HTTP/1.0 200 OK
Content-Type: text/html
This Man Loves Herb More Than You
Pubdate: Thu, 15 Dec 2005
Source: See Magazine (CN AB)
Copyright: 2005 SEE Magazine
Contact: http://www.seemagazine.com/Intro/letters.htm
Website: http://www.seemagazine.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2367
Author: Fish Griwkowsky
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mjcn.htm (Cannabis - Canada)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/hr.htm (Harm Reduction)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?199 (Mandatory Minimum Sentencing)
THIS MAN LOVES HERB MORE THAN YOU
Marijuana Martyr Malmo-Levine Argues the Virtues of Legalization
Edmonton-reared David Malmo-Levine was our keynote pot activist in
the '90s, writing for The Gateway, organizing wild rallies and
handing me lit joints on television as police stood at the edge of
Gazebo Park, staring. It was a funny time--no 1960s or anything, but
still one when tens of thousands of shivering students would march on
the Legislature. Gone is Malmo-Levine's floppy hat, same with the
five-foot prop joint. He's evolved into a history professor and lives
on the West Coast. Graciously, he comes bearing gifts.
[See Magazine] Tell us what you've been doing in the last decade?
I moved to Van in '95. I started working for Hemp BC and wrote
articles for Cannabis Culture, opened up a pot-dealing service called
the "Harm Reduction Club" which lasted about five months before the
police shut it down. I spent the next few years studying herbal
medicine, constitutional law, and organic farming. I started a show
called High Society for pot-tv.net. Our legal challenge finally made
it to the Supreme Court in 2003. I argued that the proper use of
cannabis was harmless, and that the Constitution protected harmless
people. The Supreme Court agreed that proper use was harmless but
then went on to say that there was no "harm principle" found in the
Constitution, and that our community was similar to pimps, cannibals,
animal abusers, and incestuous people--not quite harmful, not quite
harmless--better left to Parliament to decide. Since then, I've
opened up "The Vancouver School of Drugwar History and Organic Cultivation."
[See Magazine] Compare Edmonton and Vancouver on a street level, and
from the "Man's" point-of-view.
Well, the "Man" in Van has got about a thousand more lectures on the
utility and safety-margin of cannabis, and you don't generally
encounter pot-hating cops or politicians. In fact, City Hall is
pro-legalization. We also have a "supervised injection site."
Edmonton, I hear, is still pretty harsh in comparison.
[See Magazine] I'm not for outright legalization, but I know cops use
possession as a reason to hassle people. Besides that I think we have
it good. I fear marijuana production would become centralized and
corporate, furiously taxed, as booze and smokes are.
Your fear of re-legalization is common, but based on some mistaken
assumptions. You assume it won't get worse--but the Liberals' plan is
to give everyone fines for possession, throw those who can't pay in
jail and force "repeat offenders" to choose between jail and
treatment. Both big parties are talking about increased penalties for
growers and dealers--mandatory minimums. There's no limit to how bad
the drug war could become. As for corporate monopoly, Prairie Plant
Systems has the med-pot market all to itself, and GW Pharmaceuticals
and Bayer have no competition for their Sativex product.
Re-legalization would allow ma and pa growers to replace the $180
billion we waste on pills every year in North America, so even with
tax the "cottage industry" would still have lots of room for growth.
I haven't even mentioned tourism, export, and ending the
over-regulation of industrial hemp for much needed eco-fuel and
immunity-boosting foods.
[See Magazine] I admit it would be rad to be able to have living,
pot-leafy curtains and not live in fear of being busted. The cats
would love it. But, again, how do you think legalized pot would
escape the same production and use restrictions of alcohol and tobacco?
My feeling is that if the re-legalization community is strong enough
to fight prohibition, it's also strong enough to oppose
over-regulation. I always thought the "caffeine" model of
distribution--with perhaps organic standards on cultivation and a
parental-permission policy for teen users--would be enough to address
all concerns. Basically, the activists now have to explain to "on the
fence" Canadians what cannabis is good for and why it doesn't deserve
the stigma. It's good for stress, depression, fatigue, loss of
appetite, lack of sleep/motivation/focus, plus a bunch of medical
necessity uses.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake