WILL NO ONE RID US OF THIS TURBULENT LAW?

When will the madness end? No, not the escapades of Stockwell Day,
but something far more serious: our laws on illicit drugs inherited
from the 20th century but akin in spirit to the 14th century's witch
burnings.

On Monday, criminologist Marie-Andree Bertrand appeared as a witness
before the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs. She is
professor emeritus at the University of Montreal's School of
Criminology and was a commissioner on the Le Dain Commission that
proposed in 1970: "No one should be liable to imprisonment for simple
possession of a psychotropic drug for non-medical purposes."

"I counted 1,400 people who were imprisoned between last October and
January, simply for possession of cannabis in Canada," she told the
Senate committee.

So, in four months, 1,400 Canadians were locked up, with a criminal
record for life, for having in their possession a substance that
Canadian judges have recently declared to be less harmful than
tobacco or alcohol.

This, for example, was part of the B.C. Court of Appeal's judgment
last June in R. v. Malmo-Levine: "Every year, thousands of Canadians
are branded with a criminal record for a remarkably benign activity,
such as smoking marijuana."

Prof. Bertrand reviewed the evidence. "No fewer than 20 task forces
were established by the governments of at least 10 countries to study
cannabis and all psychotropic substances, their alleged effects and
ways of controlling their use and trade. Two facts emerge from the
reports of these commissions and committees: first, the virtual
unanimity of their findings on cannabis and, second, the almost
unanimous refusal of legislatures to act on the commissions'
recommendations, except in the Netherlands."

Cannabis, best known as hemp or its derivatives hashish and
marijuana, was studied by major commissions for more than a century,
with always similar results. The latest major study, commissioned by
France's health minister, was published in May of 1998. Though
written in highly technical language, it generally gives cannabis a
clean bill of health, recognizing its medicinal properties and
dispelling the baneful myths that have grown up around it.

I have room for one quotation: "Cannabis possesses no
neurotoxicity.... From that point of view, cannabis is utterly
different from alcohol, cocaine, ecstasy and the psycho-stimulants,
as well as some medications used by drug addicts."

Before the Liberal government brought in the current repressive law
on drugs, it promised on Oct. 30, 1995, to create a full independent
review of drug policy within one year of the law's coming into force.
It was proclaimed in May of 1997.

Since then, courts in British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta have
called on Parliament to change the law. It was actually found
unconstitutional last July 31 by the Ontario Court of Appeal because
it deprived some sick people of a constitutional right to treat their
illness with marijuana. The court gave the government a year to
rewrite the law.

Instead, the government chose to change the regulations, without
going to Parliament, leaving the law as it is. The Supreme Court of
Canada, however, has said it will hear appeals of convictions related
to marijuana. The highest court may well order Parliament to rewrite
the law to bring it into conformity with the Charter of Rights.

Meanwhile, when Jean Chretien lays himself down to sleep tonight, I
hope he will remember the thousands of Canadians going to bed behind
bars because they possessed an essentially harmless substance, and
all because his government refused to change a mad law.

Their disrupted lives are on his conscience.