Pubdate: Wed, 20 Jan 2016
Source: Edmonton Journal (CN AB)
Copyright: 2016 The Edmonton Journal
Website: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/134
Author: Gregory Bott
Page: A6

CHANGES TO MARIJUANA LAW SHOULDN'T BE RUSHED

Wide consultation needed, particularly on safety concerns, writes
Gregory Bott.

With a federal Liberal majority, legalization of marijuana has moved
from humorous rhetoric to an inevitable reality. As many of us are
still in post-election shock, we suffer from bias assimilation: the
inability to separate how one views an elected official from the
decisions that that person makes. That is, could this be a rational
decision? It certainly is a departure from the tough-on-crime
approach, which has traditionally transcended into votes.

Decriminalization of acts is often (or should be) benchmarked against
whether the behaviour is sufficiently serious enough to warrant
criminal sanctions, whether the act could be dealt with by other
remedies, whether they conflict harm on others (or oneself ), whether
it is enforceable in practice, and whether or not the penalty is
proportionate to the seriousness of the offence.

Although marijuana has held a criminal stigma in our society for many
decades, criminalization of social usage does not fare well when held
against more logical criteria. Criminalization, and an issuance of
punishment, should not be taken lightly by any government. It can be
argued that possession of small amounts earmarked for personal usage
is not sufficient to justify criminality. Nor can it any longer be
argued that criminality is a proportionate response.

A recurring theme among enforcement officials in all corners of the
world is the cost and practicality of enforcing the unenforceable.
With a significant portion of the population having used or socially
using, the behaviour is either unenforced or enforcement resources are
wasted, when they could be reallocated toward more serious crimes, and
crimes of which fit the criteria for being criminal.

When it is enforced, penalization tends to fall onto the homeless, the
youth, the poor, and individuals holding underprivileged
socio-demographic characteristics, which often find themselves in
public spaces - social spaces (streets, parks, etc.) of which our
commercialized society has deemed it unacceptable to undertake such
activities. Meanwhile, others escape unscathed, smoking at their
leisure in the comfort of their homes. Criminalization therefore tends
to suppress the already most vulnerable.

Harm to others is a major influence for keeping marijuana a criminal
offence. Thus, if decriminalized, the government has a lot of work to
do to mitigate harm unto others. For example, the government needs to
fully understand the detection and implications of drugging and
driving, workplace safety and productivity, and policies around
smoking in public places, in vehicles with children, or in places
children are likely to be (the list goes on). Studies demonstrating
the links between teen marijuana smoking and permanent damage to
learning ability and decreased IQ cannot be ignored. Thus, the impacts
on youth need to be the focal point in any type of reform.

There also needs to be a balance between employer and public intrusion
and public safety. Should medical professionals be able to perform
duties under the influence? And should employers be able to intrude
into the personal lives of employees in the interest of safety? And do
we possess the right technology to detect drugging and driving? These
are quite important, but are simply details that can be work out with
extensive research, consultation, and examining the results of
jurisdictions that have pioneered ahead of us.

Legislation should not be rushed. Proper consultation - getting the
doctors, lawyers, psychologists, convicted criminals, MADD, and users
in the same room - can surely overcome such details, minimizing them
as overarching barriers to legalization.

Self-harm can be better mitigated through regulation than under our
current scheme, centred on prohibition. Only once usage is recognized
and accepted can social programs adequately respond. Content and
strength can be regulated to ensure harm minimization. We can also
then shift to a conversation focused on acceptable quantities, places
of enjoyment, effective employment monitoring, and away from
penalizing the underprivileged.

I am anti-drug, but my ideological views for criminalizing such
activity unfortunately do not align with a reasoned analytical
approach. With respect to the marijuana debate, I advocate a rational,
logical, and just approach, over a sociological approach focused on
political and emotional decisions.

Dr. Gregory Bott has taught university courses in the areas of strategic 
positioning, human resources and small business management, and has 
researched and published in the areas of board governance and leadership.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt