator for abstract creative thought, a way of getting into those Beachcombers reruns on APTN, the reason I sometimes conduct heartfelt attempts to broker peace between my roommate's cat and my neighbour's dog. That's not so bad.I've known a couple of dedicated potheads, true, who became inert blobs of goo permanently fastened to the couch and Incredible Hulk cartoons, but — overlooking the side effects of smoking anything and the possible hazards of driving while under the influence — that's about as nefarious as marijuana gets. Career potheads are a far less objectionable lot than, for instance, career crackheads. Heavy pot smokers tend to be a Happy Gilmore-loving, stop-and-smell-the-roses breed, as opposed to fire-the-stolen-automatic-wildly-into-the-rose-bushes-'cause-"they've-been-followin'-me-all-week-tryin'-to-steal-my-sh--" variety of drug user.The federal government — fearing, no doubt, a Panama-esque invasion from U.S. troops fighting the War on Drugs (remember that one?) — will never stampede straight towards legalizing pot outright, as suggested in the recent, contentious Senate-committee report responsible for kicking the marijuana debate into high gear earlier this month. The fact that the feds let that enormous trial balloon float up with remarkably little fuss suggests, however, that they're close to opting for the more conservative tactic of official decriminalization. Whatever happens, of course, it'll make very little difference to the hundreds of thousands of Canadian pot smokers who've never paid any attention to the law as it stands, anyway. It would be a refreshing change, though, if a government actually allowed its citizens something that made them feel good for a change, besides the booze and tobacco it tacitly endorses through the collection of ever-increasing tax revenues. Not all of us are content to escape the penury of daily existence simply through vigorous exercise, the accumulation of wealth and goods and Prozac prescriptions, after all, and an artificial high is very often preferable to a natural low. Plus, cable TV, Creamsicles and Method Man and Redman make a helluva lot more sense when you're baked. That counts for something. I think. How'd you get in here, anyway? Note: Legalize pot already and stop the tedious, tiresome debate. Newshawk: puff_tuffSource: Toronto Star (CN ON)Author: Ben RaynerPublished: September 22, 2002Copyright: 2002 The Toronto Star Contact: lettertoed thestar.com Website: http://www.thestar.com/ Related Articles:Don't Make Pot Legal, UN Official Warnshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14225.shtmlDecriminalizing Pot: Why Stop There?http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13493.shtml Smoke Out the Politicianshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13880.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #9 posted by Dan B on September 24, 2002 at 16:24:36 PT
Rayner's Leap of Logic
True, the person "collapsed on the sidewalk outside a nightclub somewhere, twitching and foaming at the mouth in the throes of an overdose" is not a description of anyone on cannabis. I think, however, that Ben Rayner is making the (il)logical leap that cannabis legalization will lead to thousands more hard drug users. We, of course, know this to be a fallacy; in fact, hard drug use will go down if we separate the markets between soft and hard drugs, or if we eliminate the black market altogether. But since Rayner uses this argument, I put it back in his face by stating just how well prohibition has curbed the incidents of these people overdosing on the sidewalk (and, incidentally, most people who overdose do so in the privacy of their own homes, not on a busy public sidewalk).Having said that, I think that the article does its job admirably. Perhaps, Rayner intended sarcasm in that bit about the frothing, twitching person on the sidewalk. Reading the rest of the article, it is difficult to see how he could have meant anything else. Still, the sarcasm did not come across as it should have (the sarcasm should have been made more clearly sarcastic, rather than sounding like a blathering lurch toward prohibitionism), and that is why I responded to it.p4me, I agree 100% with your assessment. Thanks, Sam Adams, for the back up. afterburner, no you are not wrong; you are dead-on accurate. Corvallis Eric, you'd have to do far better than that if you want to offend me. : )Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Had Enough on September 24, 2002 at 15:10:46 PT
FREEDOM
p4me. Your comment in post #6 sums it up and cannot be told better. Thanks for telling it how it is. I like reading bumberstickers, I find them informing, sometimes funny, sometimes insulting, but I still like seeing and reading them. FREEDOM for WE THE PEOPLE. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by trainwreck on September 24, 2002 at 12:32:36 PT
sam adams
His perspective on government might be a little different in that he is Canadian, and they are still officially (though not pratically) subjects of Queen Elizabeth. The history of monarchy lends a different perspective on government, I think.....
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by p4me on September 24, 2002 at 12:06:35 PT
I agree with Sam Adams
What is left out of almost every article ever posted on cannabisnews is the word freedom. Where is the discussion of that concept. This guy did not tell why a person should not have the freedom to smoke marijuana and in absence of a good arguement freedom should rule. Walters and Hutchinson and the other parrots of prohibition throw out statistics and demonize cannabis while the house is burning down on us all, but they never talk of freedom.This guy was getting cute when he said:"Let's get on with it, already. And, not to undermine medicinal marijuana's worthy cause, let's also stop pretending that this is all about AIDS patients, wondrous hemp products and a renewable fuel source.""Let us, once and for all, concede that the recreational smoking of pot is no big deal, that some drugs are much less potentially harmful than others and that it's ridiculous to legislate against a weed that can grow easily in ditches."
------------------------------It is not all about AIDS patients, it is about freedom. But the screams are the loudest for the sick and dying that have no place on the battlefield. But MMJ is highlighted because it shows that the economic forces that corrupt the system will stand and lie, arrest and lie, imprison and lie , and let suffer and die and lie. I sure as hell don't say it is about MMJ. I say it is about freedom and ending the corruption that has taken that freedom away, while lying the whole time, with a shameful excuse of a press letting it continue.The same is true of hemp products and a renewable fuel resource. How absurd is it to have a hemp plant capable of getting your property taken from you while you receive a prison term over a hemp plant. We talk about it because it shows the absurdity over the whole prohibition issue.And when you say let's get real and legalize marijuana for recreational use, I say we had the freedom all along and it was stolen from us. I do not hide behind hemp, or medicine. I call for freedom in the pre-1937 definition before the wealthy determined what the freedom of the masses should be.Maybe he thought his little statements were cute, but I could not make a good bumpersticker out of what he said. My bumperstickers read, "Get the sick and dying off the battlefield," and "How wrong and absurd is it to outlaw hemp," and "Recreational Marijuana is my right" and "After we change the laws we still have to remove the cancer that spread these vicious lies and supported these malicious laws."Now that might not be cute, but I could sell more bumperstickers than that guy ever thought about. The issues are freedom and how to kill the cancer that brought us all this corruption.1,2
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by trainwreck on September 24, 2002 at 11:58:21 PT
Great stuff
I like the way he started out discussing the entire drug legalization question and then dismissed it as irrelevant to pot. I think it's really subtle to set up the image (foaming and twitching) the prohibitionists point to, and then deconstructs it.Plus, the last line about Method Man and Redman was funny!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by CorvallisEric on September 24, 2002 at 11:03:42 PT
At risk of offending some of you
I have to say that:1 - This is one of the best brief summaries I've ever read of the relevant political history.2 - In my opinion, he's correct in every negative-sounding bit about the legalization movement.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Sam Adams on September 24, 2002 at 09:47:38 PT
It used to be cheap!
You're right Dan, those were the days of $20 per ounce cannabis, with only 100,000 or so arrests per year. The days when peaceful hippies grew marijuana outdoors. This author's heart is in the right place, but the overall tone is alarming to me. The author has been totally normalized to the idea that we live in a completely totalitarian society. He suggests more "permissive" laws - without even questioning why in a "free" society, REPRESSIVE laws are the default. He ponders what the government should "allow" people to do. Wake up, you closed-minded slave, is my suggestion for this guy.And the next time you see a guy foaming at the mouth on the sidewalk (more likely you'll see someone puking outside of a bar from alchohol OD), simply step over him and go home. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by afterburner on September 24, 2002 at 09:46:52 PT:
collapsed on the sidewalk?
"there'll always be someone collapsed on the sidewalk outside a nightclub somewhere, twitching and foaming at the mouth in the throes of an overdose"....
Sounds more like heroin or alcohol to me. These symptoms do not describe marijuana users and have no place in this article. They just reawaken another tired, old fear to justify kontinued inaction by the government. And that Flin-Flon pot: if the government feels the need for tests, provide it to registered medical marijuana users and test them. I am sure that they would rather accept the questionable purity of multi-variety government pot, than the unknown poisons of street drugs or the rigours of trying to grow their own in their weakened and sick condition. Am I wrong?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Dan B on September 24, 2002 at 09:28:21 PT:
This is what you need to know about prohibition:
In 1980, before the start of "Just Say No" and the rampage that has accelerated since that time, 1600 people died each year from causes directly attributable to hard drugs.By 2000, that figure rose to nearly 17,000 dead people each year.Prohibition caused the circumstances in which these people died. You can stomp and scream all you want about that guy foaming and twitching on the sidewalk, but the fact remains that there are ten of him for every one that existed twenty years ago, and the numbers keep climbing. Prohibition kills.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment