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