News (Media Awareness Project) - CN AB: Column: Why I'm Not High On Legalizing Pot |
Title: | CN AB: Column: Why I'm Not High On Legalizing Pot |
Published On: | 2000-08-05 |
Source: | Calgary Sun, The (CN AB) |
Fetched On: | 2008-09-03 13:29:46 |
WHY I'M NOT HIGH ON LEGALIZING POT
Toronto - For a group of people who claim to be mellow, live-and-let types,
marijuana activists can get pretty worked up.
A supposedly landmark decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal, which
technically struck down the ban on pot possession, has set them off from
coast to coast, declaring the day for decriminalization was high - er, nigh.
You'd have thought the judges had made the stuff legal. But the truth is,
they were only trying to make life easier for folks who need marijuana for
medical reasons. The reason they suspended the law for 12 months was
basically to light a fire under the feds - fix the law or all of Ontario
will be up in smoke (or rather, smoking up) come next August.
In fact, the court specifically noted that this was a case where simply
striking down the law "poses a danger to the public." Exactly.
Medical use is one thing, but Canada is far from ready for legalization of
pot, or even decriminalization.
Yes, I'm well aware - thanks in part to all those activists who are avid
writers of letters to the editor - of the case for decriminalization, which
is backed by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. Let's face it,
cops already turn a blind eye to a lot of pot use - as you can see at any
rock concert.
And I would agree it's time for a full, open discussion about our marijuana
laws. But first the activists are going to have to admit a few things
about their miracle weed.
For one thing, it will have to be regulated. Yes, it's "natural", but
we're talking about a mind-altering substance. Today's pot is up to 2,500
times more potent than the stuff aging boomers might have experimented with
in college.
This stuff can have you practically hallucinating after a couple of tokes.
So don't try to tell me it doesn't impair people's faculties and that users
don't endanger anyone.
Pot devotees, of course, will swear to you they actually drive, etc. better
when they're stoned - even as they're bursting out laughing at the joke
someone told 10 minutes ago.
One study in 1994 found 276 drivers killed in accidents had used pot.
We still know very little about the effects of this drug. You can't tell
how strong it is and it's difficult to control how much you're ingesting.
There's no breathalyzer-type test of impairment, and we don't really know
if it's addictive, or how long-term use affects the body.
A few activists admit these risks, though of course they blame the law.
"The black market prevents you from having any quality control," says David
Malmo-Levine, who's fighting his B.C. possession conviction up to the
Supreme Court.
At least he conceded, in an interview with the Winnipeg Sun, that smoking
pot can be harmful. This would seem evident to any non-smoker (of tobacco,
I mean - now that stuff should be illegal) - all that inhaling can't be
good for the lungs.
Malmo-Levine advocates "harm reduction" methods, including using a water
bong and taking vitamin C. Also, know what strain you're smoking. (How?
Where's the label?)
"Smoke organic, high-potency marijuana during high-pleasure, low-stress
activities and you will do no harm to yourself or anybody else, " he
advises. Great. But what about those who don't follow those mellow guidelines?
There's also the matter of organized crime which controls the drug trade.
You think that's going to go away with a court ruling?
Obviously, I'm not what you'd call a pot person. Legal or not, it wouldn't
affect my life much since I've never been a big fan of the culture - I
don't particularly like the passing-the-joint thing, the loss of control,
the stupid stoner stare, and I hate any kind of smoke.
Yes, alcohol can be evil, but it's more pleasant to imbibe, easier to pace
oneself and and generally makes for more convivial conversation.
Once some of the basic questions about health risks are answers, I wouldn't
object to more accessible , carefully controlled and labelled marijuana,
perhaps sold in liquor stores (as cigarettes should be.)
After all. with an estimated 2.5 million users, it's pretty prevalent
anyway. As one pot paraphernalia retailer said: "Sales are booming now. If
it becomes legal, it's not like you will see a massive increase in
consumption."
But let's not kid ourselves. As Malmo-Levine says, "Just because it's fun
doesn't mean it's not medicine."
Indeed. And medicine can de dangerous.
Toronto - For a group of people who claim to be mellow, live-and-let types,
marijuana activists can get pretty worked up.
A supposedly landmark decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal, which
technically struck down the ban on pot possession, has set them off from
coast to coast, declaring the day for decriminalization was high - er, nigh.
You'd have thought the judges had made the stuff legal. But the truth is,
they were only trying to make life easier for folks who need marijuana for
medical reasons. The reason they suspended the law for 12 months was
basically to light a fire under the feds - fix the law or all of Ontario
will be up in smoke (or rather, smoking up) come next August.
In fact, the court specifically noted that this was a case where simply
striking down the law "poses a danger to the public." Exactly.
Medical use is one thing, but Canada is far from ready for legalization of
pot, or even decriminalization.
Yes, I'm well aware - thanks in part to all those activists who are avid
writers of letters to the editor - of the case for decriminalization, which
is backed by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. Let's face it,
cops already turn a blind eye to a lot of pot use - as you can see at any
rock concert.
And I would agree it's time for a full, open discussion about our marijuana
laws. But first the activists are going to have to admit a few things
about their miracle weed.
For one thing, it will have to be regulated. Yes, it's "natural", but
we're talking about a mind-altering substance. Today's pot is up to 2,500
times more potent than the stuff aging boomers might have experimented with
in college.
This stuff can have you practically hallucinating after a couple of tokes.
So don't try to tell me it doesn't impair people's faculties and that users
don't endanger anyone.
Pot devotees, of course, will swear to you they actually drive, etc. better
when they're stoned - even as they're bursting out laughing at the joke
someone told 10 minutes ago.
One study in 1994 found 276 drivers killed in accidents had used pot.
We still know very little about the effects of this drug. You can't tell
how strong it is and it's difficult to control how much you're ingesting.
There's no breathalyzer-type test of impairment, and we don't really know
if it's addictive, or how long-term use affects the body.
A few activists admit these risks, though of course they blame the law.
"The black market prevents you from having any quality control," says David
Malmo-Levine, who's fighting his B.C. possession conviction up to the
Supreme Court.
At least he conceded, in an interview with the Winnipeg Sun, that smoking
pot can be harmful. This would seem evident to any non-smoker (of tobacco,
I mean - now that stuff should be illegal) - all that inhaling can't be
good for the lungs.
Malmo-Levine advocates "harm reduction" methods, including using a water
bong and taking vitamin C. Also, know what strain you're smoking. (How?
Where's the label?)
"Smoke organic, high-potency marijuana during high-pleasure, low-stress
activities and you will do no harm to yourself or anybody else, " he
advises. Great. But what about those who don't follow those mellow guidelines?
There's also the matter of organized crime which controls the drug trade.
You think that's going to go away with a court ruling?
Obviously, I'm not what you'd call a pot person. Legal or not, it wouldn't
affect my life much since I've never been a big fan of the culture - I
don't particularly like the passing-the-joint thing, the loss of control,
the stupid stoner stare, and I hate any kind of smoke.
Yes, alcohol can be evil, but it's more pleasant to imbibe, easier to pace
oneself and and generally makes for more convivial conversation.
Once some of the basic questions about health risks are answers, I wouldn't
object to more accessible , carefully controlled and labelled marijuana,
perhaps sold in liquor stores (as cigarettes should be.)
After all. with an estimated 2.5 million users, it's pretty prevalent
anyway. As one pot paraphernalia retailer said: "Sales are booming now. If
it becomes legal, it's not like you will see a massive increase in
consumption."
But let's not kid ourselves. As Malmo-Levine says, "Just because it's fun
doesn't mean it's not medicine."
Indeed. And medicine can de dangerous.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...