Pubdate: Tue, 30 Jul 2013
Source: Globe and Mail (Canada)
Copyright: 2013 The Globe and Mail Company
Contact:  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/168
Author: Lawrence Martin

ON POT, TRUDEAU PUTS HIMSELF IN THE VANGUARD

In the U.S. election of 2008, the proportion of youth who voted in 
the state of Washington was 10 per cent. In the election of 2012, 
with the question of marijuana legalization on the ballot, it was 22 per cent.

In other states where the question was put, Colorado and Oregon, the 
increases in youth turnout were notable as well. With the under-30 
crowd voting strongly in favour of legalization, two of the states, 
Colorado and Washington, passed the measure. Few would be surprised 
if other states followed before long.

In advocating the legalization of marijuana, Liberal Leader Justin 
Trudeau, who wants to appeal to a new generation of voters, was no 
doubt aware of these numbers.

He was likely aware of the long-term trend as well. Some see an 
inevitability on liberalization of drug use comparable to what we 
have seen on the liberalization of laws affecting gays. In April, a 
Pew Research Center poll found that a majority of Americans support 
legalizing pot for the first time since the centre began polling in 
1969. That was back before Richard Nixon was declared his war on drugs.

As in the United States, Canadian public opinion has moved into 
majority-in-favour territory. Yet despite the changing times, the 
Conservatives, more than 40 years after Mr. Nixon, have been waging 
their own war on drugs, mainly soft drugs. Since they came to power 
in 2006, arrests for marijuana possession have increased 41 per cent. 
Hundreds of thousands of people have been taken in on marijuana 
related charges. The weed is treated as being truly evil by our 
governing authorities. It's timewarp politics, stuff that appeals to 
the Conservatives' hard-core base.

The issue, obviously not as important as gay rights, has not garnered 
much public notice. But with the young Mr. Trudeau taking it up, it 
will now. He is taking a gamble here, but it was the obvious thing 
for him to do. In terms of new-age appeal, he didn't have much in the 
policy window to show he was all that different from conventional 
political types. The move on drug liberalization will help. It puts 
him brightly on the progressive stage, it contrasts him with the 
fogey class of leaders and it will increase voter turnout among youth.

During the Nixon era, it was Justin's father, Pierre, who appointed 
the Le Dain Commission on the non-medical use of drugs. After an 
exhaustive study, the commission recommended the repeal of 
prohibition against simple possession of cannabis. The thrust of the 
report was that harm from criminalization outweighed harm from 
legalization. In 2002, a Senate study recommended legalization, plus 
amnesty for past convictions.

Elizabeth May's Green Party has been out front on the issue, in 
favour of legalization. The New Democrats have been in the halfway 
house, supporting decriminalization but not legalization. I suspect 
they are not pleased at Mr. Trudeau's gambit. He has poached from 
their leftwing flank and made the issue his own.

Megan Leslie, one of the NDP's deputy leaders, criticized the move as 
political pandering. She says there is no evidence that Mr. Trudeau 
has thought through the thicket of issues raised by legalization. We shall see.

The issue is one the Conservatives will surely try to use to torment 
Mr. Trudeau; Republicans in Washington once went after his father as 
a pot-smoking leftist.

One thing the legalizers can point to is that if you look at 
countries that have gone the liberalization route - Germany, 
Portugal, Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands - there isn't much to 
support scare scenarios raised by opponents. For example, among the 
very young, these countries have rates of cannabis use that are lower 
than present day Canada.

These types of questions aside, the important thing for Mr. Trudeau 
is that the issue helps situate him politically where he wants to be. 
If he can define the terms of debate in the next election as vanguard 
versus rearguard, he wins.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom