cannabisnews.com: Just Say 'Yes' 





Just Say 'Yes' 
Posted by CN Staff on February 24, 2003 at 12:48:09 PT
Essay By Brian Bergman
Source: Maclean's Magazine 
First, the obligatory full disclosure. Like most boomers, I did, in my youth, inhale (repeatedly). In the intervening years -- I'm 47 now, thanks for asking -- I have, on rare occasions, taken a toke or two, though today's far more potent pot holds no appeal for me. In fact, there is little doubt that some current strains of marijuana are a far cry from the mellow stimulant of yesteryear which, if memory serves, induced little more than the giggles, the munchies and a heightened appreciation of (often very bad) music.
That said, I think a strong case can be made that it's time for Canada to legalize the possession of cannabis and license its production and distribution in a manner similar to alcohol. I'm also convinced that federal Justice Minister Martin Cauchon's preferred approach -- a fine and no criminal record for possession of small amounts of cannabis, while keeping sale and production illegal -- is perhaps the worst, and certainly the most hypocritical, option of all. I say "perhaps" the worst because surely nothing could outdo the status quo. Officially, possession of cannabis is a crime and first-time offenders face a maximum sentence of a $1,000 fine or six months in jail, or both (penalties for producing or selling are much stiffer). Unofficially, the law is in tatters. In recent weeks, lower-court judges in two cases have quashed charges against both recreational users and those who smoke pot for medical reasons, ruling that current statutes are, in effect, null and void. In December, the Supreme Court of Canada postponed for several months a widely anticipated constitutional challenge against Canada's cannabis laws. The justices complained about the decidedly mixed signals coming from Ottawa. On the one hand, Justice Department lawyers had filed court submissions linking marijuana to everything from drug addiction to cancer. On the other, the lawyers' ultimate boss, Cauchon, had just stated his intention to change the law to treat possession of this allegedly heinous substance as no more serious than, say, a parking violation. Many of the government's legal woes are due to its ham-fisted response to those who smoke marijuana to alleviate symptoms of epilepsy, multiple sclerosis and other debilitating conditions. After a series of court challenges, Ottawa finally agreed in July 2001 to provide a special entitlement for medical users. But instead of changing the law, it did so through cabinet decree and regulations -- a fact defence lawyers for recreational smokers have since exploited to successfully argue that the pre-existing pot legislation is invalid. Moreover, Ottawa has so far failed to provide those who smoke marijuana for therapeutic reasons with a safe and steady supply, often forcing them to find it on the street. In the case of a lawsuit brought by nine medical users, that stark reality prompted Ontario Superior Court Judge Sidney Lederman, to rule in January that Ottawa's regulations violated the patients' constitutional rights to life, liberty and security of person. "Consorting with criminal drug dealers," observed Lederman, "strikes me as a relatively risky means of obtaining medicine." A similar conundrum will face recreational users if and when decriminalization measures take effect. Possessing and smoking cannabis will become quasi-legal (we don't, after all, think of parking offenders as criminals). But those wishing to indulge will have to either grow their own (which will remain illegal) or rely on criminal drug traffickers. Where is the logic in that? A more sensible approach was laid out in detail by a recent Senate special committee on illegal drugs. Released during the dog days of last summer, the committee's 600-page report recommends legalizing marijuana, but it didn't get nearly the attention it deserved. What there was tended to be derisive, with critics citing the report as further evidence of a stoner Senate badly out of touch with reality. That's a pity, because the five core members of the committee -- consisting of a lawyer, a petroleum executive, an insurance broker, a realtor and a professional musician, ages 53 to 73 -- delivered a dispassionate and clear-eyed summary of the medical, legal and ethical issues revolving around cannabis use. Reviewing various studies and expert testimony, the senators conclude that marijuana is actually less habit-forming than alcohol or cigarettes. Physical and psychological addiction is rare, they say, and the theory that pot acts as a "gateway" to harder drugs has been widely discredited. At the same time, the senators acknowledge that much of today's marijuana is more potent than what was on the market 30 years ago. In its natural state, cannabis contains between 0.5 per cent and three per cent tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which is its psychoactive ingredient. But because of improved cultivation methods, the Senate report estimates the THC content in the average joint now ranges between six per cent and 31 per cent. Canada has done its part in this particular green revolution, with high-grade B.C. Bud being one of that province's premier cash crops. Marijuana enthusiasts will tell you they deal with this phenomenon by inhaling smaller amounts of the strong stuff or seeking out milder brands -- what some have dubbed "decaf pot." Perhaps. But for young, inexperienced tokers, the lesson is clear: buyer beware, this is not your Daddy's dope. Some argue the new, improved pot demonstrates the need for continued criminal sanctions. The senators take a different view. Far better, they say, to take cannabis off the black market and out of the hands of organized crime gangs, which profit mightily from the current situation. License its sale and regulate its production to ensure the THC content in a legal joint never exceeds 13 per cent and to screen out potentially harmful additives that can appear in street purchases. As a bonus, such an approach would generate tax revenues which, if desired, could be used for drug abuse education. The Senate report also provides some fascinating insight into marijuana consumption in Canada -- and the failure of current laws to curb it. The committee estimates that about three million Canadians, ages 14 to 65, smoked pot at least once during the previous 12 months, and pegs the costs of trying to enforce Canada's pot laws at $300 million annually. Yet only 20,000 people are arrested on cannabis possession charges each year. How many more billions of dollars, ask the senators, would it cost to truly enforce the law? And couldn't that money be better spent targeting the illicit trade in more dangerous drugs such as heroin and cocaine and funding overall drug use prevention and treatment programs? Good questions. But don't expect Ottawa to embrace the Senate report any time soon. When a House of Commons committee agreed with Cauchon in December that Canada should follow the lead of such countries as Switzerland and the Netherlands and decriminalize pot, George Bush's drug czar, John Walters, cried foul. Walters, director of Washington's National Drug Control Policy, said such a move posed "a dangerous threat" to the health and security of Americans and predicted chaos at the border. Just imagine the sound and fury that would ensue if Canada took the far bolder step of legalizing marijuana, which would require temporarily withdrawing from, or standing in violation of, international drug conventions Canada has signed. I admit to having a vested interest in all this. I have two sons, soon to enter their teenage years. When it comes to marijuana -- or any mood-altering drug -- my sincere wish is that they will heed the sage advice of Nancy Reagan and "just say no." Failing that, though, I'd like to think any experimenting they do could be made as safe as possible, from both a legal and health perspective. If nothing else, it would mean one less anxious scenario to run through my head as I lie awake on Saturday nights, wondering what the heck they're up to. Note: Legalizing marijuana would actually be safer for kids than decriminalization, writes Brian Bergman. Source: Maclean's Magazine (Canada)Author: Brian BergmanPublished: March 3, 2003Copyright: 2003 Maclean Hunter Publishing Ltd.Contact: letters macleans.caWebsite: http://www.macleans.ca/Related Article & Web Site:Cannabis News Canadian Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/can.htmBlowing Smoke in Vansterdam http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10462.shtmlCannabisNews Articles - Canadahttp://cannabisnews.com/thcgi/search.pl?K=canada 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Post Comment