cannabisnews.com: Drug Policy Goes To Pot





Drug Policy Goes To Pot
Posted by CN Staff on January 18, 2003 at 23:27:08 PT
By Ben Rayner
Source: Toronto Star
Human beings have a serious substance-abuse problem.It certainly wouldn't hurt some of us to lay off a bit, but our unquenchable collective appetite for self-administered intoxication of one sort or another would, arguably, have far less ruinous consequences were our societal attitude toward booze and drugs somewhat less complicated and inconsistent. Our biggest problem is with substance abuse as a concept.
Alcohol and illicit drugs are, and always will be, a two-fisted moral and legal conundrum because we harbour an innate desire for black-and-white, "right" or "wrong" answers. We don't like gray areas, but the consumption of alcohol and other intoxicants takes place right in the middle of one.The whole sorry mess is currently embodied in some of the New Year's biggest stories. There's the push here in Canada for the decriminalization of marijuana, prompted mainly by our government's inability to legally deliver medicinal pot — including its own experimental cannabis crops — to the people it now concedes might benefit from it. There's the supposed implication of U.S. Air Force-issued amphetamines, or "go pills," in the "friendly fire" bombing that killed four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan last year. There's the release of convincing statistical research concluding that moderate alcohol consumption might actually be better for you than not drinking at all. And then, in a more tangential sense, there's B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell's arrest in Hawaii last week for drunk driving.The only real link is an overriding sense of confusion, as "official" positions on the matters of alcohol and drug use slam up against challenges from credible research and public opinion or blatant contradictions in policy. No one seems to know what to think anymore, including the authorities who usually tell us what to think. Our government's remarkably open-minded approach to the marijuana issue has been a delight to watch, if only because the push for decriminalization bears a vague resemblance to democracy in action. Public support for the medicinal use of pot was strong enough to get the Liberals nominally on side a few years ago.The feds have looked foolish, however, in failing to back up their words with a legal distribution framework that doesn't leave buyers at the mercy of unreliable "street" dealers and criminal charges for possession.Debate over decriminalization has been amazingly muted and there are signs it might actually happen for real this time. Nevertheless, decriminalization still leaves marijuana in one of those gray areas: It's good for some people, okay for others (as long as they don't get caught with a lot of it), but still officially wrong in the eyes of the government and the law. Tough to get the nuances across in a 15-minute press conference.Opposition to loosening Canada's marijuana laws has, naturally, come from the United States. But that country's zero-tolerance, "War on Drugs" rhetoric rings slightly hollow when one learns that it's standard Air Force procedure to issue speed to pilots to ward off drowsiness on long missions. Quite a double standard for a country whose prisons are choked with minor drug offenders. Get busted with a few caps of crystal on the street and you're off to jail. You might even, according to recent U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency "education" campaigns, be supporting terrorism with your drug money. Get behind the controls of a highly sophisticated military aircraft equipped with a variety of deadly weapons where full command of your senses is imperative, though, and you're free to gobble pills by the handful. The people of Iraq must be thrilled.Better news was the recent word from a 12-year Harvard School of Public Health study that indicates one to three drinks a day might reduce the risk of heart attack by 35 per cent and actually lengthen your life. Again, there was a reluctance among critics of the research to accept that a gray area exists. No one said eight drinks a day was healthy, nor did the study neglect to mention the risks involved in drinking regularly, but opponents of the study fretted that the news would send "mixed messages" to the public about alcohol. As if purchasing booze in outlets administered for profit by the same governments that routinely hammer us with alcohol-awareness ad campaigns wasn't already. (The Harvard researchers took care to mention the dangers of drinking and driving, too, which is why I bring up Campbell's misadventure.) What can we conclude? Nothing that we didn't already know, really. Booze and drugs affect everyone differently, depending on the person, the situation and the level of consumption. Sometimes bad things happen, sometimes not. There are no easy answers.Yes, alcoholism and drug addiction disrupt and, quite often, end lives. At the same time, there are many more instances where people lead normal, well-adjusted, productive lives while still indulging in a myriad of mood-altering elixirs, legal and otherwise. And while some cling to the paternalistic notion that society needs to be saved from itself and that we'd all be better off without any of the evil stuff, I've always been of the mind that the rest of us wouldn't feel quite such a need to get wasted all the time if there weren't so many pious loudmouths meddling in our personal affairs.Drink and drugs consumed with some responsibility are not problematic in themselves, unless you believe that altered states of consciousness somehow betray the wonder of human life. I'll go either way on that: Being "really me" is just fine, but there are times when I prefer the enhanced version. If you're still enjoying life, what's the harm? No, the problem with drugs and booze is quite simple: They're not for everyone. It's an idea I once heard expressed perfectly by a stranger while standing in line outside a club one night a couple of years ago, as we watched a girl wheeled out into the night on a gurney. "What the hell happened here?" I asked. "It's called people who can't handle their sh--."Note: It's inconsistent and out of sync with research.Source: Toronto Star (CN ON)Author: Ben RaynerPublished: January 19, 2003Copyright: 2003 The Toronto Star Contact: lettertoed thestar.com Website: http://www.thestar.com/ Related Articles & Web Site:Cannabis News Canadian Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/can.htmThe State in the Pot Dens of The Nation http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15222.shtmlThe Coming Canadian Drug Revolutionhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15192.shtmlAmerican Thinking Fuzzy on Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15183.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #2 posted by elfman_420 on January 19, 2003 at 22:42:54 PT
Fighting a war.. ON drugs
 "There's the supposed implication of U.S. Air Force-issued amphetamines, or "go pills," in the "friendly fire" bombing that killed four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan last year." Gives new meaning to "The war on drugs".
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by p4me on January 19, 2003 at 12:08:06 PT
Cannabis should be mandatory for some
Being "really me" is just fine, but there are times when I prefer the enhanced version. If you're still enjoying life, what's the harm?Oh, everything demends on if you are enjoying life. What about suffering then. If we can reduce suffering is that a good thing? The cannabis experience is life on turbo.You can't be happy all the time, but a little turbo can kill anger and lift the experience of having a sense of well being. Isn't that why the brains serotonin is so valuable, because it essential for a sense of well being. Well it must be the cannabanoids that make cannabis a super seretonin or serotonin on turbo. For some cannabis should not only be legal, it should be mandatory. Cannabis is the gear passing to serotonin. You can pass anger or you can pass everyday eryday blas, or you can pass joy. If America spends tens of billions to help the brain with its needed sereonin, why the F can't you add a little turbo? It makes no since how we have let them slander Mary Jane for all these decades. It is defemantion of character. Look at all the Schedule One Lies. The prohibitionists have 4 out of 5 Americans saying The Schedule One Lie that says the position of government to deny the medical value of cannabis is a bold stupidity. They are so intent on their claim to have the right to lock you up for Mary Jane they even make innocent components a Schedule One substance. The CBD Schelule One Lie embarasses the government so bad that no one knows of it. They are so busy protecting the Schedule One Lie that the absurdity of the CBD Schedule One Lie is even more insane than the lie about Mary Jane herself. Then there has to be a THC Schedule One Lie because they somehow have natural THC a demon of the Schedule One while making a synthetic creating a Schedule 3 substance. And there are only more lies. One lie stacked on top of another line to defame Mary Jane.And you don't think the government is not corrupt? What a silly view.Cannabis may not be harmless but it is beneficial. It is life on turbo in passing gear.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment