News (Media Awareness Project) - CN AB: OPED: Legal Pot A Dopey Idea |
Title: | CN AB: OPED: Legal Pot A Dopey Idea |
Published On: | 2002-09-10 |
Source: | Medicine Hat News (CN AB) |
Fetched On: | 2008-01-22 02:13:49 |
LEGAL POT A DOPEY IDEA
Legalizing marijuana would be a mistake. That's what we need in our
society, more intoxicating substances. If the government knew what it knows
now when it decided to legalize alcohol, or tobacco for that matter, do you
think they would have? Do we not learn anything from our past mistakes?
As someone who grew up through the '70s, I have seen the effects of smoking
marijuana. I have seen straight-A students literally fall off the face of
the Earth. The high from THC promotes indifference, carelessness, laziness
and other negative responses. The user's primary purpose becomes when and
where the next high is coming from. Unlike alcohol, which requires an
over-indulgence to obtain the full effects, marijuana only requires a few
puffs.
A Senate committee recently released a report that recommends the
legalization of pot. It is ironic that one of the few times we ever hear
from our non-elected Senate, it comes forward with a recommendation that
deals with dope. I want to know how many people were on that committee and
their experiences after smoking pot to form their well-researched opinion.
Pot affects everyone differently. How does the Senate committee propose we
regulate the use of pot when some people are greatly affected by a small
amount while others require much more for the same effect? The benefit
cited as control over the substance is disputable, because there is not a
uniform effect. You cannot establish a blood THC limit that identifies
intoxication. So where is the control? Why don't we just say anything over
0.0 in blood THC is illegal?
The cited benefits of law enforcement are incongruous with the feelings of
law enforcement associations across the country. My question is this: If
the Senate committee is not listening to law enforcement associations, how
are they arriving at the conclusion that this will benefit law enforcement?
For the most part, police have not been targeting users and on many
occasions do not arrest users. They recognize where their time is best
spent. Let law enforcement do its job without the political monkeys
interfering.
The government must realize there are no positive outcomes from using this
drug. The cons outweigh the pros here. Marijuana is not a benefit to
society, so why is our elected government even considering this? The
federal government should have put the lid on and welded it shut long ago
on the issue of legalizing marijuana (like the 70s).
The federal government needs to drop the marijuana issue. They should put
one of the hundreds of other issues that will have a positive outcome on
society into their pipe and smoke it.
Legalizing marijuana would be a mistake. That's what we need in our
society, more intoxicating substances. If the government knew what it knows
now when it decided to legalize alcohol, or tobacco for that matter, do you
think they would have? Do we not learn anything from our past mistakes?
As someone who grew up through the '70s, I have seen the effects of smoking
marijuana. I have seen straight-A students literally fall off the face of
the Earth. The high from THC promotes indifference, carelessness, laziness
and other negative responses. The user's primary purpose becomes when and
where the next high is coming from. Unlike alcohol, which requires an
over-indulgence to obtain the full effects, marijuana only requires a few
puffs.
A Senate committee recently released a report that recommends the
legalization of pot. It is ironic that one of the few times we ever hear
from our non-elected Senate, it comes forward with a recommendation that
deals with dope. I want to know how many people were on that committee and
their experiences after smoking pot to form their well-researched opinion.
Pot affects everyone differently. How does the Senate committee propose we
regulate the use of pot when some people are greatly affected by a small
amount while others require much more for the same effect? The benefit
cited as control over the substance is disputable, because there is not a
uniform effect. You cannot establish a blood THC limit that identifies
intoxication. So where is the control? Why don't we just say anything over
0.0 in blood THC is illegal?
The cited benefits of law enforcement are incongruous with the feelings of
law enforcement associations across the country. My question is this: If
the Senate committee is not listening to law enforcement associations, how
are they arriving at the conclusion that this will benefit law enforcement?
For the most part, police have not been targeting users and on many
occasions do not arrest users. They recognize where their time is best
spent. Let law enforcement do its job without the political monkeys
interfering.
The government must realize there are no positive outcomes from using this
drug. The cons outweigh the pros here. Marijuana is not a benefit to
society, so why is our elected government even considering this? The
federal government should have put the lid on and welded it shut long ago
on the issue of legalizing marijuana (like the 70s).
The federal government needs to drop the marijuana issue. They should put
one of the hundreds of other issues that will have a positive outcome on
society into their pipe and smoke it.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...