MARIJUANA MOVES ONTO THE AGENDA

What have they been smoking back there in Ottawa? MPs of all five
parties have actually agreed to work together on an excellent piece of
public service: a review of Canada's marijuana laws.

Doubtless, it's no coincidence a survey has just been released showing
Canadians on the verge of majority support for legalization. The MPs
sense the time may finally be right to look at the status of a
substance that proper society has considered dangerous almost on
principle since its association with the hippy generation of the 1960s.

Nevertheless, willingness simply to be open-minded on non-medical use
of drugs takes courage. And whatever the outcome, it will be better
than the current blend of ignorance and hypocrisy in a society at
pains to protect the rights of tobacco users.

Some on the libertarian end of things may wonder why they must wait 18
months for a new commons committee to report, when the basic arguments
have been known for decades.

The answer is simple: If 49 per cent of Canadians are indeed mellow
enough now to back legalization, that doesn't mean it should be
legalized, or that the 49 per cent will hold to their view when the
matter has been fully aired.

Besides, if there is to be a change in the law in Canada, building an
informed consensus is at least as important as getting at facts. The
fact that alcohol and tobacco are legal drugs is eloquent testimony to
the importance of public acceptance.

A recent editorial in the Journal of the Canadian Medical Association,
which advocates taking marijuana possession out of the Criminal Code,
frames the question as one of balancing medical and legal
considerations. Essentially, it asks whether the damage to the health
of Canadians is more serious than the legal cost and fairness of
saddling 500,000 Canadians with criminal convictions.

The matter is less simple than it appears.

First, of course, we must consider relations with our neighbours. In
the unlikely event that Canadians were ready to make the leap to full
legalization, we would have to consider the implications for smuggling
and for undermining U.S. law.

Second, we'd have to be sure we weren't sending the wrong message to
young people about the entire class of perception-altering drugs.

Third, we must beware the danger of demanding consistent policy. The
entrenched legality of one nasty drug, tobacco, is hardly a good
reason for approving another, even if its consequences are
considerably more moderate.

Fourth, if we wish simply to downgrade possession to a non-criminal
offence, it will still be imperative to better accommodate those with
medical reasons for using marijuana.

And fifth, having retreated this one recreational drug, we'd have to
be certain we'd drawn a new line in a defensible position.

Nevertheless, we now have decades of experience with widespread
marijuana use. Is it truly as dangerous as society has always assumed,
either for itself, or for what it allegedly leads to? Let's talk about
decriminalization, and see where that leads.