Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 ... 14  Next

Change for the sake of change?

   

I agree with that, to some extent. I'm not real sure who your "they" are though. I think the vast majority of those arguing against pot prohibition WOULD be happy "stopping at pot legalization". I think there IS a distinction between truly dangerous narcotics and relatively less harmful drugs. The question is where we draw that distinction. I, and most pot users (and a good portion of non-pot users) say that pot is no more (perhaps less) dangerous than many things that are already legal, and that is where the double standard lies.

You know, in the end, I don't really give a shit if pot is legalized. I can grow it and use it and, if I remain relatively smart and inconspicuous in my activities, the law against pot possession is a non-issue to me becaue I'm not going to get caught or punished for using it.

   

   

   

Compare the drug legalization crusade to the pornography industry. Didn't everyone back in the 1950's genuinely think that the tameness of Playboy would be as far as it would go? Too bad guys like Larry Flynt came along and upset that particular delicate arrangement. Sorry, when it comes to hedonist revolutionaries and criminals lusting after more money for themselves there isn't any recognized boundary of decency that they're not continually trying to obliterate.

   

Mr. Canada:
Weren't you're telling me that legalizing pot would be a great political platform?
Isn't that what the 53% number was all about?

So far we haven't seen proof of anyone recently getting arrested for just smoking pot and their definately not hiding in alleys in vancouver.

   

I'll compare the drug legalizing trade to the pornography trade ONLY if we allow that child pornography and rape films are part of that industry. I say we can allow pot and not allow crack on the same logical grounds as we allow Hustler and 'hard-core' sex videos while criminalizing child pornography. We can draw a line with narcotics, just as we do with pornography, on the grounds of its harm to society; the so-called "Reasonable Limits" clause in our Charter of Rights.

   

But where could they possibly go with pot that would be legal? It is what it is.

   

Even the Liberals and NDP are clever enough to know that legalization polling numbers might indicate some popularity for legalization but that it's still an election-loser as far as legitimate political issues go. That's why they don't push it beyond the possible elimination of criminal charges against users. Anyone who came out for full legalization for both users and traffickers would be political dead meat for the law-and-order side.

   

   

Oh please.

   

   

I'd agree with you 100% if I thought that what's a "Reasonable Limit" could be etched in legal stone forever and agreed to by the majority of responsible people on both sides of the issue. The thing is that "Reasonable Limits" are continually being undermined by those who refuse to accept any logical containment of their "rights". I still maintain those with such motivation will not stand still just for marijuana legalization. And "harm to society" is a term that can quite easily be redefined almost endlessly. All a pervert needs is a smart lawyer saying the appealing things and a sympathetic judge to go along with something completely monstrous and any precedent arrangment of a reasonable limit can be wiped out with a single decision.

I'd rather put up with a minorly unfair status quo than change things right now and risk a nuclear-war equivalent catastrophe on a pan-societal level. The thought of exporting the culture of East Vancouver to every neighbourhood in Canada leaves me stone cold.

   

And once Canadians get a whiff of what it'll cost them long term, that number will drop like a stone.

   

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 ... 14  Next