U.S. DRUG CZAR PRAISES 'POSITIVE' PM

U.S. drug czar John Walters praised Prime Minister Paul Martin
yesterday for vowing to overhaul federal marijuana legislation and
said he hopes for an end to the "abrasiveness" that marked Canada-U.S.
relations under Jean Chretien.

In a sign of the Bush administration's eagerness to improve strained
relations with the federal government, Mr. Walters took the rare step
of publicly congratulating Mr. Martin for announcing plans to crack
down on marijuana growers and repeat users when he reintroduces the
government's marijuana bill next year.

"I have been encouraged because of the statements he has made about
marijuana being a serious drug," Mr. Walters said. "He has made an
effort to show a recognition that he does not side with those who say
this is a soft drug, or that this is something you don't have to pay
attention to."

Mr. Walters' comments came as the Supreme Court of Canada refused to
elevate marijuana smoking to a constitutional right yesterday in a
ruling that allows Parliament to criminalize any behaviour it sees fit
to protect people from harm.

"There is no free-standing constitutional right to smoke 'pot' for
recreational purposes," justices Ian Binnie and recently retired
Charles Gonthier wrote in the 6-3 decision.

The majority, in upholding the current law, rejected the arguments
advanced by three B.C. marijuana enthusiasts, who claimed it breaches
the Charter of Rights to threaten someone with a criminal record for
what they contend is a victimless crime.

It was the Supreme Court's first test of the 80-year-old prohibition
on cannabis possession and the majority sided with the government on
every point, saying that any change in the law is up to federal
politicians.

"It is open to Parliament to decriminalize or otherwise modify any
aspect of the marijuana laws that it no longer considers to be good
public policy," said the 82-page majority decision.

Mr. Walters, director of the White House Office of Drug Control
Policy, became one of the Bush administration's toughest critics of
Mr. Chretien after the former prime minister introduced legislation
earlier this year to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana.

He sparked a cross-border war of words in October when he said
Canadians were "ashamed" of Mr. Chretien for joking that he might try
smoking marijuana after the decriminalization bill was approved by
Parliament.

The U.S. had charged that Canada was the only country in the Western
Hemisphere to mishandle its drug policy, and objected to Mr.
Chretien's cavalier assessment of marijuana use. Mr. Chretien's
attitude towards marijuana was a "source of friction" with the White
House, Walters said.

Mr. Martin plans to revive marijuana legislation that died on
Parliament's order paper last month, with substantial changes. Mr.
Martin has said the bill will still impose fines instead of criminal
conviction for simple possession, but the bill is expected to include
tougher penalties for repeat offenders and marijuana growers.

That is a welcome development for U.S. drug enforcement officers, who
blame lax Canadian enforcement and punishment for a proliferation of
high-potency marijuana exports south of the border.

"The danger is that we still have this growth of the most dangerous
forms of marijuana, higher-potency marijuana going on in Canada that
threaten not only Canadians, but is largely being shipped to the
U.S.," Mr. Walters said. "It compromises our abilities to foster an
as-free-as-possible movement of goods and people at the border. It is
obviously something that we need to work on together so the border
isn't used as a shield or a hindrance."

With Mr. Martin rejecting the approach of his predecessor, "we have
some real opportunities to move in a positive direction," Mr. Walters
said.

The Supreme Court ruling also eases pressure on Mr. Martin to follow
through on a promise last week to revive a bill that would make
possession of small amounts of marijuana a ticketable offence rather
than a criminal one, said Alan Young, a lawyer in the case.

"Paul Martin is sitting in a different world going into 2004," said
Mr. Young, a professor at York University's Osgoode Hall Law School in
Toronto.

"There is no pressure coming from the courts to change the law and, in
fact, there's pressure coming from the Americans to preserve the law.
You tell me how strong is Mr. Martin and does he have the political
will. I suspect not."

Mr. Young represented Chris Clay, a 32-year-old Victoria web-page
designer who owned the Great Canadian Hemporium marijuana
paraphernalia and seed store in London, Ont. The other litigant was
Victor Caine, who was convicted of possession for sharing a joint with
a friend in his car while parked at a beach near Vancouver.

Vancouver's David-Malmo Levine, a third litigant who took his legal
fight as far as the Supreme Court after police shut down his "harm
reduction club" seven years ago, said the ruling "means that harmless
people are not protected by our Constitution."

The Supreme Court rejected their argument that lawmakers should have
to demonstrate a serious risk of harm to marijuana users to justify
criminal sanctions. The government passed the test by showing that the
health risks are not "insignificant or trivial," concluded the court's
majority.

"Chronic users may suffer serious health problems. Vulnerable groups
are at a particular risk, including adolescents with a history of poor
school performance, pregnant women and persons with pre-existing
conditions such as cardiovascular diseases, respiratory diseases,
schizophrenia, or other drug dependencies," wrote the court, citing
studies.

The trio of marijuana users also failed to convince the court that
control over possession is outside federal jurisdiction because the
provinces are responsible for health, that it is unfair to target
marijuana when alcohol and cigarettes are legal, and that pot
prohibition discriminates against people because of their "substance
orientation."

The Supreme Court said it would be going too far to expand the Charter
of Rights to protect people based on lifestyle choices.

"The Constitution cannot be stretched to afford protection for
whatever activity an individual chooses to define as central to his or
her lifestyle," the court said. "One individual chooses to smoke
marijuana; another has an obsessive interest in golf; a third is
addicted to gambling. A society that extends constitutional protection
to any and all such lifestyles would be ungovernable."

In three separate dissenting opinions, justices Louise Arbour, Louis
LeBel and Marie Deschamps said that criminalization is too harsh a
penalty, given that the government did not prove a serious enough risk
of harm.

"The enforcement of the law has tarred hundreds of Canadians with a
criminal record," wrote Judge LeBel.

An estimated 600,000 Canadians have criminal records from marijuana
possession.

Mr. Walters declined to comment on the specifics of yesterday's
Supreme Court ruling.

But he dismissed claims by Canadian supporters of decriminalization
that criminal convictions for marijuana possession will unfairly
stigmatize youth who only experiment with the drug.

He called the argument a "lie that legalizers have created" to
increase pressure on politicians to decriminalize cannabis.