Consequences of Prohibition
Politics & Advocacy
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper last Thursday unveiled Canada's new National Anti-Drug Strategy, and it is in some ways a radical departure from what has generally been viewed as Canada's progressive approach to drug policy. While the previous Liberal government pondered marijuana decriminalization and embraced harm reduction -- at least in principle, if not always in practice -- such notions have no place in the Harper era.
The Conservative plan will provide $63.8 million over two years for prevention, treatment, and law enforcement, but will forego any harm reduction initiatives. About $22 million of the funding would go toward enforcement, while about $32 million would be directed to treatment and $10 million for prevention in the form of an awareness campaign. The plan is not getting a friendly reception so far from analysts, drug reformers, or opposition politicians.
Harper and Clement with Winnipeg Salvation Army representative, announcing the drug strategy
The country will pursue a two-track policy, said Harper. "If you are addicted to drugs we'll help you and if you sell drugs we'll punish you."
It will be an uphill battle against a culture that "since the 1960s" has done little to discourage drug use and "often romanticized it -- romanticized it or made it cool, made it acceptable," Harper said. "As a father I don't say all these things blamelessly. My son is listening to my Beatles records and asking me what all these lyrics mean. It's just there, it's out there. I love these records and I'm not putting them away. But, that said, there's been a culture that has not fought drug use and that's what we're all up against."
The strategy involves the Department of Justice, Public Safety Canada, and Health Canada in a three-tiered plan to prevent drug use, treat those who are drug dependent, and go after drug production and trafficking. Like the much criticized youth anti-drug media campaign in the US, the Harper strategy envisions a focused public awareness campaign aimed at teens.
The strategy also promises mandatory minimum sentences for "serious" drug offenses, but Harper has so far refused to say what those sentences would be and for what offenses. There is considerable sentiment within the Conservative government to go after marijuana cultivators, but whether Harper wants to send them to prison on mandatory minimums will have to wait until the party introduces legislation later this year.
"Currently there are no minimum prison sentences for producing and trafficking dangerous drugs like methamphetamines and cocaine," Harper said. "But these are serious crimes; those who commit them should do serious time."
As for the Insite safe injection site, which his government grudgingly approved for another six months last week, Harper called it a "second-best strategy at best" and said he remains skeptical about it. "If you remain a drug addict, I don't care how much harm you reduce, you're going to have a short and miserable life," he said.
That stance brought immediate sharp retorts. The new strategy is "a huge step backward," said the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network.
"The federal government is ignoring widely published scientific evidence on the value of investing in harm reduction programs," said Richard Elliott, the group's executive director. "It seems clear that the new drug strategy is based on ideology instead of evidence, and from every angle -- human rights, public health, or use of taxpayers' dollars -- that's irresponsible and unacceptable."
Elliot ripped Harper for claiming that increased law enforcement is a harm reduction measure. "This is just smoke and mirrors," said Elliott. "The reality is that some people can't or won't stop using drugs. Harm reduction pragmatically and realistically acknowledges this fact by providing evidence-based programs and services to lessen the harms associated with drug use. Arresting and imprisoning people can't be considered harm reduction."
Thomas Kerr, a professor in the University of British Columbia's Department of Medicine who has studied Insite and its effect on the prevention of the spread of HIV-AIDS, joined Elliot in criticizing Harper over Insite. "The government continues to misrepresent the science around harm reduction. In the case of Insite we have shown that there has been a 33% increase in the rate of entry into detox programs," Kerr told the Toronto Globe & Mail. "In no way is the facility perpetuating addiction. In fact, it's helping people quit drug use."
The New Democratic Party was also quick to criticize the Harper drug strategy. "We need to combat the very real problem of youth gangs, violence and crack houses in our communities," said NDP health critic Judy Wasylycia-Leis. "But everyday Canadians know that simply criminalizing a public health problem is not the solution. We don't need more advertising -- we need to invest in harm reduction, education, treatment, and enforcement."
Vancouver East Member of Parliament and NDP drug policy critic Libby Davies also weighed in. "A heavy handed US style war-on-drugs only serves to create a culture of fear," said Davies. "This so called drug strategy fails to address the very real needs in our communities. Experts and average Canadians alike agree that we need to invest in real, long-term solutions to drug use and the problems that result from serious substance abuse."
Not everyone had unkind words for the Harper drug strategy. The Canadian Police Association expressed support for the government's get-tough approach to drugs. The organization has called for stronger legislation and a new system of graduated consequences to prevent and deter drug use. The group's president, Tony Cannavino, has called the government's promise to crack down on illegal drug use and dealers "a cornerstone, because a lot of violence is related to drugs."
It not just cops that are finding something to like in the Harper drug strategy. "We are grateful for the government's commitment to increased investment in addiction services," said Gail Czukar, Executive Vice President of the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto. "Addiction services are in critical need of increased support from government."
But even the center warned that the strategy ignored Canada's most severe drug problem: alcohol. "A comprehensive drug strategy should not ignore the harmful consequences of alcohol use," said Czukar.
The Canadian Medical Association also praised the strategy, calling it a "positive step forward" and a balanced approach. "The Canadian Medical Association welcomes the increased attention being paid by the federal government to the health-related aspects of illicit drug use and commends the increased resources allocated to treatment and prevention," said CMA President, Dr. Brian Day. "While the strategy is short on support for harm reduction strategies, it goes beyond the tradition focus of criminal sanctions and recognizes the importance of treating drug addiction as a health problem rather than just a criminal problem."
Still the CMA appears to have no problem with some criminal sanctions. "The CMA welcomes the government's intention to crack down on dealers and sellers while being more compassionate with those addicted to illegal drugs," Day said.
Now, the real battles will begin. Canada's strong harm reduction movement will fight hard for programs it sees as effective, Canada's opposition parties will use the drug strategy as a hammer with which to pound on Harper and the Conservatives, and Canada's progressives and civil libertarians will fight to block mandatory minimums and any other moves that threaten to turn Canadian drug policy into an echo of US-style drug war.
Permission to Reprint: This content is licensed under a modified Creative Commons Attribution license. Content of a purely educational nature in Drug War Chronicle appear courtesy of DRCNet Foundation, unless otherwise noted.
Comments
NDP's Comment
I don't really agree with the NDP Health Critic. We do need more advertising, but it's not simply more, but more good advertising. Well-done advertising will create awareness and draw people to the right programs. Most of the programs out there are poorly executed and don't accomplish what they're set out to do. One campaign that I really like is the one for Stay Out (www.stayout.ca) - it's a good use of fear appeals and seems much more powerful than the majority of programs out there. Just my thoughts.
Bush leaning on Canada
I simply don't understand why Harper would adopt policies which have already proven to be a disaster in the US. To continue failed policy and failed drug war methods in simply insane. It reflects just how much Harper is in the back pocket of the USA interests as they continue to branch out with these failed policy's based on 70 years of lies and racism. Hearst and Anslinger would be so proud to see how there known lies to the public have expanded to curtail freedoms and ruin lives the world over. Its not the drugs it the politicans that are ruining lives with this drug war crap.
BTW...caption error
The guy on the right is Stockwell Day, not Tony Clement.
Here's a more famous pic of Day:
http://www.dailycanuck.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/stockwell_wetsuit.jpg
Canadian Monkey sees US Monkey
Unfortunately, we are living in a time of appalling human rights abuses in North America. It seems the fashion to embrace the politics of bigotry, fear, and ignorance in the name of good social policy. This new Canadian drug policy is nothing more than an excuse to divide society into the old boy patriarchs and the rest of us. Then, the old boys can have at it and mount a wholesale attack on those of a different race and/or those who would dare hold the government accountable for what it does with our tax dollars.
No mention of alcohol because that is their cherished elixir, even though it kills and destroys more lives than all the "evil drugs" combined. "Other people" use drugs and those people must be punished. The judiciary cannot be trusted to mete our fair judgements, even though that is their very profession, and the mandatory minimums ensure that no mitigating factors will lessen their punishment. The world is black and white to these people, both literally and figuratively. Hard line drug laws are nothing but thinly disguised racism and and excuse to use military and paramilitary might against the very people they are supposed to protect.
This is yet another domino knocked over by the ungraceful retarded chimpanzee that seized power in the US, first by voting fraud and attrition (when Gore did not challenge him) and second by using altered electronic voting machines from Diebold. The people of the US have spread their interdiction plague north and Canada was the unwitting recipient. Now, it's up to Canadians to wrest power back from those that would increase crime, decrease rehabilitation, and fan the flames of racism with their misguided policies. Don't be the apathetic do-nothings that the a good portion of the US citizenry was and is--retake your government from those who would use it against you.
Jeffrey Wrobel
I like the monkeys idea
Milena,
We all in it now, eh?
Stupid canucks. Prohibition is THE problem.Not "drugs".Re-legalize, regulate,recovery is the rational way. Just when I thought Canada was on the right track, they go with "the evil monkey genius". When will the term "tuff on crime" finally fade from the lexicon of political desperation? Oh! that's right , the US could buy it's lumber elsewhere.
Canadas Drug Strategy for 2007 and beyond
Most of the new funding goes towards treatment, that's the Canadian way of dealing with drug problems.. the American way is to lock them in jail... as yopu point out almost daily here. That is the gigantic attitude difference between the US & the canadaina approach to eliminating the pro drug lifestyle..If you honestly compare the two nations there are more differences thjan similarities.. so please be gone with your continental dope nazi doom scenerio.. Its all in whats left of your mind
Most Canadians are very tired of drug idiocy and it's many problems. Prime Minister Harper has at least started to tidy up a half century neglected social problem, and bless him he has enlisted solutions close to the European method.. not really like the American method at all.
Tollerance? sure Canadians can be tollerant as they escourt users to treatment and dealers to jail...Tollerance does not mean taking crap from the drug compromised underclass.. Look that up in Wicpedia between bong hits if you don't believe me.
It will soon be as unacceptable to be a stoner in Canada as it is to be a drunk in Canada ..and that is zero tollerance for intoxicated living..Most Canadians find drug use unacceptable..and polls have shown this for decades.. and thats regarding all drug use- prescription drugs, smuggled drugs, home manufactured drugs- all forms of clouded existance are unacceptable in the 21st century.
Perhaps you only read the fuzzy logic rants of sporatically employed leftist bloggers- they fear American style justice in Canada - they fear a lot of things -- they are still afraid of their parents for heavens sake..
The so called drug war has pretty much stopped in Canada, they are now in the process of sweeping up the mess of the dope bingers and are installing the final phase of the drug erradication process.. thats the Harper government mandate to clear up the stoners and detox them en masse if possible.
Like fire departments- drug justice courts can't possibly cope with every fire everywhere everytime but none the less they try forever and put every unauthourized fire out with a gush of water/ Good people call in fire reports about bad people who set fires..
Drug use values set in the 60s are 47 years old.. I don;t know about you but social values that are nearly a half century old are woefully out of step..the 60s are over-- snap out of it wipeheads. the firetrucks are coming
democracy is a numbers game and most people do not approve of drug abuse.. so no liberty is being tred upon, indeed- stoners have tred upon the liberty of others for two generations..the party is over wipeheads..grab your coat and go home...
'liberty is being tred upon'
Yes, those among us who cannot spell are still at liberty to refrain from using spell-check...
But the more germane question: how, precisely, have stoners 'tred upon the liberty of others for two generations...'?
And other questions:
1. What will be the future role of alcohol and tobacco in your future society where 'all forms of clouded existence are unacceptable?'
2. How are low-intensity, casual drug-users reasonably comparable to arsonists? Does smoking a joint in the park cause damage on the order of tens of thousands of dollars, or kill the elderly neighbor's cat?
3. When will you dislodge your head from your rectum?
Sticks & stoners
angry drug fueled comments.. we all recognise them like a drunk as they mutter nonsence while they stumble home,
1) tobacco and alcohol is another topic. stay on point stoner-
2) comparing stoners to arsonists- don't you incinerate cannabis ?
tens of thousands of dollars, what is this expence for? and how does a cat fit in on this discussion... shape up there dude, you are making my point for me that cannabis does indeed , aka cloud your mind
3) thats just so clever, head rectum fantasy.. ( see the slurry speech of drunks above, and take a hint there fellah ) drugs don't kill you, they just make you so stupid that death is the next step ...
you missed every point and jumped in with typical stoner slurry anger, and so now you know why cannabis is against the law- it routinely makes normal people stupid and makes stupid people nasty. Detox is available, try it for a few months and see the difference. Unless you prefer the company of other chemically compromised stoners. well hook up with them in the hospital or in jail-- the choice is yours.
and thanks for the spelling heads up- you must have more time on your hands than you know what to do with. Detox centres have cable tv, you would not miss a single episide of the Simpsons..
In reply to Sticks & stoners by Anonymous (not verified)
are you stoned yoruself
You don't need detox for weed. Are you the one on drugs, because when you say tobacco and alcohol are a different topic i tend to disagree. We are talking about the war on drugs and both alcohol and tobacco are drugs. Also your comment on the expense why would people like I spend so much money on drugs, well at least my expense is nothing compared to the expense coming out of your salary to help fight this so called war on drugs. Maybe instead of me going to detox for weed maybe you should go to the loony bin don't worry they have The Simpsons there too!
In reply to Sticks & stoners by Anonymous (not verified)
are you stoned yoruself
You don't need detox for weed. Are you the one on drugs, because when you say tobacco and alcohol are a different topic I tend to disagree. We are talking about the war on drugs and both alcohol and tobacco are DRUGS. Also your comment on the expense why would people like I spend so much money on drugs, well at least my expense is nothing compared to the expense coming out of your salary to help fight this so called war on drugs. Did you not even look at the stats how much fucking money the government spends on the war on drugs. Maybe instead of me going to detox for weed maybe you should go to the loony bin for being so stupid, don't worry they have The Simpsons there too! Don't stereo type it isn't very nice!
missed every point. mmhmm.
By author of " 'liberty is being tred upon' ":
Wow! Here's a response to Sticks & stoners. You're almost right! I did ignore a number of points from (Comment posted by Anonymous on Tue, 10/16/2007 - 2:08pm). This oversight should be immediately addressed!
1. "Most Canadians are very tired of drug idiocy and it's many problems." ...and... "democracy is a numbers game and most people do not approve of drug abuse."
Totally incorrect statements. A 28 June poll showed 55% of Canadians in favor of marijuana legalization. By the numbers game, 55% would appear to be 'most.' And that poll was not just about medical legalization--recreational as well.
2. "Tollerance does not mean taking crap from the drug compromised underclass."
'Tollerance' indeed...this mentally compromised statement ignores the fact that cannabis is enjoyed by prominent professional people--physicians, lawyers, etc. Members of the 'drug compromised underclass?' Unlikely.
3. "Good people call in fire reports about bad people who set fires."
Hence the purpose of comparing stoners to arsonists. Obviously stoners burn their cannabis...but smoking a bit of plant material is categorically different from setting fires that require fire department suppression. What kind of idiot compares a lit cigarette to a blaze set by 'bad people'?
4. "Drug use values set in the 60s are 47 years old."
'Drug use values' of the 1960's have virtually disappeared. Cannabis is still smoked in the context of peace movements or anti-authoritarianism, but all of those smokers are just hippies man! When not used medicinally, marijuana is almost strictly recreational, far from the ideological usage context of the '60's.
************************
It would appear that you got so rabidly self-righteous about my 'slurry stoner speech' that you failed to realize my post addressed primarily the following statement from (Comment posted by Anonymous on Tue, 10/16/2007 - 2:08pm):
"stoners have tred upon the liberty of others for two generations."
Neither (Comment posted by Anonymous on Tue, 10/16/2007 - 2:08pm) nor Sticks & stoners can explain exactly how this is true. Or at least have failed miserably to present an explanation thus far. So before I'm sent off to 'Detox' to watch the Simpsons, perhaps one of you fools (or is it the same fool both times?) can try to defend your reactionary statements.
And lest we forget to directly address Sticks & stoners, let's have a little discussion about words. Do you know the definition of slurry? It's a colloidal suspension of particles in liquid--e.g. mud, or well blended shit in a toilet, or perhaps a milkshake. Speech, if difficult to follow or poorly enunciated, is generally described as 'slurred.' How about an example?
"3) thats just so clever, head rectum fantasy.. ( see the slurry speech of drunks above, and take a hint there fellah ) drugs don't kill you, they just make you so stupid that death is the next step"
Are there problems with this speech from Sticks & stoners? Does it qualify as slurred? Why, yes! The first sentence has an incomplete second clause! **Oh My!** "See the slurry speech of drunks above..." What is slurry speech? Speech mixed with water? Words spoken through a mud filter? The dotard appears to be raving!
What about Sticks & stoners opening statement?
"angry drug fueled comments.. we all recognise them like a drunk as they mutter nonsence while they stumble home,"
We recognise the comments as they stumble home? Comments can stumble? Stumble *and* mutter 'nonsence'? Comments have homes?! Spectacular. Nice work!
************************
But epistemology is not the purpose of this forum, which exists to debate drug policy. So how, do explain, did I stray from the topic by wondering how alcohol and tobacco fit into the new Canadian drugs policies? Are they not drugs? If you think they aren't, I'd be impressed if you could coherently defend your opinion. The Canadian drugs policy is not substantially different from the UK or the US--it is based on moral objection to drug use rather than harm-reduction. Consider the case of Scotland, where in 2006 ~13000 persons died from tobacco-related illness, ~2000 from alcohol-related illness and accidents, and only 362 from all illegal drugs combined. A sensible drugs policy based on harm reduction would focus enforcement efforts primarily on tobacco, then alcohol, and only after solving these massive problems begin to address the presently illegal drugs.
So, to Sticks & stoners: can you respond to these points rationally, without resorting to attacks on character? It's true that I attacked yours, but since you attacked first and we're now even, could you respond with relevant material?
Applauds "missed every point. mmhmm"
I really only have ONE question for the author of sticks and stoners:
IF Cannabis were made legal and alcohol made ILLEGAL... what do YOU think would happen to the domestic violence statistics in Canada?
No offence, but frankly we legalized the WRONG vice.
Unlike drunks, pot heads don't BEAT their spouses.. I can hear it now...
"Don't MAKE me get OFF this COUCH!... (and please.. bring me a bag of CHIPS!"
The Senate has been pointing out the absolute stupidity of our cannabis laws for over 30 years.
Its ridiculous that are not already more forward thinking laws on the books.
Illegal is the problem
Drugs have been cheap and legal through most of human history until about a century ago.
When anything that large numbers of people want or need is made illegal Black markets are created to fill the need.
Black Markets create violence ,police and political corruption, inflated prices, dangerous and impure products, and extreme violence that even affects those who do not desire or use that something that is illegal.
It also makes very bad, nasty people rich and powerful.
making something illegal doesn't even stop whatever the something is.
There is no rational reason for Drug Prohibition.
It is all based on people's opinions.
Marijuana is safer then coffee ...how can it be illegal?
Illegal is just one of the Problems
about a century ago, the nations of the world gathered in the hague to try and stop a practise that was killing & impoverishing their people. that was drug abuse. Drugs have never been cheap: witness the spice trade which brought all the exotic plant products to the whole world.
" When anything that large numbers of people want or need is made illegal, Black markets are created to fill the need".. nuclear weapons, guns, slaves, endangered species products and child prositutes.. there are many more
Black markets do not create violence, because the vendor usually has the upper hand, the buyer is at their mercy..violence is what thieves do inside the chaos of the black market because its where the strong feed off the weak... and this is what polite society is trying to do, keep weak willed or weak minded peoiple away from further harm...aka the black market full of dangerous substances sold by mean nasty people
the Black market does indeed make bad nasty people even richer and more powerful because the black market buyers are idiots.. who line up with cash to become even stupider that they were born .
the reasons for drug prohibition are eight miles long, you might mean you don't agree with these reasons.
marijuana is saferr than coffee? thank you professor genius for your comments.. marijuana is also safer than an exacto knife, so whats your point- ?
this is a discussion about Canadas' New Drug Strategy, and why its being implimented and how it will work over time.
In reply to Illegal is just one of the Problems by Anonymous (not verified)
Black markets do not create
Black markets do not create violence, because the vendor usually has the upper hand, the buyer is at their mercy..violence is what thieves do inside the chaos of the black market because its where the strong feed off the weak... and this is what polite society is trying to do, keep weak willed or weak minded peoiple away from further harm...aka the black market full of dangerous substances sold by mean nasty people
---
Evfen the dea knows that at least 75% of drug violence is indeed a direct result of the black market, no the sellers dont direct the violences to the buyers, they direct it towards each other in the form of turf wars for the sole right to sell inb a given area. And yes, drugs were very cheap in the past as u could grow them in your own garden. heroin was sold cheaply and legally by mail order through sears robuck. no one started commiting crimes to obtain drugs until AFTER they were made illiegal. if you are going to make claims, at least research the information first. if drug prohibition was meant to protect "weakminded" people from dangerous habits that couls kill them, then why was alcohol prohibition ended? alcohol is considered (scientifically) to be more dangerous and kill more people than all illicit drugs combined, and tobacco kills even more. Caffine is scientifically proven to be more addictive than canibus. So if anyone wants to write on this forum that drug prohibition is a good idea, or morally acceptable, or to protect the citizenry, then you MUST also support a renewed alcohol prohibition and a new ban on tabacco, if not you are not only hipocrites, but so misinformed and unreasonable that your opinions simply MSUT be ignored, if not outright destroyed by rational discussion.
In reply to Illegal is just one of the Problems by Anonymous (not verified)
"marijuana is saferr than
"marijuana is saferr than coffee? thank you professor genius for your comments.. marijuana is also safer than an exacto knife, so whats your point- ?"
The point is that neither coffee nor exacto knives are illegal. The feds don't waste billions of taxpayer dollars and ruin thousands of lives and tromp all over supposedly "inalienable" rights to arrest coffee-heads or artists using exacto knives.
That is the point. And if you really needed that to be pointed out to you, then I have serious misgivings about your ability to think reasonably or rationally.
So, just answer this one question, if it is right to outlaw one dangerous activity because it might harm someone, or that someone under its influence might commit a crime, then why not all activities that meet such criteria? If it is allright to ban heroin because some users steal to get it, then why is it not right to ban every commodity that someone might (and plenty do) steal to gain? If it ok to ban heroin because it might be dangerous to the user, then why not ban cigarettes, alcohol, sky diving and hunting?(how many die each year due to drunken hunting accidents?) How about ban mcdonalds because people are too fat? Where does it end? What right has the government to intrude into such personal matters? The main answer pro-prohibitionists make seems to be the drain on taxes and medical resources. If that is a worry, then again, why not ban alcohol and tobacco, which cause much more of a strain to taxpayer's wallets than all illicit drugs combined? The whole point is that the feds treat people like children and say only they know what is best for all, which is patently false.
The reason most average citizens support, or more liokely just accept, the "war" on drugs is that they think it doesn't affect them negatively(how wrong they are) and I have another example of such bad thinking: We didn't stand up for the Jews when the nazis came, because they weren't after us, the same when they came for the gypsies, then the cripples, but by the time they came for us, there was no one left to stand up for us.
According to the constituiton, our basic rights come not from the government, we are born with them, they are inalienable. This means that the government has no authority to alter or remove such rights. One of these rights is the right to privacy and the idea that the home is sacred, inviolate, so what goes on in our homes, be it drug use, sex acts, or whatever, as long as these things are being done by consenting adults, who are not violating the same inalienable rights of others, then the government, and any busybody who thinks their moral views should be held and followed by all, haven't any legitimate say in the matter. Stay out of other peoples business! Do you want me to run your life? I thought not, so stop trying to run mine.
In reply to Illegal is just one of the Problems by Anonymous (not verified)
Really drugs never cheap
Before the war on drugs heroin was only %5 pure and up to $80 a bag now after the war on drugs it is now %80 pure and around $5 a bag. Heroin after the war on drugs is cheaper and easier to get than weed these days. so if thats not cheap you must be fucking poor.
Concerned Americans
How do concerned Americans contact Canadian & Mexican officials? Is there a website? If not someone with knowledge should do it. This fire can't be contained and it's obvious that the USA has let it burn out of control. Plan Mexico. Plan Canada. Plan Earth.
Smoking a joint simply is NOT a crime
Recently one thought has stuck in my head whenever I hear all those "tough of crime" rethorics: the action of smoking a joint or taking Ecstasy (MDMA) is not but ANY reasonable measure a "crime". No matter how much someone might disagree with drug use, or even loathe it, it makes no sense to solve this essential non-criminal activity by punishing people.
"Crime" means that someone, a perpetrator and criminal, somehow violates the freedom and property of someone else. Crimes need perpetrators and victims. For something to be a "crime", someone actually has to HURT someone unwilling to recieve said treatment.
Drug use is a social and health oriented issue, and because that is the essential nature of the problem we should use those measures best suited to solving those things: information, regulation, addiction treatment, and so on.
So what IS thing thing we're seeing where otherwise rational people are attacking drugs like this? It's simple, really. The Drug War is our Western analogy of islamist Sharia: they don't LIKE drugs, and because they're simply in the majority, and because their intolerant hatred is so deep, they simply ignore inconvenient truths like "smoking a joint is not a crime" just as they ignore that drugs are not in and of themselves especially dangerous (as science has demonstrated again and again). Being so engulfed by the love of anti-drug ideology they are also terrifyingly proficient at ignoring the chorus of screaming pain of millions of patients.
In my country I refer to the phenomenon consistently as "Danish Sharia".
Drug Induced Retardism
Honestly- you stoners are just like a bunch of old drunks lamenting old wounds that happened to people you read about..wondering if it could happen to you?
This is a discussion about the new Canadian Drug Policy- NOT your spilling off axis brain full of sundry social woes.. OK? Thats off topic and qualifies for not staying on point again .
If you believe that all drugs are great, or if you have a list of greatest harmful drugs to the least harmful drugs , fine--call your government and tell them- not me. If your science is better than theirs, or anyones now is the time to show your hand ..
is smoking a joint a crime? yes it is...how did you miss that one? is your sence of entitlement really larger than your logical perception of the world around you? Have you noticed that zero anti prohibition ammendments have succeed in 70 years? zero legal ground for the stoners has been made at all? in about 100 years nobody has taken the clouded ones seriously except themselves, and when we read their reasons why they think they are so wonderful we have to duck from all the synapse misfires
You may never admitr or appreciate it, but the drugs you seem to love that dull your anger and self doubts also make you thicker than a brick. Over time you become a whole brick wall..the responses on this topic to date are all failing grades.. drifting so far from the points that they are discounted to comedy. And nobody will take you seriously, or your self declaired right to stay poisoned at the black market mall untill such time as you do stay on topic.
at least cigarette smokers are not irrational idiots like potheads...that is the huge difference right there--and both tobacco and cannabis are controlled substances..as is alcohol and prescription drugs.. all mentally altering substances are either controlled substancesat present are are schedulled to be so soon enough..They cause various degrees of harm and mental imparement-- cannabios is way more severe than tobacco ..and not much better than alcohol.. and you want this stuff to be freely available, produced & supplied to you by your government? are you nuts??
anyway stoners will age and die off, and a new generation will learn the lesson you failed to learn and that is-- drugs are indeed for sick people
last post- it was almost interesting to be here : )
In reply to Drug Induced Retardism by Anonymous (not verified)
YOU HAVE RETARDISM
The funny thing with this comment is that it says the responses on this topic to date are all failing grades. BULL SHIT. my cousin is in university of Toronto getting no less than 80's and buys nothing less than an ounce. so were are these stats again. Also you stated that at least cigarette smokers are not irrational idiots like potheads, i tend to disagree because you see the number of people killed from smoking pot 0... 0 the number from tobacco, yeah it sure isn't fucking 0 is it, so next time you make a comment use proper stats and another thing don't be so stupid yourself because i believe that my cousin is going to make more money than an irrational idiot like yourself
In reply to Drug Induced Retardism by Anonymous (not verified)
drugs are for sick people
Trying to eradicate marijuana is like trying to eradicate dandelions, it will never happen. I believe the poison my neighbors put on their lawns to kill weeds is causing more harm to society than marijuana ever will. Legal or illegal mary jane will always be part of society as it has been for centuries. Lightin up and don't be such a hardcore conservative harper ass kisser.
drug induced retardism
^^ who the hell is this guy? if you stand so strongly against legalization why are you on this site?
Retardism? Really?
So funny! The irony is self-evident. Doesn't even really need a comment. But I can't resist...
"and when we read their reasons why they think they are so wonderful we have to duck from all the synapse misfires"
Hah. ha ha ha ha. Or however you're supposed to express laughter as words. Is this guy real? Ducking from synapse misfires? Maybe if he has cerebral palsy...(sorry to anyone actually afflicted).
"at least cigarette smokers are not irrational idiots like potheads...that is the huge difference right there"
Really? Cigarette smokers are physically addicted--which is an irrational condition. Marijuana smokers can become psychologically addicted--which is based on mental process. Does this asshole even read the shit he writes? Does he think about his claims?
"cannabios is way more severe than tobacco ..and not much better than alcohol.. and you want this stuff to be freely available, produced & supplied to you by your government? are you nuts??"
Severe? What, does it stand in front of the class in a stern skirt, neat bun, and reading glasses? Not much better than alcohol? How is a substance that (a) causes a much nicer high, (b) never causes domestic violence, and (c) is not implicated in liver disease and cancer 'not much better' than alcohol? No, we're not nuts, 'Drug Induced Retardism.' That award is firmly in your possession.
"anyway stoners will age and die off, and a new generation will learn the lesson you failed to learn and that is-- drugs are indeed for sick people"
...just like the stoners of the last generation died off. And the stoners before them. All the way back to Muhammad and Moses and all the other stoners of antiquity.
"last post- it was almost interesting to be here : )"
Sisterfuckin' coward. I bet you'll slink back just to see if you win. Which, in case you haven't figured out by now, you can't possibly do, as you are breaking all kinds of unwritten laws against thinking while stupid.
Add new comment