NOW, THEY DON'T LIKE OUR MARIJUANA PLAN

Ottawa's move to decriminalize the use of pot angers the U.S. government

U.S. drug czar John Walters frowns on Canada's plan to decriminalize
marijuana possession.

The move could unleash a flood of pot into the United States, he warns, and
provide funds for terrorists. In retaliation, the Americans might insist on
careful inspection of all Canadians crossing the border, causing long delays
and disrupting business.

"You expect your friends to stop the movement of poison to your
neighbourhood," Walters says.

Canada suggests, in return, that Walters and his boss, President George W.
Bush, chill out.

The pot plan, to be introduced in the House of Commons before the summer
recess, includes a strategy to combat trafficking and smuggling, Justice
Minister Martin Cauchon says. When the Americans see the total package,
they'll like it, he insists.

Paul Cellucci, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, was initially as hostile as
Walters but has toned down his criticism. We'll wait and see, he says now.

Why all the fuss over what amounts to a minor amendment to Canada's Criminal
Code - a change backed by dozens of studies and, polls suggest, enjoying
wide public support, even in the United States.

Why do American officials fear Canada will inflict a major setback on their
war on drugs when we're proposing to do what 12 U.S. states did more than 25
years ago?

Experts say the controversy is as much about perception as facts.

Not surprising, they say, given the history of the marijuana law and the
current anti-drug fervour in Washington.

In 1923, few Canadians had heard about pot, let alone ingested it. But that
year, almost as an afterthought, it was included on the list of prohibited
drugs in an amendment to the Criminal Code.

"Cannabis Indica (Indian Hemp) or Hasheesh" was hastily inserted into one
copy of a previously prepared schedule of illegal drugs. No one explained
why. No one in Parliament bothered to ask.

It was, several observers now say, a solution without a problem.

What pressure there was seemed to originate in the United States, where
opponents of "Mary Jane" were beginning to issue dire warnings.

Famous feminist and reformer Emily Murphy - fresh from her triumph in
persuading the Supreme Court of Canada that women were persons, not merely
the property of their husbands - might have persuaded some officials that
dope was the devil's work.

"Persons using this narcotic ... become raving maniacs and are liable to
kill or indulge in any forms of violence to other persons, using the most
savage forms of cruelty," she wrote in a 1922 book, which described
marijuana as "a new menace."

Murphy was, in fact, approvingly quoting Charles A. Jones, then Los Angeles'
police chief, whose rant was a thinly disguised attack on "Hindoo"
immigrants from India.

Despite their concerns, the Americans didn't make pot illegal until 1937.

No marijuana charges were laid in Canada until 1934. The annual total never
exceeded a handful until the flower-powered mid-1960s. After that, while
use, charges and convictions all soared, the nightmare of murders committed
by dope-addled addicts didn't become reality.

In 1972, a report commissioned by the U.S. government recommended: "Casual
distribution of small amounts of marijuana for no remuneration, or
insignificant remuneration not involving profit no longer be an offence."
Around the same time, in Canada, the Le Dain Royal Commission reached a
similar conclusion.

Neither Ottawa nor Washington acted on their reports. But in 1973, Oregon
decriminalized possession. In the next four years, 11 other states followed.

Then decriminalization fell by the wayside, says Paul Armentano, of the
National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, a Washington pro-pot
lobby group. After 1980, it was snuffed out by Ronald Reagan's war on drugs.
Spurred by the Americans, the United Nations toughened a 1961 convention
that makes it a violation of international law to legalize pot.

Even so, lobby groups and independent researchers around the world continued
to study the issue. All the research showed marijuana use doesn't lead to
hard drugs, and tough penalties aren't a deterrent. The studies invariably
opted for decriminalization.

Australia and most European nations eliminated criminal penalties for
possession, although no country has yet challenged the U.N.'s ban on
legalization.

The issue is being revived in the United States, but the focus is now on
using marijuana to relieve the suffering of people with cancer, AIDS and
other painful diseases. Nine states have gone this route; more are
considering it.

Over the past three decades, Canadian politicians, including Prime Minister
Jean Chretien when he was justice minister in the early 1980s, have talked
about loosening our pot law. With Chretien trying to build a socially
progressive legacy before he retires early next year, it appears Ottawa
might partially reverse what it did eight decades ago.

The current situation is confusing. The possession law is rarely enforced
and, when it is, penalties are wildly inconsistent. Ottawa has approved
medical use of marijuana, but the nearly 300 people in that program have no
clear way to get their supply.

On top of that, the Supreme Court is considering a challenge to the 1923
law. It heard arguments on Wednesday.

Ottawa's message is that marijuana it will continue to be illegal.
Decriminalization means simply that those caught with a small amount -
probably less than 30 grams - will face a modest fine, like a parking
ticket, rather than a court appearance and the possibility of jail and a
criminal record.

Growing, possessing and selling larger quantities will still be a crime. In
fact, the plan - expected to cost about $400 million - will include tougher
measures against traffickers and major producers.

"It's going to lead to a better policy that makes sense for Canadians and
will alleviate the concerns of the Americans," says Mike Murphy, a
spokesperson for Cauchon.

Last fall, a Senate committee recommended legalization, which might allow
pot to be produced, sold and taxed like alcohol. But that step is not in the
cards.

Marijuana "is harmful and it will continue to be treated as an illegal
drug," Murphy says.

Canada is not prepared to challenge the international convention against
legalization, and the public isn't ready for it, officials say.

Ottawa's main aim is to reduce harm, says Richard Garlick of the Canadian
Centre on Substance Abuse, an independent, federally funded research group
in Ottawa.

"Everyone agrees the biggest harm from the existing regime is the
criminalizing of tens of thousands of otherwise innocent people.
Decriminalization succeeds in addressing that; it's as far as you need to
go."

Marijuana has some health effects. Heavy users are prone to respiratory
ailments and, possibly, cancers. It can become addictive.

But, the experts say, those impacts pale in comparison with the damage to
the 600,000 Canadians saddled with a criminal record - which can hurt their
employment prospects and keep them out of the United States - just because
they were caught will a little dope.

In the 12 U.S. states where marijuana possession is decriminalized, use has
actually dropped slightly. The biggest increases have been in states with
the toughest enforcement.

The Americans spend about $17.5 billion (U.S.) a year on policing and
prosecutions, according to the Washington-based Drug Policy Alliance. Police
forces say the expense is far out of proportion to any benefits; the money
and manpower could be put to much better use.

Legal experts say the pot situation brings the law and police into
disrepute. The law is not consistently enforced. While the rate of marijuana
offences has nearly doubled over the past decade - with 70 per cent of those
simple possession charges - less than 1 per cent of Canada's 2 million to 3
million users are caught. Most of them aren't penalized.

More than half the people caught with small quantities of marijuana lose
their stash but get off with a warning. Nearly half of those charged aren't
convicted; many avoid court through community service and education
sessions. Those who go through the courts often get an absolute discharge.

Ottawa's plan, "will lead to more consistent application of the law," Murphy
says. "When it is consistently applied, then people will respect that law."

This "consistent application" might lead to more people being penalized for
possession, says Garlick. If police only have to issue a ticket, they're
more likely to enforce the law, he says. In Australia, the number of
offences tripled after decriminalization.

U.S. officials say relaxing the laws would boost profits for traffickers who
support terrorism. Others argue the opposite.

"It is drug prohibition that generates huge profits for these groups," the
Canadian Foundation on Drug Policy says. "Without prohibition, the drug
trade could not finance terrorism to any significant degree, since profits
from the legal sale of drugs would be a small fraction of what they are
now."

Walters and others warn that Washington would likely express its displeasure
by imposing tough inspections at the border. In particular, analysts say, it
might refuse to exempt Canadians from stringent security measures to be
imposed in 2005.

That worries business groups, including some, like the Fraser Institute,
which support decriminalization.

At a time when disagreements over issues like the Kyoto accord on climate
change and the attack on Iraq have strained relations, they say, we don't
need another dispute, particularly one that could curtail trade.

Canada must be strategic, says Michael Walker, the institute's
executive-director: It might be better to move by stealth, rather than bold
action.

"If we do it in a way that creates a backlash and people start to lose jobs,
there wouldn't be much sympathy for it. We don't have to decriminalize to
achieve the results people want."

"It's another irritant at a bad time," says University of Toronto political
scientist John Kirton. "Even more damaging, in some respects, than the
disagreement over Iraq is the fact it comes in a social-policy issue that's
quite central to the core constituency of President Bush as he moves toward
re-election."

But Daniel Drache, of York University's Robarts Centre for Canadian Studies,
says the threat of retaliation is overblown.

Even if Canada dropped its pot plan, there's no guarantee the U.S. Congress
would approve any exemption from the 2005 security rules, he says.

Drache is convinced, however, the Americans will choose trade over
punishment.

"They're more interested in doing business. If Canadians are committed to
this, it will go through and there will be no repercussions."