Pubdate: Mon, 15 Mar 2004
Source: Halifax Herald (CN NS)
Copyright: 2004 The Halifax Herald Limited
Contact:  http://www.herald.ns.ca/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/180
Author: Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press
Cited: Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy http://www.cfdp.ca/
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mjcn.htm (Cannabis - Canada)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Eugene+Oscapella

POT LAW NOT CHEAP

Policing Costs to Go Up, RCMP Warns

OTTAWA - The federal plan to decriminalize possession of small amounts
of marijuana could increase policing costs, not reduce them as many
predict, according to internal RCMP notes.

The revelation is among several uncertainties and reservations
regarding the proposed pot bill spelled out in newly disclosed
briefing materials prepared by the national police force.

The Mounties take issue with the oft-repeated assertion that the
existing pot law is enforced unevenly across Canada, and express
concern about some elements of the new legislative package.

Several pages of RCMP notes, compiled from May through December of
last year, were obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to
Information Act.

The latest statistics show police laid a record number of drug-related
charges in 2002, with 75 per cent of the 93,000 incidents involving
pot.

Under the bill currently before Parliament, possessing 15 grams or
less of marijuana - about 15 to 20 joints - would no longer be a
criminal matter but a ticketing offence punishable by a fine of $150
for an adult or $100 for a youth.

Some advocates argue the legislative proposals will free up valuable
police time for more serious matters, but the Mounties remain to be
convinced.

"Police do not see these reforms as resulting in cost savings to
them," say the RCMP notes.

"Which way the volume of marijuana offences will go is difficult to
say. It may result in cost savings or it may result in cost increases."

The Mounties believe a key factor would be how many of the tickets
issued under the new proposals end up being challenged.

"If a large percentage of the tickets issued were contested in court
and police officers were called to testify, our costs might actually
increase."

A number of activists pushing for legalization - not just
decriminalization - of marijuana have promised to protest the federal
changes by routinely challenging fines.

Eugene Oscapella of the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy, which
favours legalization, said it is "quite likely" costs to police will
rise under the changes. "Some people in the reform movement are
arguing that they should just clog up the courts, and that's one tactic."

The federal government says that in large urban centres police are
much less likely to lay a charge for possession of small amounts of
cannabis than in other parts of the country.

Liberal MP Wayne Easter, a former solicitor general, echoed the
argument recently. "In some areas you get a slap on the wrist, in
other areas you get a criminal record."

The Mounties deny the suggestion, saying the force strives to enforce
the law "in a consistent manner, keeping in mind the policing
priorities of the regions it serves."

There is no evidence "this would be any different if the new reform is
adopted in Canada," the notes say.

In consultations with federal officials, the Mounties supported the
idea of ticketing provisions for marijuana possession, the notes add,
but only if police officers would be able to retain the current option
of issuing a summons to appear in criminal court for even very small
quantities.

This would be reserved for cases in which "aggravating factors" made
the option of a criminal charge more appropriate. However, the
government did not follow the RCMP's advice.

Currently, growing marijuana is a single offence, punishable by up to
seven years in prison. The bill proposes four separate offences, with
punishments ranging from a fine of $5,000 for being caught with one to
three plants to 14 years behind bars for cultivating 50 or more.

When advised in advance of the government's options, "the RCMP said it
preferred to not see potential penalties lowered for any cultivation
offences." 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake