cannabisnews.com: Pot: Time for National Debate





Pot: Time for National Debate
Posted by CN Staff on February 24, 2003 at 08:21:23 PT
Editorial
Source: Toronto Sun 
We haven't changed our view against decriminalizing the possession of marijuana. This despite an SES/Sun Media poll last week that found almost seven in 10 Canadians favour decriminalization for small amounts of pot. We agree with Tory MP Elsie Wayne that decriminalization sends the wrong message to the young. And with Liberal MP Dan McTeague that, considering the potentially damaging effects of alcohol both to individuals and families, "do we need another form of mind-bending product that (is) going to ruin people's lives?" 
Such politically incorrect views inevitably attract the wrath and ridicule of the pro-marijuana lobby, but that's beside the point. We also agree with McTeague that there needs to be a national debate on the issue. And we'd argue that if there is to be one, then let it be an honest debate - not about the half-step of decriminalization, but about legalization. We favour neither. But we can see the argument of Robin Ellins, owner of the Friendly Stranger paraphernalia store on Queen St. W., who told the Sun he favours legalization. Sell it through licensed vendors, he says, and "it's the opportunity to eliminate the black market and the criminal element ... And the government gets the tax revenue." Along with, we would add, the ability to establish quality control. The federal government, which rakes in huge profits from tobacco taxes and then self-righteously harasses tobacco firms while telling people not to smoke, is in no position to make the moral case against raking in even more taxes from legalizing marijuana. To us, debating the issue of legalization, as a Senate committee has already recommended, will properly focus the discussion on where decriminalization will inevitably lead. Obviously, decriminalization is not an end in itself for marijuana proponents. They will then use that "victory" to make the case for what they ultimately want - legalization. So let's not kid the troops. And let's have an honest debate about this issue from the start. Source: Toronto Sun (CN ON)Published: Monday, February 24, 2003 Copyright: 2003 Canoe Limited PartnershipContact: editor sunpub.comWebsite: http://www.fyitoronto.com/torsun.shtmlRelated Articles & Web Sites:The Friendly Stranger http://www.friendlystranger.com/Cannabis News Canadian Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/can.htmPot Support in Full Flowerhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15522.shtmlIs Canada Going To Pot? http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15037.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #5 posted by aocp on February 24, 2003 at 11:22:55 PT
it's like this and like that
We agree with Tory MP Elsie Wayne that decriminalization sends the wrong message to the young. And with Liberal MP Dan McTeague that, considering the potentially damaging effects of alcohol both to individuals and families, "do we need another form of mind-bending product that (is) going to ruin people's lives?"If regulation for adults sends the "right" message that something is acceptable for children and they agree alcohol is a detriment to society for both kids and adults, why don't they push for alcohol or tobacco prohibition? Probably because they're two-faced, money-grubbing hypocrites who wouldn't understand "harm reduction" if it belted them across their visage.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by John Tyler on February 24, 2003 at 10:28:30 PT
Don't assume
The writer here is making an erroneous assumption here when he or she asks, "do we need another form of mind-bending product that (is) going to ruin people's lives"? "Mind-bending" is a crude colloquialism that I thought professionl journalist would refrain from using. In addition, ruining people's lives is entirely incorrect. Getting caught up in the prohibition against cannabis can ruin your life though. Free adults should be free to make their own decisions about whether or not to use or grow a plant. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by observer on February 24, 2003 at 10:03:47 PT
We We We
"do we need another form of mind-bending product that (is) going to ruin people's lives?"What is this collectivist ''we'' stuff? Do ''we'' need to be jailing adults for using a traditional plant remedy?  Why do ''we'' love jailing folks so much? When ''we'' jail folks with all the the lust, gusto, and reasoning that Nazis persecuted Jews, or Inquisitors persecuted witches, what does that say about what ''we'' are doing? Shall ''we'' examine the history and reasoning behind the anti-cannabis laws? Will ''we'' discuss Janey Cannuck and Harry Anslinger? Will ''we'' look at the government lies told? http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/canada
Breaking Canadian Drug News drugpolicycentral.com/bot/canada
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Truth on February 24, 2003 at 08:43:48 PT
another mind bender?
It's called a safer alternative, helps to reduce harm.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Sam Adams on February 24, 2003 at 08:39:50 PT
pathetic editors
What is this crap? Now these spineless idiots are basically editorializing against themselves! "Here's our stubborn, illogical view, and here's why it's wrong! therefore, we need another 30 years of debate!".What garbage. "We don't need another mind-bending substance". As if the government is some massive God-like entity (with the media as its first disciple) that can add and subtract plants out of the universe at will. Canadians are probably growing and using more cannabis per capita than anywhere else in the world! This little pissant, excuse-for-a-newspaper rag has ZERO effect on what substance people use! They can rail against cannabis till the end of time, they will have NO effect on children's use of MJ.All this editorial does is make me wonder how, as a society, we've managed to let such COMPLETE idiots get into such a powerful position as newspaper editors.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment