Pubdate: Wed, 30 May 2001
Source: Province, The (CN BC)
Copyright: 2001 The Province
Contact:  http://www.vancouverprovince.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/476
Author: Susan Martinuk
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Cannabis)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mjcn.htm (Cannabis - Canada)

DECRIMINALIZING POT MORE A MATTER OF CONVENIENCE THAN MORALITY

Should Canada legalize/decriminalize marijuana, or not? That is the question.

Prime Minister Jean Chretien responded by saying he supports the use 
of marijuana for medical purposes, but gave a firm "no" to anything 
further. He stated that the public is free to debate the issue, but 
decriminalizing pot is not part of his government's agenda.

 From those comments, The National Post created the headline, "PM says 
'no' to looser drug laws." Meanwhile, The Globe and Mail managed to 
twist Chretien's very same comments into: "Chretien encourages 
holding marijuana debate."

Such disparity in the interpretations of Chretien's remarks surely 
indicates that ideology has more to do with the media's treatment of 
drug debate than the actual facts.

Perhaps that is why Canadians are similarly confused about the real 
issues related to the decriminalization and/or legalization of 
marijuana.

The newspapers have been declaring that cultural support for 
decriminalization is at unprecedented levels and the time is ripe for 
the government to make a move towards a more libertine society.

A University of Lethbridge survey suggests that the children of the 
60s are still committed to removing all social restraints: 47 per 
cent of Canadians favour the decriminalization and legalization of 
marijuana.

Tory leader Joe Clark says let's decriminalize, the Canadian Alliance 
says let's fine users instead of trying to convict them.

The House of Commons has agreed to strike a special committee to 
examine Canada's drug policies, but chances are the debate will focus 
more on the medicinal use of marijuana and innovative options for 
punishing users than on legalization or decriminalization.

There are essentially four arguments to support the decriminalization 
scenario -- all of which smack more of "giving up" on people and what 
is right, than granting freedoms.

Proponents say that legalization reduces petty crime (by those who 
steal to support their habit) and organized crime (which profits from 
dealing drugs).

If this is taken to be some kind of axiom, then why can't we 
similarly recognize that the number of crimes committed in a 
drug-induced stupor will surely rise, and that taking drugs out of 
the hands of organized crime won't be the end of organized crime -- 
it will only move into new niches and continue its exploitation of 
other niches. After all, there will still be prostitution, gambling 
and illegal aliens and whatever else the broad spectrum of crime 
covers. So let's not blindly fall for the notion that organized crime 
equals drug pushers.

Secondly, there is the supply-and-demand argument.

If you take away the "supply" problem by making it readily available, 
then demand for the drugs (and the illegal efforts to obtain those 
drugs) should drop off. But drugs aren't a supply-demand issue; they 
are a demand issue only and it's up to us to say "yes" or "no" to 
those demands. Demand will only decrease if we give society reasons 
(social, medical andlegal) to say "no" to drugs. That won't be easy, 
as it would mark an abrupt shift from our current efforts to 
stimulate demand by giving false promises of medical safety and 
social acceptance.

Thirdly, is marijuana a safe drug?

A recent editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal claims 
that there are few side effects. But the specialist journal Thorax 
recently demonstrated that marijuana can damage the lungs as much as 
tobacco. Further, because of a lack of filters and a higher tar 
content, three or four joints per day can produce the same medical 
symptoms as smoking 22 cigarettes per day.

So why open up our population to these health risks, while demonizing 
tobacco companies and launching billion-dollar lawsuits for payback 
of medical costs?

Finally, libertarians argue that you can't legislate morality -- even 
though every law does, in fact, legislate some form of morality. 
Therefore, according to one commentator, the issue becomes how we 
view the law -- is it so flexible that we can twist it to sanction 
illegal activities that we now find inconvenient to deal with and 
don't have the courage to confront? Or are our laws true expressions 
of what our society views as what is right and wrong, moral and 
immoral?

That is the real question.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Josh Sutcliffe