A REALISTIC REVISION OF THE CANNABIS LAW

The federal government's bill to decriminalize possession of less than 15
grams of marijuana is as moderate as it's possible to be while still doing
the right thing.

It would not, for a start, make it any easier to obtain cannabis.
Trafficking would remain a criminal offence, with the same severe penalties
as before. Cultivation of marijuana plants would remain a criminal offence,
though the current penalty -- up to seven years in prison -- would be
replaced by a graded penalty. Someone who cultivated one to three plants
would, on summary conviction, risk a $5,000 fine or a 12-month jail
sentence. Someone who cultivated more than 50 plants could be sentenced to
14 years.

What the bill would do is recognize that nothing positive is being achieved,
and much damage is being done, by treating users of small amounts as
criminals. Under the current law, someone arrested for smoking a marijuana
joint will, if convicted in criminal court and saddled with a criminal
record, find it impossible to obtain certain jobs (goodbye, law career) and
difficult to travel. The penalty is grossly disproportionate to the offence.

In fact, it is so harsh that the police themselves shy away from arresting
offenders. The government estimates that half the time, officers give
offenders a warning instead of laying a charge. This uneven enforcement --
smokers in rural areas stand a greater chance of being charged than city
dwellers -- is anathema to a just system.

Even the government's proposed bill risks similarly uneven application. If
someone were caught in possession of between 15 and 30 grams of marijuana,
the police could, at their discretion, either hand out a ticket ($300 for an
adult, $200 for a youth) or send the person to criminal court for a jail
sentence of six months on summary conviction. What are the odds we'd see the
same urban-rural divide in enforcement? This provision needs reassessment.

Worries have been expressed that the United States might look askance at
this softening of Canada's position, but these worries appear to have been
addressed. The Americans want to stop the many thousands of illegal
marijuana grow operations in Canada from smuggling cannabis into their
country -- and the proposed legislation would stiffen rather than relax the
penalties for anyone caught with more than 25 plants. In any case, 12 U.S.
states have themselves decriminalized possession of small amounts of
cannabis.

Does the bill send a signal to young people in particular that marijuana is
more acceptable, and that society is less interested in discouraging its
use? It could be read that way by someone intent on reading it that way, but
in practice the enforcement of penalties is likely to increase rather than
decrease.

The police would be more likely to issue a ticket than they have been to
issue a criminal summons. The fine would be lower for youths than adults, in
keeping with the legal system's lighter treatment of young offenders
generally. Would kids be more likely to try cannabis because the penalty was
relaxed, or less likely because they stood a greater chance of being
penalized? Would the removal of a significant element of risk -- getting a
criminal record -- encourage use, or would it make the transgression less
exciting, and less alluring?

The bill's drafters have obviously worked overtime to make the legislation
as impervious as possible to critics. If someone smoked in or near a school,
the penalty would rise to $400 for an adult or $250 for a youth. The same
would apply if someone were found operating a car while in possession of
cannabis. The driver could still be charged, as now, with driving while
impaired. The stumbling block -- the lack of a reliable test to determine
when a driver should be forced to give a urine sample -- would exist with or
without the current bill.

Even under the current law, the number of cannabis users in Canada has been
growing. One can remind them as often as possible of the hazards of regular
use of cannabis. For instance, a British Lung Foundation study last fall
found that smoking three joints can cause as much damage to the lungs as
smoking 20 tobacco cigarettes (more is inhaled, and it's held much longer
before being exhaled), and that the tar from marijuana contains 50 per cent
more carcinogens than the tar from tobacco cigarettes. Indeed, the federal
government proposes to commit a total of $245-million over five years to
drug education, treatment and rehabilitation as part of its new initiative.

But in the end, Canada faces one question: Do we want to make criminals of
hundreds of thousands of Canadians who smoke a joint or two -- an activity
in which an estimated one-third of Canadians have engaged?

The government has answered no to that question. It's the right response.