Pubdate: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 Source: Victoria Times-Colonist (CN BC) Page: A11 Copyright: 2014 Times Colonist Contact: http://www2.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/letters.html Website: http://www.timescolonist.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/481 Author: David N. Lyon Note: David N. Lyon is a Victoria lawyer. Referenced: CAMH releases new Cannabis Policy Framework: http://mapinc.org/url/sCod1dXx POT PROHIBITION BENEFITS THE WRONG PEOPLE Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Alcohol prohibition was a dismal failure. We have not fared any better with marijuana prohibition. This has now been acknowledged by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. It is regrettable, but not surprising, that the current government has chosen to reject the CAMH position. There is no question that alcohol is far more harmful that marijuana. Consider the following: Alcohol can, and does, cause serious health problems. Alcohol has a devastating impact on innocent third parties. Drinking and driving kills people. That is not open to debate. Estimates will vary, but the annual toll in Canada is somewhere in the thousands, and in the U.S., it is in the tens of thousands. Most of us have first-hand experience of the way in which alcohol impacts our ability to drive, either through personal experience or having seen others. Alcohol also brings out the worst in some people. Statistics in the U.S. suggest that up to three million violent crimes are committed annually by people who have been drinking. This is consistent with my own experience of representing criminal defendants for over 25 years. I have dealt with all manner of people who have committed violent crimes while intoxicated. Many of these people were otherwise productive, law-abiding citizens. It is very unlikely that they would have committed violent crimes without over-indulgence in alcohol. Innocent third parties include those who suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome. This tragedy results from the consumption of alcohol. On the other hand, there is no credible evidence linking the consumption of marijuana with violent crime. There is, however, considerable evidence linking violent crime with the distribution of marijuana. This is because prohibition provides financial incentives to those who have no allegiance to the values of a civilized society. Prohibition also diminishes respect for the law. By now, most people understand that the film Reefer Madness was a work of fiction. They also, based on their experience with others, or on personal experimentation, are aware that marijuana is relatively benign when compared to alcohol. Every police officer I have ever spoken to would far rather deal with a room full of stoners than a room full of drunks. Prohibition is not, and never was, the answer. We should have learned that a long time ago. The answer is legalization with regulated distribution. This has a number of benefits over other approaches. In addition to tax revenue, purchasers have the assurance that the product is pure and unadulterated. Available evidence suggests the price would be lower. Who is going to pay double for a black-market product that may be spiked with who knows what? For those who drink alcohol, have you ever seriously considered checking out a more expensive black market product with no assurance of quality? It is unrealistic to think that legalization and regulation would eliminate the use of marijuana by those who are underage. However, under the present regime, marijuana is produced and distributed by people who are willing to break the law without hesitation. Does anyone seriously think these people check the ID of customers at the door? A legalized, regulated regime would include production and distribution by people who are far more likely to respect the law, and to refuse to sell to young people. The choice then becomes: either expensive black market product, no assurance of purity, no real information on the proportion of active ingredients and ready access for young people; OR, less expensive product, purity assured, proportion of active ingredients described right there on the label and more effective restriction on access by young people. To summarize, prohibition is expensive and ineffective. It is destructive, because it causes far more harm that it avoids. It causes gang warfare, and innocent third parties die. It promotes disrespect for the law, because people have come to understand that marijuana is far less harmful than alcohol. It harms individuals, saddling them with the stigma of a criminal record for engaging in an activity that does not cause significant harm to innocent third parties, and forcing users to take risks related to contamination. Ask yourself: Who benefits the most from prohibition? The answer is clear. Those who benefit are those involved in the illegal production and distribution of marijuana. Many of these people are utterly ruthless, and have no allegiance to the norms of a civilized society. The prohibition approach allows some of these people to become rich and powerful. How does that make our society a better place? - --- MAP posted-by: Richard