REEFER MADNESS, RUNCIMAN STYLE

What on Earth can have motivated Ontario's minister of public safety and
security, Bob Runciman, to call for mandatory minimum sentences for people
who grow marijuana?

As Toronto crackles with the sound of gunfire, as car thieves on parole
make the roads deadly, and as terrorists send shopping lists to their
colleagues in Canada, is marijuana really public issue number one?

No, and to be fair, Mr. Runciman never said that it was. He has even
suggested decriminalizing small amounts of it. Permit us to encourage him
to follow this latter train of thought all the way to the station.

His first comment has the virtue of consistency. Mr. Runciman has long
favoured harsher sentences, and more meaningful ones, on a wide variety of
issues. So when a reporter asked him on the weekend about marijuana
growers, he replied that he wanted them punished more severely also.

But rather than seeking harsher sentences for every offence under the sun,
Mr. Runciman must prioritize.

Like everything else, prison space is a scarce resource, so turning a
rapist loose early in order to lock up a toker is an irrational use of it.
Having SWAT teams swoop down on paraplegic, middle-aged businesspeople who
grow and smoke marijuana to relieve muscle spasms is both shameful and absurd.

These people are not primary threats to society, and distinctions should be
drawn by rational people.

Speaking of rationality, the unanswered question for Mr. Runciman is why,
if it's not a big deal to have a small amount of weed, it is a big deal to
have a large amount that you're going to divide into small amounts and give
to people who want it.

After all, mass murder is bad because individual murders are bad. But while
people have been murdered, or robbed, or raped, no one has ever been
marijuana-ed. Marijuana is something you do to yourself; it's a non-coerced
choice that you make.

A typical drug deal involves two happy parties. Go to any liquor store and
see for yourself. Buyer and seller smiling, exchanging money for a
psychoactive substance and wishing one another a pleasant evening.
Government sours this sort of simple business proceeding in the case of
marijuana.

The minister's spokesperson does note that growers are involved with
hard-core violent criminal enterprises. We concede this. But busting drug
dealers because they're involved in organized crime is nevertheless irrational.

It is painful to have to say it again, but unlike murder, rape or
terrorism, the drug trade only acquires victims and becomes violent once it
is made illegal, because dealers need some way of enforcing contracts since
they can't call the cops and the lawyers if a business arrangement goes
sour. So they use private violence instead of state coercion.

When this happens, rather than repealing a policy with consequences far
more antisocial than the problem it was created to deal with, politicians
try to increase the period (and cost) of incarceration.

Furthermore, if people are committing acts of violence in connection with
the drug trade, what's wrong with punishing them severely for the acts of
violence? Why punish everyone for the presence of drugs?

We're happy to get tough on real crime. But buying, selling or using
marijuana doesn't fit the definition.

Now that Mr. Runciman has conceded that it's not a serious offence, he
should save his limited prison cells for the real bad guys.