MORALITY AND MARIJUANA

Laws must be justified on some moral ground in order for them to be
supported by the public. The law enforcement community has taken it upon
itself to provide us with an official discourse about the evils of
marijuana, richly sprinkled with war metaphors, the portrayal of cannabis
smokers as "losers," and the spectre of chaos if we consider more tolerant
alternatives.

For the most part, police efforts to inform the public about cannabis is
based upon a very selective reading of research, if any.

No amount of credible, peer-reviewed science shakes the police from their
simplistic messages of total abstinence, marijuana-is-harmful, and
pot-leads-to-heroin-or-cocaine.

One of the biggest challenges for the police is to convince parents who
lived through the '70s that today's pot is "more harmful".

They argue that the active ingredient is marijuana (THC) is found in higher
concentrations in cannabis grown under the tender care of hydroponic lights.

There's two problems with this argument when it's used to legitimize police
enforcement practices.

The argument that "dangers" are associated with higher THC concentrations is
similar to arguing that whiskey is more dangerous because it contains more
alcohol than beer. Ditto for pot.

Marijuana buyers today are paying up to $40 a gram for high-grade hemp,
compared to $20 an ounce back in the '70s (an ounce being 28 grams.).

Like those who choose liquor as opposed to beer for recreational use, pot
users smoke less to enjoy the same effects.

The greatest health risks from cannabis affect only a minority of heavy
users over long periods of time, primarily in upper-respiratory ailments.
This can be avoided by producing teas or baked goods using hemp products
("hash brownies".)

It is a tragic irony that more people have died or been injured from the
enforcement of marijuana laws than any harms generated from the herb
itself. The negative costs to society are the result of the legal status of
marijuana, not its pharmacological properties.

The second flaw in the high THC argument is a failure to recognize that
large, domestic grow-ops are a market response to changing enforcement
practices.

Grow-ops and organized crime emerged when the Americans began their
draconian "zero-tolerance" policies under a bumper sticker mentality
reflected in slogans like "there's no such thing as a soft drug."

If Parliament decriminalized and regulated the domestic cultivation of
marijuana, organized crime would largely evaporate, except for a black
market to supply smokers south of the 49th parallel.

The police enforce cannabis laws with little or no public mandate.

Public support for the unqualified decriminalization of marijuana recently
edged over the 50% mark, and about 85% of Canadians surveyed last year in a
poll by Decima Research believe that marijuana should be considered for
medical treatments.

At least as far as marijuana laws, the police may be without the vital
public consensus - and legitimacy - which it needs to maintain the status
quo.

The morally preferable alternative to the current failure of the "war on
drugs" approach to cannabis would be for the police to follow the bold stand
taken by RCMP Commissioner Aylesworth Bowen Perry during the Prohibition.

Declaring alcohol prohibition "unenforceable," Commissioner Perry cancelled
RCMP contracts to Alberta and Saskatchewan in 1917.

It's unlikely that the same pronouncements about cannabis enforcement will
be heard from senior police officials any time soon, so ordinary Canadians
should demand a more tolerant and harm-reduction approach from Canadian
legislators.

Legalizing simple possession means that consumers still have to buy their
products from sources which may support organized crime. The
decriminalization of cannabis possession is not enough - users must be able
to "grow their own" in small quantities.

Most or many of us would prefer to see our loved ones avoid marijuana, but
the alternative of seeing them before a magistrate for their choices is far
more abhorrent than any harms associated with the plant.

John Anderson is chairman of the Malaspina University-College Criminology
Department.