Pubdate: Fri, 30 May 2003
Source: Imprint (CN ON Edu)
Copyright: Imprint Publications 2003.
Contact:  http://imprint.uwaterloo.ca/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2693
Author: Keith LeBlanc, Special to Imprint

PUFFING THE MAGIC DRAGON

Liberals start the long process of decriminalization

This week the Canadian government began a process to pass new legislation 
regarding marijuana use. This new legislation would decriminalize the drug 
by relaxing punishments for possession of marijuana.

Possession of less then 15 grams of the substance would be followed only 
with a fine of $150. A possession of greater amounts could still result in 
a court appearance and jail time. However, proposed legislation would 
strengthen punishments against marijuana suppliers, traffickers and growers.

The objective of the legislation is to fight drug use and addiction from a 
new standpoint. The recreational user will no longer be the target of the 
law; instead, more attention will be placed on fighting the suppliers of 
the drug. Any use of marijuana would still be discouraged, and a costly 
educational program would be set up to try and stop users before they 
start. Current marijuana laws state that people caught in possession of 
marijuana face imprisonment for up to five years.

Should the court decide not to indict, a criminal record can be avoided and 
a sentence of six months in prison and/or a fine of up to $1,000 could be 
levied; that is, if it is the party's first offence.

Multiple offenders could receive double that.

It is no surprise that proposed punishments for drug trafficking sentences 
are more severe, with sentences reaching as far as life in prison.

Harsh penalties for marijuana users are intended to deter people from ever 
becoming users and life in prison for traffickers aims to keep the 
suppliers off the streets.

However, it has been nearly a century since marijuana was first made 
illegal in Canada.

Critics of current laws are most strongly opposed to the harsh rulings 
handed out to people found simply in possession of the drug, those with no 
intent to sell but only hope to enjoy it themselves. They claim that there 
is no need to punish users of marijuana so severely when their crime hurts 
no one but themselves. Then there are those in favour of the current 
strict, and perhaps stricter, penalties.

Police associations and anti-drug groups claim that marijuana leads to the 
use of heavier drugs, with users continually needing drugs that are more 
addictive and more dangerous.

However, groups lobbying for tougher punishments find their protests 
falling mostly on deaf ears in Ottawa. Instead, current debate focuses on 
how to reform and moderate the laws. It is an accepted truth by most of the 
political elite that eradication of the drug is impossible; regulation as 
opposed to elimination may be the only way to cope with the negative 
societal effects.

There are two legal paths to drug reform that follow somewhat different 
ideologies: decriminalization and legalization.

Those in favour of decriminalization are working towards finding 
better-fitting punishments to crimes.

Ideally, punishment for marijuana-related offences would be similar to a 
traffic ticket, or an open alcohol offence.

A ticket would be written and the contraband confiscated. For lawmakers, it 
is difficult to determine what an acceptable amount of drug use is. 
Potentially, new laws could resemble the underage drinking laws. Law 
enforcers could step in when the occurrence is blatant, or potentially 
dangerous, but punishments are light, suiting the crime. Supporters of 
decriminalization still believe the presence of marijuana is a problem; the 
major difference is the law understands and accepts marijuana, taking 
criminal responsibility away from the common user.

Legalization takes the argument one step further, wanting to legalize 
marijuana for common use with fewer restrictions. Their belief is that 
supporters of legalization follow a different ideology than those 
supporting decriminalization alone.

Their belief is people themselves have the right to choose what is safe and 
unsafe.

Supporters of legalization would like to see marijuana regulated like 
liquor or tobacco.

They feel it should be produced and sold legally, provided without 
restrictions about age and potency and, of course, taxed.

Legalization is a long way away. Although constitutional principles may 
support legalization, it is not uncommon for those principles to be 
overlooked, even in Canada.

However, some changes are taking place.

In September 2002, the Canadian Senate issued a report about marijuana use. 
Its recommendation was clear, stating "Scientific evidence overwhelmingly 
indicates that cannabis is substantially less harmful than alcohol and 
should be treated not as a criminal issue but as a social and public health 
issue." The report continues to state that the same sort of regulations 
that control tobacco should govern marijuana.

Following this, in December 2002, the House of Commons released a similar 
report recommending decriminalization of small amounts of marijuana.

These two reports have led to the new legislation being proposed in the 
House this week.

As you read this, new legislation is being sent through the House of 
Commons to begin the decriminalization of marijuana.

In a typical Canadian fashion, changes will be slow. After all, it has 
already taken 30 years of research and protest for marijuana to reach its 
current point of acceptance.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom