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