UN DRUG CONVENTIONS

Regarding the editor's rejoinder to my Oct. 26 "Letter of the Day": I
thought Mr. Elrod's main point was that UN drug conventions "only
mandate criminal penalties for possession for the purpose of
trafficking" and that the INCB said that "none of the conventions
force governments to convict or punish people who use illegal drugs",
("Letters to the Editor," Oct. 24). I believe the two points were
countered in my Oct. 26 response to Mr. Elrod.

However, the sage comment attached to my response by the editor
indicated my reply failed to contradict Mr. Elrod's supposedly primary
contention that other nations have decriminalized possession but are
nonetheless signatories to the UN conventions.

Perhaps Mr. Elrod and others would like to take a look at some of the
non-criminal sanctions offered by those countries which have
decriminalized pot. Here in Canada however, the proposed changes do
not include roadside drug-driving testing. They do not have any repeat
offender provisions and they do not have any stiff penalties for
marijuana growhouse operators. In Canada, our government seems only
interested in trying to sell Canadians on a cheap ticket system.

Before rushing to support Mr. Elrod's internationalist view, your
editorial board may also wish to refer to Page 49 of the September
2002, Summary Report of the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs.
It states that if Canada proceeds with decriminalizing possession of
small amounts of marijuana then it "will either have to temporarily
withdraw from the conventions and treaties or accept that it will be
in temporary contravention until the international community accedes
to its request to amend them."

I consider Mr. Elrod's point contradicted.

Dan McTeague, MP

(Suit yourself: We still don't agree with your interpretation of the
part of the treaty you quoted)