OTTAWA SHOULD REVIEW MARIJUANA LAWS

When the Ontario Superior Court ruled that Terry Parker has a
Charter-guaranteed right to smoke marijuana to treat his epilepsy, the
federal government was not pleased. Ottawa went to the Ontario Court
of Appeal, which increased government unhappiness greatly by striking
down the possession law.

The three judges of the court found the outright ban of marijuana
forced Mr. Parker to choose between his health and imprisonment. That
is inconsistent with the principles of justice. It is not enough, the
court ruled, for the federal health minister to provide special
dispensation to people who have a medical requirement to use the drug.

However, the court hasn't thrown the law out - yet. It gave the
government a year to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, amend the
law or simply let it die. If the government shuns the first two
options and does nothing, it will mean Canada no longer has any law
prohibiting marijuana possession.

It's easy to argue why doing nothing might be the wisest course.
Ontario's courts have recognized marijuana's medicinal value. The B.C.
courts have declared that its possession and use create an
insubstantial risk of harm.

Hardly anyone is ever charged with mere possession for personal use
any more. De facto legalization might limit the involvement of
organized crime and the dangers of underground as well as household
grow operations; this would reduce demands on police.

A happy side-effect of de facto legalization is the potential to tax
marijuana, which would fund any number of social programs.

However, the do-nothing option would leave us with an absurd situation
where it's legal to possess marijuana, but not to grow or sell it.

Since marijuana was declared a narcotic in 1923, 600,000 Canadians
have received criminal records for simple possession. That's an
absurdity that led to another - a law that is rarely enforced yet,
when it is, it leads to a sentencing crap-shoot. A man in B.C.
convicted of the same offence as Mr. Parker received an absolute
discharge. On a different day with a different judge, the sentence
could range from nothing to a maximum of seven years.

As The Sun reported last spring, "In the absence of serious social and
political debate, this is how marijuana policy is being written: one
sentence at a time."

Laws that are not enforced should be expunged, and sentences for those
that are should be evenly applied. The court rightly said its place is
not to write the law. That's for the government.

Whether the government goes for legalization or more defensible laws
prohibiting possession, what's needed is a rational and comprehensive
review of all aspects of marijuana legislation and the public must be
heard.

The 12 months' grace provided by the court is not a long time. The
federal government should start that review process now.

This is an excerpt from an editorial first published in the Vancouver
Sun.