RULES FOR CANNABIS

IT is perhaps not surprising that people have been calling around town,
looking for a good source of cannabis.

The flurry of calls to clinics and support groups for deathly ill people
has been sparked by the fact the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes is
legal in Canada. It is equally unsurprising their efforts have delivered
little relief and a lot of frustration. It is but a glimpse into the
bureaucratic nightmare Parliament is setting up in its attempts to maintain
legal controls over a weed that is less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco.

Parliament's efforts would be better spent on the question as to whether
cannabis and its use need to be confined by law at all.

The evidence, particularly that weighed in B.C. and Ontario court
decisions, shows that marijuana poses little threat to a person's health.
On the other hand, there is ample anecdotal evidence that cannabis holds
powerful properties for relieving pain and nausea.

Parliament, on the heels of court decisions, has written rules as to how
the terminally ill or others who are sick and suffering can use marijuana
legally.

This solution is no more useful than it is logical.

Canada is criminalizing people who use a relatively benign drug for
recreational purposes, while making sick people jump through hoops to use
the same substance in situations in which its benefits or harm are not
scientifically proven.

Doctors, understandably, are equally unhappy about the new regime.

They are asked, on scarce evidence, to determine who among these people
will benefit from marijuana and then submit the paperwork required to
ensure everyone is complying with the law.

It will only get more complicated as time wears on and people's patience
wears thin. It is likely those in dire need will join recreational pot
users and continue to buy it illegally, risking criminal charges, fuelling
an underground market frequented by the truly criminal element, and worse,
perhaps further imperiling their health as there is no control over the
quality and purity of street cannabis.

This curious exercise may prove of some use, however, as the Senate and
House of Commons committees weighing the value of Canada's marijuana laws
will have to take notice.

As the accumulating evidence points more and more clearly toward
legalization, the government should reflect upon how best to control this
drug. Cannabis is a mind-altering drug; it is dangerous to operate heavy
equipment or drive a vehicle under its influence.

Like tobacco and alcohol, it will need regulation. Governments may want to
control its sale and levy taxes. People surely will expect rules enforced
over its content and purity. Federal and provincial justice ministers
should be discussing the roles the two levels of government ought to play.
U.S. authorities will need reassurance that Canada will not become a haven
for criminal gangs smuggling marijuana into the U.S.

All of this needs to be considered prior to legalization. Parliament and
the government should organize a logical process of debate and policy
development so as to make Canada's restrictions over marijuana relevant,
appropriate and workable.