COMMENTARY

The decriminalisation of marijuana is quite easily one of the greatest
controversies of our decade.

Ever since Ross Rebagliati came so close to losing his gold medal from
some misplaced molecules of marijuana in his body, there has been
constant clamour, by civil libertarians, individuals and partisan
politicians, against the stiff charges that people caught with trivial
quantities of marijuana face today.

They all have their own takes on the issue, politically motivated as
their opinions might be. The truth is, marijuana has never been given
a fair treatment by the law. Possession of small amounts of marijuana
has received the same punishment by law as possession of hard drugs,
while in actual fact these small amounts are only slightly more
harmful or intoxicating than a few bars of chocolate.

First and foremost, on the basis of constitutionality and equality,
the decriminalisation of marijuana is a step in the right direction.

The laws that make possession of small amounts of marijuana illegal
are in themselves unconstitutional, as they place restrictions on
people's fundamental freedom to smoke marijuana under Section 2 of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Furthermore, this restriction
is not covered under Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms under the clause "reasonable limits." The reason being
medical research has proven small amounts of marijuana to be 20 times
less dangerous to a person's health than equivalent amounts of tobacco.

Therefore, if tobacco is not a "reasonable limit" under the
constitution, is there any reason why marijuana should be classified
as such? If tobacco is more dangerous than marijuana, why are
marijuana users given a criminal record while chain smokers just pay
higher taxes?

The laws making marijuana illegal and tobacco legal are clearly
discriminatory, particularly in their use of the term "reasonable limits."

Enforcement of the strict laws that exist against possession of even
small amounts of marijuana is a huge waste of manpower and resources.

It's like having police stalk every smoker and present them with a
criminal record. Having to organise regular raids to catch people who
possess less than 15 grams of marijuana is a waste of our taxes.

Particularly annoying is the fact that these criminal records from
possession of almost harmless quantities of the substance go on to
ruin the person's life. Finding a good job and college becomes
extremely difficult, running for public office is an impossibility,
and all a result of an irrational stigma.

Here we see an obvious case of a punishment unrelated to the crime
committed.

As in the words of William Buckley Jr., "Even if one takes every
reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at face value,
marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than
marijuana ever could."

I support the decriminalisation of marijuana because it has proven
effective in other places.

In Australia and in the United States where this idea has been
experimented with, it helped to reduce the number of criminal
convictions, though a few were given for failure to pay fines and for
avoiding criminal prosecution. However, it has been successful on the
whole. It has also been cost-effective, reducing enforcement costs
without leading to increased marijuana use. These facts prove
decriminalisation of marijuana can work here in Canada.

In conclusion, in a society where a substance's legitimacy is measured
in part by the bodily harm it does to the individual, marijuana is
definitely not above the reasonable limit.

After all, marijuana is just somewhere between chocolates and
tobacco...