THE DEBATE TO, LIKE, LEGALIZE MARIJUANA, UH, WHERE WAS I?

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California has re-opened the debate
on the legalization of marijuana faster than you can say: "Like dude,
whatever you just said is awesome!" Having given up all hope of
becoming president of the United States, Arnold now wants to become
Obama's Maharaji.

There's so much illegal marijuana being grown in California that
legalizing and then taxing it would make the state instantly wealthy.
There is so much illegal marijuana being grown here in Wainfleet that
legalizing and then taxing it might allow us all to drink water from
the tap and fearlessly flush a toilet now and again.

Since the abolition of vices has never worked, not for alcohol or
prostitution, the day will inevitably come when all democratic
countries will legalize, control and profit from the sale of drugs by
the state, thereby ending drug wars, overcrowded prisons and most of
today's gang violence. Portugal has already done this quite
successfully with a drop in crime and drug use. Like alcoholics,
they treat heavy drug use like the disease it is.

After governments try every other unworkable idea, common sense
usually replaces hysteria.

However, Governor Schwarzenegger would be wise to review a test case
here in Ontario a few years back which revealed the horrible criminal
consequences that can result from smoking your shirt. First let me
say, I do not smoke. Secondly, if I did smoke, I don't see myself
propped up in bed, reading a newspaper, sipping coffee and smoking my
pyjama top. Thirdly, I don't own a pyjama top.

In Canada, where it is legal to burn the national flag, it is illegal
to smoke your shirt. Honest. I am not making this up and I swear I
have not had a really good toke on a very old sock for almost 72 hours.

The case involved a 28-year-old man in London, Ont., who was charged
with illegally selling hemp seedlings from his retail clothing store.
Federal Justice Department lawyers contended that hemp, which is a
derivative of cannabis could be smoked to produce the same effect as
marijuana. From my best recollection of the '60s, the scientific term
for the effect of marijuana smoking is pervasive giddiness
interrupted by the odd snorgle.

The feds claim there should be no distinction between a marijuana
cigarette and hemp clothing since both could be consumed as a drug.
The store owner disagreed and took his case to the Ontario Court of
Appeal, claiming the federal government did not prove that his hemp
clothing was of the intoxicating kind.

When this argument was presented in court, the defendant became
stressed and subsequently chewed the sleeve off his hemp sweat shirt
and played air guitar for the remainder of the trial. Lawyers for
both sides were called to the bench where they sniffed the judge's
hemp robes and began chanting: "All we are saying ... is give peace a chance."

OK, those two events did not actually happen but let's not forget
that most people in the Canadian legal system today are baby boomers
which makes lawyers denouncing marijuana a lot like hookers speaking
out against sex.

I imagine the appeals trial went something like this:

Judge: "I will remind the defendant that he is under oath. Now, have
you ever had the occasion to smoke your shirt?"

Defendant: "Ah, yeah I did but I like quit?"

Judge: "You quit smoking?"

Defendant: "I quit smoking my shirt."

Judge: "And when was that?"

Defendant: "When I got to the armpit."

Judge: "Man, that's gross."

Defendant: "That's nothin'. Like once I had to change a baby that
had like a hemp diaper and ...."

Judge: "Yuckkkk-O! Clear the courtroom. Case dismissed."

The defendant did plead guilty to a lesser charge of indecent
exposure. It seems he became confused that morning, hiding his hemp
clothes in a crawlspace and wearing his water pipe to court. In
conclusion, all lawyers urged everyone in the courtroom to just say
'no' to smoking marijuana which in the long run they reasoned, would
help bring the price down.

Legal distinction between marijuana and hemp clothing could have
far-reaching ramifications in the drug world. For instance, a drug
dealer busted for trafficking in marijuana could still legally sell
his overcoat to an undercover officer. And let's say, for the sake of
legal argument that that undercover officer was also wearing hemp
undergarments. That, legal or not, would be very itchy.

I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, Bill, where in hell's
half acre of homegrown hydroponic grass will this end? My point,
and, yes, I did have one before my hat caught fire, is that the
governor of California must first define what is and what is not
marijuana, otherwise L.A.'s shirtless could outnumber its homeless,
if you know what I mean.