MARIJUANA SHIFT HAS DRAWBACKS

A British decision to join the international trend toward decriminalization
of cannabis possession has prompted Canadian Justice Minister Martin
Cauchon to say he is considering following suit.

Good news? Not necessarily. And not necessarily news. New justice ministers
have a habit of making vague positive noises on the age-old subject. But
with a major Senate report expected later this summer, and also likely to
urge liberalization, Cauchon's remarks demand attention.

For once, the "consideration" he talks about must rise above the usual
recitation of pat opinion and anecdotal evidence. It must develop a
made-in-Canada policy based on domestic facts rather than tag-along
attitudes toward changes in foreign countries that do not share a
5,000-kilometre border with the United States. And finally, the wishes of
our drug-plagued neighbour -- whether wise or not -- must be a key
consideration.

Normally, discussions of this subject start with arguments in favour of a
more liberal legal policy. Let's start here with a few against it.

Cannabis is a drug; it has addictive qualities; it impairs judgment, motor
skills and physical co-ordination. Driving is affected for up to eight
hours; a study conducted on pilots has found a significant reduction in
ability.

Second, it is illogical to argue that law should be changed because a lot
of Canadians break it, or to blame it rather than the lawbreaker for
potentially criminalizing more than a million Canadian users.

Third, it is silly to argue that alcohol and tobacco are worse, causing
more far more death and injuries to third parties than cannabis. They do;
no question. But that doesn't mean we need another tolerated drug we'd be
better off without. Research shows that cannabis does becomes addictive in
five to 10 per cent of users, and that while the "slippery slope" is
exaggerated, five per cent of users do slide down it to harder, more
dangerous drugs.

Fourth, it is dangerous to assume major savings for the justice system. As
one Edmonton officer, Sgt. Mike Phillips points out, police effort and
paperwork will not change in the issuing of a non-criminal citation.
Phillips, who supervises the 12 beat officers working the Old Strathcona
area, adds that drug-possession cases don't take up a huge amount of time now.

The key question is whether decriminalization would make matters worse, and
if not, whether Canadians would be better off with fewer criminal records
and greater respect for the law. In fact, experience in places as different
as Australia and Switzerland show no evidence the use of cannabis rises
when taken from the criminal code.

Unquestionably, the British will be somewhat more tolerant of a dope smoker
next summer. Officers will no longer arrest people for simple possession.
They will simply confiscate, and take stronger measures only when there is
associated undesirable activity. But it's worth noting that in practice,
existing Canadian policy isn't a great deal more strict than the new
British one.

Often, if police are busy, and if the culprit is not argumentative,
confiscation is the path chosen here too. Of 16 cases so far this July in
the Old Strathcona area, for example, half ended with confiscation. In
addition, while charges are often laid for possession, when the amount is
less than 30 grams the culprit is fined, but not fingerprinted and a formal
record is not created.

If and when he breaks from past practice and actually announces a new
policy, Cauchon must make sure it is worth the controversy it will cause.
We need to know, for example, what proportion of police cases of marijuana
possession end in charges, and how their disposition would have changed
under a new law.

An estimated half of Canada's marijuana production now flows cross the U.S.
border. Americans deserve reassurance we aren't further undermining their
agenda.