cannabisnews.com: The Latest Weed In The Canada-U.S. Garden The Latest Weed In The Canada-U.S. Garden Posted by CN Staff on March 03, 2003 at 07:12:30 PT By John Ibbitson Source: Globe and Mail Think about the tall challenges facing Canada-U.S. relations: whether to go to war in Iraq; how to resolve the softwood lumber dispute; the wisdom of a continental missile defence system. Believe it or not, there's an issue arriving this spring that promises to overshadow them all: decrim.Justice Minister Martin Cauchon plans to introduce legislation at the end of this month that will decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana, and that will allow people, within reason, to grow their own. The opposition parties have their reservations, but even the Canadian Alliance is prepared, at least in principle, to support the legislation. With any kind of luck, Parliament could adopt the bill before the House rises in June.The real opposition may come, not from Parliament, but from south of the border. Yes, there are parts of the United States, California for example, where decriminalization is already informally in effect. But California is not Washington, and the administration of George Bush retains the traditional Republican determination to wage war against the drug trade on all fronts.When Canadian foreign policy types are asked how the Americans will react to pot decriminalization, the question is greeted with long silences and glum faces. This is exactly what those who are trying to retain and repair Canada-U.S. relations don't need.Americans already look askance at Canada's illicit export industry. "B.C. bud", as pot smokers affectionately call it, is a particularly potent form of marijuana that contains THC levels up to five times higher than other forms of pot. Drug enforcement officials in the U.S. complain that Canadian exports of marijuana are steadily increasing. It's only a matter of time before they start imposing countervailing duties, they joke.Some wags have even jokingly complained in the press that decriminalizing pot will put a crimp in what is currently a perfect example of laissez faire economics. After all, pot flows freely across the border, inconvenienced only by the occasional apprehension and arrest, without tariffs, duties or even forms to fill out. There are no taxes to be paid, no Employment Insurance premiums, pension contributions or government red tape to clog business operations. Pot smuggling is the purest possible example of the market efficiently meeting a demand.The Yanks, however, do not view the matter so lightly. Law enforcement officials from Bismark to Boston are complaining about the influx of Canadian weed. And now the government plans to eliminate penalties for possession, which will surely stimulate the domestic industry and increase exports.The Americans are warning that border inspectors may be reassigned from the Mexican frontier to the Canadian, that there will be tougher inspections and greater delays for legitimate traffic.For Canadian officials struggling to keep the Canada-U.S. border open in the era of Fortress America, the government's determination to proceed with decriminalization seems almost perverse, as though Ottawa were deliberating seeking to provoke the Americans.But polls show that as many as 70 per cent of Canadians now favour decriminalization, and sources report that Prime Minister Jean Chrétien has made up his mind to let the legislation proceed.Perhaps the timing isn't as bad as it looks. After all, relations with the Americans are so bad that one more provocation might not make much of a difference. Maybe now is the time to fling every potential irritant at the Americans. They couldn't be much more annoyed with us than they are already.That probably is not the reasoning behind the decision to proceed with decrim. It just looks that way.Something to think about: America's determination to oust Saddam Hussein, and the growing coalition of the unwilling who oppose the war, threaten to undermine the United Nations and NATO.But there is another institution integral to the Western Alliance in danger. The leaders of the G8 group of leading economies are scheduled to meet in June in Evian, France. Given the poisoned state of relations between the United States on the one side and France and Germany on the other, one Canadian diplomat recently speculated that George Bush might decide not to attend this year's summit. If the President boycotts Evian, does that mean the end of the G8?If he does attend, can you imagine the scale of the protests? Source: Globe and Mail (Canada)Author: John IbbitsonPublished: Monday, March 3, 2003 - Page A13 Copyright: 2003 The Globe and Mail CompanyContact: letters globeandmail.caWebsite: http://www.globeandmail.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Cannabis News Canadian Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/can.htmPot Laws Could Be Eased, Cauchon Says http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13427.shtmlOttawa May Ease Laws on Marijuana Possession http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13426.shtmlCanada Considers Easing Marijuana Laws http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13424.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #8 posted by jvthc on March 03, 2003 at 14:54:10 PT: I got a chuckle out of this.... When I read;"Maybe now is the time to fling every potential irritant at the Americans. They couldn't be much more annoyed with us than they are already."It hit me with a belly laugh!(BTW, I'm an American). Two things occur to me.First, additional taxes hurt Americans, too. I know there are other places to purchase lumber, but if the U.S. ramps up taxes as a punitive measure, it will disappoint Americans that otherwise wouldn't pay attention.Bush won't be the President forever, folks. I don't know about 2004. His father was "high" on war success too, and still couldn't get re-elected. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by John Tyler on March 03, 2003 at 09:54:22 PT Best way You are probably correct. The politicians can then honestly say, "it's not our fault", the courts ruled that anti cannabis laws are unconstitutional and we can't do anything else about it. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by WolfgangWylde on March 03, 2003 at 08:20:35 PT My guess... ...is they'll punt, and let the courts declare the laws null and void. That way the politiicans don't have to incur the wrath of Uncle Sam. That's what they did with abortion. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by TroutMask on March 03, 2003 at 08:15:11 PT Oh yes! Regardless of whether the law is gone or not today, whatever law there is in the future will not be as strict as what is currently in existence. The courts have said repeatedly that the law must allow use by the sick AND the sick must have to have a place to legally buy it. This is such a huge can of worms, that it seems to me the only realistic way out is to allow any adult to grow. Even then, marijuana will still have to be sold (given?) to the sick by the government or they will have to allow it to be sold to the sick by others. I don't believe the Canadian government has the political will to set up a distribution system for the sick, especially in light of national conventions. The easiest solution is to legalize and regulate for all or do nothing and let the laws go away. But only time (less than 6 months) will tell.-TM [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by WolfgangWylde on March 03, 2003 at 07:58:45 PT On the other hand... ...If the court rules there is no law, any new law will have to developed in the light of fact, not the Reefer Madness BS that informed the old laws back in the 30's, 40's, and 50's. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by TroutMask on March 03, 2003 at 07:32:17 PT Canada Courts 1. The first ruling is still under appeal (the appeal hasn't been ruled on yet). Several other cases are in court next week. I've gone into "optimistic pessimism" mode; if something great happens we'll all hear about it but I'm not going to watch with fingers crossed because it just keeps dragging on and on and on....2. If the court rules there is no law, then there is no law. If the government writes a law making possession a civil infraction (aka decriminalization) then there will be a law making possession a civil infraction. Just because one particular law doesn't exist doesn't mean they can't make a new, different one.-TM [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by ErikGhint on March 03, 2003 at 07:23:04 PT what about the court cases? Does anyone know what happened at the Feb 21 court case where the governmeant appealed the ruling of Jan 3 that said the the "pot laws" are invalid? Furthermore what would happen if the court ruled their are no laws, and then the government introduced decriminalization? There would be no reason to pay the fine? [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by FoM on March 03, 2003 at 07:15:04 PT Go Canada! This is good news I believe! [ Post Comment ] Post Comment