STIRRING THE POT

If the highest court in the land ever has to vote on the legalization of
combustible refreshment, the judges should first smoke a joint and then try
driving home undistracted through the Ottawa rush hour before making their
decisions.

Rae Ellingham, Roberts Creek, B.C.

You observe that "the marijuana industry is alive and well in Canada.
Despite decades of judicial effort to stamp it out, marijuana is perhaps
more readily available than ever." This is true. Of course, theft is also
alive and well in Canada, despite judicial efforts to stamp it out. As is
murder.

Is this a reasonable argument to legalize theft and murder?

If not, then why is it relevant to whether or not marijuana should be
legalized?

Paul Ward, Kitchener, Ont.

Re: The editorial, Decriminalizing Pot, Aug. 16. No doubt the
prohibitionists and politicians who still believe cannabis is a threat to
society will cite relevant UN treaties as a reason why cannabis cannot be
legalized or even significantly decriminalized. However, a report for the
United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention states: "[of
the three international drug conventions] only the 1988 Convention clearly
requires parties to establish as criminal offenses under law the
possession, purchase or cultivation of controlled drugs for the purpose of
non-medical, personal consumption, unless to do so would be contrary to the
constitutional principles and basic concepts of their legal systems." It
would appear that if the Canadian Supreme Court rules that cannabis
prohibition is unconstitutional, the decision would void all the
problematic restrictions of the UN treaties in question.

Peter Webster, review editor, International Journal of Drug Policy, France.