BENEFITS OF LEGALIZING MARIJUANA STILL UP IN THE AIR

The Fraser Institute's proposal that B.C.'s $7 billion marijuana crop
be legalized has one strong argument in its favour. Author Stephen
Easton correctly notes the similarity between marijuana prohibition
now and alcohol prohibition earlier in the last century.

Given pot cultivation is hugely profitable and the risks are few,
organized crime does quite well as do small-time growers and dealers.
Legalize it, tax it and Easton figures governments could rake in $2
billion as well as divert police resources now used to bust grow-ops.

But if those sympathetic to legalization -- but not yet convinced
(this writer for one) -- are to be won over, the institute must
address legitimate questions surrounding marijuana use that were
absent from Easton's study.

First an oddity. Easton wants to lure governments into stopping the
drug war and does so via the look-at-the-taxes-you'll-get bait. Fair
enough as a strategy, except that he should have recommended a $2
billion tax cut somewhere else to be consistent with the institute's
small government views.

That's a minor criticism. More substantively, Easton notes 23 per cent
of Canadians have smoked marijuana sometime.

In addition to a wide disregard for the pot law, he notes in
Vancouver, pot growers get a slap on the wrist: 55 per cent of
convicted grow operators don't do a single day in jail. Less than
three per cent get a year's term. And the average fine is $1,167, a
mere business expense.

From this, Easton concludes the police are spinning their wheels
busting grow-ops. I agree.

But to draw a straight line from lenient Vancouver courts to
legalization is a leap and misses a major criticism: Until pot is
legal, the courts have no business being so nice to drug dealers.
Judges should have more concern for law-abiding citizens who have to
put up with dealers in their neighbourhoods instead of giving the
annoying, potentially dangerous creeps a judicial wink-wink.

The Fraser study mentions but doesn't delve into potential
ramifications of how U.S.-Canada trade would be affected
post-legalization. For example, if the U.S. decides to slow down
border traffic, other Canadian exports and industries could suffer.

Nor does the Fraser study deal with legitimate social questions about
legalization. For example, RCMP claim 60 per cent of children who use
it regularly before age 15 go on to use heroin and cocaine.

Furthermore, 12-to-17-year-olds who smoke pot are 85 times more likely
to use cocaine than those who do not.

If marijuana legalization is to occur, proponents must also explain
why they think us non-tokers won't be smothered by reefer smoke from
more potheads in our apartment buildings, or why there won't be more
potheads at the beach where the rest of us go for fresh air.

Legalization advocates should also explain why they think there won't
be an explosion of stoned drivers to maim more people on our highways.

I'm open to being convinced on pot legalization and the
get-Al-Capone-out-of-business angle almost does it. But "almost" isn't
the same thing as being won over.