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: Mike Kerrigan

DECRIMINALIZATION WON'T MAKE THE GRASS GREENER

So it looks like pot smokers, those modern day pariahs who are ceaselessly 
hunted across the nation by a large network of elite and brutal law 
enforcement officers will finally be able to emerge from their hidden 
shelters, thanks to our new enlightened policy of marijuana 
decriminalization. Well, not quite.

Despite the publicity that the current legislation has been attracting, 
it's unlikely that your average tea head will notice much difference 
whether or not the legislation is passed.

Smoking the J has become so widespread and accepted that the laws in place 
are used more often as an excuse to arrest someone who has caused problems 
for the police than to act as any type of deterrence. This is good, because 
all justification for prohibiting the drug has become hopelessly 
anachronistic. Some will still charge that weed is a 'gateway drug' leading 
to a coke-addled lifestyle of crime, prostitution and ritual murder.

I'll acknowledge that many drug addicts likely started out by smoking bud, 
but then many religious extremists surely started out by taking theology 
lessons. Most of us can manage our dosage.

The media seem to have seized on the subject because it's about the only 
thing happening in Parliament outside of party leadership races and Liberal 
infighting. The debate on the issue dried up pretty quickly and shifted to 
arguments over how much of a 'spike' we'll see in usage rates once the 
legislation passes.

My vote's for nil. It will be even more illegal to sell cannabis, so John 
Q. Dealer hasn't suddenly been given a free hand to cruise for experimental 
moppets at the local playground.

The irony of the bill is that it's likely to increase the number of people 
squeezed by the long arm of the law for smoking a spliff.

Right now, a lot of officers turn the other cheek or let people off with a 
warning when they catch them toking, because it's not worth the hassle of 
laying charges. Many officers surely light up after work, and without 
charges laid there's really no need to waste the Evidence Department's time 
by passing on anything that's been confiscated. When the punishment is a 
mere fine, officers will be much more likely to take action, especially 
when monthly quotas are inevitably implemented.

What we should be most concerned about is what most people would argue we 
should be least concerned about: the American reaction.

Some people start frothing at the mouth at the mere suggestion that we let 
our sacrosanct sovereignty be sullied by taking American interests into 
consideration, but that won't change reality.

The reality is that American politicians have to answer to American voters, 
and American voters expect a response when the country they already see as 
Amsterdam North gives them the finger when they express concern that more 
liberalized drug laws in our courts could lead to more dope in their streets.

If the Liberals hadn't been actively pursuing the systematic destruction of 
our relations with the US over the past several months, we likely could 
have passed this new law with little fuss. A little oblique rhetoric about 
ensuring that our border infrastructure has adapted to new realities would 
have at least assured most Americans that we were doing something, even if 
we just chained up a few retired drug sniffing dogs outside our border 
posts. As it stands the US now feels compelled to tighten up the border, 
and that can only harm our economy.

But hell, if some Canadians lose their jobs as a result, at least they'll 
have something a little less illegal to do to pass the time.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom