ONTARIO COURT
(GENERAL DIVISION)
(Southwest Region)

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
respondent

and

CHRISTOPHER CLAY
Applicant

AFFIDAVIT OF DIANE M. RILEY

I, DIANE M. RILEY, of the City of Toronto in the Toronto Region, MAKE OATH
AND SAY AS FOLLOWS:

1. I am an Assistant Professor at the Department of Behavioural Science,
University of Toronto, and a policy analyst at the Canadian Foundation of
Drug Policy at the University of Toronto. I completed my undergraduate
studies at the University of Sydney, in Australia. I then obtained a
Master's degree (in 1979), and a Doctoral degree (in 1983), in Psychology
(Psychophysiology), from the University of Toronto. I completed my
education with post-doctoral work at the Addiction Research Foundation in
Toronto. I then held the position of Assistant Professor in both the
Department of Anthropology and Department of Psychology, at the University
of Toronto. From 1988 to 1990, I was a consultant on AIDS Education and
Prevention for the Metropolitan Toronto and federal Governments. In 1990, I
joined the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse as a Senior Policy Analyst, a
position I held until 1996. I was a founding member of both the Canadian
Foundation for Drug Policy and the International Harm Reduction
Association. I currently serve as a director of the latter organization. I
was also on the board of directors of the Canadian Hemophilia Society from
1987 to 1994. From 1988 to present, I have planned and chaired many
conferences, such as the AIDS and Drug Use Symposium in 1988, and the Harm
Reduction Around the World Symposium in 1996. Additionally, I have written
and published widely on many topics, including Drug Use and
Decriminalization of Marijuana. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a copy of
my curriculum vitae, setting out my academic credentials, my professional
experience, research and operating grants received, and my list of
publications.

2. Since 1990, I have devoted much of my time to the study of drug use, and
how it affects individuals and our society as a whole, in light of
contemporary problems such as AIDS, prison inadequacies and violence. I
have received a number of grants which have allowed me to pursue these themes.

3. One of the topics with which I have been involved, and on which I have
published a number of papers, is the misclassification of marijuana as a
narcotic. Two of those publications, Decriminalization of Marijuana Use:
Effects on Consumption and Harm, and Cannabis: Legal Reform, Medicinal Use
and Harm Reduction, are hereto attached as Exhibits "B" and "C" respectively.

4. The current prohibitory literature states that marijuana is a gateway
drug. Proponents of this theory argue that marijuana is a stepping stone to
harsher substances. In order for this to be true, more then 50% of the
users of marijuana must move on to harsher drugs. Current research
indicates that about 67% of marijuana users never even try any type of
"hard" drug.

5. The belief that marijuana is a "gateway" drug arose due to the fact that
most users of dangerous drugs have consumed cannabis at some time in their
past.. The logic supporting this belief would also support the belief that
driving slowly and safely is a gateway to driving recklessly and unlawfully
because the reckless driver has always driven carefully at some point.

6. In light of the fact that more than two-thirds of manjuana users have
never tried another illegal drug, cannabis seems to more often be a closed
gate rather than a gateway in that its use signals the terminus of illegal
drug experimentation.

7. The current legal classification of drugs is very arbitrary and does not
take into account the disparate effects of the different drugs in the
Schedule to the Narcotics Control Act. For example, in that Schedule we
find that stimulants are grouped with depressants. We also find groups of
drugs which can be lethal in a minute dose, while others will be fairly
benign in terms of lethal toxicity.

8. There is a significant difference between stimulants and depressants.
Stimulants, such as coffee and tea, stimulate the central nervous system,
and tend to make people more active. Depressants, on the other hand,
depress the CNS, and tend to make people drowsy and less active. Marijuana
is a depressant, and as such usually makes people less active. The effects
of marijuana on an individual's behaviour are very mild. The substance
mostly relaxes people, makes them friendly, on occasion can lead to
short-term nausea, and often makes them sleepy. The drug does not make
people more aggressive or violent, and most people don't attempt to drive
after consuming marijuana, as they have an awareness of things being slowed
down. Marijuana can mildly distort perception, but people are aware that it
is being distorted and hence usually don't attempt to operate machinery.

10. Marijuana is also classified as a hallucinogen. Most hallucinogens,
unlike marijuana, are contained within the Foods and Drugs Act. The
hallucinations resulting from marijuana use are usually curtailed to mild
distortions of the sense of time, and things like the sound of music. It
does not usually result in seeing things, or visual hallucinations, which
is an affect associated with strong hallucinogens such as LSD.

11. Unlike the opiates and the coca derivatives found in the Schedule to
the Narcotic Control Act, marijuana does not lead to a physical dependence.
The "hard drugs" listed in the Narcotic Control Act are so debilitating
because of their tendency to result in serious physical dependence.
Marijuana, on the other hand, does not lead to a physiological and
compelling need to continue use. Marijuana users, hence, do not face the
catch-22 of choosing between progressive physical deterioration or having
to go through a difficult withdrawal period (with withdrawal being a
product of the conditions of use and not necessarily a result of the
intrinsic properties of the "hard drugs")

12. Marijuana affects the peripheral nervous system (PNS) in addition to
the central nervous system (CNS). The effect on the CNS is simply not as
strong as with most other drugs. The effect on the PNS results in changes
to both voluntary and automatic motor controls. This, in effect, means that
voluntary actions (such as muscle control) and automatic actions (such as
gut, which is a smooth muscle control) are affected. The effect on these
muscles, through the actions of THC, is one of relaxation. This is, in
fact, what causes marijuana to be such an effective relaxant.

13. Some individuals claim that marijuana today is of such high purity that
it has become as deadly as cocaine. In fact, increased purity would be a
harm reduction measure. Most of the negative effects associated with
marijuana use are caused by the additives found in low purity marijuana
(such as leaves of other plants). Smoking of these additives produces tar
which settles in the lungs. This is the only serious damage caused through
use of marijuana. Other than pulmonary damage caused by the ingestion of
any smoke, especially with additives, there is no conclusive proof that
marijuana leads to other significant medical harm. In fact, marijuana is
one of the safest psychoactive substances and is clearly safer than licit
drugs such as alcohol and tobacco. With the increased potency of marijuana
today, the amount of smoking is reduced, as less marijuana needs to be
smoked to attain the desired intoxicant effect. Regardless of the potency
of the marijuana being smoked, the psychoactive effects are largely the
same. With high potency marijuana, the consumer does not have to smoke as
much of the substance to achieve this psychoactive state, and with lessened
consumption, the risk of pulmonary damage is significantly reduced.

14. With respect to the claim that marijuana is criminogenic, many people
have assumed that the substance must be criminogenic because many
incarcerated criminals admit to having used marijuana (and other drugs). In
fact, one must be very careful in classifying drugs as criminogenic, as it
is usually the environment and the pre-disposition of the user which
dictates the behaviour after consumption. Further, being a relaxant and a
depressant, marijuana very rarely results in criminogenic activity. In
actuality, the consumer of marijuana achieves a state of intoxication which
results in passive behaviour and not in aggressive behaviour. In
circumstances in which it does lead to aggression, more often then not it
can be attributed to the environment in which the individual found himself
or herself in. There is no conclusive proof from any clinical studies that
establishes a causal relationship between marijuana use and criminal activity.

15. Controlled studies have shown that decriminalization of marijuana does
not lead to a significant increase in the rate of consumption. These
studies are included in Decriminalization of Marijuana Use: Effects on
Consumption and Harm, which is hereto attached as Exhibit "B". In the
rnid-1970's a number of states in the U.S. decriminalized the usage of
marijuana. A number of these states conducted controlled studies before and
after the decriminalization which were aimed at identifying the proportion
of the population who used marijuana. The results of these studies, and
some uncontrolled ones in other states, clearly show that the
decriminalization of the use of marijuana does not have a major impact on
the rates of use.

16. In Netherlands, the local drug control act was amended in 1976. Since
that time, there has been a policy of non-enforcement of the law as it
relates to marijuana use and possession. In fact, marijuana and hashish can
be openly purchased in numerous licenced cafes. Studies (as referred to in
Exhibit "B") have shown that since 1976 the consumption of marijuana and
hashish has not significantly increased.

17. The consumption of marijuana in Netherlands is substantially lower then
that in the U.S. Only 12% of high-schools students in Netherlands have used
marijuana at least once. This compares favourably to the figure of 59%,
which is the number obtained in the U.S. at the peak of marijuana use in
the 1970's. Current use by high-school students in Netherlands is also much
lower than use in the U.S. (5.4% versus 29%, respectively).

18. Cannabis products are now generally viewed in Netherlands as substances
that do not have unacceptable risks. More importantly, users are not
socially marginalized, have access to social services, and are not exposed
to the same kind of health and social risks as they would be if forced
underground into a black market. The strategy of de facto decriminalization
therefore appears to have been very successful.

19. By relying on criminal prosecution procedures to deal with small-scale
marijuana offences, the law may be contributing to the belief among many
young people who have experimented with marijuana that the dangers of other
illicit drugs have been overstated. That is, because the users know that
marijuana is no more harmful than other drugs which are socially accepted,
they see the typical marijuana "education" campaigns as fantastical and
fallacious. They are then suspect of the veracity of other drug education
and, thus, opportunities for true harm reduction with respect to "hard"
drug use are lost.

20. A prohibitionist approach leads to an increase in the use of and the
price of the prohibited substance and creates a market which is devoid of
controls, quality, standards and accurate information. Prohibition also has
adverse consequences for marijuana research, thereby limiting enquiry into
the therapeutic and medical applications of marijuana, despite growing
claims amongst cancer patients, AIDS patients and glaucoma patients that
marijuana is the only effective anti-emetic (to reduce nausea from
chemotherapy) and the only effective substance that can reduce intra-ocular
pressure from glaucoma.

SWORN before me in City
of Toronto, in the Toronto
Region, this 8th day of
March, 1997.

Diane Riley