| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Torkel
Cannabis Sacrament Minister
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 1396
Location: West Virginia, USA
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:31 pm Post subject: Jamaica: OPED: Artificial Conflict |
 |
|
| Quote: |
Jamaica: OPED: Artificial Conflict
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n886/a02.html
Newshawk: Paul Chang
Rate this article Votes: 0
Pubdate: Fri, 03 Jun 2005
Source: Jamaica Gleaner, The (Jamaica)
Copyright: 2005 The Gleaner Company Limited
Contact: http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/feedback.html
Website: http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/493
Author: Frederick Hickling
Note: Professor Frederick Hickling is chairman of the National Council on
Drug Abuse.
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Cannabis)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/areas/Jamaica
ARTIFICIAL CONFLICT
THIS IS a political issue. This is not a controversial issue. The issues are very clear ... In some instances, it is very useful ( and ) in some instances that I have seen as a physician, it is harmful.
It really doesn't matter whether it is harmful or not harmful or for us to get into any medical discussion about the nature of its harmful effect. What we do know is that this particular substance is illegal and there are many other substances that are used that are much more harmful than it is that are legal ... It is a contradiction where you have substances which are much more harmful than anything else in the world - two, tobacco and alcohol ... Those are legal but this ( cannabis sativa ) is illegal.
The reality of the issue is that ... the politics of drug use has been manipulated by imperialist powers for the last 500 years ... These are real political issues.
Laws Makes No Sense
But let me get to the crux of the matter in relation to Jamaica. There is no point having a law if the people don't obey the law. If you have a law, no matter how draconian it is and there is no moral suasion from the people for the use of that law, then that law is rubbish.
So in other words, you could establish as many laws about corruption in this country and have as many draconian sentences, if there is not an agreement among the people about corruption and how corruption must be dealt with, then there is no point having that law.
Forty per cent of Jamaican people use cannabis. Whether it is useful or not useful, that's not the debate. Let's get that out of the argument. The issue is that it becomes a political legal issue when you make it illegal, because then you have an instrument of oppression of the people who use it who are usually the poor people of the country.
Therefore, we need to get a situation of moral suasion in the country where the people run and control the things that happen in the country and that dictates the laws.
Schism Between People and Government
There is one final point I want to make. The political structure of this country in my view has failed to understand and to grasp the power of the people in this country and that the political parties have manipulated people's views and ideas for a ballot box vote every five years ...
The reality of this country is that there are a number of groups of people ( who ) are both in opposition to what is happening at the top level of the country. Until this country recognises the nature of the schism and the split between the people of the country and the rulership of the country, we will have these continued debates and these issues of controversy. There is nothing controversial about herb ( ganja ). Herb makes you irie. Hundreds of thousands of people smoke it. Some people can't smoke it because dem head can't tek it and, therefore, they mustn't smoke it and it should be in no different position than alcohol where anybody who drinks alcohol regularly, it will lick off dem head. |
Peace,
Torkel
_________________
Miller vs U.S. (230 F 2nd 486,489): "The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."
Miranda vs Arizona (384 U.S. 436, 125): "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them."
HAGANS vs LAVINE (415 US 533 N-3,note 5): "Once JURISDICTION is challenged it must be proven by the Plaintiff." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Public Forum
Members only forum
Members Group
| 
