Pubdate: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 Source: Fort Saskatchewan Record, The (CN AB) Copyright: 2003 The Fort Saskatchewan Record Contact: http://www.fortsaskatchewanrecord.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/824 Author: Jayne Buryn EDITOR SHOULD TAKE HARDER LOOK AT POT Fort Saskatchewan Record -- So, Mr. Thomson, you want to throw cold water on MP Ken Epp's warnings about legalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana. You write in your commentary entitled 'MP ill informed on marijuana', "I doubt too many gangsters were celebrating the repeal of prohibition in the 1930's". To clarify the apples-oranges comparison that you make: the lifting of the prohibition on liquor meant that alcohol was once again available legally AND could be bought that way, rather than sought out in 'speak-easies' and through 'bootleggers'. On the other hand, the proposed marijuana legislation, as I understand it, will NOT LEGALIZE marijuana, but, will allow possession of small amounts for personal use. The sale of it will still be ILLEGAL. So who do you think will be 'pushing it' -- a local marijuana outlet (the equivalent of a liquor store) or some criminal? Furthermore, if it's okay to have a bit, more young people who are currently reluctant to give themselves a criminal record may choose to 'try it on for size'. Perhaps these are the considerations that prompted the Ken Epp quote that you mention. "This legislation is great news for organized crime. Demand will almost certainly increase.". Unlike you, I do question whether the legality, as it stands, of at least tobacco, is appropriate. Alcohol is most often blamed for fatal accidents, horrendous family and social problems and fatal lung diseases. However, no one has advocated that we force tobacco manufacturers to stop injecting profitable poisons into their products. Yet, bandwagons are quick to be jumped on at the mention of marijuana.Why the difference ? You counter Epp's claim that there is no research on the effects of long-term marijuana use with your own unsubstantiated claim that the substance has been studied for "at least the last thirty years". Yeah, well - -- six of one, half a dozen of another. Finally, it is amazing how Holland is always used as an example of progressiveness when certain social issues arise be they legalizing prostitution, marijuana, euthanasia, or legitimizing same-sex unions. Perhaps that says more about Dutch society than it does about what and how Canadian values and laws need manipulating? And as the proverb goes, 'physician, heal thyself'. I would suggest that, if you take journalism as seriously as I hope you do, that you 'take a harder look at this issue' yourself and come up with a better analyzed critique. Jayne Buryn Fort Saskatchewan Editors note: if it's marijuana studies you want type the word marijuana into any search engine. For both sides of the story visit the US Drug Enforcement Agency's website, and NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) Both list a dozens of studies as sources. Obviously neither of these websites are objective but surprisingly what they say about pot isn't radically different. NORML doesn't claim pot is harmless and while some of the DEA's claims are debatable every one of them also apply to alcohol and or cigarettes. - --- MAP posted-by: Larry Stevens