Pubdate: Thu, 05 Apr 2007
Source: Vue Weekly (CN AB)
Copyright: 2007, Vue Weekly.
Contact:  http://www.vueweekly.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2918
Author: Murray Sinclair
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mjcn.htm (Cannabis - Canada)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/hr.htm (Harm Reduction)

WAIT ... YOU MEAN WEED'S NOT LEGAL YET?

Decriminalization Remains A Pipe Dream In Current Political Climate

It was the subject of international hype a few years ago: the great 
liberal northern bastion of Canada was planning to decriminalize 
marijuana, snubbing its nose at its neo-conservative southern 
neighbour's War on Drugs.

But the Liberal government that introduced the proposed 
decriminalization law let it die, and its Conservative successor has 
promised not to revive it.

Nonetheless, marijuana advocates can still see the criminal 
prohibition of pot being chiseled away through court cases, economic 
changes and the simple on-the-ground reality.

"The Conservatives definitely set it back, but there are many things 
happening," said Ched Ander, an Edmonton pot activist.

Decriminalization should not be confused with legalization, which 
would remove all legal penalties and fines against growing, selling, 
possessing and using marijuana.

It also shouldn't be mixed up with the legal use of marijuana for 
medical purposes, which the federal government permitted after an 
Ontario court decision in 2000.

Health Canada reacted to the ruling with a set of regulations on 
consuming medical marijuana, even contracting a supplier to produce 
dried pot and seeds in an old Manitoba mineshaft. The most recent 
political push to decriminalize pot for general use began in late 
2002, when a Senate committee suggested that marijuana was less 
harmful than alcohol and should be regulated in a similar way.

A House of Commons committee followed up by suggesting that criminal 
charges were too harsh of a penalty for possessing small amounts of 
marijuana, and suggested decriminalizing possession of less than 30 grams.

The bill originally tabled in May 2003 under former Liberal Prime 
Minister Jean Chretien decreed that possession of less than 15 grams 
should be legalized, but that legislation died on the order paper in the House.

A marijuana reform bill was introduced again in February 2004 and 
again that November under the minority government of Chretien's 
successor, Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin. Martin promised the 
law would be a priority but it never got past the committee stage.

"The Government of Canada believes that while cannabis use must be 
discouraged, possession of small amounts should not result in a 
criminal record," read a news backgrounder on the last Liberal bill.

It called for a $150 fine for adults and a $100 fine for youths 
caught with up to 15 grams of marijuana, and a $300 fine for adults 
and a $200 fine for youths for possession of one gram or less of 
cannabis resin or hashish. The fines would have gone up to $400 for 
adults and $250 for youths in possession of these amounts while 
operating a vehicle, committing a serious crime or if found in or 
near a school.

Possession of between 15 and 30 grams would have either resulted in 
fines or six months in jail and/or a fine up to $1 000 for repeat 
offenders at the discretion of the police officer and the court.

"These reforms would also increase accountability among offenders, 
who would get a ticket instead of a simple warning, as is the case 
for about half of the individuals police find in possession of 
cannabis," a press release said at the time.

The last Liberal bill proposed to replace the penalty for growing 
pot, which is punishable by up to seven-years imprisonment, with a 
sliding scale depending on the amount grown.

One to three plants would have resulted in a $500 fine, halved for 
youths, while growing four to 25 could have landed growers in jail up 
to five years, and more than 50 could have meant 14 years.

John Conroy, an Abbotsford, BC lawyer with the National Organization 
for the Reform of Marijuana Laws in Canada, said he didn't support 
the Liberal proposal.

"It would have resulted in even more people being charged" for pot 
offences, he said.

True decriminalization would mean turning over pot laws to the 
provinces, which are responsible for non-criminal statutes like 
motor-vehicle regulations, Conroy added.

Ander said the only good aspect of the proposed Liberal law was that 
certain people caught with pot would end up with no criminal record.

But he said the law did nothing to deal with the many problems that 
have popped up relating to growing and obtaining marijuana for 
medicinal purposes.

Many doctors are still hesitant to prescribe pot and insist on 
pharmaceutical products, a decision that Ander said treats patients 
like guinea pigs instead of letting them use a known treatment.

He spoke of one spina bifida patient who was denied pot to help his 
condition in favour of the pharmaceutical oxycodone and then became 
addicted to that drug.

Edmontonian activist Ken Ealey said medical growers selling pot for 
compassion at a lower price have run afoul of organized crime gangs 
selling it for profit, with sometimes-fatal consequences.

Ealey, who found marijuana treated his migraines after trying a 
series of pharmaceuticals, called the Liberal law "a cop out."

"It was another cash grab," added Ander, pointing to its series of fines.

He said the Western Canadian underground marijuana industry generates 
about $5 billion in revenue, which trickles up to the above-ground 
economy, benefiting governments in general.

His views mirror those of the conservative Fraser Institute, which 
predicted that legalizing and taxing cannabis would generate $2 
billion in revenue for the BC government alone.

But Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives are taking a 
law-and-order approach, after being elected on a platform that 
includes mandatory minimum prison sentences and large monetary fines 
for serious drug offenders, including marijuana.

Nobody from the opposition Liberals responded to Vue's questions on 
whether the party's pot position had changed since it was voted out of office.

Karl Belanger, a press secretary for NDP Leader Jack Layton, said his 
party does include marijuana decriminalization in its policy book, 
but advocates health-based harm-reduction policies.

"This includes accessible treatment ... and a review of the negative 
impacts and social and economic costs of prohibitionist policies that 
criminalize drug users and exacerbate community impacts," he said.

The NDP point-person for drug policy, Vancouver MP Libby Davies, 
plans to introduce a motion in Parliament "to focus national 
attention on the need for policy and law reform concerning illegal 
drug use," Belanger added.

A subgroup within the party, eNDProhibition, seeks to legalize 
marijuana and replace the "'war on drugs' with a non-punitive system 
based upon accurate education, reduction of harm, regulated access 
and responsible use," said its website.

NORML's Conroy dismisses political promises to decriminalize, 
recalling how the Liberals broke past pledges going back to the 1970s 
under former prime minister Pierre Trudeau.

"Politicians only do stuff that gets them re-elected," he said, 
fingering all the parties for not reforming the pot laws. "They don't 
have the guts to do it."

Conroy doesn't see decriminalization as being an issue in any 
upcoming national election as "most people don't care at all. Most 
think it's legal."

The lawyer said there's been a gradual lessening of marijuana 
penalties, with offences that would result in jail time 30 years ago 
netting a $100 fine today.

Courts just can't get excited about pot prosecutions, he said, as 
they are more preoccupied with violent and property crimes.

The activists favour legalization, but say marijuana must also be 
regulated to ban additives and ensure quality and ought to be kept 
out of the hands of tobacco companies.

"I do worry," Ander said, concerned that these companies would 
glamorize pot and push it on children. "That would be disgusting."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman