Pubdate: Sun, 03 Sep 2000
Source: Calgary Sun, The (CN AB)
Copyright: 2000 The Calgary Sun
Contact:  2615 12 Street N.E., Calgary, Alberta T2E 7W9
Fax: (403) 250-4180
Website: http://www.canoe.ca/CalgarySun/
Forum: http://www.canoe.ca/Chat/home.html
Author: Licia Corbella
Referenced: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1245/a02.html

STONERS GOT ALL FIRED UP

Many Of The Tokers' Letters Show They've Fried An Area Of Their Brain

Well, the reefer reformers were back at it.

In one week I received 120 e-mails -- many, if not most of them,
unprintable -- from cannabis crusaders who were apoplectic over my
column last Sunday in which I said I was opposed to the legalization
of marijuana but in favour of decriminalization.

I would have thought such a statement from someone like myself with
first-hand knowledge about the topic would hold some weight, but no.
Apparently it does not.

My personal experiences and observations of those under the influence
of the good weed are not valid -- their experiences however are.

Clearly, many of these tokers have fried the area in their brain which
can discern when someone is exaggerating in an effort to be funny.

I talked about my memory not being what it once was as a result of
marijuana use. I believe that to be true, since I had an almost
immediate loss of memory ability during my druggie days, which took
place a very long time ago now. I also believe there has been some
lingering affect to my memory. Having said all that, I still have a
pretty awesome ability to recollect things -- better than most -- but
I was just trying to be funny.

If I failed, I apologize, but lighten up.

More than a few of the pro-pot crowd's letters indicate that they also
don't seem to understand what I mean by decriminalization versus
legalization, so allow me to explain.

I liken the decriminalization of marijuana to having speed limits on
highways.

When I speed and I am caught I get a ticket and pay a fine. If I don't
want to chance the fine I don't speed. Speeding is illegal, but it is
not criminal.

Now, many of you pedants out there will undoubtedly write back
espousing the virtues of no speed limits which once existed on German
autobahns and Italian highways.

Both countries did away with that free-for-all highway rule because
the carnage of innocents was becoming an epidemic.

So back to pot instead of pot holes.

If I were a legislator I would advocate instituting rules that would
make possession of two grams or less of marijuana perfectly OK -- as
long as it's not smoked in public.

Anything over that -- up to say, 10 or 15 grams, would warrant a
fine.

Amounts above that could warrant a higher fine and a kilo or more
could lead to criminal charges. Something like that. I'm just throwing
out arbitrary numbers but that's the idea. It sounds reasonable to
me.

Heck, tobacco smokers pay taxes -- hefty ones at that -- so a few
fines now again is something most pot smokers can surely afford. If
they're too poor to pay a fine, then they clearly can't afford marijuana.

As for those folks who require marijuana for medical reasons, they
should be exempt from ever being fined for simple possession and
should be able to get drugs from a pharmacy, where quality could be
monitored.

Decriminalizing marijuana would make it possible for that enormous
majority of pot smokers out there who say they only smoke in the
privacy of their home to remain fine free for life.

If, however, they decide to take their habit outside to the
neighbourhood park, the public washroom or at the bus stop -- where
they could be modelling negative behaviour to young children -- then
that would warrant a fine.

For those who advocate for legalization and decry decriminalization, I
guess my question, is what do you want to gain? Money is my guess.

Legalization would not solve anything. It would simply legitimize yet
another potential social evil that would be of detriment to our youth.
Clearly, if some company was trying to get tobacco legalized today, it
would never happen. The problem is tobacco is too entrenched in
society. It has grown too many roots. Too many people smoke and too
many multi-national companies make billions from those who are addicted.

Adding yet another vice to society's list of what's OK will only
ensnare more vulnerable kids. After all, people don't start smoking at
the age of 30 -- they start when they are kids.  The same goes for
drugs.

Many of the other writers also said that the only reason why marijuana
is viewed as a gateway to other drug use is because currently you can
only buy marijuana from drug dealers who push other drugs on their
customers.

That is partially true. But for most who go on to experiment with
harder drugs, it's the drive to seek out new highs that launches them
into the world of harder drugs -- not some drug dealer.

A couple of letter writers talked about how unfair it is for people to
spend decades behind bars for smoking pot.

"The idea of someone spending a decade or two in prison for rolling a
doobie makes me sick," wrote the man.

So here's my challenge to you. You find me one person in Canada who
has spent 10 or 20 years in prison for rolling a joint and I will
write a very good article about that. That indeed would be an enormous
injustice -- considering serious rapes warrant often less than four.
Needless to say, I won't hold my breath. Not only does such a person
not exist now, they didn't exist in the past. I called a veteran
prison guard I know about this and he said in his 16 years with
Corrections Canada he has never seen or heard of anyone incarcerated
for simple possession.

This same prison guard spent about three years as a guard in
provincial jails -- where the sentences are all two years or less and
he said again, he never met one person who was in jail for simple
possession of any drug, never mind marijuana.

So, I guess I was wrong. Some stoners do understand exaggeration.
They're prone to it. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake