Nov 24, 2002, 8:57 PM
I, for one, don't believe that a person has lived life until they've tried a few hits of Acid, or at least mushrooms. In my humble opinion, neither are addictive, and neither are harmful. Even if the government completely regulated it, and only allowed each citizen one night a year to try it, I honestly believe people have a god given right to know what LSD is like. This does not mean I endorse people tripping every weekend, with people wandering around on LSD everywhere you look. But, I feel the government has no right, none at all, to deny the use of LSD. Even if it is only allowed under supervision by a registered psychologist, or something. Essentially, my argument is that, if there is no direct harm in something such as LSD, which is not physically addictive either, then no one has the right to deny you of that experience.
Re: [MarisolEnPlayas] Read Again the Post
I hardly drink, and hardly ever do drugs. I absolutely refuse to go near anything such as cocaine, heroine, etc, and never in my life will I even try those. Because I believe they are addictive, physically. I don't believe Marijuana, mushrooms, lsd, and probably other stuff like peyote are bad for you, in moderation. That does not mean I am a drug addict.
The last time I smoked Marijuana was in January. My friend and I got dirt cheap air fare to Waikiki, so we went for a week, stayed for dirt cheap in a hostel, etc.. Anyway we met some other people, went out to a resaurant, then we went to go to a disco. Well, all my friends went in, and its up a staircase right at the door, and well when it was my turn, the bouncers informed me that in the United States of America, it is against the law for a 20-and-a-half year old to go to a night club. My friends already inside, I started telling my sad story to a random stranger. To cheer me up, he said "lets go smoke a joint", and so we went and sat on a park bench and smoked some hash.
That was the last time. Now tell me that your drinking laws in the United States are not completely stupid. Here in Mexico, young girls can go to the disco. I've had a 15 year old in my company, going to the disco. She had maybe one beer, and that was that. Its not a big deal. They can control themselves, and they don't go crazy and poisen themselves with alcohol the first time they get their hands on it.
So if a kid can't drink in the United States until they are 21, naturally, they are just going to go find some weed. Just like I did. This is why prohibition of anything is silly. If kids can smoke a little weed, they might do it here and there. And they won't have to get involved with shady people to do it. Smoking a little weed never did anyone any harm. Its not a big deal. Personally, I don't like it. It makes me think to much. I think about things I don't want to think about. It makes me slightly paranoid. So, personally I don't like it very much. But, that does not mean I don't think people have a god given right to smoke it if they want to. Who are you to say a blue collar factory worker can't come home and smoke a joint before bed. If thats how he wants to live his life, thats his prerogative. You or anyone else have no right to say this blue collar factory worker can't smoke his marijuana after work, just because you have seen several people who can't handle it. For the majority, its not a problem. People have a god given right to smoke marijuana, or any other drug that is not harmful.
Cocaine, no. I accept as fact that if you snort cocaine twice or more, your body becomes to some degree dependant on it. I accept this, and the obvious consequences, and therefore I am not suggesting legalization. Well, except maybe once per year under supervised conditions, or something. People have a right to do whatever they want, as long as it does not directly affect anyone else. I do not accept that marijuana, mushrooms, lsd, and possibly others, are directly harmful. Or really, even indirectly harmful. Its more harmful that people risk eating a bad mushroom, and dying 2 hours later, than if the mushrooms were grown and picked under government supervised conditions, where you know that what you are eating is really a shroom.
Likewise, I think that if I am a Canadian citizen, I have a god given right to get on a plane in Toronto and fly to Mexico, without neither the airline or government knowing who I am. That is, of course, if I volunteer to go through the 'strip search' line, or something up that alley. I feel, the government has no bloody right to invade on anyones privacy, or right to do what they want if it is not directly harmful to anyone else.
Why? I'm afraid I don't have faith in the government. I feel special influence groups have to much power to persuade. I don't feel people are smart enough to elect good politicians. I for one, have a hell of a lot more faith in the Supreme Court of Canada, than I do in the government as far as creating proper and just laws. I have a hell of a lot more faith in Canadian judges, and Canadian senators, as neither are elected, than members of parliment (congress?). They are appointed, presumably on merit, and I have more faith in them as a result. They do not have to answer to, or risk loosing their jobs based on the power of special interest groups to persuade.
I'm going to bring up something fairly controversial, just to illustrate my point. Under not-tested-in-court Canadian law, it was illegal to describe, or write about, even in your own diary, anything involving sexuality of people under the age of 18 years old. But, the legal age of consent in Canada is 14, nation wide. This made it illegal, for example, for a 17 year old boy to write in his diary about having sex, or loosing his virginity to his 16 year old girlfriend.
So, we have a pedophile named William Sharpe. He wrote boy love stories. Perhaps the police confiscated a story he wrote about his neighbors child. Yes, its evil. And under written law, illegal. So he went to court, etc, etc, and eventually it reached the supreme court.
The supreme court ruled that, it is constitutional to outlaw distribution of these stories, as it could be harmful to someone. But, they also said it violates freedom of expression to deny someone their constitutional right to remember their own thoughts. Hence, the final ruling, Mr. Sharpe is allowed to write his stories, as long as he never, ever, ever in his entire life shows them to anyone. Likewise, they declared it legal for a 17 year old boy to write in his diary about his sexual relations with his girlfriend, as long as he too, never in his entire life showed them to anyone.
Well, every special interest group in the whole damn country accused the Supreme Court of legalizing child pornography. These special interest groups caused quite a ruckas.
The point is this. No elected person would ever want to deal with all these special interest groups, and hence, would never propose a law saying "yes, a 17 year old can write about sexual relations in a diary, as long as he never shows anyone". They would never do this, first because who the hell would openly advocate something like this, lest every special interest group in the country label him a pedophile, and second, what member of parliment would ever support this, for fear of being smeared as being a pedophile himself during election time.
But really, whats the big deal. Is it really a crime for a 17 year old to write about his feelings, if he never shows anyone? Who does it hurt? No one. But, the government of Canada thinks its a crime. Because they have to answer to very powerful special interest groups.
So. The moral of this story is that it took unelected people, who don't risk losing their jobs, to find this unconstitutional. Secondly, given the chance, government will be more than happy to take everyones rights away. Thirdly, sure it was a noble idea outlawing boy love stories. But, it has unintended consequences. You outlaw teenage diaries, where otherwise law abiding teens risk going to jail for writing about a LEGAL activity in their diary.
If these teens aren't doing anything harmful, why should it be illegal? Sure you can say, "oh they will never get caught, so whats the big deal?". But thats not the point. They shouldn't even have a thread of uncertainty that they risk going to jail, for something so completely innocent.
Essentially, by saying marijuana should be outlawed for everyone, because you've seen poor latinos who can't handle it, you are saying in effect the same thing as teenage girls shouldn't be allowed to write about their legal sexual intercourse in their diaries, because the distribution of boy love stories is bad. Do you understand the connection I am trying to make? You inadvertantly affect otherwise law abiding citizens, by outlawing something completely that only a small fraction of the population has problems with. The other parallel I'd like to draw with this is that I'm sure there are many, boat loads of people who would otherwise support legalization of something so innocent as marijuana, or teenage girls writing in their diaries, but don't for fear of being labeled either a pedophile or drug addict. People have careers, et cetera, to think about.
Therefore, I think it should just be legalized, because people shouldn't have to fight for these basic rights, they should just have them by default. I mean, people who enjoy marijuana should not have to risk stating that openly, especially when it is something so trivial. Its a basic right, if they themselves are not hurting anyone.
And finally, just to directly link this, just as I have faith in the unelected supreme court to protect the rights granted in the constitution, I have more faith in an unelected senate committee based on merit, when they say Canadians should be allowed to smoke marijuana. I have more faith in their report, than any report out of any other government agency. If the Senate says marijuana is not harmful, it won't tarnish the image of any one. Its just their recommendation based on a long term study. If Health Canada, ie a government organization, supported legalization, it would directly impact the image of the minister responsible for that department, and in turn, the government.
In conclusion, if the Senate of Canada says marijuana should be legal, I believe them. But of course, its not going to happen any time soon, as long as the United States is still our neighbor to the south. Unless the supreme court, unelected, declared it unconstitional, and hence the government could claim they have no power over it.
Oh one more interesting tidbit about Canadian politics. Did you know the Supreme Court of Ontario ruled it violated a womens right to not let her go topless, just like men? It took the Supreme Court of Ontario to do that. Can you imagine any elected politician bringing a "Lets let women go topless" bill to the table?". Not likely.
I hope this made sense.