DON'T RUSH POT LAW

At a meeting in Washington this week with Justice Minister Martin
Cauchon, U.S. officials registered their concerns over liberalized
Canadian marijuana laws: Would this lead to more "growing operations"
producing the drug to be smuggled south?

After the meeting, Cauchon delayed introducing his legislative package
on the subject, pushing it back from this week until the end of the
month.

But the Americans aren't the only ones asking hard questions: There
are indications of caucus discord and cabinet disagreement over the
bill. A "national drug strategy" -more "just say no" ads and the like
- - is being thrown together to mollify those Canadians who have no
enthusiasm for the government's plan to relax penalties.

Given all this, we wonder why the government is rushing ahead so
frantically with this at all. Marijuana-law reform is long overdue,
but this sort of pell-mell rewriting on the back of an envelope seems
more likely to result in court challenges than in coherent policy and
law.

With regard to the Americans, our federal government needs to show
some backbone. The proposed less punitive approach to marijuana
possession, although opposed by some Canadians, will barely catch up
with most of public opinion. The last thing we need is to draw up our
drug laws in accordance with American morality.

Moral disapproval, which is what drives the U.S. war on drugs, has not
in this case led to good policy: The U.S. spends more than $35 billion
a year on a "war on drugs" that has failed dismally. Some see it as a
repetition of the spectacularly unsuccessful U.S. effort to prohibit
alcohol. Prohibition from 1920 to 1933 led to higher alcohol prices
but did not deter consumption; corruption, crime and violence were
among the by-products.

Another irrational aspect of U.S. drug policy is that anti-drug laws
have tended to become most punitive well after drug use has peaked. In
the U.S., marijuana use among the young hit a peak in 1979, seven
years before the federal government enacted strict laws. By 1984,
marijuana use had already fallen by about 40 per cent. Asked why they
had stopped consuming marijuana, most people said it was because they
had health concerns, not because they were afraid of being prosecuted.

It is also worth noting that as many as 12 states, including New York
State, which borders Canada, softened penalties for marijuana
possession as far back as the 1970s in much the same way Canada is now
proposing. In light of that, it seems to have been unfortunate
grandstanding for U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci to have suggested that
the U.S. would insist on searching all Canadians crossing the border
if this change goes through.

Beyond U.S. concerns, though, Cauchon's legislation, as leaked, has
other problems. The biggest is an incoherence between the approach to
consumers and the approach to their suppliers. If we as a society take
the view that marijuana use, on a personal and limited basis, is a
matter for an individual to decide, then on what basis do we bring the
full weight of the law down on the supplier?

We might not want to open the door to marijuana production and sale on
the same scale as alcohol, but we do as a society need to work through
the incoherence of punishing one half of a commercial transaction and
not the other.

More broadly, we don't see why Parliament is in such a rush to pass
this law. If this is to be part of Jean Chretien's legacy, surely it
needs to be carefully drafted, well thought-out and truly reflective
of what Canadians want.

This change is long overdue, but redrafting the bill while the courier
waits to take it to the printer just makes no sense.