Pubdate: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 Source: Orangeville Citizen (CN ON) Copyright: 2011 Orangeville Citizen Contact: http://www.citizen.on.ca/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2529 Author: Dan Pelton, Staff Reporter LOCALS WEIGHING IN ON GLOBAL 'POT' DEBATE The debate on whether marijuana should be legalized, or at least decriminalized, has been simmering for years. Decriminalization involves merely removing an offence from the Criminal Code, while allowing the activity to be prohibited by other means such as making it a Provincial Offence or permitting municipalities to prohibit by bylaw. Legalization of an activity that is now a criminal offence would allow governments to regulate but not prohibit. It has recently brought to the forefront, though, after the Global Commission on Drug Policy (GCDP) issued a report that concluded that criminalization and repression have failed. Arecent CBC story said the commission recommended governments consider decriminalizing the use of drugs, especially marijuana, to undermine the power of organized crime. The 19-member GCDP consisted of globally prominent individuals from across the political spectrum, including former Reagan administration members George P. Schultz and Paul Volcker, former UN Secretary- General Kofi Annan, writers Carlos Fuentes and Mario Vargas Llosa, and British billionaire Richard Branson. But Shelburne police chief Kent Moore indicated in an interview that decriminalization would not have the desired effect of taking organized crime out of the equation. It has been accepted by many that organized crime's chain of finance often involves revenues from marijuana financing other illicit drug activities and criminal activities. The logic dictates that legalization or decriminalization would shift base funds from criminals and put them into a financial lurch. Chief Moore doubts that decriminalization would have such a significant impact. He reasons that if legalization/decriminalization denied them a Canadian customer base, the criminals could simply start exporting homegrown pot to the U.S. in exchange for such things as harder drugs and/or weapons. As well, Chief Moore expressed concern that decriminalization could put the judicial system on "a slippery slope. If we legalize marijuana, what would be next? For example, what's to stop somebody from then saying 'why not legalize ecstacy? It's not that bad.'" There is a contention that marijuana is not the "gateway" drug to more dangerous drugs; an argument presented by antilegalization forces. Studies have concluded that it is statistically far more likely for a casual beer drinker to become an alcoholic than it is for a casual pot smoker to become addicted to drugs such as cocaine and heroin. Chief Moore says that is not his experience. "Very few people start using coke and heroin without first smoking marijuana," he pointed out. "Marijuana is illegal and it's highly addictive." An impromptu poll of some Orangeville residents indicates people feel marijuana decriminalization is an option worth considering. In Canada, the ruling Conservatives campaign to toughen marijuana laws, including proposals in federal Bill C-15 that anyone caught with five or more marijuana plants face a mandatory minimum of six months in prison. The Green Party's platform includes steps towards the legalization and taxation of pot. In 2003, the Liberal government under Jean Chretien moved to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana, but still have possession illegal. The difference was that those caught with lesser amounts would no longer get criminal record or face jail time; they would face fines similar to parking tickets. A straw poll conducted by this paper obtained the opinions of two individuals over 60, two between 50 and 60, three between 40 and 50, three between 30 and 40, three between 20 and 30 and one under 20. Of the 14 respondents, 11 supported either legalization or decriminalization, two spoke against and one had arguments both for and against. While obviously a small sampling, it gave an indication that support for, or opposition to, the legalization or decriminalization spreads over a wide age range. All respondents over 50 spoke in support, while two of the three between 20 and 30 had their reservations. The current marijuana laws "remind me of prohibition," said a 59-year-old. How much money do we lose in not legalizing marijuana? Billions, probably." Added a man over 60: "If it helps people, medically, then why not?" A respondent in her 20s, speaking firmly against either decriminalization or legalization, reasoned: "If anything impairs your judgment to that extent, I don't support it." Chief Moore presented an example to support that statement. Shelburne police responded to a complaint of an impaired driver on Main Street. The driver, who crossed into the oncoming traffic lane and ended up on the curb, had no alcohol in his system and was under the influence of narcotics. "Legalization or decriminalization will encourage the use of other illicit drugs and compromise people's safety and well being," said Chief Moore. Another respondent in the 20-29 age group also had concerns, but for different reasons. Her support for legalization/decriminalization was tempered by a distrust of government, fearing it would encourage addictive additives to be added that would promote more sales and more tax revenue. "Then again," she said, "I don't want to see innocent potheads in jail. That's a huge waste of taxpayers' dollars." A supporter in his 50s argued that North American governments are "light years behind the times. It was established 20 years ago that they were losing the supposed war on drugs." An opponent in the 40- 49 age group countered that legalization would benefit organized crime, rather than put it at a disadvantage. He contended that people receiving legal medical marijuana would sell it for profit, rather than consume it themselves. At a news conference launching the Global Commission on Drug Policy's report, former Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who chaired the commission, said ending the war on drugs does not imply complete liberalization. "The fact is that the war on drugs is a failure," he said. "Being a failure is not saying that you have nothing to do with drugs. You have to act. The drug are infiltrating the local power in several parts of the world. Corruption is increasing and the consumption of drugs is also increasing." Instead of punishing drug users, the commission argued that governments should "end the criminalization, marginalization and stigmatization of people who use drugs but who do no harm to others." Chief Moore stopped short of fully endorsing the concept of mandatory sentences for offenders. "Each case needs to be judged on its own merit. Somebody being up for the first time, should not be judged like somebody who is up for the tenth time." - --- MAP posted-by: Richard R Smith Jr.