Pubdate: Wed, 02 Aug 2000
Source: Montreal Gazette (CN QU)
Copyright: 2000 The Gazette, a division of Southam Inc.
Contact:  http://www.montrealgazette.com/
Forum: http://forums.canada.com/~montreal

REWRITE LAW ON MARIJUANA

It is a sad commentary on the compassion of political leaders that in two 
jurisdictions in Canada and the United States, the courts have shown mercy 
to the terminally and chronically ill where their political representatives 
have not. In Canada this week, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the 
law prohibiting the possession of marijuana was unconstitutional and gave 
the federal government 12 months to amend the law. The judgment cleared the 
way for Terry Parker, a 44-year-old epileptic, to continue to use 
marijuana, the drug which has all but eliminated the 15 to 80 seizures he 
might suffer weekly.

Last month, a Federal District Court in California ruled that seriously ill 
patients with no alternative but marijuana to alleviate their conditions 
are allowed to obtain the drug legally. Judge Charles Breyer ruled that the 
U.S. government had failed to prove why seriously ill patients should not 
have legal access to the drug.

Proof was introduced at trial that marijuana could help curb weight loss in 
AIDS patients, alleviate nausea induced by chemotherapy in cancer patients, 
treat glaucoma and ease chronic pain associated with multiple sclerosis.

In both countries, marijuana has been popularly viewed by political and 
legal authorities as the gateway to the use of harder drugs. Although no 
scientific evidence has been put forward to buttress this contention, last 
year 11 independent American experts with the U.S. National Academy of 
Sciences found that marijuana smoke was more toxic than tobacco smoke and 
could cause cancer, lung damage and pregnancy complications. The experts 
said these findings mean that the only patients allowed to consume 
marijuana for medicinal purposes are those for whom long-term health should 
not be an issue, such as with the terminally ill.

There is no convincing reason for Canada not to draft legislation 
permitting the medicinal use of marijuana. (Currently, it makes exceptions 
for only a handful of people.) There is evidence that tight controls need 
to be part of the legislation, but its over-all intent should nonetheless 
be to reduce the suffering among people who have no other effective 
medication available to them. Allowing people to suffer needlessly while a 
substance exists that could alleviate that suffering is scarcely the mark 
of a civilized and caring society.

Following Monday's decision, the federal government has three possible 
choices. It can appeal the decision. It can allow the law to lapse 12 
months from now, leaving a legal void which would effectively legalize 
marijuana. But the third and only attractive option would be to accept the 
decision and rewrite the law to provide for medicinal uses.

It is a fallacy to assume that allowing the door to open for marijuana to 
be used for good means leaving it open for "bad" or recreational use. The 
whole point of legislation is to draw up the conditions of its use. Those 
conditions should be strained with not just with kindness but medical sanity.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D