DECRIMINALIZING POT MORE A MATTER OF CONVENIENCE THAN MORALITY

Should Canada legalize/decriminalize marijuana, or not? That is the question.

Prime Minister Jean Chretien responded by saying he supports the use
of marijuana for medical purposes, but gave a firm "no" to anything
further. He stated that the public is free to debate the issue, but
decriminalizing pot is not part of his government's agenda.

From those comments, The National Post created the headline, "PM says
'no' to looser drug laws." Meanwhile, The Globe and Mail managed to
twist Chretien's very same comments into: "Chretien encourages
holding marijuana debate."

Such disparity in the interpretations of Chretien's remarks surely
indicates that ideology has more to do with the media's treatment of
drug debate than the actual facts.

Perhaps that is why Canadians are similarly confused about the real
issues related to the decriminalization and/or legalization of
marijuana.

The newspapers have been declaring that cultural support for
decriminalization is at unprecedented levels and the time is ripe for
the government to make a move towards a more libertine society.

A University of Lethbridge survey suggests that the children of the
60s are still committed to removing all social restraints: 47 per
cent of Canadians favour the decriminalization and legalization of
marijuana.

Tory leader Joe Clark says let's decriminalize, the Canadian Alliance
says let's fine users instead of trying to convict them.

The House of Commons has agreed to strike a special committee to
examine Canada's drug policies, but chances are the debate will focus
more on the medicinal use of marijuana and innovative options for
punishing users than on legalization or decriminalization.

There are essentially four arguments to support the decriminalization
scenario -- all of which smack more of "giving up" on people and what
is right, than granting freedoms.

Proponents say that legalization reduces petty crime (by those who
steal to support their habit) and organized crime (which profits from
dealing drugs).

If this is taken to be some kind of axiom, then why can't we
similarly recognize that the number of crimes committed in a
drug-induced stupor will surely rise, and that taking drugs out of
the hands of organized crime won't be the end of organized crime --
it will only move into new niches and continue its exploitation of
other niches. After all, there will still be prostitution, gambling
and illegal aliens and whatever else the broad spectrum of crime
covers. So let's not blindly fall for the notion that organized crime
equals drug pushers.

Secondly, there is the supply-and-demand argument.

If you take away the "supply" problem by making it readily available,
then demand for the drugs (and the illegal efforts to obtain those
drugs) should drop off. But drugs aren't a supply-demand issue; they
are a demand issue only and it's up to us to say "yes" or "no" to
those demands. Demand will only decrease if we give society reasons
(social, medical andlegal) to say "no" to drugs. That won't be easy,
as it would mark an abrupt shift from our current efforts to
stimulate demand by giving false promises of medical safety and
social acceptance.

Thirdly, is marijuana a safe drug?

A recent editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal claims
that there are few side effects. But the specialist journal Thorax
recently demonstrated that marijuana can damage the lungs as much as
tobacco. Further, because of a lack of filters and a higher tar
content, three or four joints per day can produce the same medical
symptoms as smoking 22 cigarettes per day.

So why open up our population to these health risks, while demonizing
tobacco companies and launching billion-dollar lawsuits for payback
of medical costs?

Finally, libertarians argue that you can't legislate morality -- even
though every law does, in fact, legislate some form of morality.
Therefore, according to one commentator, the issue becomes how we
view the law -- is it so flexible that we can twist it to sanction
illegal activities that we now find inconvenient to deal with and
don't have the courage to confront? Or are our laws true expressions
of what our society views as what is right and wrong, moral and
immoral?

That is the real question.