cannabisnews.com: Don't Legalize Pot, Decriminalize It





Don't Legalize Pot, Decriminalize It
Posted by CN Staff on September 07, 2002 at 08:50:49 PT
Opinion
Source: Globe and Mail 
The best argument in support of legalizing cannabis can be found at a high school near you. Canada is awash in high-strength, homegrown marijuana. In urging that the drug be made available to anybody 16 or older, the special Senate committee whose recommendations were released this week has underscored a reality long familiar to teachers, police and substance-abuse experts: The punitive laws now in place do not work and will not.
In the 12-to-17 age group alone, by the committee's reckoning, roughly one million Canadians have smoked pot in the past year, and as many as a quarter of that number do so daily.Yet in advocating a radical course that would make this country's cannabis laws the most liberal in the Western world, and open up a bitter divide among Canadians, the committee has gone too far. The status quo is not an option, but there is a less radical choice -- far from a perfect one, but the best of a bad lot and one whose implementation is long overdue. In line with numerous European countries, Canada needs to downgrade the seriousness of simple marijuana possession by decriminalizing it.This compromise solution is also familiar. More than 30 years have passed since Canada's Le Dain commission urged that cannabis be decriminalized; in the interim, the only thing that's really changed is the source and potency of the product. These days, countless thousands of illicit hydroponic "grow-ops" in Canada are churning out marijuana, much of it destined for the U.S. market and all of it boasting a THC content (the ingredient that gets you high) that dwarfs what used to be the norm.What has not changed is the core Le Dain premise that attaching criminal penalties to marijuana use does far more harm than good. The present law is widely and contemptuously ignored. Not only does it still gobble up large amounts of badly needed police and court resources, but also, and worst of all, thousands of pot smokers are saddled each year with a criminal record substantially more injurious to their future than the haze of a head full of marijuana smoke, particularly if they want to enter the United States.For that reason, the Senate committee's recommendation that an amnesty wipe clean the slate for the roughly half-million Canadians convicted of cannabis possession is welcome and should be acted upon. Equally laudable is its call for better access to medically prescribed marijuana for people undergoing cancer chemotherapy or suffering chronic pain.But as was realized long ago in the Netherlands, where the famous coffee shops belie the fact that cannabis technically remains banned, taking the leap to outright legalization would pose enormous difficulties.Fierce opposition from fellow members of the European Union has been the chief reason for the 26-year Dutch strategy of disregarding its cannabis laws rather than scrapping them. That hostility would pale compared to the howl of rage from south of the border were Canada to sanction and license a marijuana distribution system, as the Senate report recommends. Agreed, this country's drug policies should not be dictated by the United States. But neither should anyone underestimate the lasting cross-border complications that would instantly ensue.State control of the marijuana trade would crimp criminals' profits, the Senate committee says. In other countries that argument might hold water. But Draconian U.S. laws about drug cultivation have built Canada's marijuana-export business into a behemoth. Police and others gauge that hundreds of tonnes of expensive pot are grown and smuggled south, notably from British Columbia and largely by the Hells Angels and other organized-crime groups.If marijuana use were regulated in Canada tomorrow, that trade would continue unabated. And given that the Senate report calls for a tetrahydrocannabinol ceiling of 13 per cent, and that plenty of marijuana aficionados prefer something stronger, it would be remarkable if some of that marijuana did not remain at home to compete with the officially sanctioned product.The health factor, too, seems to have received short shrift in this report. The harm caused by marijuana has long been in dispute; committee chairman and Tory Senator Pierre Claude Nolin may be correct in asserting that alcohol and tobacco pose greater risks. But expanding the list of state-approved vices to include cannabis would dispatch the unmistakable message that its hazards are minimal.And they are not. It is one thing to argue that drug abuse should primarily be dealt with as a medical and social issue. But it's quite another to suggest, even implicitly, that drug-taking doesn't matter, least of all among teenagers as young as 16. No, smoking marijuana will probably not turn you into a drug addict. But yes, it can make you seriously (if temporarily) stupid, and commonly results in slowed reaction and a short-term memory loss that is, to say the least, at odds with scholastic achievement. Nor can the dangers to the smoker's lungs and (in the case of young people) hormonal development be dismissed.Federal Justice Minister Martin Cauchon knows all this, which is why he favours decriminalizing simple marijuana use, which would reduce an offence to roughly the same level as a traffic ticket. A House of Commons committee report later this year is expected to call for the same. Decriminalizing pot would still leave the issue in a grey legal area. But for now, it's the right way to go. Source: Globe and Mail (Canada)Published: Saturday, September 7, 2002 – Print Edition, Page A20Copyright: 2002 The Globe and Mail CompanyContact: letters globeandmail.caWebsite: http://www.globeandmail.ca/Related Articles:Activists, Experts Hail Senate's Report on Pothttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13995.shtmlLegalize Marijuana, Senate Committee Sayshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13989.shtmlPot Should Be Sold to High Schoolers: Senate http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13988.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #11 posted by FoM on September 07, 2002 at 19:26:40 PT
WolfgangWylde
I know I don't underestimate the power of the U.S. When Bush was made President I knew it was going to be very hard but I didn't know how hard. They hate what they consider is "moral sin" and are determined to clean up the USA. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by WolfgangWylde on September 07, 2002 at 19:17:53 PT
I think you've all...
...greatly underestimated the influence the U.S. has over Canadian law, and the force the U.S. will use to wield that influence. If marijuana is legalized, or even decriminalized, it will be because the Canadian courts order it. Their legislators will do no such thing, I don't care how many special commissions recommend it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by VitaminT on September 07, 2002 at 18:30:55 PT
Thanks FoM, I'll check out those links.
actually, I meant to ask folks who they thought were the leading proponents of decrim. I'd like to read up on the various models to see just how they think it would/ should work in practice. I think Michael Massing is one proponent but I'm not sure.we may not like it but i'd bet my bottom dollar that we're going there before we will reach our ultimate goal.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by FoM on September 07, 2002 at 17:54:08 PT
VitaminT
The other night they had a program on WorldLink TV on the satellite and they had three guests for the second hour and one was Dr. Peter Cohen. The lady interviewer asked him what would be a failure of the dutch policy or close to that question. He said that they didn't take it far enough and make provisions for supply and distribution.
Dr. Peter Cohen, Senior Drug Policy advisor to the Dutch government. Dr. Cohen will discuss European models for dealing with drug use and abuse, including programs in his home city of Amsterdam. -- http://www.cedro-uva.org/cohen/
 Worldlink TV to Air Report Card on 'War on Drugs' 
http://cannabisnews.com/news/13/thread13974.shtml
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by VitaminT on September 07, 2002 at 17:43:09 PT
FoM
I'd guess that the story was a compromise acceptable to a majority of the editorial board. But it could also be that it was dictated to them by the chairman of the board. who knows. Decrim. is as far as the Government is likely to go, that much was a forgone conclusion if the words of the various politicians I've heard are to be believed.IMO decrim. is a terrible mistake and we should be emboldened to speak out for true legalization and make CLEAR the differences between the two, but since decrim.'s the likely course I'm interested to see where it goes. I just don't know how they are going to keep organized crime out of the business. Seems to me that decrim. gives organized crooks the best of both worlds - ambiguous regulation laws, a protected market and lower risk. In other words it will still be a fringe business.The Netherlands has decrim. and while it's not perfect - it's much less problematic as public policy than is prohibition. So for now in Canada, decrim. looks like a battle we can win - but it's not an end in itself.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by FoM on September 07, 2002 at 17:06:09 PT
Dankhank
I understand why you are upset but the clue in this article is it doesn't have an author. Any articles with authors have been good. This must be one that they were asked or told to post. That's just my opiniom but it seems like that to me. Doesn't it?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Dankhank on September 07, 2002 at 16:58:01 PT:
Shut Up Globe and Mail
Hey, Globe and Mail ...Were you writing about the need to decrim last week?I think not ...so why do you feel that anyone would care what you say THIS week?You said nothing when you thought you could get away with it, and now you think to weigh in to try to rein in the most progressive notion your country has had lately.Shut Up Glib and Snail as you try to catch up with progressive thought.
Hemp N Stuff
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by jvthc on September 07, 2002 at 16:37:54 PT:
It's incredible..
Just incredible how people seem to think that any change in law somehow delivers a message. There is no such message, especially in the case of children. Legal or not, they think what they think without consulting the law. They're more concerned about what kind of "trouble" they'll get into if they're caught - BY A TEACHER OR PARENT. Until they're adults, the concept of getting caught is "their law" if you will. It doesn't matter that alcohol is legal for adults, and even if it were legal for 14 year olds, it's doubtful most parents would permit the children to consume it. For that matter, the age of sexual consent varies so wildly that in some of the U.S. states, that age is below 14 years. Does that send a signal to kids that sex before puberty is acceptable? Are they copulating at record paces BECAUSE the law allows it? Do they intend to use that in defense of their sexual promiscuity when their parents discover them in action? Frankly, I don't want the government in the message sending business, especially where my children are concerned. If there is ANY message for them to hear, I will be the one delivering it, and the state of law will have not one microscopic thing to do with it!Besides, if there were a message delivered by the current state of law on the subject, without parental guidance, it would be that if you make a mistake with drugs, and get caught be the law, the state will happily ruin your future far worse than the drug itself will do, so don't get CAUGHT doing drugs! They will interpret that to mean they must improve the methods of stealth, keep on hand quantity to a minimum and eat the evidence if ever confronted.The Senate is right to observe that decriminalization isn't a viable interum solution, precisely because it supports the illicit industry, forces users into contact with the underworld, and keeps the market of marijuana (a benign substance compared to all others of its kind) associated with more dangerous drugs.Given a choice between decriminalization and recriminalization, I'd elect for decriminalization. Given a choice to answer the question how I see fit, I'd select legalization, taxation and regulation. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on September 07, 2002 at 15:06:06 PT
Don't Decriminalize Pot, Legalize It!
Marc Emery said it best:
Marc Emery For Mayor
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by John Tyler on September 07, 2002 at 13:25:48 PT
Relegalize it
Last week people would have been satisfied with decrim., but the Canadian Senate report said legalization. Legalization with regulated trade is now the standard. There should be no going back. Decrim. won't do now. The US will just have to get over it. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by BGreen on September 07, 2002 at 11:37:24 PT
The US is the best case for legalization
Take your Gov's suggestion and stop making up crap, Globe and Mail.FULLY LEGALIZE AND GET THE F%&# OUT OF PEOPLES' LIVES!
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment