SPARKING DEBATE

As both a mother and police officer, St. Boniface MP Shelly Glover
expressed her concern last week over comments by Michael Ignatieff in
regards to marijuana use and the law in its current form.

For her efforts Glover was attacked by Liberal justice critic Marlene
Jennings, stating she was unworthy "to wear the uniform of a police
officer."

The remarks centred on Glover's condemnation of this Ignatieff
statement: "I've never felt that marijuana use or, for example,
possession of small amounts of marijuana are to be criminalized or
that anybody should suffer consequences for personal recreational uses
of marijuana."

I recognize the whole marijuana debate has been ongoing for years.
It's often punctuated by "smoke ins" where many congregate and
light up with no arrest or other legal consequence imposed.

Most cops recognize small amounts of marijuana aren't the crime of
the century, and there's been many times when the odd
non-confrontational toker has been made to flush the goods and sent on
their way with merely a warning. There has also been many times that
inquiring into a seemingly simple and small possession complaint
resulted in an arrest for much more serious offences.

Most cops have an issue with declaring carte blanche
decriminalization. Doing so removes all remaining discouragements and
ensures an overt usage, as well as steady, and maybe even growing
numbers of customers for the gangsters and other organized crime
figures who are the major suppliers and profiteers for this product.

If decriminalization were to occur, does anyone really think societal
acceptance and usage wouldn't increase, particularly among the young?

So what about workplaces, schools, public events? Is anyone really
happy about the prospect of increased usage in relation to any or all
of these places? Let's not even consider the potential workplace
hazards or other concerns. What about the rights of those who don't
want them or their children inhaling marijuana if someone decides to
legally "light up" nearby? Must they be forced to pack up and head
home?

What about driving? Currently there's no reliable scientific measure
of THC intoxication, other than perhaps a blood test, which the courts
find too intrusive except for the most severe circumstances. Without
an objective scientifically reliable test, the matter will rely solely
upon the subjective assessment of police, which renders it more
vulnerable to acquittal.

Of course there's always the concern about today marijuana, what's
tomorrow? Cocaine? Meth? Ecstacy?

Before publicly condoning its use, Mr. Ignatieff, might have instead
provided solutions to some of the questions and issues surrounding the
consequences of his view.

Also had MP Glover not called him on it, she'd be much more
vulnerable to Jenning's criticism. Despite her status as MP,
Shelly's still a cop and a mom. We'd expect her to come out
swinging when there are issues surrounding comments supportive of
narrow policy positions that fail to consider the serious
ramifications of this tentative proposition.