Pubdate: Fri, 13 Jun 2003
Source: Folio (CN AB Edu)
Copyright: 2003 University of Alberta
Contact:  http://www.ualberta.ca/FOLIO/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2673
Author:  Richard Cairney

UP IN SMOKE: IT'S HARD TO FIND ANYONE WHO'S GIDDY ABOUT PROPOSED POT LAW

Pot Proponents Say It Doesn't Go Far Enough; Others Say It's Too, Uh, Liberal

Late last month, after years of speculation, the federal government 
introduced legislation that would fundamentally change the way marijuana is 
regarded socially and in our courts. The proposed new law takes an unusual 
approach to meet its goals of educating the public about the perils of 
drugs and discouraging drug use: it decriminalizes possession of marijuana 
in amounts between 15 and 30 grams and vows to step up convictions and 
introduce stiffer penalties for those convicted of more serious 
drug-related offences than mere possession (full details are available 
online at: http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/ ).

Folio asked several members of the campus community for their thoughts on 
the controversial proposal:

Dr. David Cook, director, Division of Studies in Medical Education, Faculty 
of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences

"Both sides of this debate seem to ignore those facts that support the 
opposite view. For example, the fact that marijuana is 'natural' is 
entirely irrelevant - so is deadly nightshade, or an angry grizzly bear! No 
drug is completely safe, and cannabis is no exception; inhaling the smoke 
can produce lung damage, and the drug does impair learning, something that 
is of great concern when used by teenagers, whose marijuana consumption may 
impair their ability to develop effective thought processes at a time when 
learning is natural and easy.

"The issue of cannabis and driving is much more complicated than either 
side seems willing to admit. Dependence certainly can occur, but the 
majority of users are not cannabis dependent. Whether it is a 'gateway 
drug' is hotly debated in the scientific literature, but since the dealers 
in cannabis can usually provide a source of other illicit drugs, the 
possibility that legislation actually promotes its role as a gateway drug 
cannot be ignored.

"The issue of the potency of marijuana is a further source of contention. 
The content of THC has increased significantly, although not to the extent 
often claimed. The impact of this on the incidence of cannabis dependence 
is much less certain. It has even been claimed that, since cannabis users 
smoke to their desired degree of intoxication, a more potent form will 
involve smoking less of the drug and thus reduce the tar intake that is 
responsible for lung damage.

"Overall, the question is not about the safety of the drug, but whether 
making possession of cannabis a criminal offence is in the best interests 
of society. Keeping it in the criminal code has not proved to be an 
effective deterrent, has wasted the time and energy of the police and the 
courts, and is hard to justify on the basis of medical harm. No, the drug 
is not safe and people would be better not to use it, but decriminalization 
is a rational approach. Parenthetically, decriminalizing the cultivation of 
small amounts for personal use, would greatly reduce the profits of the 
drug dealers, reduce the possibility of the marijuana being contaminated 
with some more toxic agent, and make the users less likely to be exposed to 
other drugs - all desirable outcomes."

Michael Cust, Philosophy and Political Science student (Cust served as 
communication director for the BC Marijuana Party in the summer of 2002 and 
is currently an advisor to the party. This summer he will be writing drug 
policy at the Cato Institute in Washington, DC.)

"This proposed law will do nothing to curb the most pressing problems with 
marijuana, namely basement grow-ops (illegal marijuana growing operations) 
and the involvement of organized crime in the marijuana industry. In fact, 
it will make the latter problems worse. Why? The only reason marijuana is 
grown in basements and traded by organized crime syndicates is because it 
is illegal. By increasing the maximum penalty on growing (marijuana) from 
seven years to 14, and by maintaining the current penalty for trafficking 
at life imprisonment, the government will further entrench criminal 
elements by making the risks of growing and selling pot much greater and 
therefore more appealing only to the most violent criminal elements. If pot 
were legal, it would be grown in greenhouses by respectable businesses - a 
much more economical set-up than houses. There is a reason Al-Qaeda doesn't 
hold shares in Budweiser - they can't compete in a legal setting.

"This bill is also worse for pot smokers too. Right now if someone is 
caught with a small amount of marijuana on campus, Campus 5-0 lets them go. 
Under the new bill, they could face a fine somewhere in the range of 
$100-$400. Although this bill is better for pot smokers in a de jure sense, 
it is worse for them in a de facto sense."

~~~

Dr. Bryan Hogeveen, Criminology, Department of Sociology, University of Alberta

"In the last 10, 15, maybe even 20 years, the idea that marijuana should be 
regulated has come under intense scrutiny from different groups, from 
different individuals, from the media. For example, I'm thinking of the 
(pro-marijuana) documentary Grass. So you've got these films and these 
celebrities recommending perhaps we should not be regulating marijuana.

"What happens then? You get a very permissive atmosphere where marijuana is 
constructed in a very similar way as alcohol and tobacco: it's a drug, but 
is it less harmful for us?

"The way I look at it is the construction of the problem, the issue, and 
more specifically what's happened in the last three-five years is that what 
we've seen, and police officers will back me up on this, is that (law 
enforcement) is less likely to spend a lot of time and money policing 
marijuana legislation and laws. With the impending change in legislation, 
from what I've heard, why would you bust somebody for a small quantity of 
marijuana when they come before the judge who says, "Listen, there's going 
to be a deregulation of this drug in the next little while anyway, why 
should I put this individual in jail, why should I sentence this individual 
to probation?'

"It then creates the perception that policing marijuana becomes a waste of 
police resources. If we are not policing marijuana legislation it leads to 
a questioning of the law around marijuana. If I say to you, 'Listen, if you 
get caught with some marijuana, you're not going to get punished very 
strictly anyway, so what's the big deal?' . the institution of law around 
marijuana becomes profane."

Mark Cherrington, Youth Court Worker for the Youth Criminal Defense Office, 
and producer of CJSR's Youth Menace, the world's only child welfare and 
young offender radio show

"I think the (existing) laws need to be changed and there needs to be a 
means of getting rid of the criminal aspect of marijuana. I think we've 
criminalized a whole generation of young people and we've put up barriers 
from allowing them to participate in certain programs, such as nursing or 
educational programs, because of a criminal record. . Over the years we've 
really done a disservice to many young people by burdening them with a 
criminal record for something that I wouldn't say is fairly minor, but 
something that isn't as significant as what a criminal record is supposed 
to mean.

"The concern is that the government wants to please everybody and they've 
just got themselves stuck in the middle. I think they should've gone 
farther and legalized marijuana because the fact remains that we're going 
to see an increased usage among youth because of the criminal aspect 
disappearing.

"What I think we've inadvertently done is provided catalyst to expose a lot 
more youth to a very dangerous criminal element. From that we might get 
young people involved in very serious drug debts, buying on margin, 
involved in subsidizing free pot for driving it around, thinking that it's 
not illegal to carry quantities like that, and maybe getting a fine. Some 
upper-middle-class kid in a nice neighbourhood gets a $200 fine, and 
instead of letting his parents know is going to rat out the drug dealer.

"What you had in the past was a sort of set-up system where drug dealers 
were exposed to a very low percentage of the youth population. And I think 
when we decriminalize it, initially we're going to have a spiked increase 
in the number of youth experimenting with marijuana, and I think their 
contact with this organized criminal element is a recipe for disaster."

~~~

Bill Mowbray, Head of the University of Alberta Campus Security Service

"This is an issue that is borne out of necessity to help or assist our 
struggling judicial system. Court cases in every province view minor 
possession of marijuana in a minor way and fines reflect that - $100 fines 
don't normally warrant criminal charges. I am sure that is the necessity 
for our struggling courts. But we never should view marijuana possession in 
those strict terms we must look at how it reacts in wider scope such as 
impaired driving, driving under the influence of alcohol and marijuana and 
how, if it is decriminalized, that might increase the possibility of people 
using both.

In my 29 years with the Edmonton Police Service, and for four years as head 
of the major crimes division, I came to realize that drugs are the root of 
all evil when it comes to crime. If you look at a crime, from shoplifting 
to breaking into people's homes to the gang murders, you can trace it back 
to drugs.

"Maybe the answer is not decriminalization, but a revamping of the court 
system to bring it into line with its day-to-day needs. Maybe what we are 
doing instead is trying to fix our court problems by minimizing the 
problems we face in society."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Alex