Pubdate: Mon, 02 Jun 2003
Source: Observer, The (CN SN)
Copyright: 2003 Carlyle Observer
Contact:  http://www.carlyleobserver.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2915
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mjcn.htm (Cannabis - Canada)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)

SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT DECRIMINALIZE MARIJUANA?

He says:

At first glance, opinion on the proposed changes to the marijuana laws would
appear to be a simple matter of agreeing or disagreeing. However, there is
much more to this burning issue than meets the eye.

First off, I should say that I have never smoked pot, nor do I ever intend
to, and it's something I'm proud of. I do look down on people who do smoke
weed; it's a choice. I just simply choose not to.

That said, I have no problem with the actual decriminalization of marijuana.
The government has said repeatedly that pot will not be legal, but rather,
possessors of under 15 grams will be subject to a ticket and a fine up to
$400. These same users will also no longer be subject to a criminal record.

This is just fine with me. I don't believe that a 30 or 40 year old man
should have trouble finding employment or crossing the border to the United
States because he was caught smoking pot when he was 20 years old. For all
anyone knows, it could have been a one-time case of being in the wrong place
at the wrong time.

My problem, surprise surprise, is with the way the government has handled
this issue. To me it seems like Prime Minister Chretien is simply trying to
make a splash before leaving office without really thinking things through.

So the punishments for growing and/or trafficking marijuana will be doubled.
Big deal.

If I was growing weed in my backyard, 20 years in jail would not scare me
more than ten years would and I'm sure many growers feel the same way. What
they are doing is still illegal and they could still go to jail. That's all
that matters to producers of marijuana.

It is also a known fact that pot causes some form of impairment. To those of
you who are saying "oh he's never smoked pot, he doesn't know," I say prove
me wrong! I have seen people smoke up so many times its not even funny,
despite their incessant laughter. And what I have seen is, quite often,
people who are incapable of standing, walking straight, carrying on a
conversation, or doing anything other than sitting in their cars with a
goofy grin on their faces.

Again, I have absolutely nothing against these people. Like I said, it's a
choice.

What really gets under my skin, however, is the fact that these same people
are hitting the highways to head home while still being stoned out of their
tree. Put someone, anyone, behind the wheel of a car, and they are just as
dangerous driving high as they are driving drunk. That just doesn't work.

And since police currently have no way to test for weed content in one's
system, this farce of a system will continue to work the way it does until
new technology is developed. So why are we decriminalizing a substance that
has the potential to be so dangerous?

I fully believe that usage will not spike as a result of these law changes.
Studies in other countries have clearly shown this. But by reducing a
possession charge to a simple fine, lawmakers are saying smoking a joint is
just like drinking beer. This may be so, but perhaps the government should
have fixed all the bugs in this plan before putting it into effect.

Waiting a few months or years until some kind of testing system for THC
content could be developed would have been a good start. Unfortunately, it's
too late for that.

Think about it.

She says:

Today we get to discuss the "burning issue" of whether the government should
decriminalize marijuana.

What a silly question! What a silly idea!

It's yet another bungling government move to fool the taxpayers into
thinking the government has taken action and plans to take a firm stance on
an issue, while in reality, they continue to waffle and sit on their butts.

From what I have gleaned in the mass media, Chretien plans to
`decriminalize' the possession of under 15 grams of pot. How much 15 grams
is =AD that's kind of beyond me. I'd imagine it's a fairly good size bag,
being dried leaves and not weighing much. They're not saying it's legal to
possess it, they're just saying it won't make you a criminal if you do.

It's like a parent telling a three-year old "don't write on the walls with
markers. It's not right. But if you do it, I'm not going to punish you."

At the same time, they're dumping more money into drug enforcement policing
and addiction recovery programs.

And coincidentally, this is all happening at a time when Chretien plans to
leave office. A good way to make a mess and leave someone else to deal with
it, wouldn't you say?

Even without the political rhetoric and waste, the issue itself carries many
problems.

While it may not be true that pot turns people into "maniacs" as some people
think, it has been proven to have detrimental effects on the nervous system
and judgement of pot smokers.

People who operate machinery under the influence of drugs are much more
likely to cause accidents.

It's like saying that we should make it o.k. for people under the legal
drinking age to drink - and then drive! It's just not right, whether or
not you increase policing and addiction programs.

At the risk of sounding "right wing", I'd vote very strongly to defeat the
decriminalization of pot.

As Canadians, we need to look at our government's priorities, and make our
comment with our votes in the next election. We need a government who puts
more emphasis on the provision of essential services, and not one who puts
"getting high" high on the priority list.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Josh