Yochi Brandes explains in a special column for Israel Hayom why it is time to legalize cannabis - "most of our ancient sages would have ruled in favor," she says.
By: Yochi Brandes
What a good TV series can do. Avri Gilad asked: Why? And all the great men and all the wise men stood pale-faced and found no answer. "Great ambitions"She took the cannabis out of the cupboard. People demonstrate for him, patients praise him, MKs submit bills for him, and one of them even stands in the city square singing a song of praise to the cheers of the masses.
Moshe Feiglin of the Likud formulated it A simple and logical rule Which can be summed up in a few words: qualified physicians will decide on the provision of medical cannabis as they decide on any other medicine. The proposal won the enthusiastic support of Haim Katz, chairman of the health committee, and of other MKs, most of whom are not suspected of stalinist inclinations (such as Elazar Stern of the movement and Amnon Cohen of Shas). But it did not help them. Government She passed a complicated bureaucratic law, Which also forces the patients to take drugs before they agree to consider their request to treat cannabis, also makes life miserable in the thicket of mechanisms and also uproots the source of livelihood of cannabis growers in Israel.
In response to the popular protest from Facebook Into the streets, Starting with the Ministry of Health To overwhelm us There is no end to this. The most outrageous in my opinion is the argument of "leakage." If you do not hear him in full swing, here is the abstract: In order for the cannabis not to leak to people who wish to smoke for pleasure, they imported it from abroad through a private company that will receive a monopoly and will not allow patients to purchase it from Israeli growers.
What can we small citizens do in the face of this paternalistic tyranny? To protest in every legal way, to demonstrate from every possible stage and to spread "big ambitions" in all the media available to us. And to read some Jewish sources from the past. Who knows, perhaps the leaders of the past will be able to teach today's leaders what wise leadership is.
The Grave of the Jews of Egypt
I told my family that I had written the word "hemp" in a computerized database of Jewish literature, and asked them to guess how many references I found. The answer was given unanimously: zero.
But the correct answer is close to two thousand, and the real number is even greater. My database does not include the entire Jewish bookcase.
What it means? A very simple thing: once, until recently, cannabis was visible, common, and completely un-threatening. Use all its parts - the seeds, stems and leaves, and make good things for it: oil, candles, fabrics, wicks, and possibly incense. This plant was so familiar that when Rashi wanted to describe to his French contemporaries the moss shrub, which grew mainly in the country, he wrote: "Giv'lin is thin as a kind of hemp." You said hemp - you said something everyone knows.
Of course, I did not read all the sources I found, but as I fluttered, I chose a particularly kind one. Rabbi David Ibn Zimra, known as the Radbaz, who immigrated five hundred years ago from Egypt to the Land of Israel, explained to his new congregations the pleasures of Egyptian gastronomy: "The cannabis leaves, And they say he's happy. "
see also: Cannabis during the Bible
But with all my sympathy for the Radbaz's kebab, I know that they will slap me: they never knew that cannabis was harmful, and even if they knew, they did nothing - and now we have a responsible government that protects its citizens.
There is no point in extracting data and studies that prove cannabis is harmless. Avri Gilad and his partners in the series do it better than I do. The question that I ask is quite different: Suppose that cannabis can harm and it is worthwhile to be sure to prevent its leakage and remove the entire public from it - in which case is the government entitled to impose restrictions and difficulties on patients who need it?
Most of our ancient sages ruled that it was not. Do not I know? Read the following sources and judge for yourself.
"There is no cutting to cut"
Leaders tend not to rely on their flock. The simplest solution is imposing limitations. How easy it is to control them. The Sages recognized the patent and made it quite common. A significant portion of their decrees stem from fear of the slippery slope, or in their language: "in order to distance the person from the offense." But in order not to reach the absurd situation of "there is no end", they also imposed restrictions on themselves. They did not want to have too much power.
This is how the regulation was created: "We do not make a decree for cutting." In order to distance ourselves from the offense, one decree is sufficient.
Thus, too, the rule developed so advanced to his time: "We do not make a decree on the public unless a majority of the public can not stand it."
Maimonides went even further and ruled that discretion was not given only by the leaders. Even if they have already imposed a decree "and imagined that most of the audience can stand it, and after its decree was questioned by the people and did not spread in most of the audience, it is idle and is not allowed to force the people to walk in it."
So what if you enacted a law, Maimonides says to the leaders. If many doubt its usefulness and refuse to obey it, your law is null and void!
The writer, Yochi Brandes, is an Israeli writer and Bible lecturer. The column was first published in 'Israel todayAnd was approved for publication here as well.
Want to publish opinion column?