WAITING TO INHALE

"Who cares?" That was the reaction of most Canadians when Ontario Liberal
Leader Dalton McGuinty and his NDP counterpart, Howard Hampton, admitted on
Tuesday to having smoked marijuana during their teenage years.

But we can learn from our indifference. The very fact that so many of us are
unfazed tells us how ripe the issue of marijuana decriminalization has become.

Libertarians have long argued that drug policy should be left to
individuals. But you don't have to embrace a laissez-faire world view to
support reform of marijuana laws. Garden variety liberalism -- and even
conservative social accountancy -- will lead you to the same conclusion.

Liberalism -- the kind that advocates individual liberties, not government
largesse -- is not hostile to state regulation, but it is suspicious of it.
Liberals put the onus on government to justify the elimination of liberties
by reference to the attendant harms. And conservatives ask whether the
benefits of government intervention outweigh its social costs. Where
marijuana is concerned, the government can meet neither burden of proof
without making nonsense of the current law on a wide variety of activities
that are mildly risky, but totally legal.

To marijuana opponents, this might seem like a trite line of attack. But I
have yet to hear it properly refuted. Every year, tobacco kills 3.5 million
people worldwide. Alcohol does in another 750,000. Yet, despite the lack of
a single confirmed published case of death from cannabis poisoning,
marijuana is proscribed under criminal penalty, while cigarettes are sold
over the counter at gas stations, and liquor is on tap at Pizza Hut
(alongside cholesterol, another proven killer).

That is not to say marijuana does not pose health risks. As with tobacco,
heavy marijuana use can cause chronic bronchitis and other forms of lung
disease. And, as with alcohol, there is some evidence that very heavy
long-term use of marijuana can cause permanent mental impairments and poor
pregnancy outcomes. But these potential harms are within the ambit of risk
that characterize perfectly legal indulgences such as fatty foods,
motorcycle use, contact sports, casual sex, and, of course, alcohol and tobacco.

Moreover, the oft-cited claim that marijuana is a "gateway drug" is nothing
but a creature of statistical correlation. A recent Institute of Medicine
report commissioned by the White House Office of National
Drug Control Policy grudgingly concluded, "there is no conclusive evidence
that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent
abuse of other illicit drugs."

Where medical applications are concerned, the case in favour of marijuana is
even more lopsided -- because proponents can apply elemental utilitarianism
to buttress our society's general preference for individual liberty.

Many experts have argued persuasively that marijuana is highly effective for
treating appetite loss arising from HIV medications, intra-ocular pressure
caused by glaucoma, chemotherapy-related nausea, as well as muscle
spasticity arising from spinal cord injuries, epilepsy, and multiple
sclerosis. Compared with other remedies, the side effects of marijuana are
mild, especially when it is taken in smoked form. The Institute of Medicine
report concluded, in fact, that "the adverse effects of marijuana use are
within the range of effects tolerated for other medications."

And marijuana is a case of laymen beating scientists to the truth. Even
before the Institute of Medicine study was released, referenda on the
therapeutic use of marijuana were consistently decided in favour of its
advocates. In 1998, legalization backers made a clean sweep of Alaska,
Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, Arizona, and Washington, D.C. In
Canada, where "zero tolerance" rhetoric is less widespread, support might be
even stronger. A recent Decima Research Inc. survey indicates that 78% of
Canadians polled support a federal government proposal to consider the use
of marijuana for medical applications.

The face of the pro-marijuana campaign is changing. Traditional advocates of
decriminalization such as soapbox libertarians and recreational bong junkies
are being joined by more mainstream groups. Last week, no less a respectable
organization than the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police announced its
support for marijuana's
decriminalization. If implemented, the chiefs' plan would permit police
forces and courts to redirect the resources wasted on petty marijuana
offences. Reform Party MP Keith Martin is even trying to foster their plan
with a private member's bill. Even the Canadian Bar Association agrees with
decriminalization -- though it would throw a lot of its members out of work.

This respectable reform lobby reflects the growing realization that the
official war on marijuana has social costs far higher than those of
marijuana itself. In 1997, cannabis offences accounted for 72% of all drug
crimes. More than two-thirds of those involved simple possession.

Does it really make sense to prosecute these people as criminals for using a
substance no more dangerous than beer, cigarettes, and a juicy hamburger?