Marijuana.com

Buzzby

Gone To Pot
Winnipeg Free Press | 04/25/2005

MANITOBA - THAT Canada's marijuana laws have become anachronistic was starkly underlined by a "smoke-in" at the legislature on Wednesday.

More than 500 people gathered there -- at the seat of government and lawful authority in Manitoba -- to listen to music, play a bit of Frisbee, giggle perhaps more than usual and get high on dope. The sweet and unmistakable smell of marijuana burning was so great that it permeated the Legislative Building itself, where some joked about the odour while others seemed to notice nothing at all.

The police, who were out in considerable force, turned a blind eye -- and a pinched nose, it would seem -- to what must have amounted to several hundreds of violations of Criminal Code prohibitions on the possession and consumption of cannabis, any one of which could have resulted in arrest, incarceration, prosecution, conviction, punishment and a permanent criminal record. And yet the police did nothing except mark time. Premier Gary Doer mused that the tokers should have been arrested, but he did nothing to ensure the law as written was enforced.

One can only imagine how much turf could have been won in the War on Drugs had police arrested all 500 and followed the evidence trail back to the dealers and distributors and growers of marijuana. And yet, the opportunity was allowed to slip away.

Such is the state of affairs in Canada. There is a law against possession and consumption that few feel obliged to obey, and which the police do not appear obliged to enforce. But as long as it remains on the books it is a law all the same, one that police on a different day -- the same police officers who did nothing in the face of massive civil disobedience Wednesday -- might choose to enforce with serious consequences to those who might choose to smoke in numbers small enough so as to be more easily managed. Enforcement of the Criminal Code should not be arbitrary. Arbitrary enforcement brings the justice system into disrepute.

If 500 people smoking marijuana on the grounds of the legislature on a Wednesday in April is deemed to be criminal activity in name only, if it is not worth prosecuting, then how can it ever again be an offence worth prosecuting? The law should be made to reflect the current reality. It was not illegal on Wednesday. It cannot be illegal today and should not be

__________________

 

RL in IL

For most people, the age-old dictionary definition of "dope" applies - "dope, n. an addictive narcotic." I don't understand why people continue to associate dope with marijuana, when marijuana is not in any way a true narcotic. OK so people giggled perhaps more than usual, they probably smoked some marijuana. But then they also said people were getting high on dope there. I guess there was a lot of opium smoking going on at this event, as well as all kinds of other narcotic taking. It just furthers stereotypes about marijuana to call it "dope", if he only meant marijuana and not hard drugs.



Hmm what about all those dope smokers he mentioned early on in the article? Should the fact that he stated people were smoking an addictive narcotic amidst these marijuana smokers mean addictive narcotics should be made not illegal as well?

Obviously not! Every war also involves a war of words. "Dope" is one of these words I'd rather not see associated with something like marijuana. It is not descriptive of marijuana at all and is another bad generalization in journalism.

SkyTripper

STRENGTH IN NUMBERS!!

It is really sad though that once the cops got you one on one.....YOU ARE SOOO SCREWED!

WHY make laws that cannot ever effectively be enforced?
IF they understand that potsmokers in masses are generally quite peaceful....then WHY can't they understand that to be true... on a one-on-one basis?

Would these cops just sit back and ignore all these lawbreakers if they were TRULY a threatening group? I don't think so!

Oh....and I agree....it is so cliche of the media and society in general to consider us potsmokers....as DOPEsmokers....but - whatever. I personally dont' feel offended by it....because I really DON'T GIVE A DAM*N WHAT THEY THINK OF ME....ANYWAY!
THEY....ARE ALL the REAL LOSERS with nothing better to do but JUDGE everyone else anyway.....probably because THEY actually think that THEIR SH*IT....don't stink!

__________________
SkyTripper

Buzzby

"Dope" has been slang for marijuana since time immemorial - at least since the 40s. It's common usage and has no association with narcotics. The second dictionary definition is "An illicit drug, especially marijuana."

When I started smoking in the 60s, "dope" was as common as "pot" or "weed". As in, "Wanna smoke some dope?"

cepheus

I want to go to a smoke in. We should have more of those in the states.

A couple years ago on international weed day or whatever its called in early May when there are rallies and demonstrations in select cities around the globe, me and two friends took off down to Tuscon where one of these was supposed to happen. When we got there it was just like 15 people on the sidewalk holding signs saying honk if you smoke pot and stuff like that (people were honking left and right). It was interesting but disappointing that in a city of several hundred thousand people, only a handful showed up to stand up for their right to smoke.

Also a couple years ago we had the chance to decriminalize weed here in Arizona, yet I was one of the few people among everyone I knew (and I only know other stoners) who actually voted. One of my friends was actually stupid enough to say "I didn't vote but I smoke it so I still support it." I bet that if every adult stoner in Arizona voted that day possession would now be a civil offense here rather than the felony it still is. But too many people decided just to leave it up to the next guy. If everyone leaves it up to the next guy no one will do anything.

The sad fact is too many potheads are too lazy to actually do anything to promote legalization. We're gonna be waiting a loooooooong time if we just leave it up to the powers that be, or leave it up to the stoners that are willing to get off their as$es and do something. Even up there in Manitoba I'm sure there were a lot more than 500 people who could have showed up that day. Imagine if 1000 or 2000 people smoked in. The effect would be even more dramatic. Let's turn the DVD player off once in a while and do something to stand up for our rights.

 

RL in IL

Yeah I agree that meaning is common in some circles, but I think it began to be associated with marijuana by the people who were associated with initially furthering reefer madness. They were purposefully trying to lump cannabis in with hard drugs because they didn't know any better. Even old people these days will use the word "dope" when talking in general about illegal drugs, not marijuana specifically.

I wonder why people who are actually standing up for marijuana in this day would use the word 'dope', in a political sense, for it seems like suicide to do so because as you said, in some dictionaries the secondary definition lists it as a generalization for illegal drugs; in other words, treats marijuana as the law treats marijuana - that is, lumps it in with other illicit drugs, all of which we know are several times more dangerous or even lethal when compared to unadulterated marijuana.

When someone uses the word "dope", in journalism, they are using it for the shock and attention value, because it makes the person hearing or reading the word wonder if the person is referring to a dangerous narcotic or just marijuana. The average person will probably confirm in his mind that yeah, marijuana is bad, because it is dope, the newspaper says so.

I believe it is a scary word when used by the media, meant to cause more hysteria and confuse the general public by blurring the line between something as comparably safe as marijuana and actual addictive narcotics.

A minority of people, like those who read this website or who lived through the 1960s can see through the irony but mainstream America, forget it.

I give thumbs down to this article for sublimely reinforcing old stereotypes that many are trying to break...

I believe the word "dope" was originally used as slang for heroin. That must be the reason why the first entry in most dictionaries I've looked in define the word as "an addictive narcotic", since opium and its derivatives are indeed so.

Later on like in the Sixties, it must have became more generalized but also the times of the Sixties, a renaissance of drug experimentations, seemed to generalize drugs anyway and treat everything as if it were equally safe to take as marijuana. So saying "you wanna smoke some dope?" in the '60s , but meaning marijuana , is along the lines of teenage rebellion , to try and make marijuana seem badder and more evil , so as to give the people in the conversation who would be partaking , a sense of "we're doing our part against the establishment".

There are newspaper headlines from the 1930s calling people "dope fiends" and I have a feeling the word may go back even further, possibly in reference to opium dens. I just don't think a news article should be equating fine and fragrant marijuanas with harmful drugs in any way because that is being factually incorrect.

Anyway on my next trip to the library I will remember to open up some very old dictionaries to see just how far back definition #2 goes. I really think it is a very recent addition because I own a dictionary from the 1970s and one from the 1950s that have definition #1 only and not #2.


I find it humorous that a third definition may have to be added to define "dope" as being something good or cool. As in, "That ____ is dope, man!"

Mamabudz

Smack was Heroin

Dope was Dope...uh Pot

... at least for us old geezers

reggie_the_dog

The best smoke in I have been to I have done a few times. You have harvest fest at the university of Wisconsin campus then march to the state capitol building. One year when the weather was nice (sunny and in the 50's is nice for Wisconsin in october) we had about 4 or 5 thousand people. We made a ring around the building. Then a few people like myself started to light joints even though there were police, before you knew it people were pulling bongs on the lawn of the capitol building.......
ps cannabis possession of less than 7 grams is a municipal violation in Madison and can lead to a ticket.......

Buzzby

While smoke-ins are fun they do little to convince politicians that marijuana should be legalized. If you want to do something effective to promote legalization, join and send money to the organizations that are lobbying for your right to toke up.

It's shameful that in a nation with an estimated 25,000,000 pot smokers, only 18,000 have taken the time and spent the few bucks to join NORML. Other pro-legalization organizations have similar low membership. When these people lobby for your rights, this doesn't give them much ammunition - there aren't enough votes there to make a difference. If NORML (or MPP or DPA) had 4,000,000 members, like the NRA does, we'd have a voice in every state and in the halls of the federal government.

Marijuana is at least a 10.5 billion dollar industry in the United States. If we, the users, diverted 1% of that to pro-marijuana organizations there'd be money for huge public service information campaigns, campaign contributions to pot-friendly candidates, TV spots to counter the government-supported lies, billboards, magazine ads, and all the other ways the minds of the public can be influenced. Would you be willing to take 1% of what you spend on pot and paraphernalia and put it towards effective legalizations efforts?

National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML)

Marijuana Policy Project (MPP)

Drug Policy Alliance (DPA)

hempydave

the pot possesion laws were deemed unconstatutional in alberta aug 2000 the canadain supreme cuort in 2002 the newspaper is deciveing you the laws are written but unconstatutional means they dont cuont for shat in cuort
READ the bible the bases of legal system GENIUS 1;29 I(LORD GOD JEAHOVH) give u every herb that produces seed and every tree that produces fruit with seed with in it for food!