T
The420Guy
Guest
Like old potheads fumbling around for a pair of reading glasses, the
federal Liberals appear increasingly confused and ineffectual on marijuana
policy.
Last year, after deciding to support the medical use of marijuana, the
government began growing it in a Manitoba mine. But the growers got seeds
of unknown quality from the police and had to scrap the inconsistent crop.
Never mind that the feds have no coherent plan to distribute their pot.
A year ago, then justice minister Anne McLellan was making
decriminalization noises until Prime Minister Jean Chretien dismissed the idea.
Justice Minister Martin Cauchon did the same in February. And in April, the
government effectively killed a bill on decriminalization put forward by
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca Alliance MP Keith Martin. It would have made
possession punishable with a fine of $200.
Now, however, Mr. Cauchon is making decriminalization noises himself. He
admits he was once young and in college, with all the inhalation that so
often entails, and he says we should no longer criminalize the sort of
behaviour he once engaged in. Duh.
The about-face seems to result from someone somewhere else deciding it's
time for laws to stop making criminals of ordinary citizens engaged in a
common, inoffensive practice. This month, Britain instructed police not to
lay charges for possession of marijuana.
That we should decriminalize possession is a given. It has been since a
federal commission on drugs headed by Toronto law school dean Gerald Le
Dain recommended the move in 1969.
The arguments against decriminalization are either trivial, specious or
dishonest -- or all three. The arguments in favour of it are compelling.
Dr. Keith Martin believes decriminalization will save taxpayers $150
million a year. Certainly it's ridiculous that marijuana possession has
left more than 600,000 Canadians with criminal records, which affect
everything from employment to international travel.
About 30,000 Canadians a year are still charged with marijuana possession
and about five per cent go to jail. The charges are down from a peak of
65,800 in 1981, but enforcement is arbitrary, which undermines faith in the
justice system. When we criminalize the behaviour of three million
Canadians who smoke marijuana and hashish, and particularly the 30 to 50
per cent of people age 15 to 14 who do so, we foster a damaging attitude.
However, how we should decriminalize marijuana is complicated. The
questions are manifold.
How do we reduce or eliminate criminal control of marijuana growing and
distribution? Would legalizing small-scale personal cultivation be enough?
Should we go the route of Amsterdam, where marijuana and hashish can be
obtained from 300-odd government-inspected cannabis cafes? Or will we
continue to tolerate the persistent involvement of organized crime in the
trade, with all its nasty consequences, including the occasional murder?
How can we protect the public from stoned drivers? They're not drunk,
exactly, but they're stupid and inattentive. How can we ensure more
effective education on health risks, especially since, for many minors, pot
is more easily obtained than alcohol?
And what about taxation? How much health care could we pay for with
appropriate taxes on what some credibly estimate is a multi-billion-dollar
B.C. industry?
It's only by debating these questions that real change will take place.
It's inevitable that change will come incrementally, and that organized
crime's involvement in the trade will persist while sanctions against
possession are slowly eliminated.
But that doesn't mean we have to continue to bumble. It doesn't mean we
have to stupidly worry about what the Americans think of decriminalization,
when a dozen U.S. states have already gone that route. Or that we have to
be ignorant or complacent about the damage marijuana can cause. We need a
smart discussion.
Unfortunately, we too rarely get it from authorities, despite their general
understanding that our pot laws don't work. Grant Obst, president of the
Canadian Police Association, recently observed that decriminalization would
prevent police from using the threat of a criminal record to extract
information on real criminals from pot smokers. And police groups still
advance the discredited argument that marijuana leads to harder drugs.
Mr. Cauchon advanced an even sillier argument this week. He said
decriminalization would allow more people to be punished for marijuana
possession. People get away with it now, because police don't want to
inflict a criminal record on someone, he said. A fine for marijuana
possession would mean more people pay for indiscretion.
Perhaps intelligent discussion will begin with the reports of Senate and
House committees now examining illegal drugs, the first of which is
expected Sept. 4. Perhaps we can put an end to a situation where marijuana
is unduly deified or unfairly vilified in a polarized debate that goes nowhere.
After all, it's only through a full and thoughtful debate that we'll be
able to achieve the kind of public consensus change requires. Perhaps then
our laws will catch up with the late 20th century.
Pubdate: Fri, 26 Jul 2002
Source: Vancouver Sun (CN BC)
Webpage: MapInc
Details: MapInc
federal Liberals appear increasingly confused and ineffectual on marijuana
policy.
Last year, after deciding to support the medical use of marijuana, the
government began growing it in a Manitoba mine. But the growers got seeds
of unknown quality from the police and had to scrap the inconsistent crop.
Never mind that the feds have no coherent plan to distribute their pot.
A year ago, then justice minister Anne McLellan was making
decriminalization noises until Prime Minister Jean Chretien dismissed the idea.
Justice Minister Martin Cauchon did the same in February. And in April, the
government effectively killed a bill on decriminalization put forward by
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca Alliance MP Keith Martin. It would have made
possession punishable with a fine of $200.
Now, however, Mr. Cauchon is making decriminalization noises himself. He
admits he was once young and in college, with all the inhalation that so
often entails, and he says we should no longer criminalize the sort of
behaviour he once engaged in. Duh.
The about-face seems to result from someone somewhere else deciding it's
time for laws to stop making criminals of ordinary citizens engaged in a
common, inoffensive practice. This month, Britain instructed police not to
lay charges for possession of marijuana.
That we should decriminalize possession is a given. It has been since a
federal commission on drugs headed by Toronto law school dean Gerald Le
Dain recommended the move in 1969.
The arguments against decriminalization are either trivial, specious or
dishonest -- or all three. The arguments in favour of it are compelling.
Dr. Keith Martin believes decriminalization will save taxpayers $150
million a year. Certainly it's ridiculous that marijuana possession has
left more than 600,000 Canadians with criminal records, which affect
everything from employment to international travel.
About 30,000 Canadians a year are still charged with marijuana possession
and about five per cent go to jail. The charges are down from a peak of
65,800 in 1981, but enforcement is arbitrary, which undermines faith in the
justice system. When we criminalize the behaviour of three million
Canadians who smoke marijuana and hashish, and particularly the 30 to 50
per cent of people age 15 to 14 who do so, we foster a damaging attitude.
However, how we should decriminalize marijuana is complicated. The
questions are manifold.
How do we reduce or eliminate criminal control of marijuana growing and
distribution? Would legalizing small-scale personal cultivation be enough?
Should we go the route of Amsterdam, where marijuana and hashish can be
obtained from 300-odd government-inspected cannabis cafes? Or will we
continue to tolerate the persistent involvement of organized crime in the
trade, with all its nasty consequences, including the occasional murder?
How can we protect the public from stoned drivers? They're not drunk,
exactly, but they're stupid and inattentive. How can we ensure more
effective education on health risks, especially since, for many minors, pot
is more easily obtained than alcohol?
And what about taxation? How much health care could we pay for with
appropriate taxes on what some credibly estimate is a multi-billion-dollar
B.C. industry?
It's only by debating these questions that real change will take place.
It's inevitable that change will come incrementally, and that organized
crime's involvement in the trade will persist while sanctions against
possession are slowly eliminated.
But that doesn't mean we have to continue to bumble. It doesn't mean we
have to stupidly worry about what the Americans think of decriminalization,
when a dozen U.S. states have already gone that route. Or that we have to
be ignorant or complacent about the damage marijuana can cause. We need a
smart discussion.
Unfortunately, we too rarely get it from authorities, despite their general
understanding that our pot laws don't work. Grant Obst, president of the
Canadian Police Association, recently observed that decriminalization would
prevent police from using the threat of a criminal record to extract
information on real criminals from pot smokers. And police groups still
advance the discredited argument that marijuana leads to harder drugs.
Mr. Cauchon advanced an even sillier argument this week. He said
decriminalization would allow more people to be punished for marijuana
possession. People get away with it now, because police don't want to
inflict a criminal record on someone, he said. A fine for marijuana
possession would mean more people pay for indiscretion.
Perhaps intelligent discussion will begin with the reports of Senate and
House committees now examining illegal drugs, the first of which is
expected Sept. 4. Perhaps we can put an end to a situation where marijuana
is unduly deified or unfairly vilified in a polarized debate that goes nowhere.
After all, it's only through a full and thoughtful debate that we'll be
able to achieve the kind of public consensus change requires. Perhaps then
our laws will catch up with the late 20th century.
Pubdate: Fri, 26 Jul 2002
Source: Vancouver Sun (CN BC)
Webpage: MapInc
Details: MapInc
