HALF-BAKED QUESTIONS

Here's a riddle for you. What's the difference between marijuana that's
grown in an old mine in Manitoba, and marijuana that's grown in B.C.?

The answer? Well, apart from the fact that one's technically legal, and the
other isn't, nobody knows yet, because the first crop of prescription-only
government pot isn't ready for harvest. Wait until next spring and ask
again. By then someone's bound to have done some comparison smoking.

You don't need to indulge to figure out the difference between legal drugs
and illegal ones. You just need to look at where the money goes. Does it
travel through a pharmacy, a government, a multinational drug company
and/or a patent holder? Do you see it paying for ads on TV and in
magazines? Never mind those interminable lists of warnings and side effects
- - that money is connected with a legal drug.

Or does the money travel through independent sellers, distributors and
growers, leaving the government and corporate entities out of the loop?
Bingo, that's the illegal one.

The powers that be don't seem all that worried about the side effects or
safety of any given drug, from thoroughly legal stuff like Tylenol and
Viagra, to less-than-legal pot. They're not out to safeguard consumer
safety - they're out to make sure they get their cut on any drug deal going.

Which is why it wasn't really all that surprising when the federal
government allowed the prescription use of medical marijuana earlier this
year. If it's prescribed, and grown by the government, the money becomes
easier to track from patient (the upgraded term for user) to pharmacy to
government. (And just wait till they allow patents on particularly good
strains of marijuana. Yikes.)

In this week's cover story, Sid Tafler indicates that the medicalization of
marijuana is the logical precursor to its legalization. It makes sense.
Once some people, sick or not, are allowed to use dope without fear of
repercussion, others will want to do the same.

The floodgates are open. I'm not in favour of legalization, because
legalization will inevitably bring regulation. And with regulation, you
can bet your pot will provide about as pleasant a buzz as B.C. Ferries
coffee. On top of that, it'll be taxed, probably steeply, and I'm guessing
that, like alcohol, you'll probably have to go to a special government
store to buy it. Gives new meaning to a "six-pack of Bud", but that's about it.

Instead, I'm in favour of plain old decriminalization. By not arresting,
charging, sentencing and imprisoning people for marijuana-related
activities, the government will save tonnes of money, which could be better
used for housing the homeless, feeding the hungry and giving - not selling
- - pot to the sick. Hell, they could even develop government subsidies for
pot growers, like they do for farmers. You just know what'll happen then.
The market will be flooded. Instead of $2,400 a pound, you'll be able to
score high-test weed at every farmers' market for less than the cost of
mesclun salad mix.

And then what? Sure, people will still smoke it, eat it, probably even
mulch their gardens with it. And the only riddle then will be, why was this
ever such a big deal?