🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <afdieq0ol1@drn.newsguy.com>, nospam@mybox.org says...
> In article <MPG.1783e5cd67858405989e1c@shawnews.vn.shawcable.net>, tnr says...
> >
> >In article <afalf206tb@drn.newsguy.com>, nospam@mybox.org says...
> >>In article <MPG.17826e1e4ff38488989e17@shawnews.vn.shawcable.net>, tnr says...
> >> >
> >> >In article <afafg502oe3@drn.newsguy.com>, nospam@mybox.org says...
> >> >> >You guys aren't fooling anyone bud..... although I have nothing against
> >>>> >Maryjane..... I just like to think my local MLA/Mayor etc isn't connected to
> >> >> >outright illicit activity.
> >> >> 
> >> >> You'd rather he was involved in graft and fraud, I suppose.
> >> > 
> >> >
> >> >It must be depressing thinking that those are the only two choices.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> You're not seeing the big picture:  
> >
> >uh huh
> > 
> >> Cannabis is "illicit" and illegal because 70+ years of untruthful propaganda
> >
> >I don't know about Canada but it certainly hasn't 70 years in the US. As 
> >I recall it was made illegal during the Korean war. The US used to sow 
> >hemp in rural drainage ditches to prevent erosion.
> 
> The US used to support *lots* of uses for hemp, before pulp-timber and oil
> interests got scared of its versatility and the threat it posed to their market
> share.
> 
> You don't know about Canada?  Gee, then I guess you don't know it was still
> legal in Canada for several years *after* it was prohibited in the US... and it
> was US political and trade pressure that forced the passage of laws against it
> over much of the world.

So?
 
> Bone up on your own country's history: starting with the Marijuana Tax Act, and
> work your way forward.

Why?

> >> have convinced people it hurts people... despite the fact that there's very
> >>*very* little harm inherent in the use of the stuff.   Almost every single bit
> >> of the harm in cannabis use or possession is related to it being illegal.
> >
> >Perhaps there is concern that it will be abused in the same way alcohol 
> >is abused - smoking an driving for example. This society rarely 
> >demonstrates an impressive level of maturity so it is not out of line to 
> >expect problems with legalizing it.
> 
> Perhaps that's so... are you advocating that an honest, trustworthy government
> is one that legislates morality and maturity?  By whose standards?

Probably the same ones we use to decide that murder and a host of other 
things are immoral.
 
> You fail to see that this stuff has been widespread in our modern culture for 50
> years now... partly *because* of prohibtion.

No I don't fail to see at all. It just isn't particularly relevant to 
me. You might want to try not assuming that your own personal beliefs 
and values are universally important to others.
   
> >> Which would you rather make legal, a nearly harmless weed, or the theft of
> >> property and process by fraud and graft?
> >
> >Why is it I only get those two choices? I'll pick honest government 
> >without legalized weed.
> 
> An honest government would never have made the weed illegal in the first place.

Perhaps you are right. I don't think that is necessarily so. But even if 
it were you cannot hold the present responsible for the past. And you 
have admitted that there may be potential for abuse so an honest 
government could quite easily resist legalization and still be honest.

 
> Read your real world history and take the blinders off.   The first 30 years of

Stop being so arrogant and self-centred.

> the campaign to make America pot-free were almost nothing but lies and had
> nothing whatever to do with governing a nation, and they were a dismal failure
> because a great many people knew it... and the following 40 years weren't much
> of an improvement.
> 
> Are you aware that the US-DEA's own legal advisor quite a while ago (advice
> which they ignored) said that marijuana is a nearly harmless and medically
> useful product, and it should be decriminalized?

But I thought we were in thrall to the US government. Shouldn't we 
already have snapped to, saluted the flag and implemented his 
recommendations by now if that were true?