POT LAW A CAREFULLY MEASURED STEP

The federal government is doing the right thing with its very modest
experimental step away from full criminalization of marijuana.

Certainly, Canadian drug policy has fallen short of a complete
handover to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft. Nevertheless, in the end
Ottawa clearly tried hard to minimize the upset in Wasington.

In fact, the decision to fine people caught with less than 15 grams of
marijuana is still more punitive than laws in several key U.S. states
including California, and eastern border states New York, Maine and
Minnesota.

In addition, the legislation introduced by Justice Minister Martin
Cauchon is rightly accompanied by efforts to make sure that use of the drug
does not increase as a result.

Finally, if it keeps its word, the government will divert police and
justice-system resources that are now frittered away on trivial
marijuana-possession prosecutions to a more concentrated assault on
Canadian growers and distributors of the drug.

True, this argument does not address moral concerns about tolerating an
illegal drug.

Nor does it question the idea that U.S. opinion is a legitimate factor in a
decision on Canadians' health and behaviour.

After all, as a journalist in the New York Times wrote recently, in an
article reacting to the new Canadian law:

"The prohibition of marijuana in the United States has historically
been driven more by a fear and dislike of people associated with it
than by reasoned consideration of its actual harm. The laws have been used
to sanction racial minorities and nonconformists."

In other words, the U.S. administration's hardline approach to soft
drugs is driven more by apprehension over the societal impacts of the
"drug culture" than by any evidence over how effective criminalization and
tough sentencing have proven.

Even so, Ottawa's concern about U.S. opinion is practical, not moral.
It matters if changes to Canadian law can potentially disrupt
cross-border traffic and police co-operation.

And in this country, the issue is practical as well: What set of
marijuana policies will do the most good and the least harm to the
population?

More than 30 years ago, the LeDain Commission on the non-medical use
of drugs concluded that full legalization of marijuana possession was
appropriate, given the modest impact of the drug on health. The
current bill, which replaces criminal prosecution with a package of
steep fines, doesn't go anywhere near that far.

For those worried the lighter penalties could signal approval of the
illegal drug, it's possible the new legislation actually could lead to more
stringent law enforcement.

Even now, in Edmonton, a full prosecution isn't always undertaken; one
of the things Canadians will find out after a year or two of the new
law is whether police will take more aggressive action when they know the
maximum penalty is "only" a fine of $400 for adults.

It is often argued that relaxing the law will lead to increased use of
the drug, and from there to more use of harder and more addictive
substances. In fact, however, evidence from the United States is that this
does not happen; the U.S. National Research Council found in 2001
that there doesn't appear to be a trend toward greater use where the
law is more relaxed, adding that "the perceived legal risk explains very
little in the variance of individual drug use."

As Health Minister Anne McLellan has said - and underlined her point
with a new $240-million education and enforcement campaign against
marijuana - none of this is meant to argue that marijuana is good for
people, or that existing use of the drug is acceptable.

Clearly, it presents a danger in the form of impaired driving or
equipment use - and is more difficult for police to detect. As well, it
has health risks similar to tobacco.

But right now, a country that treats possession of tobacco and alcohol
quite differently is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on more
than 20,000 marijuana-possession prosecutions a year - without
accomplishing the goal of halting the drug's use.

We should try the new law, continue explaining to the Americans how
incremental it is, and review it when we have hard evidence to back up or
discredit our fears.