THE PUSH FOR LEGALIZED POT JUST DOPEY

What is it about Vancouver and its determination to make pot smoking
a regular activity, like drinking coffee? This is a city where
construction workers are occasionally seen standing in circles,
sharing a morning toke. Nothing like getting ripped before setting to
work on a dangerous building site. Such as the one two blocks from
the office tower where I work. But hey, it's just grass.

Just ask the four former Vancouver mayors who waded into matters well
beyond any local jurisdiction, penning an open letter last month that
demanded the end of marijuana prohibition in Canada.

The four describe the prohibition as a failed policy, which is fair,
but they don't stop there. "Politicians of all stripes - not just at
the federal level - must respond before further damage is done to our
B.C. communities," declared Mike Harcourt, Philip Owen, Larry
Campbell and Sam Sullivan.

What damage, one must ask? The mayors weren't talking about physical
and mental health, which would seem paramount; in their letter, they
gave it barely a mention. They know as well as anyone that pot
advocates are reluctant to admit the plain truth when defending their
right to harm themselves and to encourage others to follow. The facts
are: Cannabis products are laden with harmful chemicals; marijuana
smoke contains carcinogens and damages respiratory systems;
consumption impairs cognitive functions, especially among youth, who
are susceptible to more serious psychological and physiological
effects than adults.

Whatever. Last week, sitting Mayor Gregor Robertson chipped in with a
tweet: "Good to see 4 Vancouver ex-mayors calling for end of cannabis
prohibition. I agree, we need to be smart and tax/ regulate."

Tax and regulate. It's the proposed panacea to a "massive illegal
market" that "drives violence in communities throughout our
province," according to the four former mayors. To be sure, the
marijuana trade is widespread and growing, not just in B.C. but
across Canada. It attracts organized crime, just as the prohibition
of alcohol early in the last century did. It also attracts
mom-and-pop growers who supply their neighbours and friends.

A key flaw in the legalization and regulation argument, what
proponents such as the four ex-mayors and Mr. Robertson ignore, is
the assumption that underground markets would just disappear. In
fact, they would continue to thrive. Pot smokers would search for
tax-free products, just as they do cigarettes, and they would find
them quite easily. Many, if not most, would choose potency and price
over purity, which is how such markets always work.

"A regulated market would enable governments to improve community
health and safety," the ex-mayors claim. No explanation given. And
how, exactly, would regulation proceed? Let's assume that like
alcohol, marijuana would be grown by licensed suppliers, to be
packaged and sold in government-run shops. What profits would a
tightly controlled, union-staffed, government retail monopoly
actually produce? Would governments promote marijuana use, the way
they promote liquor and gambling? How long before lobbyists push for
retail privatization?

What about long-term health and productivity effects? Have those been
punched into any cost-benefit analysis? We should assume that under
legalization, cannabis consumption would increase among adults as
well as youth. So would rates of work-related intoxication, and
certainly impaired driving. This raises another question: Should
legal consumption limits be enforced? Would a bus driver be free to
smoke a joint - or three, or five - before or during his shift? How
could anyone detect if he had?

Marijuana and other cannabis products aren't going away. Neither is
organized crime, nor small grow-ops. But blithely passing off that
society would benefit from state-sanctioned cannabis products is just
irresponsible. The group of four - and Mayor Robertson - would do
better to remind people of proven dangers associated with the
consumption of pot.