Tomato Salad

December 6, 2004 Letters Editor The Toronto SUN

Dear Editor;

First, thank you for allowing me to express my opinion even though it was edited (December 5). I realize that it was very long. You even changed my word 'persecution' with 'prosecution'. This was not a grammatical or spelling error on my part but intentional and represents my feelings of the law that exists concerning this plant.

Your closing retort (below) about tomato salad brings up another interesting inconsistency in the prohibition of some plants.

( We didn't say legalization is not a choice, we said we can't stop busting grow houses because of the myriad social and economic problems they cause. By the way, ever gotten high on tomato salad? )

You may or may not realize that the leaves of the tomato plant is toxic, as are many common house plants. Some common poisonous plants are:

Amaryllis, Azalea, Begonia, Bird of Paradise, Butterfly weed, Calla lily, Calamondin orange, Carnation, Castor bean, Chrysanthemum, Cotoneaster berry, Cyclamen, Daffodil, Daisy, Daphne, Deadly nightshade, Devils ivy, Diffenbachia, Dumbcane, English holly, English ivy, Eyebane, Firecracker, Foxglove, Geranium, Golden chain, Holly berry, Horsechestnut, Hyacinth, Hydrangea blossom, Iris, Jack-in-the-pulpit, Jequirity bean, Jerusalem cherry, Jimson weed, Juniper, Larkspur, Laurel, Lily-of-the-valley, Mistletoe, Morning Glory, Needlepoint ivy, Oleander, Oxallis, Poison ivy, Poison sumac, Potato plant, Pothos, Pyrocantha, Philodendron, Podocarpus, Rhubarb, Rhododendron, Rosary pea, Skunk cabbage, Snow-on-the-mountain, Spathe flower, String of pearls, Tomato plant leaves, Tulips, Violets, Wild Carrots, Wild peas, Yew berry

You can see this list here.

and there are many more links here.

Marihuana is one of the most intensively researched plants in History. No one has ever died from smoking marihuana, though it is possible to overdose by eating it. This may cause vomiting but once again, no one has ever died from this.

This leads to an interesting question. What are the criteria by which plants, like marihuana, are proscribed? Obviously, if tomato plants are allowed, safety is not the primary reason. So why is marihuana illegal?

The reason is due to societies disdain for people in altered states to be seen out in public. It is a result of intolerant Religious groups, mainly the clergy, who once-upon-a-time, were the keepers of the secrets of distillation and used alcohol in their sacraments, which induced feelings of 'spirituality' in their flock. Note, for example, that alcohol is often referred to as a 'spirit' from the altered state it produces. To an ignorant, unscientific public, it was and is easy to convince them that this was the effect of a god.

Prohibition of alcohol in the '20's' was a result of women's Religious Temperance Leagues.

'Altered states' goes back far before any Christians ever existed. The Egyptians made beer and the Greeks made wine. Before that, ancient cultures used many sources to alter their mental states. From peyote to toxic mushrooms to bark of trees, these substances were used by the 'medicine man' and shared with the rest to bring about a closeness to their various versions of their 'god'. Early Christian priests defined these pagan rituals as demonic and forbade their use. The use of alcohol was allowed only in the church ceremonies and Public Drunkenness was deemed against the law by Christian clerics, as was everything else that brought pleasure. Pleasure for its own sake became a 'sin'. The Islamic proscription of alcohol is an example of the attitude that once was a part of Christian dogma, as was the misogyny and the third class designation of women. Even in 'enlightened' Christian countries, women have been 'granted' the right to vote for only about the last 100 years. But that is another topic of injustice.

Society must re-think this negative attitude towards 'altered states'. Why should a 'drunk' in public present a problem? As long as they are not behind the wheel of a potentially lethal machine, why should 'public intoxication' be a pariah and/or lead to incarceration?

I'm sure you've experienced that some people get very friendly after a few drinks, while some become very aggressive - something that does not happen with marihuana - as most Police will attest to. The aggressive 'drunk' versus the friendly 'drunk' should be treated differently especially if it leads to physical, violent, assault.

W. C. Fields drank a quart of gin every day, as have other creative, functioning, people. If these people are capable of making a living while 'under the influence', why should they be ridiculed, ostracized or penalized? As long as they represent no danger to anyone, why should they be arrested? Society certainly has the right to keep potentially dangerous individuals from driving cars; the roads are 'public' and the people certainly have a right to define who may or may not use them. But how does this translate to an individual altering his or her state in the sanctity of their own homes? Why should the smoking of marihuana in one's domicile be any one else's business; or a crime in which one can go to jail for?

"The message it sends to children", is an argument most often heard. But there are many activities that are not allowed to children such as driving a car or the consumption of alcohol and most children abide by this and accept the fact that when they achieve adulthood, these activities will be opened to them. The potential misuse by children is not a good reason to punish unrelated adults for the lack of control that some parents have over their children. It is THEIR responsibility to instill proper behavior in their children. It is unfair and unjust to punish other adults for the shortcomings of bad parenting.

It is equally wrong to allow 'the State' to intrude on adults who choose to smoke marihuana in their own homes. Especially, when plants, like tomatoes, that are far more dangerous, are so common.

sincerely,

Evangelos XRISTOS

Hamilton, CANADA

last modified:Wednesday,March 19, 2008 at 04:40