cannabisnews.com: Pot on MP Torsney's Mind 










  Pot on MP Torsney's Mind 

Posted by CN Staff on December 18, 2002 at 19:35:59 PT
Spectator Interview by Chinta Puxley 
Source: Hamilton Spectator  

The last session of Parliament ended on a high note for Paddy Torsney. In the closing days of Parliament, the Burlington Liberal MP found herself talking almost constantly about marijuana. As chair of a parliamentary committee examining the non-medical use of drugs, Torsney's job has been to explain why members are recommending the decriminalization of marijuana. The 13-member, all-party committee recommended people who possess less than 30 grams of pot should get a fine rather than a criminal record. 
A first offence would bring a $200 fine, second offence $500, third conviction $1,000. Marijuana would remain an illegal drug, as Torsney has been repeatedly stressing.Justice Minister Martin Cauchon -- who has said he might introduce decriminalization legislation early next year -- called the recommendations "very interesting, very important."The Spectator asked Torsney to talk about her committee's recommendations.The Spectator: Why does the committee want to decriminalize the possession of marijuana?Torsney: First of all, the committee wants to send a strong message that the possession of marijuana is illegal. We want there to be a strong education campaign about the health issues related to smoking marijuana.But for those people who do smoke marijuana -- and it seems there are a number of Canadians who do on an occasional basis or do at least try it -- we don't want them to get a criminal record. We don't want their future job choices or their ability to travel to be affected.What we think would be more effective, in fact, would be to introduce a regulatory regime that would fine them and that there would be a more likely consequence for their action.Right now, police officers are unevenly applying the law. There are Crown prosecutors choosing to continue cases or not. There are alternative measures in some communities but not in others.In general, that creates a lack of respect for the law and a very confusing picture, particularly for young adults. We think if you are 20 years old and you get a $200 fine, you'll be paying attention. Then you will see there are consequences for your actions.The Spectator: But why shouldn't people have a criminal record or have travel restrictions if they are caught possessing marijuana or if they smoke marijuana?Torsney: There are health risks (to smoking marijuana) but we think the punishment right now could far outweigh the risks to our community or to people's individual health.That's why we give people criminal records. Because they've harmed our community.The Spectator: Why is marijuana any different than any of the other drugs?Torsney: Because Canadians and citizens of the world are continuing to use marijuana in spite of the laws. The current laws are not having an impact on their behaviour.While we are going to continue to demand that it be illegal to possess, we want them to have a different kind of sanction for breaking that, within the 30 grams.The Spectator: What are some of the advantages and disadvantages to bringing in a decriminalized system?Torsney: What we're proposing will be used by police officers to effectively sanction people who break the law. It will be administratively much easier for police officers to write a ticket.It will be administratively much less costly to our judicial system and the consequences will be real and meaningful. Two-hundred dollars to someone who is between 20 and 30 is a heck of a lot of money.The disadvantage is certainly there is some confusion by some Americans as to what we're doing and that's creating some concern. There is a disadvantage if you don't do the other things which is communicate on health risks. Then I think people could be concerned about the messaging.The Spectator: What kind of message do you think government would be sending, especially to young people, if marijuana is decriminalized?Torsney: We want the government to be sending a message to young people and all Canadians about the use and misuse of substances. We want the government to educate people about legal and illegal substances.Whether it's alcohol, cigarettes, illicit drugs, prescription drugs, over-the-counter drugs -- we've got to do a better job in making sure people understand how their bodies are affected.The Spectator: But by decriminalizing marijuana, isn't the message that this is different than heroin or cocaine or any other drug?Torsney: Right now we have different regimes for kids who are caught with cigarettes, alcohol. There are different regimes for different substances already. So I think we have to get a little more sophisticated in our messages to young people.We want there to be a national media campaign as well. Our policy is not a one-off initiative. It's within a context of changes that we want to make. That's really quite important and I hope you include that.The media plays a very important role in communicating. It's been a bit of a disaster in terms of what messages kids are getting from the media about these issues. There is a horrible misunderstanding of what decriminalization means. It does not make something legal.The Spectator: What is the difference between decriminalization and legalization?Torsney: Decriminalization means the sanctions for breaking the law do not give you a criminal record which forever marks you and limits your choices so you might not be able to become a doctor or go into the United States or travel abroad. Decriminalization means you still get a sanction.Legalization means the product would be available and open for sale.The Spectator: Is this a step in that direction, toward legalization?Torsney: It might not be. I think that Canadians will have to evaluate in about five years whether the changes we're suggesting are achieving the goals they want.They'll have to look at whether or not there is a need for change, either more restrictive or less restrictive. It's presumptuous of me to determine what they will want five years from now.The Spectator: What about the concerns that using marijuana leads to the use of other, more serious drugs?Torsney: If you look at most of the use patterns and experimentation patterns that young people have, cigarettes are the gateway drug. The first thing most young people try is cigarettes. It would be rare to find someone who tried marijuana or heroin who did not try cigarettes.First you try cigarettes, then you try alcohol, then you try marijuana. And most people do not try anything beyond that.The Spectator: The committee acknowledged that marijuana use is linked to lung cancer and chronic bronchitis. What about the cost of marijuana use to the health-care system?Torsney: Frankly, we've got a huge cost in terms of our judicial and health-care system by ignoring the number of people who want treatment for alcohol, cigarettes and all drugs.We would really like to see there be more treatment, more of an encouragement and the possibility of people having an ability to reduce their use of substances and pull back from their misuse of substances.The Spectator: You touched on this earlier in terms of Canada-U.S. relations. John Walters (the head of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy) came out after the committee's report and condemned it. He says they'll have to tighten up the border if we relax our marijuana laws. What impact does this have on Canada-U.S. relations?Torsney: I think that all Canadians understand very clearly that there is no possibility of import-export on an ad hoc basis. That would be a disaster if they think that would be helpful or be acceptable.The other thing is, they should be very careful to examine what the rules are in the states they're in if they are choosing to possess, because some states have different laws.I think Mr. Walters should probably acknowledge that there are different regimes in different states. If they really look at what we are saying, we are recommending it continue to be illegal.The Spectator: Is the committee's recommendation a reflection at all of the values that politicians have now as opposed to 20 years ago?Torsney: Maybe, but in 1972 the Le Dain commission (into the non-medical use of drugs) recommended that we decriminalize possession -- 1972.The Spectator: Just lastly, I have to ask, have you ever smoked pot?Torsney: You answer that question first and then we'll go there.The Spectator: Oh come on.Torsney: No, it's irrelevant.The Spectator: Why is it irrelevant?Torsney: You know what, I'm already on the record that I tried it at university. But you know what I think is bad is ... that could influence someone else to not evaluate their own factors. Everyone has to make their own decisions. I'm concerned about messaging to young people.I was an adult actually. I was. I was 18 or 20. But I was exposed to a lot of drugs when I was very young and I chose not to for a very long time.Someday I will talk about how young people should be encouraged not to do things until it's appropriate for them. That includes same kind of behaviours with sex and alcohol and cigarettes.Source: Hamilton Spectator (CN ON) Author: Chinta Puxley, The Hamilton Spectator Published: December 18, 2002Copyright: The Hamilton Spectator 2002Contact: letters hamiltonspectator.com Website: http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/ Related Articles & Web Site:Cannabis News Canadian Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/can.htmDecriminalize Marijuana Nowhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14996.shtmlDecriminalization of Cannabis Makes Sensehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14992.shtmlCanada Has It Right on Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14979.shtml

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help









 


Comment #1 posted by Kegan on December 19, 2002 at 03:53:47 PT:

Canadian LIES!!!!
An Open letter to Paddy Torsney, MP.“A first offence would bring a $200 fine, second offence $500, third conviction $1,000.”   For “fine” read “User tax”.“There are health risks (to smoking marijuana)…”   Like what? What are the health risks? Prove it? These claims are based almost entirely on prohibitionist lies!“That's why we give people criminal records. Because they've harmed our community.”   How? How was the community harmed by me smoking a joint on the sidewalk? How? “Because Canadians and citizens of the world are continuing to use marijuana in spite of the laws. The current laws are not having an impact on their behavior.”  Because it is harmless!!! 5000 years humans have been using it.   And furthermore WHY should the government have ANY say as to what I put in MY body??? Just who do you think you are?“What we're proposing will be used by police officers to effectively sanction people who break the law. It will be administratively much easier for police officers to write a ticket.”Yeah. Easy for cops, and even MORE expensive for citizens. This is unacceptable.“Whether it's alcohol, cigarettes, illicit drugs, prescription drugs, over-the-counter drugs -- we've got to do a better job in making sure people understand how their bodies are affected.”Then why not EDUCATE instead of FINE?“The media plays a very important role in communicating. It's been a bit of a disaster in terms of what messages kids are getting from the media about these issues. There is a horrible misunderstanding of what decriminalization means. It does not make something legal. “No, it means that the government can impose an illegal tax on something? What next? Oregano? Sage? “Everyone has to make their own decisions. I'm concerned about messaging to young people.”Make their own decisions! Exactly! If they were educated instead of fined, they may never try any drug!!!Your “message to young people” seems, to me, to be: “Outdated laws, designed and implemented on lies and racism, should still stand, even after a more-than-60-year-long fiasco, just to help a sick, evil, and greedy government embarrassment.”I fear for the Children of Canada, when people like you are running things. Mixed messages indeed! Funny, any kid with can go into any convenience store/pumping station, and buy caffeine, sugar, salt, starch, artificial sweeteners, chocolate, solvents, spray paint, mouthwash, aftershave, lighter fluid, matches, gasoline!!!.... all completely unregulated! But one harmless joint! Quick!!! Get that kid into re-hab!!!Anyone can have poisonous plants in their house! Philodendrons! Mistletoe. Poinsettias! What about the dangers of nutmeg? Or household cleansers? Why are we not worried about our children's safety there?... oh right... we taught them....As soon as that kid turns the right age, he can buy tobacco, alcohol, possibly even a gun, and a car, which is actually one of the most deadly things we have around.Not to mention all the fun that can be had in a pharmacy when you reach the age!!!And you are going to tell us about DANGERS!!!! The biggest "danger" we have is our own government!Learn the truth Canadians! Your government has been lying to you for DECADES!!!! Russell Barth, Ottawa
[ Post Comment ]






  Post Comment