DECRIMINALIZING MARIJUANA A NO-BRAINER

Ten-month-old Dylan Clay is making happy little baby noises while his dad
Chris talks expectantly of a day when the family can visit Disneyland.

Realistically, any travel by Clay outside Canada will be a long way off.

Like 600,000 other Canadians who have fallen victim to Canada's senseless
and futile efforts to prohibit marijuana use, the 29-year-old former
Londoner has a criminal record that severely restricts travel.

The United States, with its war on drugs so conveniently papering over a
host of social ills from decaying cities to lousy test scores for students,
will be off-limits for some time.

But, unlike the Canadians who chalk up a pot bust to a youthful indiscretion
or hide it from friends and bosses, Clay doesn't care who knows. The law is
wrong and he's out to change it.

The Ontario Court of Appeal knocked the socks off the federal government
this week when it ordered the law changed to permit medical use of marijuana
- -- or face court-imposed cancellation of all prohibitions.

Of course marijuana should be available to treat the symptoms of illnesses
such as AIDS or epilepsy. The fact Ottawa challenged this issue defies
comprehension.

If marijuana makes patients feel better, and it does, government should
merely figure out how to make it available. Canadians should have access to
their choice of medicine.

In the words of Osgoode Hall professor and lawyer Alan Young, who argued the
case, the medical use issue is a "no-brainer."

At the same time, the court passed judgment on an even more important case
that was all but overlooked in the media scramble to manufacture what-if
scenarios from the medical marijuana decision.

The appeal court's stockpile of bravery exhausted on medical marijuana, it
upheld a decision prohibiting Clay from possessing pot for recreational
purposes.

Clay's argument there are no harmful effects and that criminalization poses
a greater threat was received sympathetically, but to no avail.

No one really expected the decision to be the end in either case.

Clay's is one of three marijuana cases moving slowly to the Supreme Court of
Canada. Another, the medical marijuana case, will no doubt be appealed by
the feds if only to buy more time than the one-year deadline. The other is
in British Columbia.

Steadily, persistently, almost from the day London cops swooped down May 17,
1995, on his King Street shop -- the Great Canadian Hemp Emporium -- Clay
has fought to end the criminalization of marijuana users.

"They came at the end of the day, about 20 police officers, and they took me
straight to jail and held me for the night," he recalls.

"They went through my home the next morning and really trashed it -- it
looked like somebody had broken in. All the drawers were emptied out, all
the closets, it was a disaster.

"They also charged friends of mine who were staying at the house and
employees who were at the store."

Five years and $40,000 later -- lawyers, including Young, are working for
free -- he predicts his case will be at the Supreme Court about this time
next year.

Along the way, he has been helped by many contributors, including another
ex-Londoner. Former City Lights book store owner Marc Emery, who has carved
out a niche selling pot seeds, has promised to contribute $5,000 to the
upcoming fight -- on top of thousands he has already contributed, says Clay.

There's a high cost to acting on principle. Photocopying alone has cost more
than $10,000. Another $30,000 went to things like expert witnesses, flying
them in, putting them up in hotels, and occasional honoraria.

Over those five years under a microscope, Clay has sensed a shift in public
opinion.

"Prohibition has done nothing to stem the marijuana trade, it is everywhere
and people can easily find it."

More than one-quarter of Canadians admit to having smoked grass at some
point. When that many Canadians say the law is an ass and disobey it, when a
majority support decriminalizing it, when the courts downgrade sentences to
a fine or suspended sentence, the need for a change should be apparent to
even the most skittish Ottawa politician.

As it stands, Young argues the law has only a political purpose -- it
protects Ottawa from retaliation by our southern neighbour for whom drugs
are a bogeyman. And a drug that's so ubiquitous is a perfect foil for police
in chasing other concerns.

The worst part is that prohibition brings so many Canadians in contact with
organized crime. Pot costs about the same to grow as tomatoes, says Clay.
But a pound of tomatoes sells for $2 to $3, while marijuana costs $3,000.
The untaxed difference goes to a black market and organized crime. And in
the hands of crooks, there's no such thing as quality control, so potency
has ratcheted up.

Age limits?

Sure -- how about the same as for booze.

And hit drivers impaired by pot as hard as you would those wrenched from
reality by Pernod or Percodan.

But there's no longer any policy or scientific justification for arguing
booze and smokes are OK but users of a less harmful substance should get
slapped with a criminal record.