SMOKING OUT THE REAL CULPRITS

The last time I smoked pot was 1981. I'm not kidding. I'm pretty
sure I inhaled, but I can't say I really remember.

I have no personal interest in pot. I also have no particular
animosity towards this plant, I believe there are medicinal benefits,
and I see it as harmless when used recreationally, like a cold beer on
a hot day. And I think hemp, as a product, is totally cool.

The recent news about the four young mounties killed in Mayerthorpe,
Alberta while investigating a grow-op is absolutely, undeniably
tragic. The Globe and Mail, my national newspaper of choice, devoted
several full pages to the tragedy; news reports, analyses, profiles of
the fallen, and Public Safety Minister Anne McLellan's push to crack
down on the grow-ops.

The biggest thing that came through in the coverage was that James
Roszko was a nasty character, and a criminal through and through. So
was Al Capone. So are the Mafia and the Asian gangs and the Hell's
Angels. As soon as something is illegal and profitable, the criminal
element is going to be right there, with bells on.

Our local marijuana advocates are not the criminal element. Not the
Holy Smoke folks and their hairy fundraising efforts for the food
cupboard; these are contributing citizens to the communitiy, taking
part in local activities and initiatives. Alan Middlemiss, Dustin
Cantwell, and Paul DeFelice raised some $1,200 last Friday through
Beards for Bread; I hear there was even some extra shearing going once
things got really smokin'.

And neither are this region's ubiquitous grow-ops - mom-and-pop
operations that, also, contribute to the local economy - necessarily
the criminal element, although former NDN editor Drew Edward's book
"West Coast Smoke" indeed pointed to some pretty creepy goings-on.
When you make something criminal, it will attract criminals.

My beef: that grow-ops do not contribute to the tax base because you
sure can't report income you're not supposed to be making. It's
unfair that anyone should make a living and not contribute while
driving our highways, using our health care system, and sending kids
to public schools, especially if they can then afford to spend the
winter in Costa Rica while the rest of us shiver the dark. This is
why I suggest, in the short term, that those profiting from this
industry voluntarily donate the tax equivalent to charity.

In the long term what makes the most sense is legalization.

If you don't make it profitable for criminals, then it's not
attractive for them. Sure, you'll still get the equivalent to those
shady entrepreneurs who run cheap smokes by boat across Lake Ontario,
but you'll effectively disarm those who use prohibition profits to
nefarious ends.

Legalize it, and those mom-and-pop operations will no longer
unnecessarily put their children at risk. Legalize it, and it's like
having a winery, a good legitimate occupation of there ever was one.

Legalize it, and the government can tax it and regulate it and license
it and put that money into something useful, like education and health
care, instead of spending vast sums trying to quash something that
won't be quashed. You'll have some quality control and no more horror
stories such as paraquot poisoning. (Okay, there will be some quality
issues, too, but I see it like beer: there'll be Labatt's Blue, and
then there'll be Nelson After Dark.)

Will legalization mean a bunch of potheads blissed out on Baker? I
don't think so. Those stereotypes just don't wash anymore; we know
that people from all walks of life, from business suits to beads,
smoke pot. With legalization comes age restriction just as with
alcohol, and no, you won't be able to light up on the corner just as
you can't quaff your Chateau Porchclimber on a Baker Street bench.

What we do know is that prohibition makes things sexy, and there's
nothing like telling a kid he can't do something to make him want to
do it. And along with legalization goes public education, just as we
do with tobacco and alcohol. Look what's happened to social
acceptance of smoking.

Prohibition of alcohol, both in the States and Canada, was a failure.
What Herbert Hoover called the Noble Experiment in 1920 led to
stockpiling and illegal rum-running. The resulting industry of
supplying the Speakeasies with booze is cited as responsible for the
birth of organized crime. In one year Al Capone made $60 million in
liquor sales, equivalent to $2 billion today. The U.S. spent a
fortune in prosecutions and jail sentences. You can see who was
getting rich, and nobody was getting dry.

We're on the right track with decriminalization. Nobody should face a
criminal record for a joint in the glove box, and it's a silly waste
of policing and legal resources. As for Mayerthorpe, the fear is a
push to backpedal on this logical step and to make grow-ops the
scapegoat for this tragedy. But the problem is not the pot but the
profit motive, attracting criminals like Roszko. Four young men with
families and a future are dead, and that's the real crime.