Pubdate: Thu, 11 Jul 2002
Source: Eye Magazine (CN ON)
Copyright: 2002 Eye Communications Ltd.
Contact:  http://www.eye.net/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/147
Author: Steve Smith, Jennifer Prittie

DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH

Governments Won't Let Weed Decriminalization Happen In Canada Anytime Soon

History's tendency to repeat itself is something Canada's marijuana 
advocates are all too familiar with.

Over the last 30 years, three separate federal studies have looked into the 
issue of Canada's illegal drug trade. Among their many varied 
recommendations, decriminalizing the simple possession of marijuana has 
been a constant. With a report by the Senate Special Committee on Illegal 
Drugs expected next month, it's anticipated the federal government will 
once again face a similar recommendation.

In a recent update on its findings, Senator Pierre Claude Nolin, chair of 
the special committee, said preliminary conclusions are already apparent, 
notably the fact that scientific evidence does not support the claim that 
marijuana is a "gateway drug" that opens the door to further 
experimentation with harder drugs. "It may be appropriate to treat it more 
like alcohol or tobacco than like the harder drugs," Nolin said in a recent 
press release.

At a cost of about $400,000, the committee is a tiny price to pay to make 
the federal government appear liberal. It's also small potatoes when 
compared to the estimated $464 million Ottawa spent on drug enforcement 
between 1999-2000. That contradiction is all too typical of Canada's 
approach to drug debates, in which liberal talk seldom translates into policy.

Such talk has also been echoed increasingly in recent years by high-profile 
figures of all stripes who have advocated decriminalizing small-time 
marijuana possession and putting more money into drug education and 
fighting organized crime. ("Decriminalization" is variously defined as 
having a fine or ticketing system replace sentences, or allowing those 
convicted to have no criminal record.) Proponents of that view have 
included the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs, which recommended 
decriminalizing possession to the federal government, and Julian Fantino, 
chief of the Toronto Police Service, who has said police forces and courts 
are weighed down prosecuting minor cases.

The Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police's official drug policy is that 
it "would entertain endorsing any government initiative to decriminalize... 
certain offences related to the possession of small events of marijuana or 
other cannabis derivatives with the proviso that there be corresponding 
intiatives instituted by the government including a balance of prevention, 
education, enforcement, counselling, treatment, rehabilitation and 
diversion programs."

In May, 2001, current Justice Minister Anne McLellan and then-Health 
Minister Allan Rock said they were open to a discussion about changing 
laws. Federal opposition politicians have also supported change.

Listen to all that talk accumulate, and it may seem as though Canada were 
on the verge of following in the footsteps of much of Europe, where 
countries including Italy, Spain, Portugal, Holland, Belgium, Germany and 
Switzerland have decriminalized either through changed laws or relaxed 
policies. Only Sweden and France are notable holdouts.

But Alan Young, a professor at Osgoode Hall and one of Canada's leading 
legal proponents of decriminalizing marijuana, doesn't think governments in 
Canada are going to change laws to allow for decriminalization. He thinks 
the wave of high-profile supporters of liberalization are still just making 
empty statements.

"I've seen these pronouncements forever," Young says. "They mean nothing." 
He also can't see Toronto adopting a marijuana amnesty project such as a 
much-watched one now going on in Britain (see "Brixton blueprint," page 12).

Dominic Cramer, president of the Toronto Hemp Company (THC) and an 
organizer of the Toronto portion of the annual worldwide Million Marijuana 
March, also thinks there's little substance to high-profile calls for 
decriminalizing small-time marijuana possession. He does note, however, 
that the reality on Toronto's streets suggests police are taking a more 
relaxed approach. "You have to be a real asshole to get busted for small 
amounts these days," he says.

"I would suggest avoiding such sweeping generalizations," responds Det. 
Courtland Booth of the Toronto Police Service's major drugs unit. "While we 
don't have people out looking specifically for small amounts, possessing 
marijuana is still against the law. Each case, however, is at the 
discretion of the arresting officer. Most possession charges stem from an 
arrest for some other offence and we happen to find a few joints in the 
process." But enforcement and justice around simple possession still has a 
lot to do with the luck of the draw: charges and sentencing can vary among 
and within police jurisdictions.

Young says that one in two officers he knows of may look the other way, and 
that while a federal diversion initiative exists in Canada, through which 
first-time suspects of minor possession can get off, in practice that 
depends on a completely discretionary call by a crown attorney.

There's also little evidence to suggest Canada will voluntarily go the way 
of Europe anytime soon. America's obsession with drug issues is likely a 
major reason for the Canadian government's reluctance to act on calls to 
decriminalize possession of soft drugs like marijuana. In June, U.S. drug 
czar John Walters warned that it's time to step up the war on marijuana, 
not to decriminalize it or move further along the road to facilitating its 
use for medicinal purposes.

Moreover, statistics for 1999 show that of the 50,000 Canadians charged 
with drug offences, cannabis accounted for almost two-thirds of the 
charges; half of those were for possession.

When it comes to sentencing numbers, Young says there's a statistical 
vacuum, and he doesn't think that's an accident.

He says there were 2,000 people a year going to jail in Canada for simple 
possession up until 1985, when Statistics Canada stopped keeping numbers, 
claiming it was due to a budget cut. "There's no way it was a budget cut," 
says Young, who believes that as long as no sentencing figures are being 
published, the federal government can say it's taken care of the 
decriminalization debate through more lenient sentencing.

There's also a great enthusiasm in this country for cracking down on 
growers, particularly "grow houses."

Take a look at what's happening on the drug prevention front in Canada, and 
it also doesn't fit with calls to increase funding for abuse and education, 
calls that are the constant refrain of those who've called for marijuana 
decriminalization.

Dr. Eric Single, a professor of public health at the University of Toronto 
and a senior policy advisor on decriminalization issues, says efforts 
dedicated to addiction research and prevention have fallen by the wayside 
due to the Canadian government's emphasis on reducing the supply of drugs 
rather than the demand. According to auditor-general David Brittain's 
report for 2001, 95 per cent of Canada's anti-drug expenditures went toward 
efforts aimed at reducing supply, leaving 5 per cent for studies into drug 
dependency and addiction prevention.

So why do police chiefs and others go on record proposing decriminalization 
if they don't actually want it to happen? Young says it could be due to the 
fashion in some conservative circles to advocate a less stringent approach 
to the drug. But Young is convinced that those high-profile advocates are 
powerful enough to have made an impact if they truly so desired. "If they 
wanted it to happen, it would happen," he says.

If lawmakers won't act, the country's top justices may do the work for 
them. Young is involved in a case scheduled to be heard by the Supreme 
Court on October 30. It concerns Chris Clay, a former London, Ont. hemp 
store owner, and is a constitutional challenge that could effectively 
decriminalize marijuana possession. It could also have a much wider effect 
on Canada's vice laws, says Young, because parliament would have to have a 
"reasoned basis" to declare an activity harmful.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Larry Stevens