Pubdate: Mon, 04 Aug 2003
Source: Ottawa Hill Times (CN ON)
Contact:  http://www.thehilltimes.ca/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/192
Author: Scott Foster

MARIJUANA LEGISLATION ONE OF PARLIAMENT'S TOP ISSUES

Government's Bill To Decriminalize Marijuana Has Its Share Of Naysayers

For some MPs, it's a "well-balanced" piece of legislation that goes after 
the true criminals and eases off the young people who are caught with an 
experimental joint.

But for others, the Cannabis Reform Bill (C-38) is a huge "contradiction" 
that sends the wrong message to users of cannabis and further threatens our 
already-tenuous relationship with the U.S. There is also no guarantee, 
critics say, that judges will apply the bill's penalties if they become 
law, which could encourage traffickers and large-scale growers to increase 
their illegal activities. Moreover, some critics declare that the bill 
serves only to boost the profile of the Liberal party among certain pockets 
of voters.

These opinions have already made for fiery debate in the House of Commons. 
And based on what MPs and senators are currently saying about the 
contentious bill, further debate on the so-called "soft pot" legislation is 
guaranteed to re-ignite when Parliament reconvenes.

Introduced last May, the bill proposes controversial amendments to the 
Contraventions Act and the Controlled Substances Act. The amendments -- 
which made front-page headlines across the country and garnered 
international attention -- seek to decriminalize possession of small 
amounts of marijuana and toughen the penalties for large-scale growers.

At issue are the bill's proposed fines ($100 for youths and $150 for 
adults) for those caught with up to 15 grams of pot. Those fines go up if 
accompanied by "aggravating factors" such as driving ($250 for youths and 
$400 for adults).

If someone is caught with 15 to 30 grams of pot, the bill proposes to give 
police officers a choice based on the offence. This means issuing a ticket 
- -- with a fine of $300 for an adult and $200 for youths -- or a summons for 
a summary conviction that consists of a penalty of up to six months 
imprisonment and/or up to a $1,000 fine.

Also under the bill, illegal growers face a maximum prison term of 14 years 
(double the current term) for anyone found with more than 50 marijuana 
plants. The bill operates on this premise: the larger the grow operation, 
the greater the penalty.

"Not only will we have greater enforcement, we are expecting greater 
penalties to come into the court system to deal with the marijuana grow ops 
in the country and to shut them down," declared Justice Minister Martin 
Cauchon (Outremont, Que.) at the time of the bill's introduction.

But Alliance MP Randy White (Langley-Abbotsford, B.C.), the Opposition's 
chief critic for the Solicitor General, argues the legislation's maximum 
penalties will not influence court proceedings since judges "rarely" give 
out the most severe sentence.

As a result, maximum penalties "don't really mean anything," he says. "And 
right now, the minimum [in the bill] is still zero. The judges will say: 
'If I can give a fine to someone with 29 grams, I'm not going to give a 
jail sentence to someone with 35 grams.' A grower or trafficker will 
continue to get the minimum, judges will start tossing these [cases] out, 
and we'll be right back where we started."

Mr. White says judges may hear out the cases of bigger growers and 
traffickers, but they won't suddenly apply heavier penalties if Bill C-38 
is enacted. Consequently, prospective growers won't be deterred from 
setting up large-scale operations, he says, adding that people caught with 
grow operations worth $400,000 are typically fined $2,000.

"We're really talking about small amounts here. And that won't change [if 
this bill goes through]."

Further, Mr. White calls the adult-youth discrepancy in fines for 
possessing small amounts of pot "naove and stupid."

"Anyone who can afford to buy up to 30 grams of marijuana can surely afford 
a $150 fine," he says.

But according to Mr. Cauchon "a $100 fine for a kid" is a significant amount.

This apparent "soft-on-youth" approach is not exclusive to Prime Minister 
Jean Chritien's Cabinet. Liberal MP John Bryden 
(Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot, Ont.) says he was sold on the bill 
when he found out that it won't "nail youngsters." The proposed fines for 
youth, he says, mean young people won't receive a life-long criminal record 
that could otherwise "affect their future employment or, even more 
dramatically, affect their ability to cross the border into the U.S."

Police forces and courts, he adds, should be focusing their resources on 
the big-time traffickers and growers, not wasting their time on young 
people who are experimenting with small amounts of pot.

"The last thing you want is some smart, talented 20-year-old getting thrown 
in jail," says Mr. Bryden. "I don't condone the use of drugs .. but young 
people are young people and they haven't changed since I was young. You 
should be putting your resources into those people who are growing this 
stuff in vast quantities because these people are obviously out to make a 
profit on an illegal drug. That is a criminal offence in my view. But a 
young person who experiments with small amounts does not have criminal intent."

Criminal intent or not, this is the wrong message, says Grant Obst, 
president of the Canadian Police Association. In a letter to Prime Minister 
Jean Chritien sent last May, Mr. Obst observed that each time the 
government "speaks publicly about [its] intention to decriminalize 
marijuana, many people are inferring ... possession would be legal or less 
serious."

"Ultimately, this sends the message that cannabis use is harmless," wrote 
Mr. Obst, who called for a "balanced [drug strategy] that reduces the 
adverse effects associated with drug use by limiting both the supply of and 
demand for illicit drugs." To achieve this, a coordinated and "sufficiently 
resourced approach to prevention, education and awareness" is needed.

Tory Senator Pierre Claude Nolin, who is the chair of the Senate Special 
Committee on Illegal Drugs, says the government had the opportunity to take 
the lead on such a coordinated approach but has so far dropped the ball.

"My blunt analysis is [the government] has introduced this bill for pure 
political gain," says Sen. Nolin, whose Senate committee released a 
600-plus page report last September full of recommendations on dealing with 
marijuana legislation. The report -- which called for legalization of pot 
in a state-controlled environment much like wine or beer -- was a product 
of extensive consultation with experts and citizens from across Canada.

Specifically, Sen. Nolin suggests the Liberals did not pay attention to his 
committee's recommendation to approach front-line people, such as police, 
public health officers and those involved in the treatment of substance 
abusers. Instead, he says the government reacted in a knee-jerk fashion 
after it noticed decriminalization drew support among some Canadians.

"So they went for it before they even knew what the word 
'decriminalization' meant," Sen. Nolin says. "They should have first 
invited their provincial colleagues and health colleagues, and also invite 
to the table those who are confronted on a daily basis the use and abuse of 
psychoactive substances. I'm referring mainly to the kids who are using 
those substances. Of course, the issue of prevention and education should 
have been discussed at length [before any bill is proposed]."

Whether it's more consultation or more resources for drug education and 
other awareness-raising efforts, such recommendations come out all the 
time, says Mr. Bryden. And he's tired of hearing it.

"It has become the standard: Go talk to educators and persuade, persuade, 
persuade. But the reality is that this has been around for a very long 
time. And I have no particular interest in hoeing the same field.

Bill C-38 came with a five-year, $245-million commitment to "reduce both 
the demand for, and supply of, drugs," according to a government press 
release outlining the renewal of Canada's Drug Strategy. The announcement 
was apparently a response to "Parliamentary committees .. in partnership 
with provinces, territories, communities and stakeholders."

Yet it is questionable, says Alliance MP Vic Toews, the Opposition's senior 
justice critic, whether the provinces were prepared for this announcement. 
While there is some work being done to develop roadside screening devices 
capable of determining whether a driver is stoned, no such technology is 
currently available, says Mr. Toews.

"People will begin to favour marijuana (over alcohol) because it's not as 
detectable as alcohol," he warns.

Mr. Toews (Provencher, Man.), along with Mr. White, also contends that the 
bill will undoubtedly hurt an already-frosty relationship with the U.S. 
Drawing from a well-used Alliance argument, they say Bill C-38 could 
further hamper Canadian exports bound to the U.S. because of increased 
American security at the border. It also runs directly against Washington's 
long-standing "war on drugs," they say.

But Sen. Nolin says any bilateral repercussions from Bill C-38 can be 
avoided. It's not a case of American states being against decriminalization 
of small amounts of pot since there are at least a dozen states -- 
including California, Alaska and Maine -- that have favoured 
decriminalization for more than a decade.

"There's a way to talk to them and explain why we're doing things," says 
Sen. Nolin, who advocates a more integrated Canada-U.S. drug strategy. "On 
this subject, we're avoiding it, and forgetting to explain [ourselves]."

Sen. Nolin adds that, according to speculation on the Hill, the bill won't 
pass in its current form. Certainly, the Senate will give it "a good, hard 
look," he says.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart