cannabisnews.com: Legalize Pot? How Absurd





Legalize Pot? How Absurd
Posted by FoM on June 23, 2000 at 14:19:45 PT
Deseret News Editorial
Source: Deseret News
If New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson can be credited with anything worthwhile, it is that he has brought the idea of legalizing marijuana out into the open where sound reasoning and facts can expose it for the idiocy it is. No one should be taken in by his illogical reasoning, no matter how convincing it sounds.Johnson took center stage last week at the Western Governors Association meeting in Honolulu and, as he does virtually everywhere he speaks, immediately launched into the "legalize pot" presentation with a missionary zeal. 
"Is it so far-fetched to think that if we legalize marijuana, use will go down?" he asked. The answer, of course, is yes. It's not only far-fetched, it's silly."Should laws exist that protect us from ourselves?" he asked next. That's an interesting way to phrase the issue. Here is a better one: Should laws exist to protect people from substances that can cause serious harm to their bodies and lead them to do crazy, possibly dangerous, things? Once a state gives official sanction to the use of marijuana, ignorant people may easily be led to believe it is an innocent, harmless diversion. It is not.Surprisingly, the governor did not invoke the Dutch example. He was smart to leave it alone. Drug-legalization proponents often refer to Holland's quarter-century experiment with legalized drugs as an example of how wonderful society could become. They do so based solely on conventional wisdom borne by users with clouded minds. The facts spell complete and unqualified disaster.Writing in the publication "Foreign Affairs" last year, author Larry Collins presented a frank and well-documented look at the Dutch experiment. He found a nation that has become the drug trafficking center of Europe, where drug use, particularly of marijuana, has increased and where dealers have developed a new, potent form of the drug called "Nederwiet" that didn't exist before legalization. He quotes the director of a Dutch drug-abuse rehabilitation center as saying, "We see more and more people getting into trouble with cannabis." A London doctor describes heavy Nederwiet users suffering withdrawal symptoms similar to those produced by hard drugs.Between 1984 and 1996, marijuana use among people ages 18 to 25 in Holland increased by well over 200 percent, Collins writes. Perhaps New Mexico's governor would like to explain again in detail why he thinks the opposite would happen here.Johnson and other legalization hucksters are quick to draw similarities between marijuana and alcohol. Indeed, both are harmful drugs. There is a difference, however, in how society perceives them. Unfortunately, moderate alcohol consumption is culturally acceptable in much of the United States. However, that is hardly a reason to urge that the culture accept another harmful drug, as well.Predictably, the one governor who applauded Johnson was Hawaii's Gov. Ben Cayetano, who recently signed a law that legalizes marijuana for medical use in that state  one of the more absurd examples of legislative quackery to hit the modern age. Serious researchers believe marijuana contains certain compounds of medicinal value. But absolutely none of them recommends smoking the weed as a means of obtaining any benefit.States can use drug courts and an emphasis on education and rehabilitation to help fight substance abuse problems. These have shown reasonable success. But legalization is nothing more than an admission of defeat.Send comments regarding editorial content to: joelc desnews.comDeseret News: Feedbackhttp://deseretnews.com/feedback/cust.htmDeseret News, Friday, June 23, 2000Copyright  2000, Deseret News Publishing Corp. Related Articles & Web Site:Governor Gary Johnson's Web Sitehttp://www.governor.state.nm.us/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 #19 posted by anonymous on May 22, 2001 at 07:37:00 PT
big companies
Marijuana is not bad. OUr society is being tricked by big corporations into thinking that it is. Think about it. Who would benefit from the legalization of marijuana? No one would except for the users. Medicine companies would be beaten out by this perfect painkiller. paper companies and wood companies would be beat out as it is an extremely efficient method of getting paper and cloth. Alcohol and Tobacco companies would be given extra competition. Money is power. All of these companies are huge, have lots of money, and are willing to go to extreme measures to get their way. I hope only that you can se this as I do.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by dean on February 28, 2001 at 10:56:21 PT:
POT OR ALCOHOL WHICH IS THE WORSE.
 40%of hospitol beds contain people with alcohol related problems 70% of automotive accidentsare (        )also.alcohol is a mind altering drug.IT IS ILEGAL TO DISTRIBUTE MIND ALTERING DRUGS WITHOUT BEING A DOCTOR BUT OUR GOVERMENT DOES IT EVERYDAY.PEOPLE DRINK ALCOHOL'GO HOME BEAT WIFE/KIDS/AND CAUSE 50%OF DOMESTIC DISPUTES.40%OF POPULATION IS ALCOHOLIC BUT YOU ARE CONDITIONED TO BELIEVE THAT ITS NOT A PROBLEM.SHOW ME THE STATS. THAT SHOW POT CAUSES ANY OF THESE PROBLEMS AND ILL SHOW YOU A LIAR SENT BY THE GOVERMENT"""""THE SO CALLED GATEWAY DRUG IS ALCOHOL 90%OF ALL DRUG USERS STARTED WITH ALCOHOL.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by HUGO on July 27, 2000 at 11:06:12 PT
LEGALIZATION
OK CHECK IT OUT,,,,,,,,THE THING WE AMERICANS HAVE ALOT OF IS INDIVIDUALITY,,,,,,,,,NOW SOME PEOPLE TO WIND DOWN DRINK,,,,,,,,,OTHERS SMOKE MARIJUANA, WEED, ETC. TO RELAX AFTER A HARD DAY,,,,,,,NOW HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT JUST BECAUSE IT IS LEGALIZED THAT IDIOTS WILL USE IT AND DO "CRAZY AND POSSIBLY DANGEROUS THINGS",,,,,,,,I'M NOT SAYING IT WOULDN'T HAPPEN I'M JUST SAYING ALCOHOL IS NO DIFFERENT IF NOT WORST,,,,,PERSONALLY I WOULD RATHER HAVE SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN SMOKING BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A VEHICLE,,,,,,,,RATHER THAN SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN DRINKING,,,,,LETS FACE IT DRUNK PEOPLE SWURVE ON THEIR WAY HOME, AND STONERS DRIVE SLOW ON THEIR WAY TO GET FOOD........AND THEY DO THIS SO PRECAUSIOUSLY FOR PARANOIA OF THE LAW.......NOW I AM SURE IF IT WERE LEGALIZED SURE MORE PEOPLE WOULD TRY IT OR BEGIN USE.......BUT DON'T YOU KNOW OUR GOVERMENT......THEY WILL PUT SOME ADDITIVE SO WE WILL GET ADDICTED,THEREFORE THEY CAN GET THEIR PRECIOUS TAX DOLLARS.....NOT TO MENTION GO AS FAR AS MAKIN IT LESS POTENT THAN IT IS NOW.....THAT WOULD SUCK...LOL.....SO FOR ME I SAY THE HELL WITH IT DON'T LEGALIZE IT......I HOPE THIS DIDN'T RUB ANYONE THE WRONG WAY.....BUT YOU CANNOT GO AROUND STEROTYPING PEOPLE WHO SMOKE MARIJUANA,,,,,AND TRY TO COMPARE THEM TO ALCOHOL DRINKERS...........JUST BECAUSE ALCOHOL IS LEGAL DOESN'T MEAN THEY ARE BETTER OFF.........ALTHOUGH STEROTYING THEM WOULD BE WRONG TOO...... POINT BEING THERE IS A PORTION OF OUR SOCIETY WHO DRINK AND SMOKE RESPONSIBILY....AS THEIR ARE IDIOTS WHO DO "CRAZY" AND "DANGEROUS" THINGS......EVERYTHING REALLY JUST BALANCES OUT..........
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #16 posted by Spencer on June 25, 2000 at 02:05:45 PT:
Cars?
If one is concerned with items of everyday life that can lead to serious debilitation and/or death why has the gov't not reduced speed limits? Well, they did under Reagan :( AND, because of the demand for increased speed, these were later increased.           Spencer
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #15 posted by Spencer on June 25, 2000 at 02:02:09 PT:
Opinions
I don't believe that the populace of the United States will simply get zonked out of thier minds 24/7 merely because a drug is legalized. There is alcohol, and I seriously doubt that even 25% of the population regularly consume it. Substance abuse, as defined by psychology is the abuse of a substance to the extent that it interferes with the functioning of everyday life. If this were to be the yardstick by which to measure substance abusers, than even alcoholics are rather rare. The fact that one person believes that it is dangerous is irrelevant as well, it is happening, and there isn't thing one any of you at Deseret can do about it.too. The drug war is a loss, why not legalize? We could then tax these products and cut our losses, or has the gov't made too much an industry of incarceration and subjugation.               Spencer 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #14 posted by FoM on June 24, 2000 at 17:04:19 PT
No Apologize Necessary Howard
Howard never apologize here please! That is what this web site is for. We all are sad and angry. We are worried but we try so hard to stay strong. If we lose heart they know they've got us where they want us. If the Meth Bill goes thru all that will be left are sites that do something along the line of CannabisNews and MapInc. I really believe that. Everyone just wants to cheer you up a little and that's what makes this bunch of people so good!Peace, FoM!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #13 posted by howard on June 24, 2000 at 16:13:42 PT:
howard responds
My earlier message explains how I feel lately. For that I have no apology. (please don't tell me that only optimists are allowed on this web site!)I can't hide the fact that I feel very dubious about our future. And it is NOT all just about the war on cannabis. For me, it is a variety of things. I do apologize for venting, though and I realize as long as there is life there is hope. Yes, we will fight and,yes, we will win. The costs will great, but it will be WELL worth it. Freedom is rarely free. thanks all, I feel better now. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #12 posted by legalizeit on June 24, 2000 at 14:29:02 PT
Another Orrin wannabe
This goofball would be a good one to take Orrin Hatch's place as Reefer Madness King Wacko when Hatch kicks the bucket.>Should laws exist to protect people from substances that can cause serious harm to their bodies and lead them to docrazy, possibly dangerous, things?Like alcohol???!!! He's so steeped in Reefer Madness (and probably a little alcohol himself) that he doesn't even know what pot does.>The facts spell complete and unqualified disaster.A murder rate that is a fraction of the US rate is disaster? Boy, I don't want to live in your state. "Unqualified" is a good description of your perception of the drug culture.>dealers have developed a new, potent form of the drug called "Nederwiet" that didn't exist before legalization.Hmmm... reminds me of a new, potent form of a drug called "Crack" that didn't exist before prohibition.>Unfortunately, moderate alcohol consumption is culturallyacceptable in much of the United States. However, that is hardly a reason to urge that the culture accept another harmful drug, as well.Give me one reason why not. We already know pot is far less harmful than alcohol. Why keep harassing and jailing people (especially patients suffering from horrible diseases) instead of letting them have and use a PLANT?This drug warrior's drivel would be harmless if it were kept in the confines of the Mormon community and/or the state of Utah. Let them prohibit alfalfa and pine needles if they want to! The trouble is, those yobers elect the likes of Orrin Hatch, who deftly tries anything he can to undermine the Constitution and ensure a drug-free police state for all.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #11 posted by kahunafist on June 24, 2000 at 09:39:16 PT
religious issue from a mormon
they banned coffee! WHAT DO you expect from a mormon in Utah.They are known for outlandish beliefs, like dark colored polynesians get white after a few generations of being mormons. really!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #10 posted by CongressmanSuet on June 24, 2000 at 08:08:25 PT:
Howard, Im a fatalist..
and have a tendency to agree with you on a few points, but I have also seen the advances we have made in the last few years, and, well, I have added the word OPTIMISM to my vocab. Kap, dddd, FoM, and the many other articulate, intellegent posters here have given me hope. So, trade that negativity for positivity, and know that we are fighting the RIGHT battle, and as such, SHOULD win.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #9 posted by kaptinemo on June 24, 2000 at 07:19:36 PT:
An answer for Howard
Howard, I assure you I am not being - as I like to say - PollyAnnaish about this dirty little war. I've experienced myself, in a small way, how off-handedly cruel it can be. The Fat Boys Institute Chapter of the DrugWarriors spent two years tracking down everybody who had dealt with my supplier (the fool had kept records!) and trashed the lives and careers of everyone on that idiot's list. It has taken me 5 long, hard years to get back to where I was financially before their zealotry ruined me. And I am one of the lucky ones; I'm not being sodomized in prison by *real* criminals, or been shot dead while being treated to the spectacle of a 'Gee, we-got-the-wrong-house-because-I-can't-read-the-warrant drug raid.I'm not being mindlessly optimistic or playing the sheep in Orwell's 'Animal Farm'. The reason I believe we are winning is this: societal policies have inertia. This happens only so long as it is comfortable for that society to continue those policies. But when they start to be uncomfortable, then that society begins to question the rationale of having them.That might seem overly simplistic, I know. But please bear with me. We know *who* the DrugWar laws were originally aimed at: African-Americans, Hispanics and people of Asian descent. So long as Anglo society could get away with overt racism, the policy was continued. Because these elements of society were 'supposed' to be downtrodden, and the laws were meant to continue their oppression via a *legal means*. But now, with the rise of those groups' political clout, it is much more dangerous for Anglo society to continue the policy, unless they couch it in terms more race-neutral. This is what they have been doing with their 'public health' messages and their 'save the chil-drun' campaigns. (But have you noticed most of the kids in these commercials are White?)But the very children they are trying to save are winding up entrapped by the legal system *meant to ensnare the members of the de facto underclass*. The comfort factor is wearing very thin. The latest attempt by the antis - the Education Bill - is now turning around and biting the formerly cheerleader type parents who *did* mimic Orwell's sheep in their support of the DrugWarriors. Now that Johnnie and Suzy might not get to go to Hah-vud because of a pot possession conviction, Mummy and Daddy are starting to wake up and realize the DrugWar laws that were (supposedly) aimed at 'those people' (code for non-White minorities) are starting to affect *them* and their children. And they are starting to slowly, painfully rethink this matter. The same thing happened in the 1970's when the first decrim laws began making their way through the various State legislatures. Add to this the *fact* that TWENTY PERCENT of the country has voted in favor of MMJ, and more are bound to do so, and that is a potential voting bloc that no legislator can afford to ignore. They might parrot the DrugWarrior line out of fear, but they will soon realize that it isn't the Feds who are electing them, it's those now very angry parents-who feel their children's future being threatened- who are.Policies have inertia. And this one, no matter how many times they tweak it, is still running down. It is moribund, on life support courtesy of massive infusions of tax dollars. When enough taxpayers start speaking up (hint, hint, hint, for that sizable proportion of the 70 MILLION OF US who have used the weed) the plug will be pulled, despite the strenuous efforts of the DrugWariors. The very fact they are targeting this media for destruction is proof they are scared of us. You generally don't fear what can't destroy *you*; the Drugwarriors know that if a certain number of people become active, their efforts are doomed.That's why I am hopeful. Hang in there, Howard. We haven't gotten as far as we have by feeling sorry for ourselves; we got this far because we got *angry* - and then we got *active*. And we'll go a lot further. The future does belong to us, but only if we stay the course.Give up now, and you play right into the murderer's hands. And that's exactly what they are hoping for.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by howard on June 24, 2000 at 06:05:42 PT:
            we're winning?
I would like to know how we are winning the war. I've read people writing in who say that the anti's are up against a wall, etc. How are they up against a wall? They are in full control and always have been. The article above, like it or not, is pretty much the way most americans feel about the issue. The brainwashing is deeply ingrained in most people here in the US. I have "liberal" intelligent friends who still believe what the government says about drugs is true. Why would they lie...after all, they are protecting us, right? When I tell them NO, I am dismissed as a conspiracy nut or just someone who wants to get stoned without consequence (yup, that's me!) How can anyone say we are winning this war or are even remotely close to winning? Consider this also: 1) They are banning the internet (this is for real!) in the US with the meth bill. From what I've heard they will attempt to (with mind to succeed) totally eliminate any talk of illicit drugs on the net in 2 years. They will persue this like the demons they are.2) The U.N. will be meeting soon and they have plans to ban all drug info WORLDWIDE. They say that drug info is a "crime against humanity" and will use that as they basis for a global internet ban.3) The anti's are drawing up plans as I write this to take the states that have legalized herb as medicine to court. Herb use is a federal crime and there is no doubt they will win in federal court. Yes, despite the will of the people.4) The anti's can deny sick people medicine and, in fact, kill someone ( Peter Mc, etc. ) and only a few people out of millions even bat an eye. If you can get away with cold blooded murder, there is not much else you can't do.These are only a few things going on that shows clearly who's in charge. How the hell are we winning this war? We are being squished like insects and there is not a damn thing we can do about it. The drug war, especially the war on weed is vitally important to the anti's. In fact, I contend, their whole evil world is based on it. Legalizing pot would make their world fall like a card house. It is a card house built on lies. Pull one card out and the whole house caves in! The anti's will fight to their death to keep up their card house and that means keeping weed strictly illegal. Their very life depends on it. We are NOT winning people, sorry... we are not even remotely close. And, it's gonna get worse.... much worse.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by FoM on June 23, 2000 at 21:01:53 PT
Thanks Kapt!
How did you know I needed to hear that Kaptinemo? Thanks! It can get really discouraging but we can't quit now. We've come so very far in such a short time with the help of the Internet. If they censor the Internet what will they do with articles like the above one? No one will learn anything about drugs. That would be terrible. No one could get help if they needed it. Nothing good would come from being censored, just nothing.Peace, FoM!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by dddd on June 23, 2000 at 20:54:28 PT
well spoken
My compliments on the keen insights Professor Nemo....dddd
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by kaptinemo on June 23, 2000 at 20:46:25 PT:
Another sign of success
Many years ago, a scientist by the name of Jerry Pournelle predicted that computers and the Internet would weaken and eventually undermine the Soviet Union. Why? Because with the Internet, the average Soviet citizen, practically brainwashed from birth by State controlled news sources, would be able to learn things outside the confines of the moribund Soviet leadership. Whether this actually happened is a matter for historians. But from the looks of things, it *is* happeing with regards to the DrugWarriors and their stranglehold on public information. I know, given what this poor specimen of a journalist has written, we've every right to be steamed. But consider:Why would he write it?For years, it was a given that any anti propaganda would go unchallenegd. In the newspapers, on the tube, the radio, every form of media then extant, the message was always the same. The voices of reform for the longest time were simply drowned out by DrugWarrior bilge, rarely to be heard, and blithely, scornfully dismissed when it was.And then came a media that wasn't controlled by corporate bigwigs with vested interests. You are staring at it right now.And this media is having an impact. Because of this media, more and more people are beginning to hear a different voice. A voice that's beginning to be heard despite the huge 'noise to signal' ration of the antis propaganda machine. Greater and greater numbers of people are beginning to learn the details of the actual costs of the DrugWar... and are beginning to question its' legitimacy.That very question is a stinging one to the antis; they are long out of practice of having to defend their positions rationally, in public discourse. (It also helps that the nature of the public is changing, too; as I said, more and more people are doing just what you are right now.) The Internet is the royal road past anti information roadblocks. The antis can't control it... right now. So they are resorting to cheap and hollow attempts at playing the old 'heaping scorn' game... while nervously hoping they can silence us with their unConstitutional Anti-Meth Bill.But, the 'water is over the dam', now. They've already lost. Too many people are asking questions they don't want asked... because the answers they give show their intellectual bankruptcy. Articles like this are the literary equivalent of a childish retort of "Because!" when an adult asks them why they did something foolish.Keep it up, folks. That they acknowledge us now is proof they can no longer afford to ignore us. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by NOT TO WORRY on June 23, 2000 at 19:35:00 PT
USE WOULD NOT GO DOWN
>>"Is it so far-fetched to think that if we legalize marijuana, use will go down?" he asked. The answer, of course, is yes. It's not only far-fetched, it's silly. Use would not go down in the adult population, but heavy use might, and children usage may go down. If an Australian study proves true, alcohol use would drop, and that is the reason it is still illegal. The alcohol industry is powerful and doesn't want any competition.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by dddd on June 23, 2000 at 18:36:18 PT
same
This has got to be the same mentally challenged sh*thead,who wrote the last one. Most peculiar,,,,why this jack-ass neglected to take credit for this,arrogant,ignorant,and uninformed rubbish......dddd
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by MikeEEEEE on June 23, 2000 at 16:57:06 PT
Another Clown
Enough said.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by medicinal_toker on June 23, 2000 at 14:44:54 PT
Prohibitionist B.S. week?
Between this and the sour grapes editorial by the PA paper that spouted czar-talk ignorance about mmj, it seems like the czar's staff must be busy ghostwriting this nonsense. It's amazing this ignorant drivel makes print!
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment


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