Copyright: 2003 Hearst Communications Inc.
Contact: letters@sfchronicle.com
Website: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/388
Author: Debra J. Saunders
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)

O CANADA, O CANNABIS

"I DON'T THINK a kid 17 years old, who has a joint, should have a criminal
record," outgoing Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien told the New York
Times last week. I'm no Chretien fan, but on this, I must agree.

Who would have thought that when my generation came of age, U.S. marijuana
laws would be basically what they were when we were young? Or that millions
in taxpayer dollars would be spent to prosecute and incarcerate users?

On his way out of Canada's highest office, Chretien proposed a Cannabis
Reform Bill -- dubbed "soft pot" legislation -- to change the penalty for
possession of up to 15 grams of marijuana from jail time to fines of $150
for adults or $100 for minors. Reports conflict as to whether Canadian
lawmakers will approve this piece of "legacy" legislation.

But it's clear the Bush administration strongly opposes any softening of
drug policy across the border, lest it increase drug use in the U.S.A. Too bad:

Americans might benefit by seeing what happens in a Canada that has, in
essence, decriminalized personal possession of marijuana.

Maybe the results won't all be rosy. Consider the seedy side of Amsterdam,
where coffee shops legally sell cannabis. Ditto Oakland's "Oaksterdam" -- a
district so dubbed for its medical marijuana clubs -- to which recreational
users and robbers have flocked. A gay and lesbian youth center was so
concerned about marijuana smoke wafting around the noses of vulnerable
youths that it closed its Oaksterdam office. The executive director told
The Chronicle, "When drugs are in the area, everything else comes with it."

Ethan Nadelmann, founder of the Drug Policy Alliance, doesn't buy the seedy
argument. Cities invite blight, he said; it's not the drugs.

Nadelmann noted that many marijuana advocates oppose Chretien's measure
because it doesn't legalize marijuana, or tax or regulate the drug. Still,
he said: "I think that decriminalization is an improvement over the current
policy of the drug war and arresting hundreds of thousands of people," even
if decriminalization introduces gray areas into the law.

The benefits of decriminalization, however, should not be underestimated.
In 2001, police arrested more than 700,000 people for marijuana violations,
according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report -- 88 percent simply for
possession. Once they are prosecuted, users have to live with the stigma of
an arrest record, which could bar them from entering certain professions,
and even qualifying for student loans.

As the federal and state coffers hit the red, there are budgetary issues,
too. There's the small cost of jailing first-time offenders as they are
arrested. Worse, there is the large cost of sending parolees back to
prison, not because they committed serious crimes for which they should be
thrown behind bars, but because they flunked drug tests. A recent Little
Hoover Commission report found that California wastes close to $1 billion
annually supervising and returning parolees to prison for minor parole
violations.

The best reason for decriminalization is Chretien's hypothetical 17-year-old.

I understand why parents fear that readily available marijuana might hinder
their child's development, and so they support the system. But it is clear
that marijuana, while illegal, is readily available.

According to the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, more than 50 percent
of high-school seniors reported having tried an illicit drug. I don't think
that many readers would argue that America would be a better country if all
of those students were arrested and prosecuted.