WHY THE DOUBLE STANDARD?

The federal government is sending a bit of a mixed message to
Canadians with this week's move to decriminalize the possession of
small amounts of marijuana, while increasing the penalties for those
who grow cannabis and initiating a $245 million national drug strategy
aimed at reducing substance abuse.

In announcing the Liberals' strategy, Health Minister Anne McLellan
stressed that "marijuana is harmful and it will remain illegal... we do
not want Canadians to use marijuana."

The good minister's words may sound firm and unequivocal, but her
government's actions are anything but that. We think it's the actions
that count, and what the actions say is, "A small quantity of
marijuana for one's personal use isn't a big deal. If you're caught,
we're going to slap you on the wrist and ask you politely not to do it
again."

Don't get us wrong. We think decriminalizing pot can work, as long as
the new laws are strictly enforced. We also think treating those
possessing small amounts as hardened crimi nals takes up far too much
of our legal system's resources. Perhaps, instead of having such
offenders spend valuable court time in their efforts to avoid
incurring a criminal record, dealing with such matters by way of a
fine -- one which can be paid the day of the offence -- will prove a
more effective deterrent than the drawn-out legal process experienced
by many.

The reality is that until now, law enforcement officials and the legal
system have treated those possessing small amounts of pot leniently,
reducing the laws' potential as deterrents.

However, we think setting a lower fine for young people than for
adults sends the wrong message.

Under the new law, the government is proposing a fine of $150 for
possession of 15 grams or less of marijuana, $100 for a young person.
Justice Minister Martin Cauchon says he is most interested in
discouraging those same young people from using marijuana. Why the
double standard?

We would propose a minimum fine of $150, regardless of age, with fines
increasing where aggravating circumstances -- such as driving while
under the influence or possession of pot on school grounds -- exist.

While increasing the maximum penalty for those who grow marijuana from
seven to 14 years seems like a good idea if one aims to reduce the
number of grow operations, we think it also points to some real
inequities in our justice system. A person found guilty of
manslaughter can get off with as little as four years in prison, but a
person found growing 50 marijuana plants can be sentenced to 14 years
in jail. Now, tell us, which crime merits the more severe penalty?

We're concerned about how this new law will affect waits at the U.S.
border, used by many of those who visit Whistler. However, we don't
think the Canadian strategy will necessarily result in a dramatic
increase in cross-border smuggling, and think the Americans should
wait to see the results before deciding whether to tighten border
security in an attempt to curtail it.