BREWERY VS GROW OP

That double standard was never more apparent than last week, when more
than a hundred police officers raided a huge marijuana grow operation
located in the former Molson brewery facility in Barrie (with over
30,000 pot plants seized, it was reportedly "the largest and most
sophisticated marijuana operation in Canadian history").

I waited in vain for someone else to point out the great irony of the
situation.

As long as the building was being used to produce one type of
intoxicant, alcohol-its proprietors were considered model corporate
citizens.

A park, a major street and at least one sports facility in the city
were named after the company, and governments at all levels were happy
to share in the company's profits, through the collection of property,
sales and alcohol taxes.

But, when another group of entrepreneurs set up shop to produce
another type of intoxicant, (marijuana) they were labeled as criminals
and arrested, while their product and equipment were seized.

So, why the distinction between different forms of intoxicants being
manufactured in the same vats? Clearly our governments and law
enforcement officials believe that alcohol is a good thing, while
marijuana is a bad thing.

The reality is a little more complicated. The Canadian Medical
Association (CMA) calls the negative health effects of moderate
marijuana use "minimal." A 2002 Senate committee report indicated that
"scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates that cannabis is
substantially less harmful than alcohol and should be treated not as a
criminal issue but as a social and public health issue." Eugene
Oscapella, executive director of the Canadian Foundation for Drug
Policy argues that "our current drug laws fund organized crime, they
fund terrorist groups around the world.

Our policies that we build around this drug are far more harmful than
the drug itself."

Pot wasn't even illegal in Canada until 1923, when it was included in
the list of substances banned under the Opium and Drug Act, although
no charges were laid until 1937, and charges did not exceed 100 per
year until 1966.

That law was replaced by the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act in
1997, but the penalties for possessing marijuana remained in place.

In 2001, Parliament passed a law legalizing the use of marijuana for
medicinal purposes only (there are currently just under 600 Canadians
who have the government's permission to smoke pot). And, in one of the
few legislative initiatives on which Jean Chretien and Paul Martin
agree, the federal government is promising to decriminalize the
possession of small amounts of pot (and to think it's only been 30
years since the LeDain Commission first called for such a change). It
would still be illegal, but in the same way that jaywalking and
parking at an expired metre are illegal. The penalty would be more
akin to a traffic ticket than the criminal sanctions currently aimed
at recreational users.

According to an estimate by the CMA, 1.7 million Canadians smoke
marijuana recreationally, so prohibition doesn't appear to be
achieving its objective.

Approximately 600,000 Canadians have criminal records for marijuana
possession, and as many as 30,000 people have their names added to
that list every year. The CMA supports decriminalization, noting that
"a criminal record effectively bars young people from getting jobs and
opportunities, including getting into medical school." Even the
Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police advocates decriminalization,
saying prosecuting people for small amounts ties up scarce resources
(like those hundred officers involved in the raid at the brewery).
Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino, traditionally a staunch hardliner
on "law and order" issues, told the Senate committee that he believed
in "not having to burden the criminal justice system on certain
offences involving very small amounts of marijuana where there are no
other complicating factors involved."

I'm one of many people who think that the long-promised
decriminalization doesn't go far enough (the aforementioned Senate
report advocated it). Why not treat marijuana the same as alcohol,
with producers, retailers and users being strictly subject to a
variety of controls and the government taking a cut of the proceeds in
order to fund programs?

If that were to happen-and I think that it will likely be at least a
decade before legalization gains sufficient political support to
pass-we may one day be celebrating the great economic development
potential presented by the conversion of abandoned breweries into
marijuana grow operations, instead of descending upon those operations
with a hundred police officers.