Pubdate: Thu, 20 Nov 2003
Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)

Copyright: 2003 Hearst Communications Inc.
Contact:  http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/388
Author: Debra J. Saunders
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)

O CANADA, O CANNABIS

"I DON'T THINK a kid 17 years old, who has a joint, should have a criminal 
record," outgoing Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien told the New York 
Times last week. I'm no Chretien fan, but on this, I must agree.

Who would have thought that when my generation came of age, U.S. marijuana 
laws would be basically what they were when we were young? Or that millions 
in taxpayer dollars would be spent to prosecute and incarcerate users?

On his way out of Canada's highest office, Chretien proposed a Cannabis 
Reform Bill -- dubbed "soft pot" legislation -- to change the penalty for 
possession of up to 15 grams of marijuana from jail time to fines of $150 
for adults or $100 for minors. Reports conflict as to whether Canadian 
lawmakers will approve this piece of "legacy" legislation.

But it's clear the Bush administration strongly opposes any softening of 
drug policy across the border, lest it increase drug use in the U.S.A. Too bad:

Americans might benefit by seeing what happens in a Canada that has, in 
essence, decriminalized personal possession of marijuana.

Maybe the results won't all be rosy. Consider the seedy side of Amsterdam, 
where coffee shops legally sell cannabis. Ditto Oakland's "Oaksterdam" -- a 
district so dubbed for its medical marijuana clubs -- to which recreational 
users and robbers have flocked. A gay and lesbian youth center was so 
concerned about marijuana smoke wafting around the noses of vulnerable 
youths that it closed its Oaksterdam office. The executive director told 
The Chronicle, "When drugs are in the area, everything else comes with it."

Ethan Nadelmann, founder of the Drug Policy Alliance, doesn't buy the seedy 
argument. Cities invite blight, he said; it's not the drugs.

Nadelmann noted that many marijuana advocates oppose Chretien's measure 
because it doesn't legalize marijuana, or tax or regulate the drug. Still, 
he said: "I think that decriminalization is an improvement over the current 
policy of the drug war and arresting hundreds of thousands of people," even 
if decriminalization introduces gray areas into the law.

The benefits of decriminalization, however, should not be underestimated. 
In 2001, police arrested more than 700,000 people for marijuana violations, 
according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report -- 88 percent simply for 
possession. Once they are prosecuted, users have to live with the stigma of 
an arrest record, which could bar them from entering certain professions, 
and even qualifying for student loans.

As the federal and state coffers hit the red, there are budgetary issues, 
too. There's the small cost of jailing first-time offenders as they are 
arrested. Worse, there is the large cost of sending parolees back to 
prison, not because they committed serious crimes for which they should be 
thrown behind bars, but because they flunked drug tests. A recent Little 
Hoover Commission report found that California wastes close to $1 billion 
annually supervising and returning parolees to prison for minor parole 
violations.

The best reason for decriminalization is Chretien's hypothetical 17-year-old.

I understand why parents fear that readily available marijuana might hinder 
their child's development, and so they support the system. But it is clear 
that marijuana, while illegal, is readily available.

According to the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, more than 50 percent 
of high-school seniors reported having tried an illicit drug. I don't think 
that many readers would argue that America would be a better country if all 
of those students were arrested and prosecuted.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom