Pubdate: Tue, 17 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: Andrew Rondeau Gibbon

POT SHOULD STAY ILLEGAL

Re: Editor Andrew Thomson's June 10th pro-pot editorial ( and a clear 
indication that someone at the Fort Record is smoking the stuff )

Thomson's suggestion that we approach this issue with an open mind was 
belied by his entire subsequent editorial, which reads like a pro- cannabis 
manifesto. I call it the Thomson Manifesto. Launched with hyperbole and 
ridicule of the opposing side, (the tried-and-true tactic of someone in a 
weak position) in this case, an earlier column by Elk Island opposition MP, 
Ken Epp, against Jean Chretien's Marijuana decriminalization plans.

It cries out for rebuttal. The Thomson Manifesto's first pro-pot position 
(PPP) statement sarcastically implied that since tobacco and alcohol are 
legal and pot is not, Epp's anti-decriminalization stance would logically 
lead to prohibition of alcohol and tobacco in order to send children the 
right message about substance abuse.

Well, I can't speak for Ken Epp, but I didn't read anything in the Canadian 
Alliance's policy statement advocating a return to prohibition. The point 
of Epp's argument was that the first step in dealing with a social problem 
like drug addiction is by preventing potential new abusers from having 
legally condoned access to the drug in the first place. Also, groups like 
AADAC would find their youth anti-drug awareness efforts undermined if the 
Federal Government appeared to condone youth-marijuana use with smaller 
fines for younger offenders than for older ones.

Thomson's second PPP was in response to Epp's statement that the 
health-impairment implications of "smoking a little Pot" were unknown. 
Thomson's reply was that Pot can impair judgement just like alcohol, but 
that's not a good reason to make it illegal.

Way to stay focused, Andrew. That reply had nothing to do with Epp's 
statement. Thomson's third PPP correctly criticized the MP for saying there 
has been no long-term research on the effects of marijuana use. But then, 
Thomson dismisses those studies and their results by the unsupported claim, 
again, that marijuana is no worse than tobacco or alcohol. In fact, he 
implies pot is better than alcohol because you can't overdose on marijuana.

In fact, although no one appears to have died from a THC overdose alone, 
marijuana is a gateway drug, and is often used with other intoxicants. THC 
combined with amphetamines or cocaine can dangerously increase blood 
pressure and heart rate. THC can interact with other mood altering 
medications such as Valium (diazepam), Librium (chlordiazepoxide 
hydrochloride), Xanax (alprazolam), Seconal, Nembutol (pentobarbital) or 
phenobarbital, by exaggerating their effect.

It can also cause longer retention of these drugs, increasing the potential 
for toxicity and overdose. Thomson then assured us that pot causes little 
damage to the nervous system. "You'd have to think", he wrote, "It's fairly 
minor, or else [adverse] results would have shown up in the numerous and 
extensive studies to date." Clearly, he didn't even look. The first link, 
in my first Internet search, yielded a 1996 report in Archives of General 
Psychiatry, about the cognitive problems of long-term marijuana users.

It reported that daily use of marijuana adversely affected the parts of the 
brain that control memory, attention, and learning. There is no doubt that 
marijuana abuse causes social and mental problems, including "drop-out" 
from education and employment, exacerbation of any tendency to 
schizophrenia and other psychiatric problems.

This is not news. If mental impairment wasn't a consequence of long-term 
use, our popular culture wouldn't contain the stereotype of the burned out, 
low-IQ, no-short-term-memory, pot smoker-but it does. As for effects on 
health, To paraphrase him, Thomson says cigarettes kill 45,000 Canadians a 
year, and they're legal; so smoking pot should be too. This a good thing?

In PPP 4, Andrew Thomson derides as irrelevant Ken Epp's concern that there 
is no objective roadside test for marijuana impairment. Then this paper's 
editor actually argues that there are people who will always be willing 
endanger others by driving while stoned, whether it's legal or not. 
Implying the government should therefore decriminalize Marijuana. Pick 
another criminal act Andrew; try making that same claim about burglary, 
possession of stolen property, or child pornographers. It doesn't work. In 
his Manifesto's fifth pro-pot-position statement, Thomson claims that 
tougher fines and jail terms won't help fight the illegal drug trade. He 
goes so far as to suggest that America's drug laws and sentence minimums 
have filled that nation's prisons without really curbing the drug trade. 
Does this mean Canada should decriminalize Marijuana? Or does it mean 
there's a lot of criminal types in American jails? Pick another criminal 
act Andrew, and try inserting it into that argument.

See PPP#4. In short, the Thomson Manifesto reads like it was either culled 
from a bunch of pro-pot websites or Mr. Thomson is into marijuana advocacy 
in a big way. His editorial will certainly color the credibility of any 
news the Fort Record carries on this issue in the future. Certain elements 
on the periphery of our society might go so far as to suggest his editorial 
was courageous. I'd prefer to suggest the police bring a drug sniffer dog 
with them to the Fort Record's offices the next time they drop by. I don't 
know you, Andrew Thomson, I'm sure you're a nice guy; but on the strength 
of what you've written here I think Sun Media and Bowes publishing need to 
hold out for a more mature editor the next time they're interviewing 
applicants for this weekly community publication.

Andrew Rondeau Gibbons, Alberta
- ---
MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart