Pubdate: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 Source: Vancouver Sun (CN BC) Copyright: 2005 The Vancouver Sun Contact: http://www.canada.com/vancouver/vancouversun/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/477 Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mjcn.htm (Cannabis - Canada) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization) CANADA CAN AND SHOULD FIND ALTERNATIVES TO PROHIBITION OF POT The City of Vancouver has delivered the latest salvo in the war on the war on marijuana, and the city's position falls neatly in line with that of many drug-war critics, including the Senate committee on marijuana and, indeed, The Vancouver Sun. (The Sun called for marijuana legalization as far back as 2000.) The city's report, Preventing Harm from Psychoactive Substance Use, recommends that the federal government legalize both the possession of, and trade, in marijuana. This is a far cry from Ottawa's proposed legislation, which would decriminalize possession, but leave trafficking offences as they are and actually increase penalties for marijuana cultivation. Consequently, while saving many youth from being saddled with a criminal record, the proposed legislation is still a form of marijuana prohibition: If the legislation is passed, it will remain illegal to grow, possess or sell marijuana. Thus the legislation is subject to all the criticisms that apply to any form of drug prohibition. As the Senate report and The Sun's 2004 series on marijuana law reform make clear, those criticisms are devastating. Perhaps the most important criticism of prohibition is that it doesn't work. The stated aim of prohibitionists -- to reduce the supply of, and demand for, marijuana -- has never been realized. Despite Canada's historically strict drug laws, marijuana use continues to climb, with more than 44 per cent of Canadians reporting in the 2004 Canadian Addiction Survey that they've smoked a joint. That's a whopping increase from the 28.7 per cent that reported trying the drug a decade ago. (According to the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, 51 per cent of British Columbians report having tried marijuana.) The United States, which maintains some of the most draconian drug laws in the world, also reports high use levels, while fewer than 20 per cent of the people in the Netherlands, which de facto legalized possession 30 years ago, have smoked marijuana. It's clear, then, that prohibition laws have no effect on marijuana use. They also don't have any effect on supply, as most Canadians report that it's either easy or very easy to obtain pot. Further, evidence from around the world confirms that the likelihood of getting caught also fails to influence the rate of marijuana use. So it's more than a little odd that former justice minister Martin Cauchon, in introducing the feds' proposed legislation, said the stiffer penalties for marijuana cultivation are evidence of the government's commitment to stemming the supply. The other convincing argument that's been levelled against prohibition is that criminalizing marijuana provides a boon for organized crime. Crime syndicates have made billions of dollars from selling marijuana and other drugs -- the United Nations estimates that the drug trade accounts for eight per cent of all international trade -- while Canadian governments have spent billions in a futile attempt to stop them. Those attempts to halt pot production and distribution have often led to violence. And while law enforcement targeted at a specific organization can effectively shut down its operations (as occurred with Montreal's Nomads chapter of the Hells Angels), nature abhors a vacuum, and other crime groups inevitably step in. In addition to money spent on enforcement, Canadians are on the hook for providing room and board for the many people imprisoned for marijuana-related offences. The problem is only growing worse: According to city council's report, "The cannabis offence rate has risen almost 80 per cent between 1992 and 2002, mostly due to the increased number of possession offences." Aside from these well-known criticisms of prohibition, city council points to others that focus directly on the marijuana user. As long as drugs are prohibited, there's no way for government to regulate them, and thereby control the purity of the product and the veracity of the labelling. Black-market pot may or may not be the real thing, and may be contaminated with any number of toxic substances. There currently exists no quality control in the marijuana industry, which means the 44 per cent of Canadians who have tried the drug, and the many who will continue to use it, have no way of knowing if it's safe. In fact, the Senate report surmises that the recent marked increase in the potency of marijuana is a direct result of its criminalization. To reduce the chances of getting caught, smugglers prefer to carry small amounts of powerful drugs rather than being saddled with large amounts of weak ones. That Canadians must get marijuana from the criminal underground also increases the chances that they'll be introduced to other drugs, substances that pose far greater threats than pot. While there's no evidence marijuana itself is a "gateway" drug, there is evidence that its association with drug gangsters increases the chances of marijuana users trying other drugs. It might seem ironic that city council's call for legalization comes within a report concerning prevention. But the fact is that as long as marijuana remains illegal, disproportionate sums of money will go toward enforcement, rather than toward programs that educate Canadians about the risks associated with marijuana use and advocate on behalf of abstention or responsible use. There's abundant evidence that these problems can be either eliminated, or at least alleviated, simply by legalizing, and strictly regulating the production, sale and purchase of marijuana. There is scant evidence legalization will produce new problems of its own, such as an increase in use. Better yet, we already have a regulatory regime in place that could act as a model for the regulation of marijuana. As city council's report details, a regulatory system similar to that governing alcohol could ensure proper quality controls on the production and sale of marijuana, control the availability of the drug, allow for deterrence and punishment of those who engage in dangerous behaviour, such as driving under the influence of pot, and help to develop effective prevention and responsible use strategies. In addition, by taxing the sale of marijuana, governments could stop wasting money on futile enforcement efforts and instead use the windfall to provide education and prevention programs, and help to fund Canada's health care system. Perhaps the greatest obstacle to legalization concerns Canada's international obligations and its relationship with the U.S. Canada is party to several international treaties that require it to maintain a prohibition on the sale of marijuana, and the U.S., which favours continuing the war on drugs, has already expressed its displeasure with Ottawa's plans to decriminalize possession. Yet many countries in Central and South America -- countries that have been devastated by the war on drugs -- and many European jurisdictions recognize the folly of this war. These countries, whose populations make up the bulk of marijuana producers and consumers, are unquestionably open to considering alternatives to prohibition. Canada, as a world leader in justice and human rights, could play a pivotal role in promoting discussions about alternatives to prohibition. The U.S. might remain intransigent, but a concerted international effort aimed at promoting the benefits of legalization could eventually sway the Americans. This is a task Ottawa should take on. - --- MAP posted-by: Beth