Pubdate: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 Source: Record, The (CN QU) Copyright: 2017 The Sherbrooke Record Contact: http://www.sherbrookerecord.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/3194 Author: Mike McDevitt Page: 6 SMOKE 'EM IF YA GOT 'EM Tomorrow, the Liberal Government of Justin Trudeau is expected to fulfill one of its most well-publicised campaign promises and present its much anticipated legislation to legalize the possession and use of cannabis for recreational purposes. Why they couldn't wait another week until April 20 (420) is a question worth pondering, but then again, that might have required a sense of humour. The history of drug prohibition in Canada goes back to the early 20th Century when authorities became concerned about the use of certain substances among Asian immigrant communities. Marijuana was added to the ever-increasing list of banned substances in the 1920s and once again, race was an integral component. Drug use became associated with decadence, jazz, racial mixing, and sexual license - all things designed to send shivers through middle-class society and its concept of propriety. The prohibition campaign even affected the drug of choice of the dominant group - alcohol - in the brief and rather tragic experiment that was prohibition - with all its puritan, class, and nativist characteristics. That experiment ended in spectacular failure with prohibition's repeal in the early 1930s, its only lasting effect being a powerful organized crime network, increased consumption, regulations, age limits, and marketing boards. In spite of a relative relaxation of the repression of alcohol, the war on drugs continued unabated. As the weed was relatively unknown in mainstream Canadian society, it continued to be classified along with far more dangerous substances like heroin and cocaine, and - as a symbol of radicalism and alternative lifestyles - its continued demonization proved useful in the Cold War as its use was conflated with loose morals, poor judgment, and a pathway to the devious subversion of International Communism. When the brush-cut conformity of 1950s America began to unravel into the cacophony of counterculture activism in the 1960s, marijuana became one of many symbols of youthful rebellion and became highly politicized in the process. As its use began to explode among previously protected white middle class youth, society began to re-examine recreational use of the drug, largely as the exaggeration and absurdity of the propaganda diffused by the state became apparent. For young people, this became an excuse to doubt all claims of drug dangers, helping to spread, rather than diminish, the use of other, far more dangerous substances. Its prohibition also made this diversification of recreational drug use far easier as the person who sold the pot was just as likely to be selling coke, speed, LSD, or any of the other substances that suddenly began to flood mainstream North American society. Prohibition also deprived the state of any effective means to ensure quality or protect childre! n. When the Le Dain Commission recommended the decriminalization of the possession and cultivation for personal use of cannabis in 1972, there was a general consensus among the population that, although it might not be harmless, it posed far less of a threat to public health than the readily available alcohol, and that creating felons out of its casual users represented a huge miscarriage of justice, not to mention societal hypocrisy. The potential revenue associated with state controlled distribution also began to make its implications felt. It's been 45 years since Gerald Le Dain's commission made its rather naive suggestions and they have been largely ignored ever since. But times have changed. The negative impacts of cannabis prohibition - organized crime and the wealth it accumulated not least among them - began to become clear to both the public and law enforcement agencies who had to direct massive amounts of resources to suppressing, unsuccessfully, the illicit trade. It became clear that the public was generally prepared to accept legalization of cannabis as a general principle, and governments began to focus on potential revenue income legalization could entail. Potential profits also seduced the kind of legitimate corporate interest that politicians cannot afford to ignore. The time seemed ripe for the fruit to fall and, rather courageously, Young Justin grabbed the bull by the horns in his initial national campaign and promised to change government policy if elected. Stoners have been waiting with bat! ed breath ever since. Not for the first time in their lives, stoners will be disappointed. It is important to remember that the legalization of marijuana represents more a change of approach by government rather than a change of attitude. Now, the use of marijuana is being addressed as a public health issue, rather than as a criminal one, with all the delightful implications such an approach can mean. One need only examine government attitudes towards tobacco, another legal substance, to understand why some consumers aren't all that anxious to enjoy the benefits of government management. Nor are any of those who have clandestinely perfected cannabis culture over the decades likely to reap the commercial benefits of their labour, as government predilection for corporate participation has been made quite clear. Moreover, the years have provided a lot more information regarding the potential health risks of marijuana consumption. Some studies have indicated that its regular use among young adults - whose brains are apparently not quire developed until their early twenties - has been linked to the emergence of schizophrenia and other mental health issues. On the other hand, others indicate that it can have significant benefits for those suffering from anxiety, seizures, some forms of cancer and any number of heretofore untreatable ailments. Although the federal government will assume the responsibility of establishing quality controls and purity standards, it will be up to the individual provinces to work out their own approaches as to details - much as they currently do with regard to alcohol. Although the federal government will declare 18 to be the minimum age requirement, each province will be free to establish its own, as well as their own regulations with regards to distribution, retails sales, and taxation rates. Although this allows each jurisdiction the freedom to establish its own regional set of rules, it also frees the federal government of the expense and political consequences of enforcement. It also opens the door to the kind of inter-provincial competition that currently colours the trade in alcohol and tobacco. The next generation of Canadians will grow up in a world where cannabis is part of the norm and the variety of provincial regulations will - like liquor boards - become traditional parts of the landscape. They will not, however, see the free-for-all their more Woodstock era great-grandparents envisaged. Oh well, we don't have flying cars yet either. - --- MAP posted-by: Matt