'FEW MEASLY JOINTS' DON'T WARRANT HARSH PENALTIES

On July 17, Brenda MacDonald shared with us her thoughts on marijuana
legislation. For somebody professing to be educated on this topic by
means of first-hand observations, I found it strange that Ms.
MacDonald would rely strictly on condescending remarks and trite
pothead stereotypes to make her case against decriminalizing minor
possession of marijuana.

Apparently, strong convictions don't necessarily give way to strong
arguments. One wouldn't have to dig very deep into the relevant
literature to refute Ms. MacDonald's absurd claim that pot use is the
main reason why many people find themselves on the welfare system.

Gone are the days when reactionaries could hope to stand a chance in a
fair decriminalization debate by bringing nothing to the table but
old-fashioned beliefs and holier than thou attitudes. This shift has
occurred because there is no sound rationale - moral, scientific or
otherwise - to validate such outrageously harsh penalties for
possession of what is equivalent to a few measly joints.

Too many people use the lingering clout of these outdated laws as a
vehicle to impose their own personal model of morality on others,
ignoring the fact that absolutely nobody benefits when draconian
punishments follow victimless crimes.

Minor possession cases are bogging down the legal system, burning tax
dollars, and wasting police resources. Countless youngsters are
receiving undeserved criminal records that undermine their ability to
land good jobs and become productive citizens.

For those who say that decriminalization sends the wrong message to
children, please bear in mind that an activity does not have to appear
in the Criminal Code for it to be preventable by responsible parenting.

The message here is that the punishment should fit the crime. A
personal vendetta against marijuana users is a poor justification for
advocating penalties that are clearly overkill for such minor
infractions.

Marlo Sinclair

Sarnia