POT BATTLE WILL BE LONG

Politicians See No Reason To Risk Their Necks For It

Last week's column discussed those references to God that occur both in our
courts and in the constitution. This week, we'll address a letter about
cannabis and what can be done to change the laws controlling its use.

Dear Terry and Peter: July 1 is Cannabis Day in Canada. What more can the
legalization movement do? The truth about cannabis is out - it is a harmless
drug and even a good medicine - but still the horrible laws remain. Where
do we go from here? - Julie Taylor Dartmouth

Dear Julie: In order to get the anti-cannabis law changed you would have to
convince the Liberals changing the law will not lose them votes.

But, in a way, that's only the steam from the manure pile. Why would the
Liberal party get involved in a project that would risk alienating voters?

Given our system for counting votes, governments survive or fall on the
basis of tiny shifts in the percentages. So, parties that take controversial
positions are parties courting defeat.

Witness the recent NDP treatment of Svend Robinson - disgracing him for
having presented a petition which just might - might - offend Christians, a
very few Christians.

A very few is too many. Marijuana doesn't have a chance.

When and why do laws change in Canada? Mysteriously and, in a way, by accident.

Take a similar case: free trade. Was there a popular movement? Did we even
hear of an organization pressing for it? No. It just seemed to happen. Why
did it happen? We don't know - probably some business group had the ear of
Mulroney, or perhaps it was his own idea.

Take the war

Or take the war against Serbia. A huge effort on the part of our government
and millions of dollars were spent very quickly. But who was pressing for
this war? Did any organization build up a media/voter push on the topic? No.
Apparently Chretien wanted to do it, so we did.

The initiatives for changes in legislation come from places quite hidden
from the public eye. Notice what happened in the case of our abortion laws:
the Supreme Court ruled the laws unconstitutional and Parliament could not
agree on a new law so now there is no law! That's Parliament: abortion is
controversial (voters could be angered) so Parliament refuses to go one way
or the other.

It is of absolutely no interest whatsoever to Parliament whether marijuana
laws ought to be changed, whether your arguments for legalization are valid
or not. The only thing of interest to Parliament is whether changing the law
would bring more votes or money. That's the rub.

And there might be forces, hidden forces, speaking against legalization. For
example the alcohol industry, an industry that has been supporting political
parties for a century and more. This industry would lobby against
legalization and would not hesitate to threaten the party coffers. Next to
votes, money is number two on the list of the truly fine things parties respect.

Our feeling is that legalization will come far too late to mean anything.
Better laws will come only when marijuana has already become a publicly used
drug anyone can buy. The law, in other words, will be the last thing to change.

We have gotten so far as to get cannabis for the use of some people who need
it for medical reasons. That's a good start. Next we should argue for its
use as a general relaxant and as an aid to sleep (it's certainly better than
sedatives and sleeping pills). Finally, we can suggest its use by young
people who are at risk of alcohol addiction. It might even be possible to
convince addiction counsellors to suggest its use by some alcoholics to
provide a more-or-less permanent, relatively harmless substitute for the
poison alcohol.

Slow progress

The strategy here is simply to constantly widen the range of medicinal uses.
Remember that doctors and therapists today can legitimately deal with any
problem a patient brings to them, providing it involves a physical,
psychological, or social difficulty. Thus doctors can be encouraged to free
up the drug for more widespread use. Doctors know the drug is virtually
harmless and they might well come to see that this gentle drug has many good
uses.

If we get that far, the battle will have been mostly won. Anyone wanting to
use the drug will pretty well be able to get the stuff.

One final note. We are absolutely not recommending the use of marijuana
except for medical purposes. A good, healthy life is lived without drugs.

Whether marijuana has harmful side effects or not, a life lived with a mind
as alert as possible, fully in contact with reality is preferable to one in
which we are made sleepy, less alert, and somewhat removed from reality.

Terry March is a philosophical counsellor; Peter March teaches philosophy at
Saint Mary's University.

Please send your questions to: e-mail: tressie@istar.ca or
peter.march@stmarys.ca, or surface mail to: Box 1457, R.R.#1, Tantallon,
N.S. B0J 3J0