Pubdate: Fri, 06 Jun 2003
Source: Edmonton Journal (CN AB)
Copyright: 2003 The Edmonton Journal
Contact:  http://www.canada.com/edmonton/edmontonjournal/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/134
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mjcn.htm (Cannabis - Canada)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?224 (Cannabis and Driving)

POT LAW A CAREFULLY MEASURED STEP

The  federal  government is doing the right thing with its very modest 
experimental step away from full criminalization of marijuana.

Certainly,  Canadian  drug  policy  has  fallen  short  of  a complete 
handover  to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft. Nevertheless, in the end 
Ottawa clearly tried hard to minimize the upset in Wasington.

In fact, the decision to fine people caught with less than 15 grams of 
marijuana  is still more punitive than laws in several key U.S. states 
including  California,  and  eastern border states New York, Maine and 
Minnesota.

In  addition,  the  legislation  introduced by Justice Minister Martin 
Cauchon is rightly accompanied by efforts to make sure that use of the drug 
does not increase as a result.

Finally,  if  it keeps its word, the government will divert police and 
justice-system  resources  that  are  now  frittered  away  on trivial 
marijuana-possession  prosecutions  to  a more concentrated assault on 
Canadian growers and distributors of the drug.

True,  this  argument does not address moral concerns about tolerating an 
illegal drug.

Nor does it question the idea that U.S. opinion is a legitimate factor in a 
decision on Canadians' health and behaviour.

After all, as a journalist in the New York Times wrote recently, in an 
article reacting to the new Canadian law:

"The  prohibition  of  marijuana in the United States has historically 
been  driven  more  by a fear and dislike of people associated with it 
than  by reasoned consideration of its actual harm. The laws have been used 
to sanction racial minorities and nonconformists."

In  other  words,  the U.S. administration's hardline approach to soft 
drugs  is driven more by apprehension over the societal impacts of the 
"drug culture" than by any evidence over how effective criminalization and 
tough sentencing have proven.

Even  so, Ottawa's concern about U.S. opinion is practical, not moral. 
It  matters  if  changes  to  Canadian  law  can  potentially  disrupt 
cross-border traffic and police co-operation.

And  in  this  country,  the  issue  is practical as well: What set of 
marijuana  policies  will  do  the most good and the least harm to the 
population?

More  than  30 years ago, the LeDain Commission on the non-medical use 
of  drugs concluded that full legalization of marijuana possession was 
appropriate,  given  the  modest  impact  of  the  drug on health. The 
current  bill,  which  replaces criminal prosecution with a package of 
steep fines, doesn't go anywhere near that far.

For  those  worried the lighter penalties could signal approval of the 
illegal drug, it's possible the new legislation actually could lead to more 
stringent law enforcement.

Even now, in Edmonton, a full prosecution isn't always undertaken; one 
of  the  things Canadians will find out after a year or two of the new 
law  is whether police will take more aggressive action when they know the 
maximum penalty is "only" a fine of $400 for adults.

It is often argued that relaxing the law will lead to increased use of 
the  drug,  and  from  there  to more use of harder and more addictive 
substances.  In fact, however, evidence from the United States is that this 
does not happen; the U.S. National Research Council found in 2001 
that  there  doesn't appear to be a trend toward greater use where the 
law  is  more  relaxed, adding that "the perceived legal risk explains very 
little in the variance of individual drug use."

As  Health  Minister Anne McLellan has said - and underlined her point 
with  a  new  $240-million  education and enforcement campaign against 
marijuana  - none of this is meant to argue that marijuana is good for 
people, or that existing use of the drug is acceptable.

Clearly,  it  presents  a  danger  in  the form of impaired driving or 
equipment  use  - and is more difficult for police to detect. As well, it 
has health risks similar to tobacco.

But right now, a country that treats possession of tobacco and alcohol 
quite  differently is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on more 
than   20,000  marijuana-possession  prosecutions  a  year  -  without 
accomplishing the goal of halting the drug's use.

We  should  try  the new law, continue explaining to the Americans how 
incremental it is, and review it when we have hard evidence to back up or 
discredit our fears.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Terry Liittschwager