Pubdate: Mon, 13 Jan 2003
Source: Globe and Mail (Canada)
Copyright: 2003, The Globe and Mail Company
Contact:  http://www.globeandmail.ca/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/168
Page: R1
Author: David MacFarlane

AMERICAN THINKING FUZZY ON MARIJUANA

I see that marijuana is now sort-of decriminalized. This doesn't seem so 
very far along from marijuana being sort-of criminalized. But I ask you: 
Was Rome built in a day?

Not if there were any politicians involved, it wasn't.

I also see that one of the few remaining rational arguments against 
outright legalization of marijuana in Canada is that such a step would 
really irritate the Americans.

My view is that after a brief display of national bravado, and after a few 
weeks of standing on the highway selling blueberries, we'd realize that it 
would be best to avoid that.

One underestimates American irritation at one's peril. As King George III 
figured out a little late in the game. As, I have a feeling, Saddam Hussein 
soon will. But as much as I respect Americans, and as much as I like to 
take the repercussions of their irritation into account, I have to say that 
there are certain subjects that Americans are just a little bit nutty 
about. And marijuana is one of them.

It's hard to figure Americans out on this one. They are a reasonable people 
- -- bright, likable, educated, savvy -- and if their own publicity is 
anything to go by, not only do they have fun, they invented it. As to the 
persistent grip of Puritanism on their national psyche, I think it's fair 
to say that they're a little equivocal here. My observation is that they 
take the occasional drink. And while it may well be the supposedly 
aphrodisiac qualities of marijuana that get their governments so 
legislatively rigorous in this regard, it hasn't escaped the attention of 
every conscious inhabitant of planet Earth that Americans take some passing 
interest in sex. Nobody thinks we should criminalize Christina Aguilera. 
Although if you're interested in circulating a petition, let me know.

But when it comes to marijuana -- a non-addictive substance that doesn't 
come in bottles that you can smash over people's heads -- the governments 
that Americans keep electing when 40 per cent of the population is looking 
the other way, seem a little, shall we say, obtuse.

No, not obtuse. I think stark-staring, raving mad captures the spirit of 
American drug policy a little more accurately. It's not as if it's 
something that any sane person would come up with, is it? After all, do you 
know anyone you'd trust with a butter knife who thinks that a joint and a 
Discman is a dangerous combination, but that a few hits of speed and a 
fighter jet armed to the teeth with smart bombs and cruise missiles isn't? 
I wonder if, in his latter days, Howard Hughes wrote the policy himself, or 
whether he just added the finishing touches.

Trimming our sails to accommodate a wind that blows straight out of Cloud 
Cuckooland does present our legislators with some real challenges. 
Fortunately they are conversant with idiocy -- have you ever actually tried 
to register a gun? -- and will no doubt rise to the occasion. Still, you've 
got to wonder. What's the big deal with marijuana?

And please don't say, "Why add one more problem to the list we're already 
dealing with?" As if all the disturbed, angry and addictive personalities 
out there are holding back, biding their time in whist circles and sewing 
bees, but that when marijuana is legalized they're going to start getting 
into real trouble.

No, I feel that the knock against marijuana, as opposed to alcohol, has 
always been less to do with the substance itself, and more to do with the 
activities that follow its consumption. So let's see: With alcohol you 
laugh, then you fight, then, if you're smart, you take a taxi, and then, if 
you're a man, you lie in bed and mumble your apologies about having had too 
much wine. Then you pass out. Traditional and very American ways of killing 
time, you have to admit. One can picture, all too vividly, John Wayne doing 
each of them. And tellingly, what these five activities have in common is 
that none of them have anything whatsoever to do with art.

Can it be that a deep-seated fear of a population that sits around and gets 
a little too carried away with art appreciation, followed by sex, as 
opposed to Monday Night Football, followed by snoring, is what's at the 
heart of all this nonsense?

Could it be that the threat of too many people listening to too much music, 
reading too much poetry and staring at too many paintings is behind the 
vast and unconscionably expensive machinery of America's legislative 
antagonism to marijuana? Do objections to films with subtitles and 
avant-garde jazz and contemporary opera carry so much weight? I wonder. 
America's reasoning is not always entirely clear. In case you hadn't noticed.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart