Pubdate: Fri, 12 Jul 2002
Source: Hamilton Spectator (CN ON)
Copyright: The Hamilton Spectator 2002
Contact:  http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/181
Author: Robert Howard
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mjcn.htm (Cannabis - Canada)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?207 (Cannabis - United Kingdom)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mdma.htm (Ecstasy)

BRITAIN IS RIGHT TO EASE LAW ON POT POSSESSION

Marijuana: Anti-drug resources needed elsewhere "What smooth pot, James!"

"Yes sir. And it's available only in Britain."

"Only in Britain? Pity!"

- ---

Those old enough to remember the old Red Rose Tea commercials (with which 
we have some fun above), may have the most mixed feelings about Britain's 
move to essentially decriminalize marijuana possession.

It puts a question to more than a few Canadian parents who smoked pot in 
their day (some of whom even inhaled): Do they want to see marijuana more 
available to their children?

A considerable number of people who came of age in the '70s have been 
facing real dilemmas as their children go through their own rites of passage.

We have argued before now that decriminalizing marijuana possession would 
be the sensible and pragmatic thing to do. The Canadian Association of 
Chiefs of Police have urged decriminalization, as has the Canadian Medical 
Association Journal.

The police chiefs have advocated taking marijuana possession out of the 
Criminal Code, saying the time and resources dedicated to investigating and 
prosecuting it far outweigh any legal or societal benefit.

The Canadian Medical Association Journal joined the call, saying medical 
evidence indicates marijuana "is really quite an innocuous drug ... the 
harms of criminalizing marijuana use far outweigh the harms of smoking a 
bit of marijuana."

We argued that while we did not support legalization, nor decriminalizing 
of trafficking, possession for personal use could be downgraded to an 
offence punishable by a fine.

But as Britain changes its laws in quite that spirit -- police will not 
charge people, in most cases, who have marijuana for their own use -- some 
qualms resurface. Does it send mixed messages to youngsters about which 
drugs are OK and which are not? Does it weaken the case against so-called 
hard drugs?

The fact is, youngsters get all sorts of mixed messages already and most 
figure them out far better than we give them credit for.

Tobacco is the most poisonous and, in terms of numbers, most addictive and 
lethal substance on the market. Alcohol kills abusers -- in traffic and 
other ways -- every day. Both are entirely legal for adult consumption.

Ecstasy or, even worse, junk masquerading as ecstasy, kills kids but is 
often seen as a part of the "rave scene" and not as a dangerous drug.

It would send the right message if we recognized that marijuana is 
relatively benign when compared to other readily available drugs, both 
legal and illegal. Kids know hypocrisy when they see it -- we saw it in the 
'70s and our children are seeing it now.

Decriminalization would allow police to focus resources better. It would 
add more credibility to our resolve against cocaine and heroin and all the 
acronym-labelled chemical cocktails.

It is, in the end, the right thing to do.

- -- Robert Howard
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jackl