Pubdate:  Thursday, 14 Aug 1997

Source:   'Hour' magazine, a Montréal alternative weekly
Contact:  Charlie McKenzie The Mother of Murphy's Law

by Charlie McKenzie

It's still too early for dancing in the streets, but the verdict in 26year
old Chris Clay's legal challenge to Canada's pot laws will be handed down
in London, Ontario, today, (August 14). There have been similar, albeit
unsuccessful efforts before, but a measure of tempered optimism prevails
among Canada's promarijuana advocates that this time, the outcome could
seriously dent 'Murphy's Law.'

In 1995 hemp storeowner Clay was arrested for selling a small cannabis
plant to an undercover officer.  Rather than plead guilty, pay the fine,
and accept a criminal record, he launched a fullscale constitutional
challenge with the help of law professor Alan Young, and Toronto lawyer
Paul Burstein, aimed at removing marijuana from the criminal code altogether.

	As the Clay case winds down and we anxiously await the verdict, a brief
retrospect into the origins of these marijuana laws provide fodder for
reflection . . .

Each year 30,000 Canadians run afoul of the marijuana law, but few realise
that it was authored by one Emily F. Murphy, whose shadow has lingered over
the publicatlarge, and put a considerable number behind bars, for nearly
75 years.

    	It began at the beginning of that most decadent of decades, the
1920s. All the bright young things were devouring F. Scott Fitzgerald,
while at Columbia University, a 44year old scientist named Albert
Einstein had just introduced time as the 4th dimension. Within a year it
was a weekly newsmagazine.

	In 1923, Mrs. Murphy, then an Edmonton juvenile court judge and police
magistrate, wrote a number of articles for Macleans magazine. Half a
century later, Mr. Justice Gerald LeDain was prompted to write in his 1972
Royal Commission Report:

	"Public concern about nonmedical drug use was stimulated by a series of
articles written by Emily Murphy, later in her book entitled The Black
Candle. Using the pen name, 'Janey Canuck,' she described the evils of
marijuana use in somewhat sensational terms."

	Sensational indeed.

Mrs. Murphy claimed marijuana users were "nonwhite and nonChristian,
wanting only to seduce white women." 

	"Behind these dregs of humanity," she wrote, "is an international
conspiracy of yellow and black drug pushers whose ultimate goal is the
domination of the brightbrowed races of the world."

	Murphy based much of her findings on correspondence from LA Police Chief
and rabid racist, Charles A. Jones, whom she quoted frequently: 

"Persons using this narcotic, smoke the dried leaves of the plant, which
has the effect of driving them completely insane. The addicts lose all
sense of moral responsibility and are immune to pain. While in this
condition they become raving maniacs, liable to kill or indulge in any form
of violence using the most savage methods of cruelty."

"Under the influence of this narcotic," she wrote, "they are dispossessed
of their natural and normal will power, and their mentality is that of
idiots. If this drug is indulged in to any great extent, it ends in the
untimely death of its addict." 	

Driving her drivel further, she recounted a tale from the pages of an
obscure dimestore diatribe, 'The Real Mexico,' by equally obscure
hackwriter, Mr. Hamilton Fyfe:

"They (Mexicans) madden themselves with 'Marahuana' (sic), which has
strange and terrible effects. At El Paso recently, a peon came across the
International Bridge firing a rifle at all and sundry. Much talk against
the Americans and a dose of 'Marahuana' had decided him to invade the
United States by himself. The bridgekeeper quickly put a bullet into the
poor wretch."

	Today we'd find all of this a bit hard to swallow, but in 1923, it was
quite palatable to our noted crackpot Prime Minister, William Lyon
MacKenzieKing.

	But he had the added advantage of a crystal ball.

	Mr. Justice LeDain found that Murphy's articles were the sole reason
marijuana wound up on the wrong side of the law. "A decision was made," he
wrote in the Royal Commission, "without any scientific basis, nor even any
real sense of social urgency, placing cannabis on the same basis as the
opiate narcotics, and it has remained so to this day."

	The basic premise of 'Murphy's Law states that, 'whatever can go wrong,
will go wrong,' so consider this:

In 1923, marijuana smoking was relatively unknown in Canada. It had a
variety of medicinal and industrial uses, but no one outside of a few jazz
musicians used it to get stoned. Today, according to the RCMP, 5 million
Canadians use it daily for no other purpose.

	If no one smoked it in 1923 when it was legal, and 5 million smoke it
today when it's not, something's gone wrong. 

	Ergo, Murphy's Law

	Politicians have promised marijuana reform for the past two decades. Each
party in the House of Commons has at least one 'token pot promise' stashed
away somewhere in their programs, but as MP John Nunziata once told me,
"There's no votes in it."

Which is why Chris Clay, et al, are counting on the courts and Charter of
Rights to do what our politicians first promised then refused to do.

They argue three points.  The right to privacy, based on an Alaskan Court
decision in 1975, which legalised pot smoking in private dwellings. Second,
the right to bodily autonomy as outlined by the 1988 Canadian Supreme Court
decision that overturned Canada's abortion laws. The final point concerns
the arbitrary placement of cannabis in existing statutes. There is no
evidence that marijuana is an addictive drug and laws prohibiting it are
too broad and vague and are therefore invalid. 

	While the outcome remains to be seen, should Chris Clay & Co. win the day,
'Janey Canuck' and MacKenzieKing will most assuredly be turning over in
their graves. The rest of us will be dusting off our dancing shoes.

  

Charlie McKenzie is a former leader of the Parti Rhinocéros, and chief
political correspondent for Montréal's Hour magazine. He also heads 'The
World Humour Project' for the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and
Cultural Organization (Unesco)as part of Canada's contribution to the UN
World Decade for Cultural Development.