CRITICS LAMBASTE JUMP IN MARIJUANA CHARGES

During a decade when Canadians grew increasingly tolerant of marijuana
use, the number of simple possession charges more than doubled - a
trend that critics say has increased the costs of running an already
overburdened court system.

Charges for marijuana hit 50,246 across Canada in 2002, according to
recently released figures from Statistics Canada. That compares with
1992, when there were 23,178.

The steady rise came to a halt in Ontario this spring when a series of
court decisions effectively obliterated marijuana-possession laws, and
police chiefs told their officers to stop laying charges when they
found small quantities.

But critics point out that the reprieve will last only until the
federal government changes the law, perhaps decriminalizing the drug -
and they say the climbing number of possession charges before the
spring suggests a justice system that is disingenuous.

Before spring, police and the Crown "always maintained that they are
approaching marijuana with increased tolerance and leniency, but the
numbers undercut that completely," said Alan Young, a York University
law professor who represents people who want increased access to the
drug.

"The only major [criminal] law-reform measure on the table right now
in terms of changing existing law is marijuana decriminalization," he
said. "Yet it is one of the only offences that has consistently been
increasing over the past 10 years."

Diane Riley, an expert in drug policy at the University of Toronto,
said police promised to ease up on those caught with a few joints
while hitting harder on major traffickers.

But "what the data show is that the actual number of charges against
the really big traffickers dropped down," Dr. Riley said. "They are
saying one thing and they are doing another."

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which has spoken
strongly against decriminalization, did not return calls to offer
explanations for the dramatic rise in possession charges. Nor did the
Canadian Police Association, which has taken a similar stand.

Prof. Young attributed the increasing charges to higher marijuana
consumption driven, in part, by increased production of the plant in
basements and attics. That, in turn, has made people less fearful of
smoking the weed in the open, where they are more likely to get caught.

There has also been increased tolerance, even on the part of those who
do not smoke the drug. When Canadians were asked in a 1975 poll
whether they favoured legalizing the use of marijuana, fewer than one
in 20 respondents said yes. By 2001, nearly 47 per cent agreed that
marijuana should be sold and used legally.

But still the charges increased. And as the charges increased, so did
the costs of police, courts and the correctional service.

The federal Justice Department could provide no estimates of the cost
to taxpayers in prosecutions of the average simple
marijuana-possession charge.

Nor could Statscan give accurate numbers on convictions. Using broad
figures that include drugs from heroin and cocaine to cannabis, the
agency said there were only half as many convictions for drug
possession in 2001-02 as there were charges. So it is safe to assume a
large number did not make it through the courts.

But Prof. Young said that each charge that ends up in discharge or
diversion program costs the courts a minimum of $1,000, and that does
not include money spent by police or corrections.

A report by the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy written in 2001
says that "although any estimate must be speculative, it appears
reasonable to suggest that the enforcement cost for the offence of
simple possession of cannabis is between $60- and $100-million per
year."

Those costs may come down with decriminalization. But Prof. Young and
Dr. Riley said the charges will increase because police officers will
feel more comfortable with handing teenagers tickets that result in
fines rather than criminal records.