THE FRAUD OF POT DECRIMINALIZATION

With Paul Martin's announcement that the government will reintroduce
legislation decriminalizing the possession of marijuana, the old
debate has resumed. On one side are the hardliners who say that any
softening of the marijuana laws puts the nation at risk of becoming
the world's biggest hippie commune. On the other side are those who
think it's absurd that a 16 year old caught with a joint should be
saddled with a criminal record -- or that an adult should be
threatened with jail simply because he chooses to relax on a Friday
night with a puff of marijuana instead of a belt of scotch.

Every poll shows a clear majority of Canadians endorses the
government's plan -- which would make possession and use of small
amounts of marijuana a non-criminal offence, like a speeding ticket.
And a good many within that majority, including the National Post's
editorial board, would go further: As a Post editorial put it last
week, decriminalization should be "only a first step" toward the full
legalization of marijuana.

My sympathies are entirely with the Post's editorial board. But I'm
afraid I cannot share its enthusiasm for decriminalization: Contrary
to what the government likes to say and just about everyone thinks,
decriminalization will not mean less persecution of midnight tokers.
In fact, it will lead to more enforcement and punishment. Indeed,
that's what the government expects and wants.

In January, 2003, I used the Access to Information Act to request all
Department of Justice files relating to decriminalization and
marijuana policy. After a series of delays and missed deadlines, I
finally received a thick stack of paper last February.

Leafing through the documents, several facts quickly became apparent.
First, in deciding to make reforms, the government did not conduct a
serious review of marijuana policy. Nor were options other than
decriminalization mentioned, except in passing.

This omission is particularly bizarre because: In 2002, a Senate
special committee delivered a comprehensive 650-page report calling
for the full legalization of marijuana possession and the licensing of
marijuana producers. International experts, those who agreed with the
conclusions as well as those who didn't, lauded the report as one of
the most rigorous studies ever produced. Yet the government ignored
it. The few references to the report in the Department of Justice
documents I examined consist mainly of talking points, which advise
government figures to tell the media: "The Senate report will be a
very helpful contribution to the development of Canada's drug
strategy." There's no discussion of the report's arguments and
conclusions. No analysis of its voluminous evidence. No substance at
all.

When I told Senator Pierre-Claude Nolin, the chairman of the
committee, that the report had been ignored, he was shocked. He said
he had personally briefed then-justice minister Martin Cauchon.
According to Mr. Nolin, "he told me he was to ask his department to
review the report and give him an analysis."

I found another surprise in a draft Cabinet submission labelled "secret."

In a policy backgrounder on decriminalization, the Cabinet submission
notes a phenomenon criminologists call "net widening," which
essentially means that when punishments are reduced, enforcement
typically goes up. That's because police officers often let minor
offenders get away with a warning when they feel that a criminal
charge and sentence is too severe under the circumstances. Reduce the
punishment and fewer offenders are let go. The law's "net" is
effectively cast wider.

Marijuana decriminalization is likely a classic net-widening policy.
Most police officers, like most Canadians, think criminal charges for
pot possession are excessive and not worth the associated
administrative burden. So they often tell petty offenders to hand over
the baggie and go home. Contrary to what ministers like to say in
selling decriminalization, it is very unlikely that an otherwise
innocent teenager caught with a joint will see the inside of a
courtroom, and even more unlikely that he will be saddled with a
criminal record. It happens, but it is rare.

Decriminalization, by contrast, would introduce a ticketing system
that reduces the paperwork involved. And it would bring punishments
more in line with what the average cop might accept as fair.
Enforcement and punishment would soar.

This is no mere conjecture. It's precisely what happened in South
Australia when marijuana was decriminalized in 1987.

The draft Cabinet submission notes all this, and concludes that
decriminalization in Canada "will likely increase enforcement." Quite
true. But the astonishing thing is that this conclusion is listed
under "Advantages."

In other words, decriminalization is a fraud. Reformers support it
because they think it means easing back the heavy hand of the law. In
reality, it will do the opposite -- and the government knows it.

This deception is appalling. So is the failure of decriminalization,
unlike legalization, to take back the marijuana trade from criminals
and gangsters.

But perhaps the most destructive aspect of the policy would be the
image it creates in the public's mind. Many Canadians already
mistakenly believe our drug laws are quite liberal. And if
decriminalization passes, that assumption will become universal.
Canadians who agree that the status quo is a mistake -- their ranks
are growing daily -- would conclude that major reform has been
accomplished and the drive for real change would peter out.

Plus, you can bet your last dime bag that any bad news about drugs in
the future -- rising usage rates, gang wars over the trade, whatever
- -- would be blamed on our "liberal" drug laws.

This is why the Post is mistaken for endorsing decriminalization.
Sensible folks who want real marijuana reform should grit their teeth,
join hands with the hawks who want to make war on the weed, and defeat
the bill.