Pubdate: Mon, 25 Jul 2005
Source: Ottawa Hill Times (CN ON)
Contact:  http://www.thehilltimes.ca/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/192
Author: Kady O'Malley
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmjcn.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal - Canada)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/hr.htm (Harm Reduction)

MARIJUANA BILL UP IN THE FALL

The controversial Marijuana Decriminalization Bill has already died 
twice on the Order Paper. It's up before the House Justice Committee 
this fall, but lobbyists say there's little support for the bill, on 
either side of the decriminalization debate.

The highly-controversial Marijuana Decriminalization Bill C-17 has 
remained in suspended animation since its reintroduction last fall, 
despite meriting a specific mention in Prime Minister Paul Martin's 
most recent Speech from the Throne, but lobbyists on either side of 
the debate say the bill is seriously flawed, is a "half-baked 
measure" and should be killed.

Bill C-17, which is the latest incarnation of legislation that has 
already died on the Order Paper on two previous occasions, was 
referred to the House Justice Committee last November, but has yet to 
make it onto the meeting schedule.

Although activist groups have criticized the government for failing 
to throw its political weight behind its commitment to reforming 
existing cannabis legislation, Justice Minister Irwin Cotler's (Mount 
Royal, Que.) bill, which would deal with simple possession through 
fines rather than criminal charges, but would increase penalties for 
marijuana growers, has virtually no political support on either side 
of the debate over decriminalization.

"This bill has the distinction of being disliked both on the right 
and the left," noted Philippe Lucas, director of Canadians for Safe 
Access, an association that supports users of medicinal marijuana, 
who appeared before the committee that studied C-17's predecessor, 
C-38, in 2003.

"I spoke on behalf of Canada's medical marijuana population, and out 
of close to 100 witnesses, there was only one group that supported 
the bill--the Canadian Centre for Substance Abuse. Every other 
activist and researcher that spoke on the bill spoke against it not 
going far enough, or going too far," said Mr. Lucas.

That might be one reason why the current legislation has been allowed 
to fade into the woodwork, he said.

"From the perspective of the activist community, we're not fans, and 
we'd rather see the bill die. The status quo may be better than 
anything proposed in this bill," said Mr. Lucas.

For example, he pointed out that the individuals most likely to be 
targeted by the bill are young men between the ages of 17 and 25.

"These people will be the least able to pay fines, and we also fear 
that visible minorities will be targeted. We plan on enforcing these 
fines by using the Contraventions Act, which means that non-payment 
of fines could lead to jail time or criminal records," said Mr. Lucas.

Mr. Lucas said he also sees flaws in the provisions of the bill 
dealing with cultivation.

"The idea of doubling penalties for personal cultivation seems to fly 
in the face of reason. It does nothing but re-entrench the black 
market," said Mr. Lucas, adding that he believes that the only policy 
that makes sense, and will keep marijuana out of the hands of 
children, is to tax and regulate it.

"People forget that after alcohol prohibition, we put in place liquor 
distribution service and bars not to open up access, but because too 
many people were getting access. We control it through age 
restrictions, level of intoxication, and social parameters around 
drinking. With cannabis, we'd see the exact same thing," said Mr. 
Lucas, adding that he blames lobbying by-law enforcement groups for 
preventing the government from proposing genuine legislative reforms.

"It's pretty clear that most police groups, despite having policies 
that speak of harm reduction, and moving towards alternate measures, 
seem to be opposed to the idea of lessening penalties, and losing 
income if cannabis gets de-prioritized. The testimony of the police 
chiefs and enforcement agencies may have influenced the government, 
combined with the knowledge that the left isn't any more pleased than 
the right," said Mr. Lucas.

Mr. Lucas said that regardless of the fate of the bill, his group is 
working with MPs who are trying to put forward an 'alternate vision' 
for policy reform.

"There are moves in the backrooms to put forward something that might 
be more pragmatic, and approaches the policy of harm reduction while 
moving away from the prohibition-only mentality," said Mr. Lucas.

Mr. Lucas pointed to NDP MP Libby Davies (Vancouver East, B.C.) and 
Vancouver mayor Larry Campbell as high-profile supporters of a more 
aggressive move towards legalization.

"The City of Vancouver recommends taxing and regulating all drugs, 
and when you have major cities considering alternate measures, but 
being handcuffed by the federal policy, it shows a real discontent. 
The federal policy sets the tone, but the provinces are on the hook 
to pay for that through arrests," said Mr. Lucas.

For Ottawa lawyer and Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy executive 
director Eugene Oscapella, the battle to update Canada's cannabis law 
has been a labour of love for years. He said he agreed the proposed 
legislation has few supporters on either side of the issue.

"The police don't like it, and people like me don't like it, and the 
big fear is that the government is eventually going to push this 
through, and then say, 'Look, we've dealt with it.' It's a half-baked 
measure that won't solve any problems," said Mr. Oscapella.

Mr. Oscapella said he's not sure if the bill could be salvaged if it 
goes before the House Justice Committee this fall.

"It would take substantial amendments, and since it's been referred 
after second reading, it would have to be reintroduced," Mr. 
Oscapella said, adding that at this point, he believes that the best 
hope for supporters of decriminalization might be for the current bill to die.

"It has some good features, but fundamental flaws, and if it goes 
ahead, we won't have the chance to deal with those flaws, and the 
government will say that it's not going back. In a minority 
government, there's a chance that the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois 
could help push the Liberals into introducing a more sensible bill if 
this one dies," said Mr. Oscapella.

Mr. Oscapella acknowledged, though, that the failure of this bill may 
not necessarily lead to the introduction of legislation that he could support.

"There's always the risk that the government would do nothing," said 
Mr. Oscapella.

Although decriminalization is rarely touted as a possible election 
issue, Mr. Oscapella pointed out that this doesn't necessarily mean 
it won't be a factor when Canadians next go to the polls.

"It may not be one of the great hot-button issues, but in some 
ridings, you only need a few percentage points to win, and if you 
offend the wrong people, it has the potential to become a political 
issue. It's hard to tell what issue will become the flavour of the 
moment--it has a lot to do with media attention, and the events at 
the time. If someone was involved in a serious accident where four 
people were killed, and the driver had cannabis in his system, it 
will suddenly become a major issue," said Mr. Oscapella.

CDFP co-founder Neil Boyd, who teaches criminology at Simon Fraser 
University in British Columbia, seems slightly more optimistic than 
his colleague.

"The government now has a decision to make in the fall as to whether 
it wants to move forward with C-17, recognizing that the 
Conservatives and some Liberal backbenchers will oppose it. There's 
no doubt that groups such as NORML and Educators for a Sensible Drug 
Policy and many other advocacy groups are almost as disenchanted with 
the bill as conservatives, but on the other hand, I think it's time 
to move somewhere on this issue," said Prof. Boyd.

He agreed that the bill as drafted has "important flaws" that need to 
be addressed.

"But I would hope that some of the criticisms on both sides could be 
dealt with, and the government could move forward. This will have to 
be a compromise bill--it won't satisfy those who want legalization, 
or those who want tougher penalties. As it stands, this bill is a 
clumsy attempt to find a compromise, and I'm not sure why it wasn't 
more carefully crafted."

Bill C-17 could present an opportunity for the government to 
simultaneously address what seem to be two contradictory points of 
view that are both legitimate, Prof. Boyd said.

"On the one hand, we have the argument that adult Canadians should be 
able to use marijuana without being treated as criminals. This is a 
point of view that has majority support through the country, and it's 
quite courageous of the government to be proposing the cultivation of 
up to three plants as part of the bill, and saying that the issue is 
with the problems that large scale grow-ops produce," said Prof. Boyd.

Research conducted earlier this year in British Columbia revealed 
that 25 per cent of grow-ops involve theft of electricity, and a lot 
of environmental damage, he noted.

"It's a highly-unregulated industry that has many of the hallmarks of 
such--violence, theft, and threats to health and public security. 
Unfortunately what government has done in the bill is change the 
maximum from seven to 14 years. Currently, for large-scale grow-ops, 
the sentence is between four and six months. If the government was 
really serious about tough penalties for grow-ops, it would have put 
in minimum penalties. The fact that it instead went to 14-year 
maximum, when nobody is getting the current seven-year maximum, 
suggests that they're playing politics," said Prof. Boyd.

To alleviate some of the major concerns of the pro-decriminalization 
lobby, he said there should be amendments made to the bill to make it 
clear that persons charged with possession will not go before a 
criminal court, and will not have a criminal record.

"The government might also want to consider eliminating existing 
criminal records retroactively, and they should make it clear that 
they're not going to take people to court for small amounts, and not 
going to collect criminal records. Make it clear that marijuana use 
is still going to be discouraged, but is not going to be treated as a 
criminal offence," said Prof. Boyd.

Armed with these and other recommendations for fine-tuning the bill, 
Prof. Boyd said he believes that there is plenty of room for movement 
within the existing legislation.

"I'm hoping to go before the committee and tell them that," Prof. Boyd said.

Canadian Professional Police Association president Tony Cannavino 
counted himself as a foe of the bill, although for very different 
reasons than those espoused by decriminalization supporters, and is 
delighted that the progress of the bill through the House seems to 
have stalled.

"We're absolutely pleased that it didn't get anywhere, and we hope it 
is never reintroduced again in the House of Commons," said Mr. 
Cannavino, who pointed out that his organization would rather see a 
strong national drug policy that sends the right message to Canadians.

"This bill is not sending the right message--there's no strong 
deterrent to growers, and when you really look at the legislation, 
where it talks about growers, and the different sanctions or 
penalties, it's not that big a change," said Mr. Cannavino.

"The bill is inconsistent in how it deals with police discretion," he 
said, and he worries that the provisions related to cultivation 
penalties will also encourage large-scale dealers to recruit 
small-street dealers. "It's incoherent with the quantity of someone 
stopped by a police officer. It talks about under 15 grams, which is 
between 30 and 50 joints. That's a lot of joints," said Mr. Cannavino.

Many politicians don't realize how much 15 grams of marijuana 
represents, said Mr. Cannavino.

"I've talked to a lot of MPs and Senators, and asked, them, what do 
you think 15 grams represents? Ninety to 95 per cent of them don't 
know, and when they realize it's between 30 and 50 joints, they're 
shocked. And when we're talking about a plant of marijuana, and what 
it produces in a year, it's not like a tomato plant, it's like a 
tree. One plant can give a lot of marijuana over a year," said Mr. Cannavino.

Although he'd rather see the bill die before hitting committee, Mr. 
Cannavino said he's been reaching out to potential allies over the 
summer, in preparation for possible hearings this fall.

"We've been talking to justice and public safety ministers, and to a 
lot of teachers and school boards. They're very concerned also, and 
we want to hear them talk to the public and the media."

Another law enforcement association that has been deeply involved in 
the debate over drug policy reform is the Canadian Association of 
Chiefs of Police.

Halifax Deputy Police Chief Chris McNeil, who chairs the 
association's committee on drug abuse, said that with minor 
improvements, the bill could be improved to the point where CACP 
could support it.

"We support the notion that there is a need for cannabis reform 
legislation, but we think that within that legislation, there must be 
room to deal with the problem, and leave discretion for a criminal 
charge to be laid in some circumstances," he said.

It isn't just a question of the amount of marijuana that someone 
might have, he pointed out.

"It's the fact that someone could bring 15 joints to school, and 
there would be no means of doing anything. We agree that there does 
need to be a continuum of options for the police to deal with 
marijuana, using discretion--from diverting people, and not charging 
at all for very small amounts, to charges in the appropriate 
circumstances," he said.

The amounts specified by the bill are not inconsistent with what a 
typical street dealer might carry, he said.

"We also have a problem with the classification of cultivation, from 
one to 25 plants, to 25 to 50 plants. All of a sudden, you're 
basically providing an opportunity for organized crime to divide it 
up between three houses, and have 18-year-olds watching. The idea 
that cultivation can be better or worse is inconsistent with the 
notion of being tough on traffickers," he said.

In general, he said he worries that the bill sends the wrong message 
to Canadian youth.

"The government gave a clear message that this wasn't a good thing, 
and now we're seeing mixed messages. Kids tell you that it's bad to 
drink and drive, and are more likely to toke and drive. This is 
nothing more than the nostalgic view of the joint you smoked in 
college--it's not benign, and it's not harmless," he said.

Like Mr. Cannavino, he said he's prepared to come before the 
committee to present his concerns.

"We've been talking to parents about the potential impact on kids and 
communities. With minor changes, we could support this bill, but I 
can't abandon my schools. If certain amendments could be made around 
cultivation, and discretion, we could back it," he said.

One of the bill's few supporters is the Canadian Centre on Substance 
Abuse. Policy director Patricia Begin pointed out that the CCSA 
issued a policy statement in 1998 that called for converting the 
penalties for the possession of small amounts of marijuana to one 
that would involve fines under the Contraventions Act, as proposed by C-17.

"The issues that we raised at that time still prevail, and it's 
imperative that the government move forward on the bill. Some of the 
appeal court decisions at the provincial level on cannabis possession 
have created an environment that is best described as incredibly confusing."

Some young people, she said, believe that cannabis is legal, or will 
be when the reforms go through.

"The messaging is going to be very important in terms of what the 
bill means, and doesn't mean, and we have to make sure that this does 
not sanction the use of cannabis, which is not a benign substance. 
There are harms associated with it," said Ms. Begin.

The proposed legislation would strike a balance, she said.

"We don't support legalizing cannabis, and there are reasons why the 
board has adopted this particular policy position, such as that the 
law continues to be unevenly applied, and the harm created by a 
criminal record outweighs the harm of marijuana use," said Ms. Begin.

To that end, the CCSA meets regularly with members of the all-party 
drug caucus, as well as the House Justice Committee, to provide 
information to MPs. The association also holds an annual government 
relations day on the Hill, to put CCSA "on the radar," according to 
Ms. Begin, as well as to articulate its views on legislation and policy.

"If the bill comes back to committee in the fall, particularly if 
there are new MPs as members, I would anticipate that the CCSA would 
want to make an appearance, and reiterate our policy position, as 
well as any other issues that might come up," said Ms. Begin.

Osgoode Hall law professor and long-time proponent of cannabis reform 
Alan Young said he believes that there is no future for the current bill.

"From the outset, when it was introduced two years ago, I never 
believed that it would pass. It's one of those fence-straddling 
bills, where the government is trying to please both sides of the 
debate, and ends up pleasing neither," said Prof. Young.

The proposed legislation doesn't go far enough for activists, and too 
far for prohibitionists, Prof. Young said.

"The government is going to have to make up its mind, and come up 
with a principled position. It can't play politics on this issue. 
Part of the strategy has been to say, 'Look, we're trying to help 
you, but we can't get this done.' The bill has already died twice, so 
to die a third time is consistent, and you'd think that if a bill 
died twice, the government would take the opportunity to push it 
through the third time, but instead, they put it on the back-burner," 
said Prof. Young.

To push a bill like this through a minority Parliament requires 
political will, he said, and a movement of individuals willing to 
stand up for their beliefs, like the one that lobbied for same-sex marriage.

"The gay community has become a fairly effective and powerful lobby 
community, but the marijuana community is completely inept when it 
comes to lobbying. The people who are vocal and willing to take a 
stand are fairly young, and have no influence, and the people who are 
older, and have influence, choose to remain silent. What we need is 
for the Pierre Bertons of the world to come forward, and explain how 
they were able to receive the Order of Canada while using marijuana, 
but few people are willing to do so," said Prof. Young.

The marijuana movement is in desperate need of spokespeople from 'the 
establishment,' he said.

"We need politicians and Canadians to realize that this isn't a 
hippie issue, or young people going through their first identity 
crisis. This is a product that has been used for thousands of years, 
and many people over 30 consume it regularly. You don't get things 
done based on principal, and what's right. Politics is about interest 
groups and satisfaction, and that's why this issue ends up on the back burner."

Prof. Young also points to fractures within the marijuana community 
itself as part of the problem.

"Every year, there are a number of associations formed, but for 
reasons I can't explain, there's never been a unified approach. It's 
almost like the hip-hop situation, where there is a divide between 
the east and west coasts. More of my time now is spent mediating and 
trying to placate various groups, because when you come very close to 
achieving your goal, it creates optimism and enthusiasm. When you 
fail, there is a tendency for the movement -- all movements -- to 
turn against themselves, and A is pointing at B saying 'You took the 
wrong strategy,' and B is pointing at A and saying, 'You're an embarrassment.'"

Meanwhile, Mr. Oscapella admitted to being discouraged by what he 
sees as apathy on the part of many marijuana users.

"I've been working on this for years, and I get progressively less 
patient with pot smokers who sit back and do nothing. I'm more 
interested in working with people who are doing something themselves 
to push for reform, or are in a position where they need to be 
helped, like medical marijuana users. It bothers me that I have to 
waste so much time on an issue when the thousands of Canadians who 
use cannabis are sitting back and saying, 'It doesn't bother me.' I'm 
not interested in fighting the marijuana issue for them," said Mr. Oscapella.

But although Mr. Oscapella's openly frustrated with the current state 
of the decriminalization lobby, he's still prepared to take his best 
shot at persuading politicians to rethink the bill if invited to 
appear before committee this fall--and he's already working on his 
speaking notes.

"Why do we never ask politicians to justify the status quo, and 
assume that just because something has always been that way, that 
it's the right thing to do," he asked.

"I'll challenge them to show me that the current prohibitionist model 
works, before you start interfering with the liberty of Canadians, 
and fostering grow-ops. No one can do it, and if I go before the 
committee, that's the tack I'll take."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth