cannabisnews.com: Democrats' Pot Plan 





Democrats' Pot Plan 
Posted by FoM on June 16, 2000 at 07:56:33 PT
Editorial
Source: Seattle Times
Delegates to the state Democratic Party convention must be dipping into the funny stuff. How else to explain a resolution favoring legalization and sale of marijuana through cafes, bars and liquor stores? This dumb idea sends the wrong message. Parents do their best to keep kids away from drugs of all kinds. Then along comes the wacky wing of the Democratic Party with a conflicting message. 
A party chairman walks a delicate line at a convention, trying to manage fringe elements and inspire passionate party members to work hard on behalf of candidates. Party Chairman Paul Berendt suspended good judgment in pursuit of an issue that might appeal to a certain segment of party members. The platform adopted last week favors decriminalizing marijuana. A convention resolution, passed by a narrow margin, calls for legalization of pot sales to people over age 21 through cafes, bars and liquor stores. State voters in 1998 approved a medical marijuana initiative that makes sense because the pot is used for specific medical needs. It doesn't then turn up at the corner coffee shop. If Democrats were worried about inordinately long sentences for nonviolent drug offenders - hundreds of thousands of them fill prisons at a considerable cost to taxpayers - the party should have made that clear. That is a legitimate policy debate. But legalization is the wrong statement from a party that has worked hard to prove it is more centrist than in years past. Apparently fearful that the party will have a difficult time energizing supporters for fall elections, Berendt let the passions of the liberal wing fly - over the edge. It is bad politics to send signals that confuse young people and alienate moderate, sensible suburban voters. Published: Friday, June 16, 2000 Copyright  2000 The Seattle Times Company Related Articles:Western Governors to Push Agenda on Hopefuls http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6059.shtmlGovernors Trade Ideas At Summithttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6036.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #8 posted by Larry U. on August 17, 2001 at 22:09:22 PT
Legalization
There is only one thing in this world that is truly ours, our body. Adults should have the right to use what ever substance they should want for whatever reason they want. What is so bad about a substance that makes you feel good, the government seems to be saying that it is wrong to feel good. An adult should have the god given right to use cannibis in a responsable manner as long as they don't harm anyone else or anyone elses property. The law should pertain to someone that breaks a law such as murder, robbery, theft, rape ect. in other words harming someone or their property, those are the people who should be in prison, not the cannibus user.At this time the punishment for using marijuana is more harmful to the indeviduial than using the substace could ever be. The "war on drugs" is really a war on the countries own people and should be ended as soon as possable. When will this country become aware that probation will never stop it's people from doing something that they know does no harm, and when will they quit ruining peoples lives with their insane laws.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by Spiehs on February 28, 2001 at 07:16:41 PT:
Lacking Government?
In regards to "drug dealers selling to his kids"...bah!If drugs were to be sold in bars, coffe shops, and liquor stores one would assume that government regulations currently in place would no longer need to be revised, they would be appropriate, debate settled. Also it would put the proper persons in prisons versus person seeking to buck a system that is so overbearing it ceases to comprimise with the general public on issues a century old.America has the FDA and DEA who regulate one in the same...drugs...why?The FDA is the organization responsible for "protecting the people from harmful and addictive perscription drugs". They also take part in the regulating of such substances, substances that may be harmful and addictive, but you can chose to use these drugs. How about and equal choice? A little consistancy.We've seen the busts on "COPS", heard the undercover reports on "20/20" it has been proven that there is profit in selling perscription drugs on the street. These are the "bad elements" in society, these same persons are the ones who should be "punished", this is whom the DEA shoud and would continue to bust, your street dealer. Perscriptions are written, six packs drank every day and it's okay. Smoke some weed we'll send you away. Who is sending mixed messages?I do not even need to get on the economical and environmental benefits of the legalization of marijuana as my fellow comrades of rational thinking have done an excellent job in sumizing those points. Persons in support of the leagalization of marijuana want a little consistancy and efficiency in government...what's so wacky winged about that? Don't be scared government will still be there to protect you from the "bad elements". 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by dankhank on June 16, 2000 at 19:14:11 PT:
name Calling
My letter to the editor of the Seattle Times:										         EditorSeattle TimesSir or Madam:	I write to you from Oklahoma due mainly to the internet. News Services that I view collect stories from the world. This is why I feel able to comment on what may be perceived as your business and not mine.	A common thread that weaves through most of the debate about drug policy these days is the penchant for the anti-legalization/decriminalization, pro-prohibition/repression side of the discussion to slyly suggest that those who ask for reasoned lawmaking must be smoking some of the herb themselves.	Those who insist that the laws remain the same or tighten seem so fixed in their belief that they see nothing wrong with using a blatant propaganda technique to render the opposition " harmless, " not with reason and facts, but by smearing reputations.	Unfortunately, it appears that the editorial board of your newspaper is stooping to the same tactic.	Propaganda tactics are often adopted when there is no supporting truth to the position being put forth.	It appears that Americans are now realizing that too much harm is done by locking people up for using a drug that is safer than alcohol.	Can we not reason together, politely and truthfully?
HEMP n STUFF
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by ... on June 16, 2000 at 18:11:45 PT
Respect for the law
> This dumb idea sends the wrong message. Parents do their best to keep kids away from drugs of all kinds. Thenalong comes the wacky wing of the Democratic Party with a conflicting message. I thought these laws were about sending adults to jail, depriving them of their freedom, seizing their assets. Silly me, I didn't know it's all about "sending messages" to the children. ...I'm so confused...
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by MikeEEEEE on June 16, 2000 at 13:42:14 PT
Really Stupid
I guess this guy would rather see the drug dealers sell to his kids, if it were legal the kids would have to show ID, with this system they don't. He's a moron from the old school.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by Dan B on June 16, 2000 at 13:05:07 PT:
Correction
By "these laws," I was referring to laws against consensual crimes. Sorry about that.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by Dan B on June 16, 2000 at 13:03:51 PT:
Name Calling
This article has no substance whatsoever. It can be boiled down to name calling and finger-pointing. Any three-year-old can come up with this faulty (at best) rhetoric."Parents do their best to keep kids away from drugs of all kinds." Right. See Dan Hillman's comments concerning Ritalin."A convention resolution, passed by a narrow margin, calls for legalization of pot sales to people over age 21 through cafes, bars and liquor stores." It seems that the party had the chil-drun in mind after all. If these puritanical zealots would truly examine the issue (for starters, they should read the late Peter McWilliams' book "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do"), they might come to understand that they are the cause of the current drug problem in America--their laws that impose "inordinately long sentences for nonviolent drug offenders - hundreds of thousands of them fill prisons at a considerable cost to taxpayers..."According to conservative estimates in McWilliams' book, the country would save 450 billion dollars each year if consentual crimes (drugs, prostitution, gambling, pornography, etc.) were no longer crimes. We have plenty of laws to protect us from others--when is this country going to wake up and realize that it is far too costly to keep these laws on the books.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by Dan Hillman on June 16, 2000 at 10:53:47 PT
mixed "signals"
> It is bad politics to send signals that confuse young people and alienate moderate, sensible suburban voters. Yeah, so confusing. Wonder how the kids confusion factor grows after they get the following "signals":1. "children, you should never do drugs. You should turn in your parents to the authorities if they do drugs."2. "children, if you can't sit still, we have drugs(ritalin) to fix you. If your parents are sad, there is a drug (prozac) which will fix them."
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: