Pubdate: Fri, 21 Apr 2017
Source: Globe and Mail (Canada)
Copyright: 2017 The Globe and Mail Company
Contact:  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/168
Author: Dan Malleck
Page: A11

WHEN LEGALIZING MARIJUANA, LESS IS MORE

Covering every detail in legislation would give the system little
flexibility to adapt, and may set it up for failure

The Liberal government's cannabis legislation has drawn condemnation
and praise. Whether they approve or not, many observers criticize the
lack of details on essential aspects of legalization. Legislative
lapses include details on where cannabis will be sold, packaging,
advertising and how it will be taxed. While such gaps may appear to be
weaknesses, they actually demonstrate the legislation's strength.

Dealing with the transition from prohibition to regulation is tricky,
involving many unknowns related to consumers' behaviour in the new
system, the actions of those who had profited under prohibition and
criticism from those who see the substance as dangerous, even immoral.

Canada faced similar problems at the end of liquor Prohibition, and
the way those problems were managed is a lesson that can be applied to
cannabis. A quick scan of the end of Prohibition will show why the
gaps in the government's marijuana legislation are some of its
greatest strengths.

Alcohol had been seen for decades as a terrible scourge to the country
and humanity. Prohibition was held up as a resounding victory to the
progressive forces who sought to elevate the downtrodden; downtrodden
as they were not by rapacious capitalism, but by the bottle to which
they turned to ease the pain of miserable lives.

But Prohibition went too far, and the popularity of alcohol opened a
massive vacuum into which stepped criminals. Crime got a massive boost
from Prohibition because it was organized: There were networks of
distribution and staff to secure and sell the stuff. The underground
economy was massive. The murders and mayhem we see in gangster films
did exist, but probably not in such excess. Speakeasies existed too,
although many illegal watering holes contained less glitz and opulence
and more secrecy and squalor. People wanted a drink.

When Prohibition ended in Canada, the government system that replaced
it needed to balance the demands of drinkers with the concerns of the
critics. The best way to do this was to implement a system where
vendors had no vested interest in profit - the state-run liquor
stores were concerned with control, not with revenue. Notwithstanding
that revenue from legal liquor sales in Ontario essentially wiped out
the government's debt in a matter of years, staff of the Liquor
Control Board were constantly reminded that control was literally
their middle name.

Disinterested management was one element of success; the other was
flexibility. The liquor-control authorities may have set up a system
that seemed rigid in its implementation, but it was flexible enough to
make changes on the fly. If you read the Liquor Control Act of 1927,
or the 1934 revision that permitted public drinking in beverage rooms,
you will not find many details about how much could be sold, to whom
and when. This was the responsibility of authorities who could adjust
their regulations as the system unfolded. If one element of the
regulation did not work, they could simply tweak it until they got the
balance right. Moreover, if something didn't work in one part of the
province but did work in another, LCBO staff could adjust their
expectations. There was a degree of authorized subjectivity to ensure
compliance, reduce the problems of overuse and try to keep everyone
happy.

This is why the cannabis legislation has gaps, and why it needs them.
Writing every fine detail into legislation would then require an act
of Parliament to make any small change. This would be onerous,
unworkable and set the system up for failure. Colorado's legal-
cannabis regime was instituted through a detailed constitutional
amendment that laid out most of the fine details of the control that
would be put on the system. This was essential for such an amendment
to gain support from suspicious citizens, but might prove problematic
in the long run. For instance, to change the amount of weed a visitor
could buy would require another constitutional amendment, something
even more difficult than legislation.

The agility of regulators to make changes as the system unfolds and a
respect for regionalism - represented by punting responsibility for
many details to the provinces - are necessary structures to make
legislation work. In a country as large and diverse as Canada, with a
range of opinions on cannabis that vary across the country, it is the
best way to ensure success.

- -------------------------------------------------------------

Dan Malleck is an associate professor of Health Sciences at Brock 
University in St. Catharines, Ont., and the author of Try to Control 
Yourself: The Regulation of Public Drinking in Post- Prohibition Ontario
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt