Pubdate: Mon, 03 Mar 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
Author: John Ibbitson

THE LATEST WEED IN THE CANADA-U.S. GARDEN

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 Chretien 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?
- ---
MAP posted-by: Larry Stevens