« Bureaucrats interfere yet again with doctor/patient treatment | Main | Health Canada dosage debate continues »
Rick Reimer of Pembroke – not stoned, but medicated
By Hempology | June 17, 2007
Daily Observer, Ontario
16 Jun 2007
Rick Reimer
OPENING THE DEBATE ON THE ISSUE OF MARIJUANA
Editor:
I’d like to thank Tina Peplinskie and the Observer for the coverage of my recent trial in Pembroke. I’ll let you know as soon as a decision is reached. This letter is not about those issues, but instead about marijuana prohibition generally and my advocacy against it.
Many wonder why I choose to fight for the decriminalization ( there’s a subtle difference from legalization – an unnecessarily fine point to debate here ) of marijuana. Some people believe that medical marijuana users like myself are merely “stoners” who have managed to bamboozle the government for their personal pleasure. Ironically, my heavy marijuana use creates a tolerance that prevents me from getting high at all. I haven’t been “stoned” on pot in more than a decade and don’t expect that to change anytime soon. This phenomenon is common among medicinal users who tend to consume large quantities.
While it doesn’t get me “high,” cannabis helps to alleviate my Multiple Sclerosis symptoms in many fashions – I won’t go into personal details or ask anyone to accept my word. The reader can easily do their own research – type “medical marijuana” into an Internet search engine and get set for weeks of reading.
Consider also that:
Thousands of medical users in Canada alone ( with MS, cancer, AIDS, epilepsy and other afflictions ) vouch for marijuana’s effectiveness; Cannabis, in various forms, was safely used as a medicine for countless generations before the start of prohibition in the 1920s; and
The Canadian government has recognized marijuana as a medicine since 1998.
My particular medical details don’t really matter in this debate since I advocate for, and hope someday to see, marijuana decriminalization for recreational as well as medical use. Before I began to experience MS symptoms, I was already a lifelong regular user of cannabis. Being a lawyer, I recognized this as an important civil rights issue – marijuana is simply the currency of the debate. Our laws are supposedly founded on a variation of the Golden Rule known as the “harm principle.” In a nutshell: If I’m not interfering with your life then kindly leave me alone! To me, marijuana’s present illegality is of no more significance than abortion’s illegality was to Dr. Henry Morgentaler when he began his struggle against those laws in the 1970s. There come times when legislation must change to reflect current attitudes. If the law defines as criminal something that more than 20 per cent of a population have tried ( as is the case with marijuana ) and especially if the conduct itself doesn’t do serious harm except for occupying the police’s time, then it’s the label of criminality, and not the conduct itself, which is wrong. Civil rights debates, sparked by open violations of existing laws, eventually changed attitudes and legislation about abortion and slavery and segregation, and will someday contribute to relaxation of marijuana laws.
Perhaps my activities in support of decriminalization are occasionally seen ( even by my own mother ) to be unnecessarily confrontational or even juvenile. I am a mature, conscious, responsible man and it troubles me to be so thought of. That, however, is a price I’m prepared to pay in this battle. By focusing public attention on the issue, perhaps even to the point of “confrontation,” I hope to stimulate debate in the courtrooms and newspapers and hopefully, even in the police stations and classrooms of this country. Where should we debate and exercise our rights if not in the public eye?
The lack of an informed, meaningful debate is, in my opinion, the main reason our cannabis laws don’t reflect the reality of society. Lots of people use marijuana but few speak openly about it. To our individual and collective detriment, cannabis use is hidden by parents and teachers from children, by the self-same children from their teachers and parents, by politicians from constituents ( “I never inhaled!” ) by doctors from patients and lawyers from clients and vice versa – the list goes on and on. As a result, discussions about cannabis often take place behind closed doors or in the context of childish jokes.
In my opinion an open debate, if it remains honest and well-informed, usually leads to the conclusion that marijuana is not a terribly serious problem in our society, and certainly doesn’t merit the resources ( police, justice, corrections, to name but a few ) we squander fighting it in our “War on Drugs.” And what has this war, accompanied by secrecy and misinformation, accomplished after more than four decades? Our children have ever easier access to increasingly stronger and more dangerous drugs at cheaper prices. High school students report that marijuana ( because it’s completely illegal ) is much easier for them to get than alcohol. Once our children learn they were lied to ( albeit with the best intentions ) about the evils of marijuana, who can be surprised that some become curious about harder drugs?
Prohibition assumes we are a bunch of moral nincompoops who need legislation ( and police oversight ) to make choices for us about potentially dangerous things. This is nonsense. We make such decisions for ourselves ( with the possibility of impacting upon others ) every time we open a package of cigarettes or start a car or light a barbecue. Those of us who want to go through life stoned can already do so using any number of legal and readily available intoxicants. Most of us are not so inclined, and the number of those who are does not depend upon the drug choices available. Easier access to marijuana won’t turn us into a society of drug addicts any more than easy access to booze creates runaway alcoholism.
I’m not suggesting that everyone should use cannabis. I feel that’s a personal lifestyle choice to be made by adults after adequate reflection. As I said before, marijuana is just the currency of the debate. The issue is our freedom to do, within reasonable limits, what we wish with our own bodies. I want everyone to have access to accurate and complete information and then have the freedom to democratically choose whether or not this marijuana prohibition should continue. We should no more entrust drug policy and education exclusively to police than we would permit soldiers to be the only teachers of the history of war.
I’m certainly not suggesting children should have access to marijuana. It always has been and remains the responsibility of parents to be the stewards of their children with respect to drug use and other moral issues. The law has proven to be a cumbersome, ineffective and often counter-productive tool in this respect – it’s time to stop using it to club our citizens ( and especially our children ) and instead to approach this important issue consciously, conscientiously and honestly.
Topics: Articles | Comments Off
Comments are closed.