MAYERTHORPE SHOOTING RASIES QUESTIONS ABOUT POT

Despite the obvious heartbreak an event like the Mayerthorpe cop
killings can cause, there is also some good that can come from such an
event. It seems that whenever there is a tragedy of any scale, some
important underlying issues come to the surface. In this case, there
have been a lot of them--the failure of the gun registry, the
incompetence of RCMP leaders, the fact that four officers were sent to
bust a man who they didn't know had threatened police. Along with
those, though, is the raging debate about the legalization of marijuana.

Many have scoffed at the idea, claiming that even if marijuana were
legal, it wouldn't necessarily mean that it would stop being
associated with organized crime. There are also medical concerns, like
addiction, that need to be taken into account, as well as the idea
that marijuana could be used as a "gateway" drug that leads to more
dangerous addictions, like cocaine.

Despite my article last week on teenage drug addicts, I'm not a member
of this camp of thought. But before you label me a hypocrite--as many
have already done, numerous times--I did point out that I don't object
to casual marijuana use. I say casual because, to me, weed is more
like alcohol than it is like cocaine. In fact, this whole pot debate
reminds me an awful lot of prohibition.

Ah, the '20s. For those of you too young to remember it like I do,
this same kind of argument was made in that time about alcohol.
Overindulgence and good Canadian whiskey forced governments in North
America to criminalize liquor, which in turn made guys like Al Capone
into vice-profiteering kingpins. It also spawned the original
Scarface, which is still one of the best movies ever made.

Now, over 80 years later, alcohol is legal, Al Capone is dead, and the
naysayers who claimed that legalizing alcohol would only make the
problem worse have descendents who make the same claims about
marijuana. However, these people, like their ancestors, are choosing
to ignore some very obvious facts--like the fact that alcohol and
marijuana addictions are due more to psychological problems than
bio-chemical dependencies. They also seem to think that, because
legalizing weed won't instantly stop it from being produced by
criminals, it's a waste of time. But these kinds of things take time,
and impatience for any sort of learning curve is part of the reason
these debates are started.

Also, it's my personal belief that legalizing marijuana would
thoroughly hinder its status as a "gateway" drug. I'm pretty sure the
only reason it is a "gateway" drug is because it's being put in the
same bracket as more severe illegal substances like crystal meth or
heroin. The truth, though, is that weed is nowhere near as damaging as
other types of drugs, but, because they're all in the same caste,
people will be more encouraged to discover what else that "market" has
to offer. Admittedly, it's a bit of an ambiguous argument, but it's
also one that I don't hear considered very often.

I know it sounds like I'm being an idealist, and that I think everyone
would use it responsibly if it were legalized, but believe me, I'm
more cynical than that. However, the same arguments can and have been
made about alcohol, which is equally as recreational, far more
lethal--according to some--and certainly not to be used in any
medicinal form. So, before we make any rash judgments about
reconsidering decriminalization, there should be some long, long
thought put into this, and perhaps even a trip to Amsterdam.