A POTTY SUGGESTION

In Brief: Ottawa should put an end to the current spate of musing about the
possible decriminalizing of possession of marijuana.

Marijuana and its effects cannot escape becoming a hot political topic in
the next few months, due (in large part) to the recent musings of Prime
Minister Jean Chretien about a change in its legal status.

This has been a public policy issue since the interim report of the LeDain
royal commission of 1970 recommended marijuana's partial decriminalization.
This suggestion -- affirmed in the commission's controversial final report
- -- was, sensibly, never acted upon.

Uncritically, though, marijuana advocates and a few politicians have used
this as a legal template for recurring suggestions that pot be
decriminalized. That is, simple possession of marijuana should be put into
the same legal category as, say, speeding or a noise violation.

The culprit could be charged in the same way that someone walking around
downtown Regina with a can of beer could be charged. No criminal record
would result.

The justification for such a legal change seems to be, "well, so many
people are doing it, why bother to enforce it?"

Huh? A lot of people drive drunk, too, but society still bothers to enforce
laws against it. There are also plenty of burglaries and domestic abuse
cases. Should we soften those laws, too?

That laws are flouted hardly makes a compelling case for partially or fully
repealing them. The hoary argument that too many young people get criminal
records from marijuana use is equally facile. If you don't want to be
punished, don't take legal chances. As if we haven't enough drunks on our
roads without adding some stoned on pot, too.

The federal push for decriminalizing marijuana is further undermined by the
still-open verdict on its medium- and long-term physiological effect on users.

Only last week, a veteran British toxicologist warned its use might be
every bit as bad as tobacco use. It is passing strange that Canadian
society, and its federal government, would fight a long and increasingly
successful battle against tobacco and its deleterious health effects only
to facilitate more smoking.

The same precision of thought has permitted the federal cabinet, notably
Justice Minister Martin Cauchon, to muse aloud about the decriminalization
of pot -- so long and so loudly that some judges have stirred and suspended
the cases of people facing marijuana offences. (These cases are not to be
confused with those of individuals facing charges for the possession of pot
for medicinal purposes. The federal government took on the responsibility
of providing, on an experimental basis, marijuana for patients, then faced
considerable problems in getting a uniform crop of marijuana for test
purposes. This has prompted many gleeful comments insinuating that the
federal government cannot even grow pot successfully, but that is
misunderstanding the issue. Still, a judge has given the feds until July 9
to come up with marijuana -- from somewhere. After that date, one presumes,
the charges will be dropped and the pot-smokers set free.)

There is another factor that few in the federal government seem to have
taken into consideration. The American government is dead-set against the
potential decriminalization of marijuana in Canada because of the political
precedent it would set. With Canadian-American relations now widely judged
to be at their lowest ebb since the days of John Diefenbaker and his clumsy
anti-Americanism, we wonder if this federal government wants to antagonize
our biggest trading partner and neighbour yet again, and over a trivial issue.

Canadians already live in fear of American trade actions against our
exports; stiffer border security since Sept. 11, 2001, has raised many
problems. The federal Liberals' perceived antagonism to the Bush
administration has made things even more tense. It is hard to see them
picking yet another fight with Washington, but one never knows.

Many arguments for the decriminalization of marijuana have been made, none
of them convincing. Ottawa should end speculation by backing off -- then
move on to things of real substance.