USERS, DOCTORS, GOVERNMENT PART OF POT DEBATE

Dear Editor,

I'm writing in response to the article Grow houses a rising concern and the
editorial A growing concern (The Banner, Nov. 18).

Missing from both your reporting and your editorial position is a fair look
at why grow houses exist.

The Banner has focused its journalism on the only party which makes an
income from the drug-trade/drug-war besides organized criminals -- the police.

There are many voices in the marijuana debate; police and criminals are
just the loudest and most dangerous.

The debate should instead be focused on the real stakeholders: users (both
medical and recreational), their caregivers, the government (which decides
what is criminal, what is not, and what regulations are appropriate), and
the scientific research community.

All other voices are biased by money, misinformation and "reefer madness."
Like the debate over gay marriage, this is a decision that cannot be left
to the majority, at the expense of the rights of the minority (in this
case, the cannabis user).

Most good citizens will agree that grow houses are bad, dangerous, and
criminal. If cannabis was legal and regulated, no one would have any reason
to damage houses, steal hydro, booby-trap entrances, etc. What would be the
point? Anyone can grow it in a garden, window-box, or even in a pot in the
balcony window. Done properly, a grow operation can be built-to-code,
safety inspected, and optimized for space and conditions. Alternately,
users could get it at a designated retailer -- this is simply a question of
regulation.

Our federal government has made medical marijuana available to a very
select few, and allowed others to grow their own, legally, under license
from the Ministry of Health.

Bill C-38 (likely to die with Prime Minister Jean Chretien's departure) was
to decriminalize possession of personal quantities and limited personal
gardens. Our Canadian senate, after studying learned legal and scientific
opinion and testimony from all interested parties, has recommended full
legalization and regulation. Consistent, but opposing messages from police
chiefs (pro-decriminalization and concerned with keeping the peace) and
from police unions (pro drug-war and concerned with keeping their jobs) are
biased -- the former by real world experience and public trust and
expectations, the latter by personal employment potential. Which bias
should we trust?

The debate over legal marijuana is a very hot topic, and we must be
rational and intelligent in our analysis, not rash and ignorant. Until harm
can be proven -- real harm, not more propaganda -- marijuana is being
unfairly prohibited to preserve police budgets, which are better spent on
real, not contrived crime.

OPP Det. Sgt. Jamie Ciotka is very mistaken when he states, "There are a
few common factors that grow houses need to be profitable." There is only
one factor: prohibition. End prohibition and regulate legal sales and you
will end the dangerous, criminal grow house epidemic.

Instead of encouraging Dufferin County residents to spy and report on
suspicious neighbours, The Banner should be outraged at this ongoing waste
of resources. If The Banner's editorial board supports prohibition, it
supports organized crime, plain and simple.

R. Jones,

Mulmur Township