A FULL AND OPEN DEBATE

Any Review Of Marijuana Laws Must Consider Legalization

Federal Justice Minister Martin Cauchon is no fool, and judging by his
willingness to mention the dreaded word "marijuana" -- and even admit that
he inhaled -- he may have guts, too. Mr. Cauchon's decision to raise the
issue of marijuana reform last month certainly took integrity, as pot
promises to be more of a political headache than a vote-winner. But his
decision to focus the discussion solely on what's known as
"decriminalization," in which the criminal penalty for marijuana possession
is replaced by something like a speeding ticket, hints at bad judgment or
even a little cowardice.

Those hints grew with his speech to the Canadian Bar Association last week.
Mr. Cauchon said we have to question why we devote so many of our legal
resources to the prosecution of cannabis offences and whether these
prosecutions improve the safety of our communities. Those are exactly the
right questions to ask, and although the minister didn't answer them, we
know, as he must, that any look at the evidence will reveal marijuana
enforcement to be a spectacular waste of time and money.

But then he followed his wise query with a plea not to be misunderstood.
"Canada has no plans to legalize marijuana," he said. "I believe endorsing
marijuana use might inflict harm on society and lead to greater problems."
He then went on to call for an "open discussion" about modernizing the
criminal justice system's approach to illegal drugs, stressing that
Canada's policy would continue to address both supply and demand.

So the minister wants an "open discussion," as long as it doesn't include
talk about any form of legalization. It seems Mr. Cauchon is emulating
Henry Ford by offering his customers a car in any colour as long as it's black.

Mr. Cauchon's dismissal of legalization is illogical. It also fails to
explain his belief that simply by ceasing to punish marijuana users, the
government would be endorsing marijuana use. Did the government "endorse"
suicide when it removed it from the Criminal Code? Is it endorsing adultery
by not punishing cheating spouses? Such unreflective moralizing might be
expected from some opposition MPs, but it's depressing to hear it from the
new minister of justice.

Mr. Cauchon's argument is also empirically false. Although he doesn't
specify the alleged harms of legalization, it's safe to assume he means it
will automatically prompt much greater use of the drug.

Not so. In 1976, the Netherlands ordered the police not to punish
possession of small amounts of marijuana -- de facto legalization. The
Dutch also permitted a limited number of shops to sell marijuana under
tightly restricted conditions. The result? Marijuana use did not soar out
of line with trends in other countries. In fact, Dutch pot consumption is
about the same or lower than in many other western nations. And use by
Dutch teenagers is far lower than in the pot-busting United States.

Mr. Cauchon is right that Canada needs an open discussion of our drug laws.
But let's put all the options on the table, look at all the evidence and
weigh all the pros and cons.

That's what a gutsy young minister would do. It's time for Mr. Cauchon to
show if he's up to the challenge.