DECRIMINALIZING POT... WHY NOT DRINKING AND DRIVING TOO?

Has the Prime Minister gone to pot?

We have heard about his wanting of a legacy for history to remember him by.
Usually things that are part of a legacy are in fact glorious and stand
above the everyday mundane doings of government.

So last week another piece of legislation Mr. Chretien has decided to ram
through before he leaves was introduced. It would see the possession of less
than 15 grams of marijuana decriminalized and punishable only by a small
fine (almost smaller than a seat belt fine).

His cabinet ministers went on television to rationalize this decision
saying, "Why should a person be punished for the rest of their life for
making a wrong decision?"

That statement just blew me away. How can they use that as a rationale for
decriminalizing a drug that is known to be a catalyst for even heavier drug
use? But they did.

So why not decriminalize drinking and driving, at least for those who did
not cause an accident or harm anyone?

That would solve a great many problems for U.S. tourists trying to come to
Canada to spend money but can not because they made a wrong decision.

To me I just don't see where the PM is coming from here, unless he is going
to come out of the closet with a revelation that he too, like former
President Bill Clinton, has smoked pot. If that is the case he must have
inhaled because this decision smacks in the face of all the sense the
previous wars on drugs have stood for. I would think that if he wants a
legacy this is not one I would want to be labeled for.

Until then,

Ken