DEFENDING INTERESTS

Re: The Ontario ruling regarding prohibition ("Ontario ruling spells hope
for B.C. pot advocates," Aug. 1).

The recent Ontario Appeal Court decision does not address the true problem
with cannabis prohibition. Cannabis prohibition has never been the will of
the people. According to the Feb. 24, 1938, House of Commons debates, when
the ban of cultivation was deliberated, "You can go for 800 miles or so
through the West in probably every other garden you will find this weed.
... The government should work in secret with the provinces and
municipalities to eradicate this weed."

Marijuana and hemp are the same species, just like a Chihuahua and a mutt
are both dogs. When marijuana was banned so was hemp. Yet if you turn to
the February, 1938 copy of Popular Mechanics you can read an article
stating that "10,000 acres devoted to hemp will produce as much paper as
40,000 acres of average pulp land."

To me, the underlying justification for the ban is not credible. It is far
easier for me to believe that the motivational force behind prohibition was
people using their power to defend personal financial interests.

Today, pharmaceutical, timber and petro-chemical industries are all
motivated to back candidates who will perpetuate the ban. The courts and
the police benefit with increased man hours. The privatized American prison
system is rewarded with a steady supply of labour for cotton farms and
other work projects. Even the black market suppliers want prohibition to
continue because of the fear of taxation and regulation.

All this support virtually guarantees the perpetuation of the law, but it
does not make the law a good one. No other law teaches so many people that
the police are not to be trusted.

David Ovans,
Victoria