[ql06] Re: CRIMINAL: Pot -- OCA strikes back
- From: "Dawn Livicker" <dlivicker@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: ql06@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 08:36:36 -0400
Hi Mark,
1. Pot is not physically addictive for anyone. It simply does not act on the
brain in a way to create a physical dependence. It could become socially or
psychologically addictive I suppose, but as detox programs work to rid a
person of physical addiction any program above and beyond the availiability
of psychological therapy (which already exists) would be nothing but a
boondoggle to assuage the sensibilities of those with pre-conceived notions
about marijuana use.
2. We are in agreement about the need for regulation about when the use of
marijuana would be appropriate. I am not suggesting a free-for-all but I am
opposed to the "for medical purposes only" philosophy. As the saying goes,
myright to swing my fist ends at the point where it connects with your nose.
Where there is a demonstrable effect of impairment (your example with the 4
year olds is one) there ought to be restriction. Luckily employment
standardslaws in Canada have already tackled a lot of these issues.... look
at the circumstances under which a Canadian employer may test an employee
fordrug use. Pilots, mechanics and bus drivers are some of those whose
consumption of any drug is prohibited - and for obvious reason. An even
simpler parallel is drawn with alcohol consumption and its restrictions.
Cheers
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 13:42:53 -0400 I
see3 issues in your response: 1) is pot addictive 2) tolerate alcohol
consumption 3) locking someone up for smoking pot 1) I did not imply pot was
addictive for everyone or inevitable. I merely state that the government
needs to put in place a social safety net for those who do become addicted,
just as we have for alcohol and gaming. 2) Yes, we tolerate alcohol
consumption, but we also set limits. You must be over the legal drinking
age,you cannot be drunk in public, you cannot drive when you are over the
legal limit. That is what I was asserting: the need for a regulatory
structure similar to the existing controls on alcohol. 3) I am miles away
from locking anyone up for pot smoking, unless they violate the limits we
establish under 2). and only in the extreme cases, just as we do with those
who drink and drive. I hope you are not asserting that pot smoking should be
a free-for-all, where it is okay to smoke 15 joints while driving a car full
of 4 year olds. To me, there has to be some regulation, some limit, some
balancing of individual and public rights. If you accept that there has to
belimits, and therefore regulation, then - the right to smoke vs. public
good... in my books IS NOT irrelevant. It is required if using pot smoking
isnot a free-for-all, because that is what regulation is: a balancing of
private and public rights. Change my mind. Show me there should be no limits
on smoking pot, that anyone should be allowed to consume an unlimited
quantity and roam free on our highways at the wheel of a transport truck or
to cruise our skies at the controls of a big old jet airliner (doesn't that
take me back). Mark. >>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
>institutionsname 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
policeand >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 >which leads to
things like bar brawls and wife abuse, I think we can handle >pot
consumptionwhich leads to things like bong construction (nod to Dennis
>Learyfor 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
morejustification because it >could impede the orderly flow of traffic.
>>Just an opinion >>Dawn
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection[1] with MSN 8.
--- Links ---
1 http://g.msn.com/8HMBENCA/2734??PS=
Other related posts:
