POT ISSUE LIKELY TO CAUSE SMOKE

Now that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled it is not
unconstitutional to criminalize possession of small amounts of
marijuana, federal politicians must decide if such legislation is in
the best interests of the nation.

The onus is on the Paul Martin Liberals to open the debate in the
House of Commons on the merits of the current law, or changing it.

Christopher Clay, who in a deliberate challenge to the law sold
marijuana seeds and seedlings through Hemp Nation in London, was one
of three activists making the case for legalizing pot. His lawyer,
University of Toronto law professor Alan Young, argued it has never
been proven the recreational use of pot caused anything more serious
than bronchitis.

Others contend the ramifications of a criminal record that comes with
a conviction for possession are far too onerous for what is often a
one-time occurrence.

The opposing argument is that use of marijuana is a stepping stone to
more addictive and problematic drugs.

The Canadian Professional Police Association position is that an
investment in research, enforcement, innovative prevention and
treatment is necessary before any significant change in the
legislation is contemplated.

Clearly, both sides of the issue need to be debated fully in a public
forum. That forum should be the House of Commons, where the decision
ultimately will be made.

In so doing, more than the marijuana issue will be on the line. Both
major parties, the Liberals and the new Conservative Party of Canada,
will be under the microscope -- for different reasons.

Martin has promised free votes on all except confidence bills. This
may test the sincerity of his promise to empower backbench MPs. At the
same time, the debate would test the solidarity -- or, conversely,
freedom -- of the new party.

Either way, the focus of the discussion should now turn from the
courts to Parliament, where it rightfully belongs.