Marijuana.com

Buzzby

Pot Party Candidate Doesn't Toke
Leslie Dickson | Maple Ridge News | 12/07/2005

Although Dan Banov is the Marijuana Party candidate in the federal Pitt Meadows-Maple Ridge-Mission riding, he doesn't smoke pot. But he doesn't see this as a contradiction.

As Banov, 58, said Tuesday, his decision to run under the Marijuana Party banner was less about legalizing pot and more about supporting a person's freedom of choice.

"I believe in the freedom of choice and for what people do, as long as it does not cause harm to other people," said Banov, a retired teacher now working as a real estate agent in Mission.

However, the 30-year Maple Ridge resident does see legalizing drugs as a solution to some of society's problems.

By legalizing marijuana, as well as harder drugs, Banov argued police resources that are currently tied up "chasing grow-ups and fighting The Drug War" would be freed up to focus more on drug prevention.

However, aside from his support for legalizing drugs, Banov said his political views lean more to the conservative side, noting he supports free trade as a solution to creating lasting peace and reducing poverty in the world.

Banov will vie for the Pitt Meadows-Maple Ridge-Mission seat in the Jan. 23 election against incumbent Conservative MP Randy Kamp and NDP candidate Mike Bocking.

Although the federal election campaign is now in its second week, the Liberal candidate for the seat remains a question mark. The federal Liberals have yet to announce a date for the nomination meeting or a list of potential candidates.

__________________

 

jaman

So , does legalizing hard drugs like LSD mean that we would have people walking around frying on acid ? or kicking back at the local park on HEROIN barely able to say hello to folks walking by them ? wall your having a nice family picnic with your 5 year old dotter ?

I think it does .

And the cops would still be busy trying to keep all the loaded people from creating anarchy in our streets .

I don't support the legalization of hard drugs such as PCP , Heroin , Crack , Coke , Speed Balls , Speed , Uppers , Downers ,LSD , Glass , Crank ,Etc Etc Etc Etc

__________________
freedom to grow , freedom to smoke .

Mr. President , please relieve us of our dependency on foreign oil !

Legalize hemp production !

killer12382

I agree with you. Legalizing all drugs solves some problems but creates alot of other problems....but in this forum there are alot of people who can't see past their own pleasure to understand this concept. Sad, really.

Tolerance4all

Killer, is what's being done about hard drugs now working?

The problems you invision about legalizaton could still be controlled through criminal penalities. I believe, and think most who support legalization for all drugs, that putting someone in a cage for ingesting one intoxicating substance and not others is not fair or reasonable. If legalized, the distribution could be controlled. If a person breaks the law while intoxicated it would not excuse them from prosecution. I would even support stiffer sentences for crimes commited while intoxicated. I also like the idea that in a goverment distribution system anyone wishing to purchase hard drugs would have to go through education and counseling classes before being enrolled. You won't find your local drug dealer trying to talk you out of using hard drugs. The goverment would still be in the business of discouraging drug abuse.

The bottom line is I think controlling the distribution of hard drugs makes more sense than prohibition. It's clear that law enforcement alone can't control the distribution or abuse of hard drugs. Law enforcement would be free to concentrate on drug abusers, and others, who commit violent crimes, property theft ect. What is the sense of arresting an otherwise law abiding citizen for catching a buzz with his/hers drug of choice? Theft, destruction of property and violence should never be tolerated. I and others who support legalization of all drugs might not have all the answers. I do however think that what we propose will work better than the present system.

strangedezign

Ok then, we'll just legalize your drug. np

 

Buzzby

Don't we already? I'm not part of "the drug scene" and I could have a hit of acid in a half hour or less. If you think prohibition really prevents people from getting drugs you're kidding yourself. How hard is it for you to keep yourself supplied with weed?


Actually, I'd prefer that to the rowdy drunks who seem to take over the parks these days. Why would you care? What difference does it make to you what drugs other people take as long as they don't impose themselves on you? How is what you're saying any different from the people who complain about marijuana users in the park?


The most socially disruptive drug in the world is alcohol. Anyone who wants to can get just about any drug they want even though they're illegal. Countries which have decriminalized drugs don't find that it has impacted use or abuse very much at all. Why would legalizing drugs be any different?

Buzzby

Is that because the government has done such a good job defending your freedoms so far? Considering the nature of our current regime, they'd send you to a Pentecostal church for your drug education, where they'd tell you that drugs are an instrument of the Devil and that any use is abuse.

In the South, they used to require African-Americans to take a test in order to qualify to vote. Needless to say, the test was nearly impossible to pass and few African-Americans got to vote. I see your plan as the same thing.

Adults should be free to do as they please unless their actions directly harm others. The government has far too much power to be the gatekeeper of our freedoms. The way this system is supposed to work, government defends our freedoms. It shouldn't act in loco parentis for competent adults.

PotShot

I find it wonderful that this person is taking political action to legalize drugs, but at the same time makes it clear that he does not use drugs. It puts forth a much needed viewpoint--you do not have to be a drug user to be beneficially effected by drug legalization.

All too often it seems that people are convinced the only reason people fight for drug legalization is that they have a "selfish" desire to use drugs without fear of criminal action taken against them. The viewpoint that needs to be expressed more often is one Dan Banov is expressing, and I think it is wonderful.

__________________
Posting Guidelines

Carl Sagan Goodness Richard Dawkins Goodness

Tolerance4all

Buzzby, are you saying that everyone in goverment is a religious fanatic? Thats like saying everyone who smokes pot is an ignorant burn out.

Do you not think that if the motivation to lie, i.e. money, is removed that they could develop a program that is based on facts. All mind altering substances have some risks. I am saying that before being able to purchase goverment supplied drugs you would have to hear the facts about the risks. With this policy some may just change their minds about using the more dangerous drugs. And for those who do chose to use, they could learn how to reduce the risks.

You have to learn how to drive, and pass tests to legally drive. Do you think that anyone who wants to drive should be able to get behind the wheel without a license? I don't see how teaching someone how to use drugs with as much safety as possible is any different. It would help them and the public reduce the risk of drug use.

I think that this proposal would help sell the idea of reform to some of the opponents of drug legalization.

TheNewGuy

Not only was it just a joke (for the most part) he also said "Considering the nature of our current regime", meaning only the people employed by the current administration which is very conservative, and most (but definitely not all) conservative standpoints are based on morals, and most morals stem from religion.

I agree with you anyways, I think that all people should be able to do as they please as long as they aren't directly harming other people in any way, but most of them are so stupid that they would do just about anything without learning about it first. Its a sad fact, but if you haven't noticed by now that the vast majority of drug users don't know crap about the drugs that they ingest regularly, then you've been living in your closet your whole life. Thats the reason most people get addicted: They're too stupid to use anything in moderation, or to get help when they know they need it. I honestly don't trust most people with anything more dangerous than food utensils. If you just have to go to a class or watch a video (no matter how biased it was) to be able to exercise your right to alter your conciousness, I would do it. After all, if you aren't smart enough to see through the lies they present you with, then maybe you shouldn't be doing drugs in the first place.

__________________
"Anyway, no drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power." ~P.J. O'Rourke