OUR EDITOR'S OPINION

Thanks to an advertisement in this newspaper two weeks ago pointing out the
virtues of marijuana, the subject has had more discussion in and out of our
pages than usual.

So we thought the timing right to offer a few thoughts of our own.

There is no doubt that organized crime is a problem associated with drugs.
But is clamping down harder an effective solution?

In the same way that pushing harder against a brick wall produces more
resistance, continuing strict prohibition may be counterproductive and may
increase the power of violent, dangerous organizations. At base, money is
responsible for crime. And when something is illegal, it drives the price
up - placing it in the hands of criminal gangs.

In the same way prohibition of alcohol in the thirties caused an explosion
of illegal activity, the prohibition of marijuana has spawned an
substantial underground trade.

This is not to say the Observer is advocating marijuana use, or its
decriminalization. We are not. We believe society would be better off with
neither alcohol nor marijuana (and other drugs) available and used. But we
also recognize that this is not likely to happen in the foreseeable future;
and it probably would not be workable anyway.

To those who argue that marijuana has no health effects, they are just
simply wrong.

There's no doubt marijuana is unhealthy.

At least as bad as smoking cigarettes; and chronic use seems to decrease
productivity and motivation. But other legal substances cause severe
problems as well. Alcohol is a killer.

Tobacco is a killer.

But the government has chosen to legalize and heavily regulate these; and
maybe, just maybe, marijuana might be less harmful as a
government-regulated substance.

Use would likely decrease. When stricter controls on the tobacco industry
were introduced, its use declined drastically. Controlling marijuana in a
similar way to liquor would help keep it away from youth, where it does the
most harm. Removing the criminal aspect would probably make it less
alluring; and regulating marijuana would bring it into a realm where its
tremendous profits could be taxed.

And don't forget, de facto decriminalization is already in place.

Marijuana is technically illegal.

But when was the last time you heard of anyone charged with simple
possession? It may not even be fair to the police to continue with
prohibition. Requiring them to enforce an unpopular law damages their
credibility and discredits the difficult and important work they do, and
takes away critical resources from tackling problems that are at the very
root of substance abuse: domestic violence, child abuse, fighting, and
other truly harmful activities. These are some of the reasons why
liberalising the law on marijuana may make sense.

There are also arguments for maintaining the status quo, and good arguments
for tightening the law relating to all drugs, alcohol included, some of
which have been recently articulated in our letters column.

In the late 1960s, the federal government set up a royal commission to look
into the question of marijuana and the law. The LeDain Commission report
made a number of recommendations, most of which were never implemented. It
is high time (so to speak) that another look was made at the issue.

And this time the government ought not just to commission and receive the
report, it ought to act on its recommendations.