KEEP POT BOILING

THE Supreme Court of Canada this week upheld federal law banning the
possession of small amounts of marijuana.

The court found 6-3 that it is entirely up to Parliament to
criminalize, or "to decriminalize or otherwise modify any aspect of
the marijuana laws that it no longer considers to be good public
policy." Which is exactly what Parliament should now do as quickly as
that is possible.

The court examined three cases involving marijuana activists who argue
their charter rights are infringed by a law that penalizes people for
partaking in a harmless activity.

Upholding the law, it is argued, amounts to setting the bar for "harm"
so low as to invite the criminalization of many other activities to
which a "harm" can be attached, from eating candy to listening to loud
music.

Three judges agreed, saying that criminal penalties including jailing
for possession of pot amount to killing flies with a sledgehammer. But
the majority disagreed, concluding that the potential of harm from
such activities as car crashes as a result of being high at the wheel
are not "trivial" harms.

In any event, the majority concluded that there is no consensus that
proof of harm is a prerequisite for creating a criminal offence.

The ruling puts the pot issue right back where it was boiling last
week -- in the hands of legislators, many of whom are of the view that
the activists are correct: pot usage is relatively harmless and that
the penalties for personal use are excessive.

A Senate committee has gone so far as to say that marijuana should be
legalized, but most legislators appear to be unwilling to go that far.
They seemed, instead, to agree with legislation brought forward by
former prime minister Jean Chretien that possession for personal use
should be decriminalized so that persons caught in possession of
marijuana are not saddled with criminal records.

That legislation died when Mr. Chretien closed Parliament in advance
of the Liberal leadership convention at which Paul Martin was elected
to succeed him as prime minister.

Mr. Martin has not said what he intends to do about the issue but has
indicated that he is in agreement with the principle of
decriminalization although he is unsure what penalties should apply
and what quantity of marijuana should be considered appropriate for
personal use.

These uncertainties, however, are easily resolved.

Mr. Martin should acknowledge that the courts have put the issue in
his hands and move quickly to implement decriminalization. It would be
better, as the Senate committee concluded, to legalize marijuana and
get the entire industry out in the open where it can be better regulated.

That, however, is a step politicians seem unprepared to take. They
should, therefore, take the first step that they are prepared to take.
As it now stands, the most obvious harm resulting from possession of
marijuana is the harm done by an excessively harsh law.