Pubdate: Thu, 28 Aug 2014
Source: Orangeville Citizen (CN ON)
Copyright: 2014 Orangeville Citizen
Contact:  http://www.citizen.on.ca/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2529

POT POLICY: A MAJOR ELECTION ISSUE?

At this point, it would seem to be almost inevitable that marijuana
will be a major issue in next year's federal election.

Unless Canada's three major political parties change their present
stance on the matter, their respective positions would seem to be
miles apart.

But a closer look at the issue will lead to a conclusion that there is
really precious little difference between the positions taken by
Liberal leader Justin Trudeau and NDP leader Thomas Mulcair.

Mr. Trudeau got a lot of publicity (and more than a little criticism)
earlier this year when he came out for legalization of marijuana.
Current Liberal policy, if implemented, would see pot sales regulated
and taxed like tobacco, the regulations including a prohibition of
sales to minors.

Thus far, the NDP hasn't gone that far, party policy simply favouring
"decriminalization." However, in reality, that's tantamount to
legalization, since under our constitution it would be left up to each
province to decide whether to ban or just regulate its production and
sale.

The political debate over marijuana legalization may well intensify in
the wake of recent editorials and opinion pieces here and in the
United States, where a federal law passed 44 years ago banned both
production and possession of the substance, but where some states have
purported to legalize its recreational use.

In Canada, our current federal government, which, unlike the U.S.
government, has sole responsibility for criminal law, has moved on two
fronts - increasing the penalties for both trafficking and possession
of marijuana while permitting some production and sale for medical
use.

This strange situation has led to a bizarre debate - held recently in
Caledon and likely to surface soon in Orangeville - as to whether
production of "medical marijuana" should take place indoors or outside
on farms.

Although the farming community would obviously favour participation in
a potentially lucrative new crop, municipal politicians can be counted
on to favour a hydroponic approach that means more local employment,
occupation of empty former industrial sites and more property tax revenue.

Of course, that debate would end if legalization proved that the
product could be produced more cheaply outdoors.

The position taken by the New York Times in an editorial last month
was that the question of legalization should be left up to individual
U.S. states. It concluded that the federal ban has inflicted "great
harm on society just to prohibit a substance far less dangerous than
alcohol."

Marijuana for recreational use went on sale in Colorado Jan. 1 and
Washington State followed suit last month. Oregon and Alaska will vote
on the matter in November.

Here, the federal Liberals argue that legalization is a "smarter" way
of dealing with the issue because it would take away the pot market
from organized crime and gangs, while also ensuring a better system of
addressing the effects of marijuana use on individual health and
communities.

Deputy Liberal leader Ralph Goodale welcomed the Times editorial,
which he termed "serious comment with a lot of intellectual heft
behind it that makes the point that the current regime of absolute
prohibition doesn't work," particularly when it came to keeping pot
from youths. "All of the profit is ending up in the hands of gangs,"
he told the Ottawa Citizen, "and society is no healthier and no safer.
So surely there is room for intelligent discussion about how to do it
better." (It remains to be seen whether in an election year that will
be possible.)

It's surely ironic that among tobacco, alcohol and marijuana, the
proven killer drug is also the least regulated.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt