JUSTICE HUNTER FAVOURS LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA

Justice Stephen Hunter, who presides over criminal court in Belleville,
supports legislation reintroduced in the House of Commons last week that
would decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana.

But Hunter thinks the government should take it a step further and legalize
the drug.

Hunter was asked his opinion on the Liberal government's legislation
introduced Thursday that would decriminalize possession of 15 grams or less
of marijuana. Under the bill, people found in possession of 15 grams or
less would face a fine rather than a potential jail term and criminal record.

"Decriminalization of simple possession of marijuana will certainly be a
step in the right direction," said the Ontario Court of Justice magistrate,
but added it would be more appropriate to legalize it.

"Frankly the more appropriate method would be legalize it and sell it like
alcohol, regulate it like alcohol, tax it like a luxury tax item and take
it out of the hands of people who make a profit from criminal activity,"
said Hunter.

He believes the acceptance level among the public is there for adult use of
the drug if it was regulated and taxed like alcohol. "I think
decriminalization is an inadequate compromise, if you will, because what it
does is, it gives all the wrong messages. If you decriminalize it, who's
going to supply the product?" Keeping it illegal forces people who use it
to associate with criminals, he said. Hunter doesn't believe
decriminalization or legalization would increase use of the drug. Studies
show approximately 30 per cent of the population have used marijuana, he said.

Furthermore, he believes it is "entirely improper" to give people criminal
records for possession of small amounts of marijuana when alcohol is legal,
noting a criminal record can have a significant impact on a person's
ability to cross international borders, to find employment or get an education.

Although police don't generally target people for simple possession any
more, society still spends hundreds of millions of dollars in judicial
costs tracking down and punishing people who grow and sell it, and that
money could be saved if it were legalized, said Hunter. If farmers were
allowed to grow it, the government would not only generate "an incredible
amount of tax money, but you'd also save a heck of lot in terms of police
and judicial resource costing."

"I don't want to encourage anybody to use marijuana. Certainly that's not
my goal. I wouldn't encourage anyone to use or misuse alcohol. If they want
to use it, fine. It's an intoxicant. If you're old enough to make those
decisions and use it responsibly, whether it's Aspirin or alcohol. I think
it's awfully hypocritical of someone like me who drinks Scotch ... to then
turn around and say to somebody, 'You can't have a joint.'"

Part of the reason for not legalizing it has to do with political pressure
from the U.S., he said. "We don't want to alienate our neighbours to the
south too much. I suppose the political realities are what you have to deal
with. As a judge, as long as it's the law, I'll uphold it. But if you're
asking me, is that a good law, well I suppose it's a step in the right
direction."

Another problem is that purchasing marijuana is included under the
definition of trafficking, so although possessing it won't be illegal,
there will still be no legal way to attain it, said Hunter.

"I think what it does do, is it creates an environment where people who are
making money from a criminal enterprise certainly are not discouraged by
that. And that's an issue that would go if you legalized it. If you
legalized it and grew it and sold it as a product like alcohol, and
regulated it and controlled it as much as you can, kept it out of schools,
kept it out of people's hands who are under 19 -- as much as one can --
then you would probably be better off in the long run."

Hunter doesn't argue that marijuana is a harmless drug, and acknowledges
many people feel it shouldn't be decriminalized, but said we have to look
at whether society is being consistent or hypocritical by having alcohol
legal. Society needs to consider whether there are "better ways to deal
with the issue, by controlling and regulating and recognizing that a
substantial part of the population, who are not criminals by nature, are
using it. I'm sure there are doctors and lawyers and newspaper reporters
and judges out there who have consumed marijuana. And some of them aren't
bad people," said Hunter. "The bottom line is, the intoxicant of choice for
some people is not alcohol."

The other factor to consider is that alcohol makes some people violent.
While Hunter doesn't use marijuana, he is aware it makes some people
lethargic and withdrawn, and has negative effects, as does any drug. "There
are a lot of negatives for any drug or intoxicant. People can get addicted
to Aspirin for heavens sake. People can get addicted to all kinds of
things, and people can abuse almost any drug, including coffee, that you've
got out there. But the bottom line is, in my view, what I see in court,
it's not nearly as bad a drug as alcohol. Not in terms of the amount of
crime you see connected to it, not in terms of the issue of impaired
driving deaths that are caused. None of that, to me, in my experience as a
judge sitting in court, none of that is attributable to marijuana the way
it is to alcohol. That is not an argument in itself for making marijuana
legal. My debate issue for legalization of marijuana is simply the fact
that you take it out of the hands of the people who profit from criminality
and put it into a regulatory scheme where you're recovering tax on a huge
underground economy. That's one person's opinion. I'm not entitled to any
more validity than anybody else out there."