davidmalmolevine
(superposter)
4/18/01 07:27 PM
|
Re: Harm Principle v. Cannabis Harm Reduction
[Post#: 118501
/ re: 118225
]
|
|
|
@ David
A gentleman was just interviewed by John Gormley on NTR 650 radio, in Saskatchewan, who had just completed and published a study on teens in Canada. One of the areas studied was drug use. He is publishing the fact that, although drugs are considerably more available than in the 60's, 70's and 80's, the use by Teens is considerably less.
As I just caught the tail end of this program, I did not catch his name or publication. This is a current study and perhaps something worth mentioning.
Let me know if you want details and I will call the radio station and post the info for you.
...For what it's worth. "
Always good to post more studies....I would suggest it's own heading....perhaps a collection of the latest studies available online for someone out there who isn't doing anything and wants a project. I have lots to do......
"I have struggled against tyranny. I didn't do that in order to substitute another." Desmond Tutu
|
TaxPayer
(member)
4/19/01 04:39 PM
|
|
Re: What I am trying to explain to the Supreme Court
[Post#: 118886
/ re: 62343
]
|
|
|
The nature of freedom points around section 21 are particularly important to me. If our courts fail to recognize the simple point that criminal sanction is the most serious force the state can apply to a citizen, not warranted unless harm to others is demonstrable,, well,, I may have to rethink my position as the TaxPayer and change my moniker to SlaveInCommunistCanada.
|
davidmalmolevine
(superposter)
4/28/01 12:48 PM
|
Re: What I am trying to explain to the Supreme Court
[Post#: 122074
/ re: 118886
]
|
|
|
Bumpin.....John Conroy's folks have told me people are looking for this info......
"I have struggled against tyranny. I didn't do that in order to substitute another." Desmond Tutu
|
thefunk
(stranger
)
5/3/01 09:15 PM
|
|
Re: What I am trying to explain to the Supreme Court
[Post#: 123818
/ re: 122074
]
|
|
|
i cant believe i read this whole thread....... and understood it! anyway my point is that davids arguement is awesome. harmless marijuana = legalized marijuana
|
matthouston
(stranger
)
5/5/01 10:13 AM
|
|
Re: Harm Principle
[Post#: 124198
/ re: 117439
]
|
|
|
Dear David Malmo-Levine;
I have been following this thread for just a short time and I hope your supreme court challenge works.
There was this one thought I wanted to add. I hope it helps, or at least sparks some thought.
You have posted some comments regarding the regulation of a MJ growing and distribution industry and how regulation will minimize any harm. In your arguement you use the coffee bean analogy. I don't think this analogy works. Coffee does not have a history or reputation (real or fabricated) of causing health, social or legal problems.
The point I am getting at is if you use this analogy in court it may not convey the point you are trying to make.
I am not aware of any real world examples of an unregulated coffee industry causing any problems. I may be wrong.
On the other hand my father grew up in Germany just before the war. When the family farm was taken away from them it was not the nazis who did it but the bankers.
the point is that unregulated banking has caused tremendous problems in the recent past. Using an analogy that is more recent in history and memory and universally recognized/understood may be more effective.
Of course you run the risk of cliche when referring to nazis.
Anyway, I just wanted to offer anything I can to further the collective knowledge.
If you win there should be a national holiday.
|
