GOVERNMENT REPACKAGED POT STATUS QUO

Reasonable Doubt

On May 27, the Canadian government introduced legislation purportedly
designed to decriminalize marijuana possession. The media had a field day.
The headlines read: "Up in smoke," "Gone to pot" and "Flying high." This
cheap wordplay may make the grade at the Cheech and Chong school of
journalism, but the hackneyed jokes detracted from the real news story.

Most people seemed to miss that the government promised decriminalization
but ultimately gave us nothing. All we received was a watered-down version
that still exposes the marijuana smoker to arrest, incarceration and the
mark of Cain (i.e. the criminal record). The status quo was merely
repackaged to create the illusion of change. The government gave us a
national drug strategy made in the U.S.A..

For a decade I have worked diligently as a lawyer and lobbyist on the
campaign to decriminalize marijuana. May 27 was supposed to be a day of
celebration for the activists. It was a huge bust. Most of the work we had
done was designed to demystify marijuana and show it is a benign substance
that poses no threat to the social order. Yet at the news conference
announcing the proposed "change," three federal ministers all proclaimed
that "marijuana is harmful to society." This was puzzling. If these three
blind mice truly believe that marijuana is harmful to society, they are
doing a grave disservice to Canadians by liberalizing the use of a
dangerous substance. The entire foundation of decriminalization is built on
the belief that marijuana is a relatively harmless substance, and I was led
to believe by the government that it would change the law to reflect this
understanding. Political promises often turn out to be a trap for the naive.

Beyond the obvious problem of American intimidation, it remains unclear why
this government would go the trouble of creating a mere illusion of change.
If those in power did not want to decriminalize they should have just said
so. Perhaps this would not have been easy to say, considering most of the
Western world has decriminalized marijuana in the past decade. Perhaps this
would not have been easy to say because every official, fact-finding body
appointed to examine the marijuana issue recommends decriminalization. So
it becomes easier to say you support law reform while remaining silently
committed to waging war with a plant. What is the source of this neurotic
fear of change?

Here's where things become politically sinister. Canada's lawmakers do not
care about the health of its citizens. Every supermarket in the country
sells heavily promoted food items that lead to gastrointestinal distress,
cardiac arrest and obesity. Life is full of risks to health and safety. I
remember an odd newspaper story in 1997 reporting that 40,000 Americans
injure themselves on their toilet seats and another 100,000 are victimized
by their own clothes. Nobody has suggested that Sir Thomas Crapper should
be demonized or that there should be a criminal prohibition on deadly pant
zippers. We accept and live with these risks because we believe that flush
toilets and fancy clothes have social utility. So if smoking marijuana
poses some health risks, why are some lawmakers not prepared to accept and
live with these risks?

Remember Timothy Leary? His mantra for the drug-laden 60s was "tune in,
turn on and drop out." Living by this mantra, many young people moved to
communes, rejecting capitalistic aspirations and ridiculing traditional
family values. Cannabis sativa does alter consciousness in a subtle way.
Altering consciousness often leads to critical thinking and, for some,
questioning authority is the product of drug-induced critical thought. It
seems that at an unconscious level, lawmakers fear decriminalization will
lead to increased pot smoking, which in turn will lead to non-conventional
and non-productive lifestyle choices.

This logic is both flawed and dangerous. First, empirical evidence clearly
shows that decriminalization does not lead to increased consumption. The
decision to use or not to use drugs rarely has anything to do with the law
itself.

Second, I would have thought that in a free society we have the right to
evolve into critical thinkers and champions of non-conventional lifestyles.
Who cares if getting high takes you to this critical junction, so long as
you are not hurting anyone else by your actions?

While politicians amuse themselves with games of smoke and mirrors, the
courts have struck a temporary death blow to marijuana prohibition. For at
least the next few months there is no existing law prohibiting the simple
possession of marijuana.

For those afraid that marijuana will lead to societal destruction, I would
ask that you pay careful attention this summer. Ontario will survive this
court-ordered experiment with decriminalization and I can assure you that
the trillium will not wilt from the pungent smoke of those who choose to
have a summer fling with temporary liberty.