PRIME MINISTER RIGHT TO MOVE TO SCRAP UNJUST MARIJUANA LAW

Dear Editor,

Rob Ravinsky (Letters, May 5, "Keep pot illegal") should be proud and
grateful to live in a society where respect for human rights is, at least
in one instance, beginning to be put before archaic laws based on fear,
irrationality and misinformation. Ravinsky fails to see "how
decriminalization of marijuana can do anything but do harm to our society";
this is unfortunate. Society will benefit in many ways. Decriminalization
will be one step toward enhancing the view of Canadian laws as a legitimate
authority. This legitimacy is obviously lacking when a prohibited drug is
commonplace and virtually uniformly seen as harmless and when laws
prohibiting it are not often enforced.

Indeed, as Ravinsky says, the government "should not be wasting our tax
dollars deciding whether or not marijuana should be decriminalized." The
problem is the government didn't spend enough time deciding that marijuana
should be criminalized back in 1923 when, in the words of the Senate report
that examined decriminalization, "a misinformed and somewhat racist initial
definition of the 'problem' of drugs in Canada ... contributed to a
response based in harsh legislation as opposed to scientific evidence."

How can the federal budget and education be more important than having laws
that appropriately match the seriousness of an offence with its punishment?
Is our budget properly being allocated when resources are spent charging
people with criminal offences and giving them criminal records for smoking
a substance that the Senate report itself said presents no harmful
consequences"? What can be more pressing than being able to educate our
youth on Canadian laws and being able to honestly say they are rational and
humane?

Arguments such as the one Ravinsky makes that decriminalizing marijuana
will lead to people wanting to decriminalize harder drugs are based on the
same misinformation and fear that characterized the original prohibition of
marijuana. So is the worry that "Ottawa might not know where to draw the
line." These are no reasons to maintain an unjust law.

The prime minister's support for this step forward is something we should
all be proud of, because it stands for the idea that ours is a country
where criminal laws are not maintained simply for historical reasons, or
for fear of change, but for legitimate purposes. I don't see anything
"ridiculous" about that.

Doree Levine Student, Faculty of Law McGill University