A WELCOME NUDGE TO REVIEW POT LAWS

With a year's grace to respond to a court ruling, the federal government
should undertake a comprehensive view of all aspects of marijuana
legislation, including public consultations.

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.