LIBERALS' POT POLICY IS A HALF-BAKED SHAM

Two developments last week demonstrated there's a right way and a wrong way
to deal with the still-divisive issues surrounding marijuana laws in this
country.

The first was the special six-part Sun Media series "Canada Goes to Pot,"
which concluded yesterday.

The second was Jean Chretien's oh-so-jocular announcement at a Liberal
fundraising dinner in Ottawa confirming that, yes, the Liberals are indeed
just weeks away from decriminalizing possession of small amounts of pot.

This memorable moment was greeted by whoops and cheers by the room full of
well-heeled Liberal supporters.

"Don't start smoking right away," joked the PM. "We're not legalizing it.
We're decriminalizing it."

Whatever - it got a laugh.

In that one moment, the PM summed up everything that infuriates me about
the marijuana issue. To wit: we can't seem to have a serious debate about
this without a whole lot of silly nudge-nudge, wink-wink.

That's what I liked about the Sun series, spearheaded by reporter Jason
Botchford, who examined pot use and laws from Amsterdam to Alabama, Toronto
to Vancouver. For once, the discussion delved beyond the usual polarized
rhetoric and aired some real concerns of real Canadians.

Some of the findings about real Canadians surprised me. Like the Leger poll
that found 56% of us have never tried pot. Age, of course, was a key
factor, and age 45 was the apparent dividing line. Below 45, a majority had
tried pot, though most had given it up long ago.

I found this enlightening, given the "everybody does it" attitude that
tends to surround the pot debate. Liberal leadership candidate John Manley
(who's 53) even alluded to that last week, confessing that he'd never
toked, but "I regret that, now, because apparently it's de rigueur."

Hardy har. Apparently he was responding to rival Sheila Copps' giggling
that she had "absolutely!" smoked up in her youth. Why do these Liberals
think this is all so darn funny?

Maybe they read the Sun poll numbers showing a whopping 83% of Canadians
agree the pot laws should be changed. But the truth is, we are far from
unanimous on what kind of change we want.

Take medical use of marijuana, which 43% of Canadians think should be
allowed. The feds have failed miserably in providing a legal supply. Sick
people still have to buy pot illegally. Doctors still worry about side
effects from such an unregulated and potent drug. Funny stuff, eh?

Or take organized crime - please. Chretien said with a straight face that
while this new law will mean pot smokers will no longer face "unnecessary"
criminal records for possession (can't argue with that - our poll found
only 14% of Canadians support such a severe penalty), it will at the same
time discourage kids from smoking dope and crack down on the criminal drug
trade. Yeah, tell us another one.

No wonder cops like Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino are tearing their
hair over what they see as a political stunt that changes little in the
real world of crime. Cops in most major jurisdictions already turn a blind
eye to simple possession, which Fantino has no problem with.

But, he told Botchford, "I don't think we can be doing this without
addressing the business end of marijuana - the organized crime," which
provides the bulk of the drug supply.

'Blink And Wink'

"If the government wants to blink and wink and turn its backs on organized
crime and endanger the lives of ... law-abiding citizens, then they should
just legalize it and get it over with and the police will be done with it."

Ah, but the Liberals won't go there, meaning they'll disappoint some 20% of
Canadians, according to our poll. And they'll seriously annoy American law
enforcement, too, though I don't see that as a huge concern, apart from
caus ing border delays. (As I see it, drug smugglers are criminals, period,
and any Canadians who are dumb enough to travel internationally with weed
deserve what they get.) Yes, yes, continent-wide legalization could end the
costly, deadly war on drugs, but let's get real: no government on this
planet is ready to go that route yet. Least of all our Liberals.

And why should they? That would be seriously difficult, groundbreaking
policy which would stir up a lot of controversy and, frankly, wouldn't buy
a whole lot of votes. At least, not a whole lot more than the ones they'll
get from this half-baked sham of a drug policy that pleases no one (for
proof, just check out today's letters to the editor, opposite).

I don't know about you, but I don't find that cheery at all.