[ql06] Re: CRIMINAL: Pot -- OCA strikes back
- From: "Dawn Livicker" <dlivicker@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: ql06@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 12:36:48 -0400
Mark,
Pot has not been proven to be addictive.
In fact, the only argument on that front that has ever been put forward was
by the US government on the idea that pot is a gateway drug. This was based
on a report from the Centre for Addiction research (I may have the
institutions name wrong) released in the early '80s. In 1993 the same
institution revealed that there was no data to support that finding but that
under mounting political pressure from a government looking to replace the
USSR as the big bad guy (and thereby justify excessive funding of police and
military operations) they made up this concept of a gateway effect.
Your query about ordering the right to smoke vs. public good is actually in
my books irrelevant. If we as a society can tolerate alcohol consumption
which leads to things like bar brawls and wife abuse, I think we can handle
pot consumption which leads to things like bong construction (nod to Dennis
Leary for that one).
Mallem per mallem vs mallem per se. If some thing is inherently bad then
yes,punitive measures should apply under the criminal code. If something is
only bad because the government says so I take issue. In my books locking
someone up for smoking pot is parallel to locking someone up for a parking
ticket. Actually the parking ticket would have more justification because it
could impede the orderly flow of traffic.
Just an opinion
Dawn
----Original Message Follows---- From: mark bumstead <2mab8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: ql06@xxxxxxxxxxxxx To: ql06@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [ql06] Re:
CRIMINAL: Pot -- OCA strikes back Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 09:23:10 -0400 >Ken
wrote: >>>>Cops can start busting people again. The argument is interesting
-- >>driving those in medical need to the black market. But I don't see that
>>as ultimately convincing. (Tell me you aren't pro-pot banning, Mark? I
>>mean, libertarian conservatives are tolerable on some level... :) One
should easily be able to determine where I stand on pot banning: Anything,
carried to an extreme, is silly and dangerous. Government cannot legalize
potand simply walks away. It must put in place a social safety net to deal
with those who become addicted. It needs to legislate or regulate who can
buyor sell it, where it can be sold or used, and to set a metric for
determining impairment, just as they have with alcohol. The question is, as
always, how do we balance the new individual right to smoke pot, with the
existing communal right not to be affected by other peoples choices? Mark
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. [1]Get 2 months FREE*.
--- Links ---
1 http://g.msn.com/8HMAENCA/2746??PS=
Other related posts:
