While these are all great reasons to legalize pot, I was struck by the fact that hardly anyone is talking about the most important issue: freedom.

Have we become so used to being babysat by the govenment that we don’t mind them telling us how to live our own lives? Are adults capable of weighing the risks versus the benefits of pot use on their own –  or do we need the government to make that choice for us?

We need to be thinking bigger than just pot…

Update:

A Canadian Member of Parliament has also called for an end to prohibition. His reasoning: it would help to curb gang violence. Once again, no mention of freedom.

Update 2:

In light of increasing gang violence, the Conservative government in Canada is getting tougher on gang-related drug crime. Why not just legalize drugs and take the wind right out of the sails of gangs? Remember Al Capone? You don’t hear about gangsters killing people over alcohol now that it’s legal. It’s all drugs, now.

A story that generated much publicity in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks has become the centrepiece of a Supreme Court hearing that could permanently alter the scope of defamation law in Canada.

Lawyers for the Ottawa Citizen and more than a dozen other media organizations urged the top court yesterday to endorse a new defence against libel that would protect properly researched stories published in the public interest, even if they contain errors.

Full Story (Thanks for bringing this story to my attention, Dad) 

As someone who practices journalism, this story is particularly relevant to me. As the law stands now, if I publish something that could potentially tarnish someone’s reputation, I can be charged with libel even if I approached the story with the best intentions for public interest or if the information was false because one of my sources lied to me. This makes publishing controversial stories quite risky, and discourages journalists from pursuing important stories that could put them in hot water. Depending how this case goes, that could all change.

[Ted] Kindos owns Gator Ted’s Tap & Grill in Burlington. Four years ago, he asked a marijuana smoker to step away from his front door.

The medically licensed toker complained to the Ontario Human Rights Commission of bias against a disabled person. He won.

Kindos was about to pay the fine and post obligatory signs saying, “We accommodate medicinal marijuana smokers,” when a different government agency told him he could lose his liquor licence. Serving anybody possessing a controlled substance – prescribed or not – is against the law.

Full Story

Medicinal marijuana smokers certainly have a right to access their medicine, free of discrimination (you can even argue that anyone should have a right to do anything to their own bodies as long as it doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s rights – but there are laws preventing that). But shouldn’t people also have a right to protect the well-being of their business? Would the toker be any worse off if he had simply moved a few meters away from the entrance, away from the families that regularly passed through? Apparently a compromise wasn’t good enough.

After spending $40,000 to fight the rights complaint – the government covered [the smoker, Steve] Gibson’s costs – Kindos announced last May he would settle. But on seeing the offer, he changed his mind. He was ordered to pay Gibson $2,000 for pain and suffering, train staff in the human rights code, educate the public about the code, and post the signs.

Discovering he could lose his licence proved the last straw.

Kindos must continue to fight the complaint or lose his business, he says. Legal bills could also bankrupt him but a lawyer has agreed to take the next stage without charge.

All this because the Ontario Human Rights Commission got involved in a situation that could have easily been worked out between two individuals.