Pubdate: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 Source: Ottawa Citizen (CN ON) Copyright: 2002 The Ottawa Citizen Contact: http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/326 WHY CANNABIS SHOULD BE LEGAL Criminalization Is Ineffective, Costly And Does The Public More Harm Than Good Free Thinking: The following are excerpts from the report of the Senate special committee on illegal drugs released yesterday. Thirty years ago, the Le Dain Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs released its report on cannabis. We have had the benefit of Le Dain's work, a much more highly developed knowledge base since then and of 30 years' historical perspective. The commission concluded that the criminalization of cannabis had no scientific basis. Thirty years later, we confirm this conclusion and add that continued criminalization of cannabis remains unjustified based on scientific data on the danger it poses. The commission heard and considered the same arguments on the dangers of using cannabis: apathy, loss of interest and concentration, learning difficulties. A majority of the commissioners concluded that these concerns, while unsubstantiated, warranted a restrictive policy. Thirty years later, we assert that the studies done in the meantime have not confirmed the existence of the so-called amotivational syndrome and add that most studies rule out this syndrome as a consequence of the use of cannabis. The commission concluded that not enough was known about the long-term and excessive use of cannabis. We assert that these types of use exist and may present some health risks; excessive use, however, is limited to a minority of users. Public policy, we would add, must provide ways to prevent and screen for at-risk behaviour, something our policies have yet to do. The commission concluded that the effects of long-term use of cannabis on brain function, while largely exaggerated, could affect adolescent development. We concur, but point out that the long-term effects of cannabis use appear reversible in most cases. We note also that adolescents who are excessive users or become long-term users are a tiny minority of all users of cannabis. Once again, we would add that a public policy must prevent use at an early age and at-risk behaviour. The commission was concerned that the use of cannabis would lead to the use of other drugs. Thirty years' experience in the Netherlands disproves this clearly, as do the liberal policies of Spain, Italy and Portugal. And here in Canada, despite the increase in cannabis users, we have not had a proportionate increase in users of hard drugs. The commission was also concerned that legalization would mean increased use, among the young in particular. We have not legalized cannabis, and we have one of the highest rates in the world. Countries adopting a more liberal policy have, for the most part, rates of usage lower than ours, which stabilized after a short period of growth. Thirty years later, we note that: - - Billions of dollars have been sunk into enforcement without any greater effect. There are more consumers, more regular users and more regular adolescent users; - - Billions of dollars have been poured into enforcement in an effort to reduce supply, without any greater effect. Cannabis is more available than ever, it is cultivated on a large scale, even exported, swelling coffers and making organized crime more powerful; - - There have been tens of thousands of arrests and convictions for the possession of cannabis and thousands of people have been incarcerated. However, use trends remain totally unaffected and the gap the commission noted between the law and public compliance continues to widen. It is time to recognize what is patently obvious: Our policies have been ineffective, because they are poor policies. - - - - Every year, more than 20,000 Canadians are arrested for cannabis possession. This figure might be as high as 50,000 depending on how the statistics are interpreted. No matter what the numbers, they are too high for this type of conduct. However, even those numbers are laughable when compared to the three million people who have used cannabis over the past 12 months. We should not think that the number of arrests could be significantly increased even if billions more dollars were allocated to police enforcement. Indeed, such a move should not even be considered. A look at the availability and price of drugs forces us to admit that supply-reduction policies are ineffective. To what extent do we want to go further down this road? Clearly, current approaches are ineffective and inefficient. Ultimately, their effect amounts to throwing taxpayers' money down the drain in a crusade that is not warranted by the danger posed by the substance. It has been maintained that drugs, including cannabis, are not dangerous because they are illegal, but rather are illegal because they are dangerous. This is perhaps true of other types of drugs, but not of cannabis. We should state this clearly once and for all, for public good: It is time to stop this crusade. However much we might wish good health and happiness for everyone, we all know how fragile they are. Above all, we realize that health and happiness cannot be forced on a person, especially not by criminal law based on a specific concept of what is morally "right." No matter how attractive calls for a drug-free society might be, and even if some people might want others to stop smoking, drinking alcohol or smoking joints, we all realize that these activities are part of our social reality. The state should neither abdicate responsibility and allow drug markets to run rife, nor should it impose a particular way of life on people. We have opted, instead, for a concept whereby public policy promotes and supports freedom for individuals and society as a whole. Support for freedom necessarily means flexibility and adaptability. It is for this reason that public policy on cannabis has to be clear while at the same time tolerant, to serve as a guide while at the same time avoiding imposing a single standard. As far as cannabis is concerned, only behaviour causing demonstrable harm to others should be prohibited: illegal trafficking, selling to minors and impaired driving. Used in moderation, cannabis in itself poses very little danger to users and to society as a whole, but specific types of use represent risks for users. In addition to being ineffective and costly, criminalization leads to a series of harmful consequences: users are marginalized and exposed to discrimination by the police and the criminal justice system; society sees the power and wealth of organized crime enhanced as criminals benefit from prohibition; and governments see their ability to prevent at-risk use diminished. We would add that, even if can-nabis were to have serious harmful effects, one would have to question the relevance of using the criminal law to limit these effects. All of this does not in any way mean, however, that cannabis use should be encouraged or left unregulated. Clearly, it is a psychoactive substance with some effects on cognitive and motor functions. When smoked, cannabis can have harmful effects on the respiratory airways and is potentially cancerous. Some vulnerable people should be prevented, as much as possible, from using cannabis. This is the case for young people under 16 years of age and those people with particular conditions that might make them vulnerable, for example those with psychotic predispositions. As with alcohol, adult users should be encouraged to use cannabis in moderation. Given that, as for any substance, at-risk use does exist, preventive measures and detection tools should be established and treatment initiatives must be developed for those who use the drug excessively. Lastly, it goes without saying that education initiatives and severe criminal penalties must be used to deter people from operating vehicles under the influence of cannabis. - - - - The prohibition of cannabis does not bring about the desired reduction in cannabis consumption or problematic use. However, this approach does have a whole series of harmful consequences. Users are marginalized, and more than 20,000 Canadians are arrested each year for can-nabis possession. Young people in schools no longer enjoy the same constitutional and civil protection of their rights as others. Organized crime benefits from prohibition and the criminalization of cannabis enhances their power and wealth. Society will never be able to stamp out drug use -- particularly cannabis use. We believe that the continued prohibition of cannabis jeopardizes the health and well-being of Canadians much more than does the substance itself or the regulated marketing of the substance. In addition, we believe that the continued criminalization of cannabis undermines the fundamental values set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and confirmed in the history of a country based on diversity and tolerance. - --- MAP posted-by: Beth