ANTI-REEFER MADNESS

As the seemingly endless marijuana debate rages on, it is inevitable
that every imaginable case will be put forward by both sides. But the
arguments recently advanced by the Canadian Council of Chief
Executives and echoed by Dr. Martin Shain, chief scientist at the
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health -- that legalization or
decriminalization could leave employees too tired and distracted to
focus on their jobs, jeopardizing productivity and potentially their
own safety -- are particularly weak.

Considering a study released this week that reports the number of
Canadians using marijuana has doubled over the past decade, it is
debatable whether many are waiting for the laws to change before
partaking. But even if usage did increase following decriminalization
or legalization, it does not follow that there would also be an
inevitable crash in productivity. The last time we checked, alcohol
was still legal -- but on-the-job inebriation is not a national
epidemic. Those employees who do allow alcohol to affect their job
performance generally find that they don't have those jobs for as long
as they'd wish; presumably, those who allowed pot to interfere with
their performance would be treated likewise, and others observing the
pattern would avoid the same mistake.

If governments were to avoid legalizing (or at least decriminalizing)
pot for fear it would lead to a stoned, unproductive workforce, they'd
also have reason to ban restaurants or pubs from serving alcohol at
lunch hour. But in that regard, they rightly trust the market and the
workforce to govern themselves appropriately. Why critics believe the
same effect could not be achieved with marijuana is a mystery.