Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« The rumours of my death have been greatly exaggerated: Radio | Main | Wisdom from H.L. Mencken only hours before the start of the Democratic National Convention... »

Monday, August 25, 2008

You know you’re an aging hippy when...

...teenagers on skateboards interrupt your pot rally to lecture you on the evils of marijuana.

According to a news report from Metro News in Calgary, marijuana activist Neil Magnuson argued with teenagers during the Calgary stop in his cross Canada Freedom Tour to raise awareness of the injustice of marijuana prohibition.

One the kids said, “I think I can have a better life without weed.”

That’s a smart kid. Life is better enjoyed with a clear head.

But the 50-year-old activist, Magnuson, makes the point that “adults deserve to make their own choices.”

Hmm...also a good point.

So why don’t we treat marijuana like alcohol and encourage parents to teach abstinence?

With 70% of teens admitting to trying marijuana after 80 years of prohibition, we could hardly do worse from a deterrence perspective – and this more liberal approach to marijuana would respect the right of adults to make their own peaceful lifestyle choices.

Posted by Matthew Johnston on August 25, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e55472204c8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference You know you’re an aging hippy when...:

Comments

Enough with your patronizing bullshit. You are such a transparent shill for potheads and druggies by your moronic highjacking of a "freedom" agenda.

Sorry. No one buys it except druggie losers and their apologists.

Epsi

Posted by: epsilon | 2008-08-25 5:46:22 PM


Being a shill for freedom is not the same as being a shill for all the particular things someone might do with that freedom.

For example, I believe in freedom of speech, even if I disagree with what you say.

Also, can the fake outrage, Epsi. Your ridiculous emotional outbursts are embarrassing to those capable of forming and responding to arguments.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-08-25 6:13:11 PM


You're hilarious Epsi: You don't even see the irony. You pitch the government taking possession of our bodies and telling us what we can put in it as freedom. Just plain dumb.

What else should the government give us permission to do, Epsi?

Please, may I skydive or fight MMA? Your free society looks a lot like authoritarianism to me.

Posted by: attitude | 2008-08-25 6:14:39 PM


Epsi believes in the freedom from having to make those decisions about ourselves, attitude. Someone else--someone smarter, wiser, probably from Ottawa--will get to tell us what we can and can't smoke or otherwise ingest, and then we'll be free from the burden of having to think about that.

Come to think of it, do you also believe in the Canadian Human Rights Commissions, epsi? Similar to the war on drugs, they, too, try to "free" us from the burden of hearing mean and nasty things, or having to go through all that effort of expressing what's on our minds.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-08-25 6:23:07 PM


When the government privatizes health care and the consumer pays the cost, you can smoke your pot.

Posted by: Ike | 2008-08-25 7:11:16 PM


These screaming and whining potheads and drug apologists remind me of babies screaming when momma takes away their soother. Poor, poor little addicts, incapable of functioning without chemical crutches. All I can say is "Go suck on it".

Epsi

Posted by: epsilon | 2008-08-25 9:07:20 PM


Illicit substances are associated with crime and I don't buy the BS that if they weren't illegal they wouldn't be associated with crime. Plus, the drug addicts downtown Victoria, if I might say so, are rather obnoxious and unsightly. As an aside, your article says 70% of young folks have tried cannabis. It doesn't say that 70% smoke it on a regular basis. And what about jobs that require one to be free of drugs? In the Forces we aren't supposed to use drugs because we have to be ready at all times to perform our jobs. Personally, I wouldn't employ anyone like these activists who smoke so much weed that their hair is green. And for the record I am in my 20s and I'm certain that more than 30% of the people I know have never tried cannabis.

Posted by: Ike | 2008-08-25 9:21:42 PM


When the prohibition on alcohol ended the murder rate in the US dropped by nearly half. Thats not pro or anti anything, its just a fact. Making drugs, or anything else that people might want, illegal leads to blackmarketing and illegal trade, that's also a fact.

Yes drug addicts on the street are annoying.
But Gang wars are just a tad more annoying.
What with all the drive by shootings and predators and such...

Posted by: JC | 2008-08-25 9:40:24 PM


Ahh, that is comparing apples to oranges. Alcohol was legal at one point in time so people had a taste for it. Illicit drugs on the other hand have been illegal for longer than most people can remember. It's not as if the government all of a sudden decided 5 years ago to ban illicit drugs. It's in our culture that illicit drugs are illegal whereas it was in our culture that alcohol was not. Poor comparison from drug advocates.

Posted by: Ike | 2008-08-25 10:00:35 PM


70% of teens admit to having tried cannsbis.. somehow we should just dismantle prohitition because society didn't score 100% in the diswaysion dept.?

well 90% of teens have cheated on exams over 2500 years of education- so lets just dismantle formal instruction and let teens figure out how to live - with 70% of them smoking pot they will ecolve past us with their cannabinoid receptors on max and turn into liberal angels.

maybe watch " Pinocchio" again and take note of the subtext

Posted by: 419 | 2008-08-25 10:03:56 PM


It's in our culture that illicit drugs are illegal whereas it was in our culture that alcohol was not. Poor comparison from drug advocates.

Posted by: Ike | 25-Aug-08 10:00:35 PM

How did you get that I was a drug "advocate" out of that? Did I once say that I think people should take drugs? No I presented some facts and food for thought regarding prohibition
...of "anything".

But that's ok...you just keep advocating the "Law of Rule" and maybe we can eventually goose step to the same tune.
I don't get you Ike. sometimes an advocate for freedom and sometimes a socialist. How can you be both?

Posted by: JC | 2008-08-25 11:03:24 PM


PS, as far as I'm concerned alcohol should be just as illegal as drugs already are. Its a toxic poiso and it is WAY more responsible for deaths and broken homes, just for starters....wait a minute, did I say "alcohol" was responsible?
Ooops....maybe its the people not the alcohol.
The same as it is with anything else, the people.

Posted by: JC | 2008-08-25 11:09:24 PM


Ike, I'm concerned about your argument.

I don't deny that it's a relevant consideration. If x increased the probability of P committing a crime by, say, 40%, I'd probably be in favour of doing something about x. Like banning it, if it's possible, fiscally responsible, and does not lead to more bad over good.

My concern is this: In the absence of drug laws, there is little evidence to suggest that those who do drugs (all of them together--including addicts and recreational users) would commit crimes at high enough rates to justify banning or outlawing the substance.

My second concern is that even if drugs led to more crimes, I don't believe that prohibiting them would be cost effective (think of all the other things we could spend that money on), or would lead to less bad. In fact, I sincerely believe that the drug war *causes* most of the damage associated with drug use.

We can disagree about these empirical points.

But let's remember, and I think you have, that both of us, on both sides of this debate, really want better outcomes for everyone involved. That principle of charity is vital, going forward.

So one minor request I have is that you not call me a "drug advocate." I'm not. I'm opposed to the war on drugs, just like I'm opposed to the Canadian Human Rights Commissions, but that doesn't mean that I support drug use, or support some of the vicious, vile, and disgusting things that some charged with violating the Human Rights Act are accused of saying.

Supporting freedom of speech does not make me an advocate of sexist, racist, or homophobic speech.

Supporting the freedom of adults to ingest drugs does not make me an advocate of drug use.

Just a thorough-going opponent of the state.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-08-25 11:12:01 PM


Epsi wrote: “Enough with your patronizing bullshit. You are such a transparent shill for potheads and druggies by your moronic hijacking of a ‘freedom’ agenda.”

I’m not being patronizing, Epsi. I’m trying to show my genuine respect for those who advocate a conservative culture and drug abstinence, while also showing my support for ending drug prohibition, which I believe to be a deeply flawed public policy.

A shill for potheads and druggies? Not me, Epsi. I’m a shill only for liberty and have no fondness for the drug culture.

Hijacking the freedom agenda? Opposition to the war on drugs has always been an important part of the freedom agenda, Epsi. That is why a culturally conservative think tank like the Fraser Institute took a huge risk and came out against the war on drugs. It’s an irresistible position for anyone who, or any group that, holds a consistent view of freedom.

If anyone has hijacked the freedom agenda, I regret it is the statists who talk about freedom but who support drug laws and other infringements on civil liberties.

I think if you gave this issue serious consideration, Epsi, you to would be a reluctant opponent of the war on drugs.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-08-25 11:17:42 PM


PM Jaworski wrote: “Being a shill for freedom is not the same as being a shill for all the particular things someone might do with that freedom. For example, I believe in freedom of speech, even if I disagree with what you say.”

Good example, Peter, but it is likely that many of the recent so-called advocates of free speech are more concerned with the freedom to criticize radical Islam then they are with genuine free speech. The freedom to criticize Islam is an important a test of free speech, but so is the freedom to publish Cannabis Culture magazine, for instance.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-08-25 11:19:30 PM


Attitude wrote: “Please, may I skydive or fight MMA? Your free society looks a lot like authoritarianism to me.”

Fight MMA? Are you asking Epsi or Republican presidential nominee John McCain?

http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2008/02/john-mccain-vs.html

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-08-25 11:20:21 PM


PM Jaworski wrote: “Epsi believes in the freedom from having to make those decisions about ourselves, attitude. Someone else--someone smarter, wiser, probably from Ottawa--will get to tell us what we can and can't smoke or otherwise ingest, and then we'll be free from the burden of having to think about that.”

Let’s not be too tough on, Epsi. I think her antagonism to the drug culture is clouding her thinking on this issue. She is normally a friend of liberty.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-08-25 11:21:27 PM


Ike wrote: “When the government privatizes health care and the consumer pays the cost, you can smoke your pot.”

So we should re-criminalize alcohol until we have private healthcare?

The cost of public healthcare is poor healthcare. Let's not add the loss of liberty to this already intolerable cost.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-08-25 11:24:25 PM


Epsi wrote: “These screaming and whining potheads and drug apologists remind me of babies screaming when momma takes away their soother. Poor, poor little addicts, incapable of functioning without chemical crutches.”

Epsi, the only person calling for their “momma” (I assume “momma” is a metaphor for the state) are the drug prohibitionists.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-08-25 11:25:31 PM


Ike wrote: “Personally, I wouldn't employ anyone like these activists who smoke so much weed that their hair is green.”

And you should not be forced to employ these people, Ike.

A recent human rights case in Alberta concluded that you could fire an employee for smoking marijuana, unless the employee claimed to be addicted to marijuana, at which point they have a disability which would protect them from being fired.

The lesson: if you are going to use drugs, be an addict.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-08-25 11:35:55 PM


JC wrote: “When the prohibition on alcohol ended the murder rate in the US dropped by nearly half.”

Good point, JC. Does anyone really argue that prohibition does not create violence?

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-08-25 11:44:12 PM


The biggest drain on healthcare, by far, is from several legal products. Tobacco is the leading factor in heart disease, and alcohol is the leading cause of vehicle accidents. Prohibition of these products would be impossible. There'd be riots within 24 hours.

Prescription pain medication is probably a bigger problem than most people realize. Most times it isn't the answer, but doctors make easy money writing quick prescriptions.

Those skateboarders were absolutely right that they're better off without pot. They made very good choices. It's a shame their choice to ride skateboards is so easily trampled. Most people assume everyone on a skateboard is a criminal. Cops harass them, businesses harass them, pedestrians harass them. They're on the front lines when it comes to freedom of choice. It reminds me of the way I got treated for having long hair in 1970.

It's a shame to see the victim of oppression from one era being harassed by a victim from another era. I guess that's why oppression never ends.

Posted by: dp | 2008-08-25 11:45:30 PM


dp -- that was my favourite comment of the day. Classic.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-08-25 11:47:50 PM


In that case, I'll quit while I'm ahead.

Posted by: dp | 2008-08-25 11:58:28 PM


Ike wrote: “Ahh, that is comparing apples to oranges. Alcohol was legal at one point in time so people had a taste for it.”

Apples and oranges? I don’t see why, Ike?

Marijuana was legal at one point as well, and so were hard drugs like opium and heroin. People had a taste for these drugs, and some still do. In fact, after 80 years of prohibition, a staggering percentage of the Canadian population still has a taste for marijuana.

We ended alcohol prohibition because the violence became intolerable. Why have we ignored the violence associated with drug prohibition?
While I wish people did not have a taste for drugs, I’m more concerned about society losing its taste for liberty.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-08-26 12:53:56 AM


419 wrote: “70% of teens admit to having tried cannabis...somehow we should just dismantle prohibition because society didn't score 100% in the dissuasion dept.?”

The point is that we are paying a heavy price for prohibition and getting very little for our money if our benchmark is drug use among teens.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-08-26 12:55:16 AM


And you can bet that if the government could somehow control the tax production and distribution of pot it would most certainly be legal. But they can't so it becomes a good place to assert control.

Posted by: JC | 2008-08-26 6:25:52 AM


I cant stand whiny conservative females who don't even understand the difference between illegal drugs and their harms versus legal drugs with their much worse harms in fact to society .....or even just their own big mouths when ignorance fills their cranium

No one is telling anyone they have to smoke cannabis and by the same token maybe some of you obese sugar and meat addicts should be treated the same way ...eh?

Nothing more obscene to me than some larva lecturing me over my choice of habits as they sit there looking all Jabba the Hutish with drool running down their chins

Freedom ....freedom....something lost on many here
the drug war paved the way for homeland security ....probably something some of you like and like the prohibition of cannabis itself just used to harm less desirable people (by your standards).......its all bullshit and propaganda

Canada is waking up and soon the Green party will bring this issue to the fore front

people like I have read here will still be neanderthals no matter what issue we talk about

some are just bullies and always will be

My advice to those lesser humans? shut your disgusting cake-hole.....you disgusting overgrown larva

Hey Mat!
To me....you do not deserve to be treated this way by some here
and as you of course being so nice and a real freedom type (not a fake like some)
well I will rise up for you and smash the stupidity of some of you simply because I too believe in freedom...

even freedom from this vile disgusting drivel some of you put down here in your silly efforts to thinking you contribute....here

That's right shut up and take your toys home and sulk

What dad left with someone under 300 pounds?hahhaha I don't blame him

I would criminalize stupidity and create an open season on all of them!!!

Sadly it would gut the current conservative mind set pretty quickly it seems

I get a kick out of racists pretending to be conservatives just to cover their racist diseases.

Cheerio all

Posted by: shavluk | 2008-08-26 7:08:39 AM


I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how legalizing drugs here while they're still illegal everywhere else will result in less organized crime, since most of the drugs produced in B.C. are destined for export. As for why drugs are illegal, I suggest the curious Google "opium wars." It just goes to show you--no self-respecting Leftist knows anything about history or math.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-08-26 7:21:29 AM


Well, Ike, I’m concerned about your argument too.

1. Most of the countries that have decriminalized (not legalized) heroin and the like have also followed up with aggressive needle exchanges and even free drugs for the addicted. Even legal, these drugs still cost money, and even in a post-drug-war society a down-and-out junkie still won’t have any—that’s not going to change. So property crime would likely continue unless we also gave them free drugs. What’s next, a free house? Free food? Why should they be rewarded for being stupid enough to get hooked on drugs?

2. So, even if drug decriminalization led to MORE crime, you’d still consider it cost-effective. Apparently you’ve failed to consider the cost to individuals, insurance companies, and all of society, incurred by crime. There’s damaged or lost property, higher premiums, trial and incarceration expenses, and the odd death. You think all of that would be cheaper than preventative enforcement?

3. I agree that we need more detox. The Conservatives claim that detox is preferable to enabling (a la InSite), with which I agree, but unless there’s actually some available, it’s an unrealistic option. That said, please remember that kicking a narcotics habit is not the same thing as taking two pills a day for a month. Many can never kick it at all, and relapse rates are high. Stories abound, some told by narcotics cops, of people who don’t use for years after being sent up the river, but who upon release get their first fix before they do anything else, often while they still have their prison suitcases with them. So the mere availability of detox isn’t going to make addiction magically disappear.

4. “Supporting the freedom of adults” to do this or that only carries so far, J.C. I could support the freedom of adults to slay one another. “But,” I can hear you saying, “I’m talking about choices that hurt no one but that person!” Sure, but since when did drug addiction touch only the addict? As I believe we have established, it directly or indirectly affects almost everyone. The pros for legalizing drugs are outweighed by the cons. The fact that we will never eradicate drug abuse is no excuse for giving up the fight. The same is true of crime in general, which also results from adults making poor choices, no?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-08-26 7:38:17 AM


Instead of legalizing cannabis...how about making everything else illegal?
Alcohol seems to be the place to start.
I'd like to see all the anti-cannabis folks go without their booze for a few days..just to cut the alcohol related crimes that seem to be a major problem in Canada.
After we make booze ilegal...we could then go after diabetics...making it illegal for those with diabetes to procure sugar.
And then instead of silly smoking bans...why don't we just ban tobacco production entirely? No more cigarettes, no more pipe tobacco, no more toxic smoke in the air...no more lame arguing about smoke and its' effects.
Fact is..the government will not ban something that makes them money...even if it kills people that use it...and those around it.
It is quite obvious after this many years of prohibition that Canada has failed at its' quest to keep its' citizens sober.
Now prohibition is only a job creation project for a bunch of cops that enjoy looking up peoples' arses when they do those body cavity searches.in fact...prohibition has always been an invasion of our privacy and personal freedoms.
In my shops I sell Salvia...Party Pills(BZP)and a plethora of legal highs. You can eat Morning Glory seeds...they induce hallucinations..best ban them...you can eat Amarita Muscaria mushrooms and trip all afternooon...all with government sanction. There are so many legal drugs that can get you high it is not even funny. That's why I laugh when I hear people say this pot stuff should be prohibited.
Smoke a bowl of Salvia...then you'll realize how distorted this prohibition really is.
And as a final...
Every budding botanist knows...if the coppers really wanted to kill the outdoor grows...all they had to do for the last 80 years was broadcast spread a few hemp seeds across the country which would have the horrible effect of ruining all outdoor crops of good pot through the timelesss method of a few bees and some cross pollination.
A really cheap solution...but figure the government never thought of that....because there is too much money in fighting their failed drug war...and besides...it employs a lot of Harpers' friends.




Yes, we should definitely ban everything in our big nanny state because government knows what's good for us and what isn't.

Posted by: jim bender | 2008-08-26 7:42:30 AM


Matthews Johnston wrote: “Marijuana was legal at one point as well, and so were hard drugs like opium and heroin.”

And so was private ownership of machine guns. Machine guns were outlawed for frivolous reasons; specifically the sensationalization of their use by Chicago gangsters (who used them far less than the movies would have you believe). In short, they fell victim to an analogue of “reefer madness.” Machine guns kill only a handful of people every year, far fewer than drugs, despite the fact that every criminal who wants one, has one. And if you want to know why narcotics were outlawed, Google “opium wars.”

Matthews Johnston wrote: “People had a taste for these drugs, and some still do. In fact, after 80 years of prohibition, a staggering percentage of the Canadian population still has a taste for marijuana.”

The fact that people have a taste for something does not mean it should be legalized. And since a majority of Canadians are not pot smokers but have simply “tried it, once or twice,” I’d hardly call the demand for B.C. Bud a “staggering” percentage of the population.

Matthews Johnston wrote: “We ended alcohol prohibition because the violence became intolerable. Why have we ignored the violence associated with drug prohibition?”

Because alcohol has been part of our culture for thousands of years and because it is possible to use alcohol responsibly. This is a red herring often played up by the “legalize the weed” lobby. But America was the only country that seriously dabbled in alcohol prohibition, while Europe remained “wet.” However, even Europe had outlawed most hard drugs by this time. Oh, and let’s not forget that in Islamic countries, where alcohol is NOT part of the culture and never has been, its prohibition has led to almost no crime at all, because nobody drinks it.

Matthews Johnston wrote: “While I wish people did not have a taste for drugs, I’m more concerned about society losing its taste for liberty.”

Give me the liberty to slay drug users on sight, and I’ll give you the liberty to legalize drugs. Fair deal?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-08-26 7:48:23 AM


Shavluk wrote: “I cant stand whiny conservative females…when ignorance fills their cranium”

And I can’t stand petulant, adolescent trolls who masturbated their way through English class, to the extent they can’t even write a sentence that reads like someone kicked the type case over.

Shavluk wrote: “No one is telling anyone they have to smoke cannabis and by the same token maybe some of you obese sugar and meat addicts should be treated the same way ...eh?”

Our lifestyle doesn’t feed organized crime, bub. And it says a lot about your character that you’d rather feed organized crime than give up the weed.

Shavluk wrote: “Nothing more obscene to me than some larva lecturing me over my choice of habits as they sit there looking all Jabba the Hutish with drool running down their chins”

Nothing more obscene to ME than someone who thinks that blood for oil is despicable, but blood for pot is okay. But hey, when did this become about you? Typical liberal.

Shavluk wrote: “Freedom ....freedom....something lost on many here”

Do I have the freedom to split your head?

Shavluk wrote: “the drug war paved the way for homeland security…”

There is no homeland security in Canada, nincompoop. And the so-called “drug war” predates American Homeland Security by nearly a century.

Shavluk wrote: “Canada is waking up and soon the Green party will bring this issue to the fore front”

If they ever get a seat—unlikely with the Left-wing vote split three ways.


Shavluk wrote: “people like I have read here will still be neanderthals no matter what issue we talk about”

Which puts us several rungs up the evolutionary ladder compared to a liberal snake.

Shavluk wrote: “some are just bullies and always will be”

Look around you, tough guy. Only Leftists use the word “bullies” now, usually when someone disagrees with them. Of course it’s liberals you see marching in the streets, bashing in windows, mobbing people and burning them in effigy, but hey, why quibble?

Shavluk wrote: “My advice to those lesser humans? shut your disgusting cake-hole.....you disgusting overgrown larva”

Have you been slapping your tongue over your mother’s vulva again? Explains the salty taste.

Shavluk wrote: “well I will rise up for you and smash the stupidity of some of you simply because I too believe in freedom...”

And on that day, Shavluk, Satan will be skating to work.

Shavluk wrote: “That's right shut up and take your toys home and sulk”

Make me, why don’t you.

Shavluk wrote: “What dad left with someone under 300 pounds?hahhaha I don't blame him “

I’m sorry, was that supposed to communicate a thought?

Shavluk wrote: “I would criminalize stupidity and create an open season on all of them!!!”

With what? You stoners own no guns, and you’re not smart enough to figure out a longbow. You’d Wile-E it for sure.

Shavluk wrote: “Sadly it would gut the current conservative mind set pretty quickly it seems”

What would? Can you even remember from one sentence to the next? Man, you are a walking example of why drugs should stay illegal.

Shavluk wrote: “I get a kick out of racists pretending to be conservatives just to cover their racist diseases.”

I get a kick out of liberals pretending to be tolerant so they can admire themselves lovingly in the mirror. They’ll get a kick out of it too, if I ever let go.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-08-26 8:03:43 AM


Jim Bender, diabetes is a condition of birth. Drug addiction, by contrast, is almost invariably the result of a conscious choice made by the individual. And I'm still waiting for that explanation as to how legalizing drugs here while they remain illegal elsewhere will curb organized crime. Answer!

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-08-26 8:09:39 AM


With ref to needle exchanges, they may allow drug addicts to harm themselves less (less being the operative word) but take a walk down Cormorant street in Victoria any night of the week and tell me how safe you feel. Well that has moved now to Pandora which exposes the public to more of the addicts tyranny. Sure, you can say they have the right to do their drugs and making it safe for them reduces harm? I say net harm is increased when they shit on peoples steps and little kids pick up their needles that they lay around. My church is downtown Victoria and we have to hose down our front steps to clean their filth away and those vandals have broken our windows.

Posted by: Ike | 2008-08-26 9:23:46 AM


Aside from hard drugs, I've never strictly forbidden my sons from trying them. I realize it's impossible to watch them every minute, so I decided to thoroughly educate them. The combination of education, exposure to sports and music, and freedom of choice seems to have worked. I realize it doesn't work for everybody, but for a lot of people NOTHING works. If the exposure comes from within the family, the kids are out of luck. That's why I don't agree with legalizing heroin, cocaine, and all the similar narcotics. I would also like to see designer drugs and "speed" eradicated.

Where I part ways with Shane et al, is the marijuana issue. Pot should be taken out of the same category as these very deadly drugs. One of their arguments is the political consequences of bucking the US war on drugs, and it's a valid argument. We're never going to figure it out if we don't start a dialogue. I don't use pot, nor do my kids. I'm more concerned with the funding of gangs, and the waste of money on policing.

Posted by: dp | 2008-08-26 9:52:40 AM


I don't think there's a specific reference in the bible that says churches shouldn't be locked. A guy who worked for me for a very short time told me about an run-in he'd had with a priest who wouldn't let him sleep in the church. I didn't ask for a lot of details, but I gathered he was a former crackhead. I took the easy path, and fired him.

Posted by: dp | 2008-08-26 10:25:24 AM


Actually, DP, I couldn't care less about the political ramifications of bowing out of the so-called "U.S.-led war on drugs." The point I'm making is that drugs will still be illegal everywhere but here and, since most pot made in B.C. is destined for export, organized crime will still flourish. Perhaps more so, since possession and production will no longer be offences.

You are right, though, in that thoroughly educating your kids is the best defence you can give them. Eventually they'll have to make their own way, and they'll do it with the tools they've acquired during their youth. It's up to us to make sure they have the right tools.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-08-26 10:31:03 AM


Shave-Lots wrote: “Anytime .....and my god will show up your god as well ...hahahaha Don't talk stupidly about the symptoms of prohibition as your ignorance is very apparent”

So apparent you can’t even point out an example and tell us WHY it’s ignorant.

Shave-Lots wrote: “Even the RCMP DARE officer from Vancouver Island died and they even hid the fact he was a cocaine and heroin addict....although after 6 months we got that titbit released”

We? For whom else do you speak? And do you really think finding one hypocrite in a high position subverts the entire concept? Pitiful. It is to laugh.

Shave-Lots wrote: “Jail doesn't treat drug addiction it only creates more of it Insite and its purpose would help victoria as well”

Help Victoria to do what? Virtually all statistics on InSite are kept by the B.C. Centre of Excellence in HIV/AIDS, a blatantly activist organization. Even then, hard statistics such as “lives saved” and “addicts cured” are impossible to come by. But statistics showing that the younger generations are using hard drugs less frequently are VERY definite.

Shave-Lots wrote: “And by the way churches and religion are responsible for more pain and more death than any other organization on the planet ...so fill your boots anytime you feel a little more stupid”

Really? I thought Leftist governments were responsible for more main and death than any other organization on the planet, probably 150 million in the 20th century alone. By contrast, the Spanish Inquisition never killed more than 5,000 people in its 400-year history and probably fewer than 1,000. Oh yeah, and all death sentences were imposed and carried out by the state, NOT the Church.

Shave-Lots wrote: “You sir are obviously a sinner big time”

I don’t think you’d recognize sin if you saw it. Iniquity is usually regarded as a sin, as are dissolution, pride, covetousness, envy, gluttony, anger, lust, and sloth. Dopers are famous for that last one especially.

Easy, boy. Take a deep breath--preferably of FRESH air.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-08-26 10:34:52 AM


as this place is censored and removing my posts I wont bother further
I will just carry on with what I do and leave some of you to your own self imposed hell

Db you I think make sense some of you others are beyond even common sense

Have fun soon to be losers in the elections

and we is the 50% from the better side of humanity and the green party as no other party has so far had the guts to stop the pain being brought your children and mine

Posted by: shavluk | 2008-08-26 10:35:36 AM


My comment about locked churches was in response to a rather nasty rant that you've deleted. You might as well delete my comment too, it seems out of place.

Posted by: dp | 2008-08-26 10:36:43 AM


America produces almost all its own cannabis
we export 2% of their supply ...THATS ALL !!
for those who want the truth instead of somes fairy tales

Taa Taa silly sinners

Posted by: shavluk | 2008-08-26 10:38:23 AM


What exactly is it you do, Shave-Lots? It must be to (badly) read tea leaves, because the Green Party hasn't a hope of forming a government and will be hard pressed to even win a seat. And your public backing of them may do them more harm than good, unless they swiftly disown you.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-08-26 10:38:39 AM


The fact that we supply only 2 percent of the total cannabis used by the U.S. does not mean that most of our crop isn't destined for export, Shave-Lots. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. Small-time growers may prefer local business, but large-yield organized-crime vendors think international.

Oh, and who says that B.C. Bud goes only to the States?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-08-26 10:43:20 AM


My comments got deleted so I just want to re-post that the centre for harm reduction (needle exchange) in Victoria causes a net harm increase as those who frequent that area cause property damage and the needle exchange was actually evicted from their site due to the numerous problems that their "patrons" were causing. Unfortunately the new needle exchange has been moved just a couple of blocks from a school and a place where young children go to learn music. I don't see why the government should openly condone drug abuse by helping those people engage in it when it is detrimental to the rest of the community.

Posted by: Ike | 2008-08-26 11:17:43 AM


A couple of blocks from a school? That's just wonderful.

Posted by: dp | 2008-08-26 11:24:27 AM


There seems to be a common thread running through the thoughts of those who advocate needle exchanges and injection sites--that the public at large cares whether drug addicts die.

We don't, of course. And that is what they can't wrap their heads around. They can't imagine why we wouldn't want these walking pustules in our neighbourhoods, although I have yet to hear of a liberal inviting a drug addict to live with him or her.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-08-26 11:24:36 AM


Have fun soon to be losers in the elections
Posted by: shavluk | 26-Aug-08

Are you running for Prime Minister of Douchebagistan?

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-08-26 11:35:45 AM


Good point, JC. Does anyone really argue that prohibition does not create violence?

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 25-Aug-08 11:44:12 PM


No Matthew they don't argue about that. What far too many do is ignore the "fact" of it and label anyone who points it out a "drug advocate".
That kind of willful ignorance is really very pathetic and it is the same kind of willful ignorance that has our liberties fighting for existence on every level.

Posted by: JC | 2008-08-26 12:59:32 PM


PS
While I'm against prohibition, I am very much "pro" full application of the law in prosecuting drug abusers who commit crimes. The drug abuse should not be an excuse for personal responsibilty.

Posted by: JC | 2008-08-26 1:04:29 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.