WHY DECRIMINALIZATION IS THE WISEST COURSE

Canada's largest police association makes a good case in contending
that decriminalizing small-scale cannabis use would be a mistake. But
the core argument on the other side of this perennial debate remains
better.

Walk into any large Canadian high school, on any afternoon, and
chances are a small percentage of the students will be high from
puffing on marijuana during their lunch break. If the use is constant,
long-term consequences can be severe, measured in health risks and
short-term memory loss that can devastate the learning process.

Worse, soft-drug use among Canadian teenagers appears to be on the
rise, as is drinking. A recent study by Ontario's Addiction Research
Foundation found that in 1999, 29 per cent of students from Grades 7
to 13 in the province admitted smoking cannabis at some time in their
lives, compared with 13 per cent in 1993.

Those are the kinds of statistics the 30,000-member Canadian Police
Association had in mind when it voiced opposition 10 days ago to any
loosening of the country's drug laws, a proposal rekindled by the
creation of an all-party House of Commons committee to examine the
issue. Legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana -- two very different
approaches -- would send out entirely the wrong message to young
people, the CPA believes. Nor is the union persuaded that
decriminalizing marijuana use would significantly reduce
law-enforcement costs.

Both arguments hold some water. Relegating small-scale marijuana
possession to the level of a parking ticket would, rightly, be
interpreted as an acknowledgment that it is a relatively trivial
offence. As well, budgetary savings for police would be small since,
for most, chasing marijuana-smokers has long ceased to be a priority.
Under the federal Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, fingerprinting
is not mandatory for users found with less than 30 grams. In plenty of
jurisdictions, police often ignore the laws against simple possession.
When charges are laid, courts routinely dismiss them with a warning.

At the same time, thousands of Canadians are still convicted each year
of possessing cannabis, and saddled with a criminal record that may be
far more injurious than any cannabis they have ingested. That's one
reason such influential figures as Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino
(rarely accused of pandering to criminals) favour more lenient
cannabis laws. The RCMP, too, is open to the idea, provided the move
is in concert with educational and preventive programs. The Canadian
Medical Association takes a similar stance.

That view is rooted in the recognition that cannabis, smoked by an
estimated 1.5 million Canadians, is an unwanted but unalterable fact
of modern life. We are awash in marijuana, we export countless tonnes
of it to the United States each year, and the laws against simple
possession don't work.

But would decriminalization not encourage wider abuse? It might. That
is why looser laws have to be accompanied by intelligent, credible
drug-education programs emphasizing that while cannabis will not kill
you, it may make you seriously stupid. Most teenagers yearn to be cool
and to be in charge of their lives. A reminder of why drugs are also
known as "dope" is the most cogent argument against using them.

But is not cannabis the gateway to other, far more dangerous
substances? That too holds a grain of truth. Virtually all users of
heroin or cocaine begin by smoking a marijuana joint, or a pipeful of
hashish.

But that doesn't mean most joint-smokers are necessarily vulnerable to
the allure of hard drugs. Data from the Netherlands, where drugs of
all kinds have long been available, show that while cannabis use among
young people is roughly the same as in other European countries,
heroin use is extremely rare. Why? Dutch drug experts believe that in
a country where "harm reduction" is the mantra, most teenagers
understand clearly that not all drugs are the same, and that lumping
them all together is a major mistake.

For Canada, as for the Dutch, outright legalization of marijuana is
not currently an option. Hostility from south of the border would be
acute. Decriminalization, on the other hand, is feasible. The grey
legal terrain that would open up would not be especially satisfactory.
But it would be better than the status quo.