As other bloggers have canvassed the Marc Emery controversy quite thoroughly, I don't intend to repeat what they've said.
But I will offer this thought exercise:
Imagine if organized political opposition to the prohibition of liquor had been led by an Alcohol Party whose membership consisted largely of speakeasy operators, bootleggers, rumrunners, moonshiners and skid row wastrels.
Assume that the Alcohol Party's leader was a hard-drinking bootlegger who sold liquor to American customers by mail order under the guise of "medicinal spirits" in violation of U.S. prohibition laws.
Assume also that its main public spokesmen were not responsible social drinkers but dishevelled drunkards who babbled incoherently about the joys of the alcoholic lifestyle and the health benefits of heavy drinking.
Assume further that the Alcohol Party organized public drink-ins in parks and on street corners where members got drunk in full view of the police and passers-by.
Assume further still that it had been able to convince the federal government to produce "medicinal alcohol" on an experimental basis, only to have its users reject the product for having a bad taste and not enough kick.
If that had been the public face of the anti-prohibition movement, might we still have prohibition today?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
You comparison would stand up a lot better if alcohol was actually less harmful than marijuana. You also seem to forget that there was always a medical use exemption to the Volstead Act. Finally, people can function a lot better while stoned than drunk -- who do you think contributed more to culture: Carl Sagan (stoner) or Christopher Hitchens (drunk)?
That might just be the dumbest comparison I`ve ever read.
On just one of your (lame) points:
It would be the difference between sending marijuana seeds (not a drug) and sending grown marijuana (well you get the idea).
bravo Loyalist *clap*
It's painful to read pseudo logic like this...
people can function a lot better while stoned than drunk
How many drinks and joints are we talking here? Because I've been very stoned in the past.
[b]That's an extremely pathetic comparison. You're a detriment to the movement of legalization. I can't believe you'd be so stupid as to compare marijuana with alcohol.
Give me one reason why alcohol is, not better or less harmful, but even equally harmful as a drug to marijuana. One reason.
I drink, and I have no problem with alcohol. In fact, that's the whole issue, adults should be able to alter their conscience, we've done it throughout our entire history (marijuana dates back as far as history). But the problem with trying to legalize a medicinally active drug, is people like you, ignorant fucks.
The government will not tolerate statements that create dissonance in our society and disrespect for others." Jean Augustine, former Minister of State for Multiculturalism
Were closin down your site
Even if you take your ludicrous comparison and make all things equal, Marc Emery is unique. Most all bootleggers, dealers etcetera, then and now, DEPEND on prohibition. They don't and won't attract attention. That's bad for the business or prohibition.
Marc attracts attention to expose the hypocrisy and the symbiotic relationship between government and those that profit from the status quo. He puts the spotlight on the whole dirty business of the drug war. People are asking questions and thats good.
Society needs more freedom fighters like Marc
Waah waah wahh... poor Emery - he is such a crusader...
If you need to get high, fix your life. Life is too sweet to waste in a haze. Same goes for you alkies.
You want to get the same effect for no cost? sitck you head in a plastic bag for a minute or so - the oxygen deprivation will have the same effect - kill brain cells and leave your comprehension and functionality crippled.
Post a Comment