DECRIMINALIZING POT A GOOD FIRST STEP

Law Can't Stop Consumption; It's Folly to Believe Otherwise

ALTHOUGH I favour the federal government's proposal to decriminalize
the possession of 15 grams or less of marijuana, its only merit is
that partial decriminalization is better than none at all.

When the state resolves to prohibit any conduct, it should have the
burden of proving why the heavy hand of the criminal law is called
for. Surely it cannot be up to the individual to prove why the conduct
in question should not be criminalized.

What then can possibly justify the invocation of criminal law against
the act of ingesting a drug into one's body? It cannot be because the
drug has the potential to harm the consumer. After all, the death and
disability wrought by tobacco far exceeds the harm caused to the users
of all illicit drugs combined. And what about alcohol, a drug that
also exerts a fearsome toll of death and misery? Our common sense
rejects the notion that smokers and drinkers should be labelled as
criminals.

Consider that about 10 per cent of drinkers abuse the drug in the
sense that its use affects their health and/or the well-being of
others. (We all understand the distinction between the use and abuse
of alcohol, or any other drug, for that matter. Use means that the
consumer controls the drug; abuse means that the drug controls the
consumer.) For one thing, it is grossly unfair to criminalize the 90
per cent whose use of the drug is relatively problem-free because of
the 10 per cent who cannot control intake. For another, common sense
is repelled by the notion that the way to deal with a problem drinker
(leaving aside harm that he causes to others) is to brand him as a
criminal. What is called for in that event are health professionals,
not police.

Bear in mind that, when a drug such as marijuana is criminalized, the
law attaches a harm status to the drug because otherwise there would
be no reason to ban it. By definition, then, one cannot use an illicit
drug - one can only abuse. Yet the law notwithstanding, the fact is
that most marijuana smokers - like most drinkers - do not abuse
their drug of choice. Of course, marijuana is a drug that can be
abused. But those who condemn the drug because it is not totally
harmless are imposing an absurd standard that, if applied across the
board, would criminalize all drugs, whether for recreational or
medical use.

Furthermore, there is no correlation between the harm potential of a
drug and its legal classification. Moreover, there is no drug -
whether recreational or medicinal - that is safe or harmless at all
dosage levels or under all conditions of use. Thus, what all drugs
have in common is their potential for abuse. And, finally, the use of
drugs for recreational purposes is so widespread across cultures that
the very notion of a War on Drugs is a war upon human nature. We would
do well to pay heed to the Dutch policy on drugs -- the pillar of
which is called "harm reduction." Although as in Canada, the Dutch
Penal Code bans drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, and heroin, they do
not enforce the provision against possession for personal use. The
rationale is as follows. If anyone's use of an illicit drug is not
harmful, there is no reason for state intervention. If the drug is
being abused, the arm of the state to invoke is not law enforcement,
but rather public health. Moreover, the Dutch understand that they
will sooner get abusers into treatment programs if they treat them as
patients. In short, their policy is designed to reduce harm by
adopting a health approach as opposed to compounding the harm of drug
abuse itself by branding the drug taker as a criminal.

There is the argument that decriminalizing possession of even small
amounts of marijuana sends the wrong message: a stamp of approval for
the drug. But that isn't so. Although tobacco is a legal drug, the
public health arm of government has been quite effective in
discouraging consumption by public education on the health impact of
smoking. This sends the message that the legal status of tobacco is
not tantamount to societal approval of the drug. And especially
because there is no intention to legalize marijuana (to allow for
growing and sale), the proposed reform symbolizes that the law has no
business criminalizing the possession of small amounts for personal
use.

In any case, marijuana is generally consumed far less than is tobacco,
where the consumption of multiple cigarettes on a daily basis is the
norm. In that sense, consumers of the former are at less risk to abuse
than are the latter. Still, I grant that like all recreational drugs,
marijuana is not problem-free. But the point is that the law is, in
effect, powerless to stop consumption, and it is folly to believe
otherwise. What we need to do is to cut our losses, and the proposed
reform is a good, albeit timid first step.