LEGALIZE, NOT DEMONIZE, POT

IN the final days of the federal election campaign this summer, I found
myself at a big rally for Conservative Leader Stephen Harper here in Winnipeg.

I had arrived early in hopes of finding a good vantage point from which to
watch the proceeding. Several hundred Conservative supporters had done
likewise.

While waiting for Mr. Harper, it was natural that many of these
Conservatives would strike up conversations about things political.

I admit I eavesdropped -- how can you not when people are speaking at
elevated levels right next to your ear?

In any event, one of the louder mouths -- an older gent -- caught my
attention when he started talking about legalizing marijuana. He thought
that it made more sense than continuing to pursue what is so obviously a
failed effort to prevent its consumption. He talked about how it would free
police to pursue more serious crimes and how the government could make a
bundle by taxing it.

"If you're stupid enough to smoke it then you're stupid enough to pay for
it," he said to murmurs of approval. I made a mental note of that because
it indicated that rank and file Conservatives seem out of step with their
leader, who is opposed to reforming pot laws.

It also reminded me of a similar experience three years earlier during the
election in British Columbia.

I was at an all-candidates meeting at which two candidates for the
Marijuana Party spoke.

What they said was not that different than what I heard in June. It was,
however, more, shall we say, nuanced. They had statistics about consumption
and estimates of potential government revenue as well as arguments that the
way to get pot out of the hands of children was to first take it out of the
hands of criminals. One of them was a school teacher who argued that
legalizing and regulating the use of marijuana was the best way to ensure
that kids have no easier access to pot than they do to alcohol.

There was applause for the speakers, and voters -- mostly older voters;
they are the ones who, for the most part, attend such political meetings --
exchanged looks that said: "That makes sense." What I take from those two
incidents is that, in terms of the debate about legalizing marijuana,
people get it.

And not just these people, or tokers, or free spirits in general --
Canadians generally get it. A committee of the Senate -- the chamber of
sober second thought -- two years ago reached the same conclusion that pot
use should be legal and regulated.

"Make no mistake," the committee declared. "We are not endorsing cannabis
use for recreational consumption. Whether or not an individual uses
marijuana should be a personal choice that is not subject to criminal
penalties. But we have come to the conclusion that, as a drug, it should be
regulated by the State much as we do for wine and beer, hence our
preference for legalization over decriminalization."

And yet federal politicians seem unable to get it. Either that or they lack
the courage to follow the advice they are given.

This week, the Liberal government introduced for the third time legislation
to decriminalize marijuana consumption.

Given the government's minority status, it is quite likely that this
legislation will not pass either.

But the fact is that even if it does, it will not solve the problem, which
is not consumption of marijuana, but the fact that it is illegal and as
such is in the control of criminals.

All this law tries to do is minimize the stigma of being declared a
criminal for doing what millions have done. It would take possession of
small quantities -- not so small, actually: ten joints or three plants --
out of the Criminal Code. But it won't stop criminal grow ops or the
wasteful battle against pot that could end overnight through legalization
and regulation, as happened with alcohol once it was determined that
prohibition had gone bust.

If anything, what this change will accomplish is some growth in demand,
which encourages more criminal production in addition to the current
levels, which have grown so great that marijuana has a significant positive
impact on GDP, but a significant negative impact on government revenues.

In Toronto alone it is estimated that there are 10,000 illegal grow ops.
Police last year managed to shut down 1,000 with no deterrent impact.

Busting grow operations, in fact, has become so commonplace that police are
increasingly concerned for the health of the busters, who are exposed to
high levels of harmful moulds and chemicals.

When are we going to accept that this should not be about cops and robbers,
and it need not be?

It should be about, as the Senate committee said, "a personal choice that
is not subject to criminal penalties," which is best achieved through
legalization.

I'll drink to that.