CHANGE IN MARIJUANA LAWS IS INEVITABLE

A judge's ruling listed reasons why it should be legalized.

VIEWPOINT: Justice, by Morris Dalla Costa

Change doesn't just materialize. Someone has to find the courage to
initiate it.

Londoner Chris Clay found that courage, risking reputation and money and
facing all the associated problems of standing up for what one believes in.
He may not have won his challenge to the marijuana laws in the land . .
yet, but he certainly educated many who lived in ignorance and fear of the
weed.

The establishment, in this case the judicial system, a powerful body with
more of an opportunity to initiate change, has taken the safe route, a
route paved by fear of controversy and years of misinformation and hysteria.

By doing so, it has failed miserably in its mandate, which includes seeking
justice, protecting the rights of all individuals and challenging society,
including the government, to initiate legitimate change.

Instead, the judiciary did what it does far too often, it relied on
precedent, sadly refusing to create a new one.

Justice John McCart's lengthy decision delivered Thursday on Clay's trial
and his claim marijuana laws infringe on his rights, publicly shattered
many of the myths of marijuana smoking.

Among his conclusions are that consumption of marijuana is relatively
harmless; there is no hard evidence of irreversible mental damage; it does
not cause criminal behavior or violence; it probably does not lead to hard
drug use; consumption does not increase where marijuana is decriminalized.

DON'T DRIVE:

The worst thing he could find was that it would not be prudent to drive a
car while intoxicated.

Then he turned around and, instead of giving direction for change, he
dumped the problem into the lap of a higher court through what most likely
will be an appeal and indicated change must come through legislation. A
real copout.

He said the decriminalization of marijuana in certain countries came
through legislation, not the courts.

Someone must take a leading role. If not the legislators then it must be
the courts, especially if judges believe something is intrinsically wrong
with the rules in society. How else do we foster change when many
politicians admit in private that the laws are archaic and ridiculous but
cave in to public pressure and remain silent publicly?

Judging by the courage many of our politicians have when it comes to making
controversial changes, we'll all be a long time waiting.

Scientific facts have little meaning to so many. They don't want to believe
that what they've been told for years, that marijuana use turns people into
uncontrollable savages, is nothing more than a myth. They would prefer the
status quo which society deems to be acceptable. Society loves being sheep.
Don't think, don't risk, don't change, just follow.

Society might not deem marijuana acceptable, yet it's okay to drink and
smoke as much as you like. Even though marijuana has been proven to be less
damaging than alcohol and tobacco, we continue to punish marijuana users.
Go figure.

CRIMINAL:

Lynn Harichy has had multiple sclerosis for 18 years. She uses pot because
it stimulates her brain. Her doctor supports her use of marijuana.

"I don't want to break the law but I can't believe no one would do anything
to help us," she said.

"It makes me have to go out on the street to buy it. It makes me a criminal."

After McCart's decision, a group of individuals smoked joints on the steps
of the courthouse in defiance of the ruling a display that further
entrenched the image of dopesmoking, lawbreaking fiends.

For most marijuana users, nothing is further from the truth. Most people
use marijuana on a recreational basis. They are normal, average individuals
who will likely continue to use it despite the court's ruling.

LESS DAMAGE:

The only problem is some of these individuals will eventually clog up a
crowded court system by being charged, fined and convicted for doing far
less damage to themselves and society than those who use alcohol and tobacco.

Clay is determined to appeal this decision in the Supreme Court if that's
what it takes. One can only hope he wins.

Somewhere along the road in what's going to be a long journey, he will find
a politician or judge who isn't afraid of change, who is willing to make a
decision based on evidence and truth, not succumb to social pressures and
historical stupidity.

It's inevitable.