T
The420Guy
Guest
Grass, pot, ganja -- whatever you call it, it's still a crime to smoke it.
Is it time to relax the country's drug laws? Many Canadians say yes.
Emily murphy was the first to sound the alarm. In 1922, the Edmonton
magistrate and suffragette was railing against the scourge of drugs. Her
sensationalist best-selling book, The Black Candle, let loose on the evils
of such substances as opium, heroin and "marahuana." Few Canadians had
heard of marijuana at the time, fewer still had tried it. Murphy, already
famous and popular for her "Janey Canuck" books of personal observations,
made certain their initial impression would be indelible. Smokers, she
quoted a police chief as saying, "become raving maniacs and are liable to
kill or indulge in any form of violence." Once addicted, she added, there
were only three ways out -- "insanity . . . death . . . abandonment".
Ludicrous, certainly. The world knows better now. But at the time, it was
enough to convince Parliament to ban cannabis -- marijuana and the more
potent variant, hashish -- the following year. And nearly 80 years later,
Canadians are still living through the bad trip.
On the one hand, prohibition has handed criminal organizations, including
Quebec's notorious biker gangs, a monopoly on perhaps the world's most
robust market. Who else could keep a steady stream of illicit stash flowing
to the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who toke regularly, occasionally
or, as some politicians euphemistically have it, "experimentally"? On the
other, Canada, like other nations, has been forced to divert billions of
dollars and countless police man-hours in a vain attempt to staunch the
supply. Meanwhile, lives have been disrupted, thousands imprisoned and many
more otherwise law-abiding citizens marked with criminal records. Since
1923, about 800,000 Canadians have been charged with marijuana offences, in
most cases simple possession. And despite today's more permissive attitude,
police are still hauling people who smoke, sell or grow the weed before the
courts -- 31,503 in 1999, the most recent year on record, two-thirds of
them for possession.
Dope. Grass. Pot. Ganja. Mary Jane. Weed. Whatever you call it, does it
make sense to treat its users like common criminals? Not to Eugene
Oscapella, a lawyer and a founder of the Canadian Foundation for Drug
Policy. Oscapella has never tried marijuana but still advocates its
legalization under certain guidelines. Much like North America's brief and
disastrous prohibition of alcohol, criminalizing marijuana has reaped a
noxious harvest, he says. A boon for outlaws, it has tied up police and
court resources, taught teenagers to disrespect the law -- and utterly
failed to dissuade people from using the drug. In other words, not only has
the medicine been worse than the disease, it hasn't even worked.
It gets more surreal, adds Oscapella. The chief rationale for defending the
cannabis law is protecting youth. But by ensuring the only supply for
marijuana is from the same people who also sell crack cocaine and heroin,
the law is actually making it more likely they will get access to harder,
seriously harmful drugs. The analogy with booze in contemporary society is
instructive. "Kids still get access to alcohol, as they do to pot,"
Oscapella notes. "But is there an organized international cartel with
machine-guns, corrupting governments, killing people, selling alcohol to
kids in high schools? No, because there's no money in it."
Some on the front lines have come to similar conclusions. The Canadian
Association of Chiefs of Police, the RCMP and the Canadian Medical
Association Journal have, to varying degrees, said they would support
decriminalizing possession for personal use, which would leave the drug on
the prohibited list but remove the chance of saddling smokers with a
criminal record. At the same time, the notion of full legalization with
regulation -- treating the drug pretty much like alcohol and tobacco -- is
gaining ground. In a May survey, University of Lethbridge sociologist
Reginald Bibby found 47 per cent of Canadians in favour of legalization.
That's up from 31 per cent in 1995 and 26 per cent in 1975. One reason for
the mellowing public attitude, says Oscapella, is fatigue with the futile
war on drugs captured by such films as the Oscar-winning Traffic. He also
cites the personal experience of boomers smoking pot in their youth, and
the Canadian government's 1999 decision to allow the chronically ill to
smoke the drug to relieve pain and stimulate appetite. Last week, Health
Canada approved a $235,000 grant to the McGill Pain Centre to conduct a
yearlong study on the drug's potential as a painkiller.
Whatever the reason, even politicians now seem willing to look at marijuana
in a new light. Both the Senate and the House of Commons have convened
committees to examine Canada's drug laws -- in the Upper Chamber's case,
the laws on cannabis in particular. Both are expected to report next year.
Progressive Conservative Leader Joe Clark and Canadian Alliance Leader
Stockwell Day, among others, now say they are prepared to consider
decriminalizing possession of small quantities of cannabis. Although Prime
Minister Jean Chretien says the government has no plans to soften the law
at this time, in 1980, as justice minister, he had pledged to make simple
possession a noncriminal offence. "For reasons I don't understand, I
definitely think there's a momentum towards changing the law," Pierre
Claude Nolin, who is chairing the Senate committee, told Maclean's. "The
arguments for prohibition that were so effective 30 years ago are much
weaker now."
WHEN NOLIN TALKS ABOUT 30 YEARS AGO, he's referring to the failure of
Canada's 1970 LeDain Commission to sway public opinion. It found no
compelling scientific evidence that cannabis was seriously harmful, or that
it was addictive. While the report led to sporadic calls for marijuana
possession to be treated much like a speeding ticket, nothing happened. Put
it down to political inertia or lack of courage. But the scientific
evidence was sketchy at best, since few had conducted the tests that would
yield a conclusive answer. In the end, says Nolin, that proved decisive.
Dr. Harold Kalant argues the jury on marijuana's harmful effects is still
out. Kalant, professor emeritus of pharmacology at the University of
Toronto, says the research that does exist suggests regular, heavy use of
cannabis produces inflammation in the lining of the respiratory system,
including pre-cancerous conditions. It may be true, as pot's defenders
claim, that there are no verifiable deaths from marijuana smoking, but
there are also relatively few smokers and still fewer heavy users.
Polls say only about seven per cent of adult Canadians have used the drug
in the past year, and Kalant estimates less than five per cent of those
could be characterized as regular, heavy users -- smoking perhaps
half-a-dozen joints a day. Legalize, and not only will the number of users
increase, but also frequency of use -- resulting, he argues, in an outbreak
of lung cancer that would rival that associated with tobacco. Then there
are the intoxicating, disorienting effects, which, some studies show, have
been associated with impairment and memory loss. Even potheads will
generally admit that driving a car is not advisable under the drug's spell.
Kalant, however, is very much in the minority of current scientific
thinking. For one thing, says Dr. John Morgan, a New York-based
pharmacologist and co-author of the 1997 book Marijuana Myths: Marijuana
Facts, a succession of anti-drug U.S. governments have laboured over the
years to make the case against marijuana, to no avail. Cannabis is not a
major cancer risk for the simple reason that the drug does not lend itself
to heavy continual use, as does tobacco, he says. Nor do pot smokers appear
to develop emphysema, the serious respiratory disease common among tobacco
smokers. "It's the dose that makes the poison," says Morgan, "and cannabis
smokers never come close to inhaling the amount of smoke that tobacco
smokers do."
The medicinal properties of cannabis are also hotly debated. But Health
Minister Allan Rock believes there is enough anecdotal evidence to justify
Canada's experiment with permitting AIDS, cancer and chronically ill
patients to use the drug. Adherents claim smoking relieves pain, stimulates
appetite for those on nauseating medication, and lessens eye pressure
caused by glaucoma. Since June, 1999, Health Canada has licensed patients
meeting specific requirements to use marijuana for medicinal purposes. Now,
regulations that went into effect this week give permission to approved
patients, on doctors' recommendation, to grow sufficient quantities of
marijuana for personal use.
Those who qualify should be able to avoid police harassment by using the
photo-ID cards the government will issue. Rock admits the regulations still
contain a catch-22 -- there is no legal method of obtaining marijuana seeds
in Canada -- but says he is willing to live with the inconsistency (page
26). In any case, he adds, the government has hired Brent Zettl at Prairie
Plant Systems Inc. of Saskatoon to grow sufficient quantities of marijuana
in an underground mine near Flin Flon, Man., to begin supplying patients in
a government clinical trial with a legal source of standardized dope by the
end of this year.
One positive effect of marijuana on which almost everyone agrees is that it
relaxes people. That's a good thing in a recreational drug, especially when
you consider the alternative. While heavy drinking has been associated with
unruly, boorish behaviour, pot smokers report feeling contented, even
euphoric. "You feel good and relaxed," says Mike, 56, a technician with a
Victoria dot-com company and father of three who smokes three or four
joints a day. Ottawa store owner Mike Foster, 47, a former civil servant,
says he prefers pot to alcohol. "The thing is, it helps you unwind like
having a drink, but it doesn't change your personality," he says. "You get
more introspective." Rock agrees. Remarking on the Canada Day celebrations
in Edmonton that degenerated into a drunken riot, he says he had one
instinctive thought: "That wouldn't have happened if they'd been smoking pot."
SO WHAT'S THE WORST THAT CAN HAPPEN IF Canada takes the next step by
decriminalizing -- or even legalizing -- cannabis use? The Canadian Police
Association presented the case against to the Senate committee on May 28.
It can best be described as the Pandora's box theory -- lift the lid and
all sorts of evils will be unleashed on society. The association, which
represents 30,000 frontline officers, warns of the serious harmful effects
of the drug. Furthermore, Canada will send a signal to youth that drug use
is acceptable. Cannabis use will soar, as will health-care costs and other
social ills, such as driving while high. More importantly, the cops argue,
marijuana is a "gateway drug" that will facilitate the use of other, even
more harmful substances, such as cocaine and heroin. "As soon as you take
away the deterrent effect, the usage is going to skyrocket," maintains
David Griffin, the association's executive officer.
Griffin also disputes claims that the current law is ineffective, or makes
criminals of otherwise law-abiding citizens. Most Canadians have never
tried pot in their lives and 93 per cent don't smoke it now, so the law
must be doing something right, he says. Compare that to legal drugs like
tobacco, which is used by about 24 per cent of adults, or alcohol, with a
usage rate approaching 80 per cent. Griffin adds that while thousands
continue to be charged with marijuana possession, the vast majority are
apprehended in the commission of other offences. "We don't search out
people for having small quantities of marijuana," he says. "People don't go
to jail for minor possession, they are usually found holding when we catch
them committing other crimes."
Certainly, no one knows for sure what would happen if the restraints were
loosened. But if the Netherlands is any indication, the answer may be not
much. Since the 1970s, Holland has served as the testing ground for
decriminalization of marijuana and hashish. While cannabis is still legally
prohibited, the government has maintained a policy of looking the other way
on possession. The result has been that about 1,200 so-called coffee shops
have sprung up throughout the country -- especially Amsterdam -- where
customers can buy up to five grams of weed, take it with them, or smoke on
the premises while enjoying a snack.
The laissez-faire policy has not been totally problem-free. The coffee
shops attract thousands of "tourists" from neighbouring France and Germany,
straining relations between the nations. Locally, the shops have also
brought complaints from nearby residents. As a result, the government in
the past few years reduced the number of coffee shops and the amount of
cannabis an individual can purchase at a time.
But there's no sign of the grim outcomes that Griffin predicts. After an
initial spurt, cannabis use in Holland has levelled off to approximately
that in other European countries, about the same as in Canada and lower
than in the United States. The Dutch experience also seems to debunk the
gateway-drug theory, as usage of harder drugs is lower than for most of its
neighbours. The notion that a nation's drug policy dictates use patterns is
simply bunk, says Peter Cohen, director of the Centre for Drug Research at
the University of Amsterdam. "A lot of factors play a role in establishing
drug use -- things like fashion, economic situation, number of urban
areas," he says. "Drug policy is just one of them and probably not a very
important one."
Still, Ottawa would face stiff resistance if it decides to move on
marijuana, not all of it internal. The United States remains staunchly
opposed to any relaxation of marijuana laws. Congressmen like Lamar Smith
of Texas have warned Canada about its leaky border that allows for the
transshipment of drugs and B.C.-grown grass. Also, the two countries
co-operate closely on drug interdiction. That wouldn't necessarily stay
Canada's hand, says Justice Minister Anne McLellan, but she adds: "If
you're going to be a responsible member of a global community, you need to
understand the impact of your domestic decisions on other countries." For
advocates of decriminalization or legalization, hope now rests on
continuing high levels of public support for relaxing the law and on the
parliamentary committees reviewing Canada's policies. Oscapella says it
would take courage for the Liberal government to break away from the
American-driven war on drugs. "But why not try it?" he asks. "It couldn't
be worse than we have now, and if it doesn't work, well, no decision is
irreversible." That may sound rational to many, but as Emily Murphy proved
eight decades ago, marijuana and logic have rarely mixed.
'They become raving maniacs'
Canadian legislation controlling the use of narcotics followed quickly on
the publication in 1922 of The Black Candle, a lurid account of drug use by
Edmonton magistrate Emily Murphy. Later renowned as the prime mover of the
Famous Five suffragettes who successfully campaigned for the vote for
Canadian women, Murphy wrote regularly in the pages of Maclean's about the
evils of the drug trade. Extracts from the book's wildly overblown chapter
on marijuana -- a drug that the federal government would make illegal in 1923:
Marahuana is known by chemists and physicians as Cannibis Indica, and more
commonly as Indian hemp. Sometimes it is called hasheesh or hashish.
Eminent medical doctors in India, principally at Calcutta, have made
experiments with Cannibis Indica and have discovered that it induces
symptoms of catalepsy or even of trance.
The hemp resin for smoking and chewing come in three forms -- chang, ganja
and charas. This Indian hemp is used chiefly in Asia Minor, India, Persia
and Egypt, but is being increasingly used on this continent, particularly
by the Mexicans, who smuggle it into the United States.
Charles A. Jones, the Chief of Police for Los Angeles, said in a recent
letter that hashish grows wild in Mexico but to raise this shrub in
California constitutes a violation of the State Narcotic law. He says,
"Persons using this narcotic smoke the dried leaves of the plant, which has
the effect of driving them completely insane. The addict loses all sense of
moral responsibility. Addicts to this drug, while under its influence, are
immune to pain, and could be severely injured without having any
realization of their condition. While in this condition they become raving
maniacs and are liable to kill or indulge in any form of violence, using
the most savage methods of cruelty without, as said before, any sense of
moral responsibility.
"When coming from under the influence of this narcotic, these victims
present the most horrible condition imaginable. They are dispossessed of
their natural and normal will power, and their mentality is that of idiots.
If this drug is indulged in to any great extent, it ends in the untimely
death of its addict."
Dr. Warnock in The Journal of Mental Sciences for January, l903, describes
the hasheesh user in the following words: "They are good-for-nothing lazy
fellows who live by begging or stealing, and pester their relations for
money to buy the hasheesh, often assaulting them when they refuse the
demands. The moral degradation of these cases is their most salient
symptom; loss of social position, shamelessness, addiction to lying and
theft, and a loose, irregular life makes them a curse to their families."
Newshawk: puff_tuff
Pubdate: Mon, 06 Aug 2001
Source: Maclean's Magazine (Canada)
Section: Cover story, 6 Aug 2001 Issue
Copyright: 2001 Maclean Hunter Publishing Ltd.
Contact: letters@macleans.ca
Website: Macleans.ca - Canada's national current affairs and news magazine since 1905
Details: MapInc
Is it time to relax the country's drug laws? Many Canadians say yes.
Emily murphy was the first to sound the alarm. In 1922, the Edmonton
magistrate and suffragette was railing against the scourge of drugs. Her
sensationalist best-selling book, The Black Candle, let loose on the evils
of such substances as opium, heroin and "marahuana." Few Canadians had
heard of marijuana at the time, fewer still had tried it. Murphy, already
famous and popular for her "Janey Canuck" books of personal observations,
made certain their initial impression would be indelible. Smokers, she
quoted a police chief as saying, "become raving maniacs and are liable to
kill or indulge in any form of violence." Once addicted, she added, there
were only three ways out -- "insanity . . . death . . . abandonment".
Ludicrous, certainly. The world knows better now. But at the time, it was
enough to convince Parliament to ban cannabis -- marijuana and the more
potent variant, hashish -- the following year. And nearly 80 years later,
Canadians are still living through the bad trip.
On the one hand, prohibition has handed criminal organizations, including
Quebec's notorious biker gangs, a monopoly on perhaps the world's most
robust market. Who else could keep a steady stream of illicit stash flowing
to the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who toke regularly, occasionally
or, as some politicians euphemistically have it, "experimentally"? On the
other, Canada, like other nations, has been forced to divert billions of
dollars and countless police man-hours in a vain attempt to staunch the
supply. Meanwhile, lives have been disrupted, thousands imprisoned and many
more otherwise law-abiding citizens marked with criminal records. Since
1923, about 800,000 Canadians have been charged with marijuana offences, in
most cases simple possession. And despite today's more permissive attitude,
police are still hauling people who smoke, sell or grow the weed before the
courts -- 31,503 in 1999, the most recent year on record, two-thirds of
them for possession.
Dope. Grass. Pot. Ganja. Mary Jane. Weed. Whatever you call it, does it
make sense to treat its users like common criminals? Not to Eugene
Oscapella, a lawyer and a founder of the Canadian Foundation for Drug
Policy. Oscapella has never tried marijuana but still advocates its
legalization under certain guidelines. Much like North America's brief and
disastrous prohibition of alcohol, criminalizing marijuana has reaped a
noxious harvest, he says. A boon for outlaws, it has tied up police and
court resources, taught teenagers to disrespect the law -- and utterly
failed to dissuade people from using the drug. In other words, not only has
the medicine been worse than the disease, it hasn't even worked.
It gets more surreal, adds Oscapella. The chief rationale for defending the
cannabis law is protecting youth. But by ensuring the only supply for
marijuana is from the same people who also sell crack cocaine and heroin,
the law is actually making it more likely they will get access to harder,
seriously harmful drugs. The analogy with booze in contemporary society is
instructive. "Kids still get access to alcohol, as they do to pot,"
Oscapella notes. "But is there an organized international cartel with
machine-guns, corrupting governments, killing people, selling alcohol to
kids in high schools? No, because there's no money in it."
Some on the front lines have come to similar conclusions. The Canadian
Association of Chiefs of Police, the RCMP and the Canadian Medical
Association Journal have, to varying degrees, said they would support
decriminalizing possession for personal use, which would leave the drug on
the prohibited list but remove the chance of saddling smokers with a
criminal record. At the same time, the notion of full legalization with
regulation -- treating the drug pretty much like alcohol and tobacco -- is
gaining ground. In a May survey, University of Lethbridge sociologist
Reginald Bibby found 47 per cent of Canadians in favour of legalization.
That's up from 31 per cent in 1995 and 26 per cent in 1975. One reason for
the mellowing public attitude, says Oscapella, is fatigue with the futile
war on drugs captured by such films as the Oscar-winning Traffic. He also
cites the personal experience of boomers smoking pot in their youth, and
the Canadian government's 1999 decision to allow the chronically ill to
smoke the drug to relieve pain and stimulate appetite. Last week, Health
Canada approved a $235,000 grant to the McGill Pain Centre to conduct a
yearlong study on the drug's potential as a painkiller.
Whatever the reason, even politicians now seem willing to look at marijuana
in a new light. Both the Senate and the House of Commons have convened
committees to examine Canada's drug laws -- in the Upper Chamber's case,
the laws on cannabis in particular. Both are expected to report next year.
Progressive Conservative Leader Joe Clark and Canadian Alliance Leader
Stockwell Day, among others, now say they are prepared to consider
decriminalizing possession of small quantities of cannabis. Although Prime
Minister Jean Chretien says the government has no plans to soften the law
at this time, in 1980, as justice minister, he had pledged to make simple
possession a noncriminal offence. "For reasons I don't understand, I
definitely think there's a momentum towards changing the law," Pierre
Claude Nolin, who is chairing the Senate committee, told Maclean's. "The
arguments for prohibition that were so effective 30 years ago are much
weaker now."
WHEN NOLIN TALKS ABOUT 30 YEARS AGO, he's referring to the failure of
Canada's 1970 LeDain Commission to sway public opinion. It found no
compelling scientific evidence that cannabis was seriously harmful, or that
it was addictive. While the report led to sporadic calls for marijuana
possession to be treated much like a speeding ticket, nothing happened. Put
it down to political inertia or lack of courage. But the scientific
evidence was sketchy at best, since few had conducted the tests that would
yield a conclusive answer. In the end, says Nolin, that proved decisive.
Dr. Harold Kalant argues the jury on marijuana's harmful effects is still
out. Kalant, professor emeritus of pharmacology at the University of
Toronto, says the research that does exist suggests regular, heavy use of
cannabis produces inflammation in the lining of the respiratory system,
including pre-cancerous conditions. It may be true, as pot's defenders
claim, that there are no verifiable deaths from marijuana smoking, but
there are also relatively few smokers and still fewer heavy users.
Polls say only about seven per cent of adult Canadians have used the drug
in the past year, and Kalant estimates less than five per cent of those
could be characterized as regular, heavy users -- smoking perhaps
half-a-dozen joints a day. Legalize, and not only will the number of users
increase, but also frequency of use -- resulting, he argues, in an outbreak
of lung cancer that would rival that associated with tobacco. Then there
are the intoxicating, disorienting effects, which, some studies show, have
been associated with impairment and memory loss. Even potheads will
generally admit that driving a car is not advisable under the drug's spell.
Kalant, however, is very much in the minority of current scientific
thinking. For one thing, says Dr. John Morgan, a New York-based
pharmacologist and co-author of the 1997 book Marijuana Myths: Marijuana
Facts, a succession of anti-drug U.S. governments have laboured over the
years to make the case against marijuana, to no avail. Cannabis is not a
major cancer risk for the simple reason that the drug does not lend itself
to heavy continual use, as does tobacco, he says. Nor do pot smokers appear
to develop emphysema, the serious respiratory disease common among tobacco
smokers. "It's the dose that makes the poison," says Morgan, "and cannabis
smokers never come close to inhaling the amount of smoke that tobacco
smokers do."
The medicinal properties of cannabis are also hotly debated. But Health
Minister Allan Rock believes there is enough anecdotal evidence to justify
Canada's experiment with permitting AIDS, cancer and chronically ill
patients to use the drug. Adherents claim smoking relieves pain, stimulates
appetite for those on nauseating medication, and lessens eye pressure
caused by glaucoma. Since June, 1999, Health Canada has licensed patients
meeting specific requirements to use marijuana for medicinal purposes. Now,
regulations that went into effect this week give permission to approved
patients, on doctors' recommendation, to grow sufficient quantities of
marijuana for personal use.
Those who qualify should be able to avoid police harassment by using the
photo-ID cards the government will issue. Rock admits the regulations still
contain a catch-22 -- there is no legal method of obtaining marijuana seeds
in Canada -- but says he is willing to live with the inconsistency (page
26). In any case, he adds, the government has hired Brent Zettl at Prairie
Plant Systems Inc. of Saskatoon to grow sufficient quantities of marijuana
in an underground mine near Flin Flon, Man., to begin supplying patients in
a government clinical trial with a legal source of standardized dope by the
end of this year.
One positive effect of marijuana on which almost everyone agrees is that it
relaxes people. That's a good thing in a recreational drug, especially when
you consider the alternative. While heavy drinking has been associated with
unruly, boorish behaviour, pot smokers report feeling contented, even
euphoric. "You feel good and relaxed," says Mike, 56, a technician with a
Victoria dot-com company and father of three who smokes three or four
joints a day. Ottawa store owner Mike Foster, 47, a former civil servant,
says he prefers pot to alcohol. "The thing is, it helps you unwind like
having a drink, but it doesn't change your personality," he says. "You get
more introspective." Rock agrees. Remarking on the Canada Day celebrations
in Edmonton that degenerated into a drunken riot, he says he had one
instinctive thought: "That wouldn't have happened if they'd been smoking pot."
SO WHAT'S THE WORST THAT CAN HAPPEN IF Canada takes the next step by
decriminalizing -- or even legalizing -- cannabis use? The Canadian Police
Association presented the case against to the Senate committee on May 28.
It can best be described as the Pandora's box theory -- lift the lid and
all sorts of evils will be unleashed on society. The association, which
represents 30,000 frontline officers, warns of the serious harmful effects
of the drug. Furthermore, Canada will send a signal to youth that drug use
is acceptable. Cannabis use will soar, as will health-care costs and other
social ills, such as driving while high. More importantly, the cops argue,
marijuana is a "gateway drug" that will facilitate the use of other, even
more harmful substances, such as cocaine and heroin. "As soon as you take
away the deterrent effect, the usage is going to skyrocket," maintains
David Griffin, the association's executive officer.
Griffin also disputes claims that the current law is ineffective, or makes
criminals of otherwise law-abiding citizens. Most Canadians have never
tried pot in their lives and 93 per cent don't smoke it now, so the law
must be doing something right, he says. Compare that to legal drugs like
tobacco, which is used by about 24 per cent of adults, or alcohol, with a
usage rate approaching 80 per cent. Griffin adds that while thousands
continue to be charged with marijuana possession, the vast majority are
apprehended in the commission of other offences. "We don't search out
people for having small quantities of marijuana," he says. "People don't go
to jail for minor possession, they are usually found holding when we catch
them committing other crimes."
Certainly, no one knows for sure what would happen if the restraints were
loosened. But if the Netherlands is any indication, the answer may be not
much. Since the 1970s, Holland has served as the testing ground for
decriminalization of marijuana and hashish. While cannabis is still legally
prohibited, the government has maintained a policy of looking the other way
on possession. The result has been that about 1,200 so-called coffee shops
have sprung up throughout the country -- especially Amsterdam -- where
customers can buy up to five grams of weed, take it with them, or smoke on
the premises while enjoying a snack.
The laissez-faire policy has not been totally problem-free. The coffee
shops attract thousands of "tourists" from neighbouring France and Germany,
straining relations between the nations. Locally, the shops have also
brought complaints from nearby residents. As a result, the government in
the past few years reduced the number of coffee shops and the amount of
cannabis an individual can purchase at a time.
But there's no sign of the grim outcomes that Griffin predicts. After an
initial spurt, cannabis use in Holland has levelled off to approximately
that in other European countries, about the same as in Canada and lower
than in the United States. The Dutch experience also seems to debunk the
gateway-drug theory, as usage of harder drugs is lower than for most of its
neighbours. The notion that a nation's drug policy dictates use patterns is
simply bunk, says Peter Cohen, director of the Centre for Drug Research at
the University of Amsterdam. "A lot of factors play a role in establishing
drug use -- things like fashion, economic situation, number of urban
areas," he says. "Drug policy is just one of them and probably not a very
important one."
Still, Ottawa would face stiff resistance if it decides to move on
marijuana, not all of it internal. The United States remains staunchly
opposed to any relaxation of marijuana laws. Congressmen like Lamar Smith
of Texas have warned Canada about its leaky border that allows for the
transshipment of drugs and B.C.-grown grass. Also, the two countries
co-operate closely on drug interdiction. That wouldn't necessarily stay
Canada's hand, says Justice Minister Anne McLellan, but she adds: "If
you're going to be a responsible member of a global community, you need to
understand the impact of your domestic decisions on other countries." For
advocates of decriminalization or legalization, hope now rests on
continuing high levels of public support for relaxing the law and on the
parliamentary committees reviewing Canada's policies. Oscapella says it
would take courage for the Liberal government to break away from the
American-driven war on drugs. "But why not try it?" he asks. "It couldn't
be worse than we have now, and if it doesn't work, well, no decision is
irreversible." That may sound rational to many, but as Emily Murphy proved
eight decades ago, marijuana and logic have rarely mixed.
'They become raving maniacs'
Canadian legislation controlling the use of narcotics followed quickly on
the publication in 1922 of The Black Candle, a lurid account of drug use by
Edmonton magistrate Emily Murphy. Later renowned as the prime mover of the
Famous Five suffragettes who successfully campaigned for the vote for
Canadian women, Murphy wrote regularly in the pages of Maclean's about the
evils of the drug trade. Extracts from the book's wildly overblown chapter
on marijuana -- a drug that the federal government would make illegal in 1923:
Marahuana is known by chemists and physicians as Cannibis Indica, and more
commonly as Indian hemp. Sometimes it is called hasheesh or hashish.
Eminent medical doctors in India, principally at Calcutta, have made
experiments with Cannibis Indica and have discovered that it induces
symptoms of catalepsy or even of trance.
The hemp resin for smoking and chewing come in three forms -- chang, ganja
and charas. This Indian hemp is used chiefly in Asia Minor, India, Persia
and Egypt, but is being increasingly used on this continent, particularly
by the Mexicans, who smuggle it into the United States.
Charles A. Jones, the Chief of Police for Los Angeles, said in a recent
letter that hashish grows wild in Mexico but to raise this shrub in
California constitutes a violation of the State Narcotic law. He says,
"Persons using this narcotic smoke the dried leaves of the plant, which has
the effect of driving them completely insane. The addict loses all sense of
moral responsibility. Addicts to this drug, while under its influence, are
immune to pain, and could be severely injured without having any
realization of their condition. While in this condition they become raving
maniacs and are liable to kill or indulge in any form of violence, using
the most savage methods of cruelty without, as said before, any sense of
moral responsibility.
"When coming from under the influence of this narcotic, these victims
present the most horrible condition imaginable. They are dispossessed of
their natural and normal will power, and their mentality is that of idiots.
If this drug is indulged in to any great extent, it ends in the untimely
death of its addict."
Dr. Warnock in The Journal of Mental Sciences for January, l903, describes
the hasheesh user in the following words: "They are good-for-nothing lazy
fellows who live by begging or stealing, and pester their relations for
money to buy the hasheesh, often assaulting them when they refuse the
demands. The moral degradation of these cases is their most salient
symptom; loss of social position, shamelessness, addiction to lying and
theft, and a loose, irregular life makes them a curse to their families."
Newshawk: puff_tuff
Pubdate: Mon, 06 Aug 2001
Source: Maclean's Magazine (Canada)
Section: Cover story, 6 Aug 2001 Issue
Copyright: 2001 Maclean Hunter Publishing Ltd.
Contact: letters@macleans.ca
Website: Macleans.ca - Canada's national current affairs and news magazine since 1905
Details: MapInc