SECOND-HAND SMOKE

So the U.S. is grumbling at Canada again.

Apparently, Tom Riley, public affairs director for the White House office
of drug control policy is upset that our Federal Justice Minister Martin
Cauchon hasn't consulted with the Americans about his plans to introduce
legislation to the House of Commons later this spring to relax Canada's
marijuana laws.

Now Mr. Riley's all riled up. His mutterings have included less than veiled
threats that should Canada go ahead to decriminalize possession of less
than 30 grams of marijuana, it would trigger greater security checks for
border-crossing Canadians. Stern words also spewed from the Center for
International and Strategic Studies in Washington where a spokesperson
alluded to the fact that there's no room for persuasion down there and that
it would be "very damaging" if Canada chose to go ahead.

According to newswire reports, the rant in Washington is that the passage
of this legislation would be akin to Canada unilaterally establishing "open
air toxic waste sites" along the border. Mr. Riley doesn't explain that
leap of logic and Justice Minister Cauchon hasn't sidetracked south to
check it out.

In September 2002, the Canadian Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs
recommended legalizing the use of marijuana by adults. The report, the
result of a two-year study of public policy on the use of the drug, stated
that the current system of prohibition in Canada does not work and should
be replaced by a regulated system. The 600-page report based its findings
on thorough research, analysis and extensive public hearings with input
from experts and citizens.

From that study came the justice minister's cautious step forward in a new
direction to introduce legislation that would decriminalize small amounts
of pot for personal use. Washington tore it's hair out and now, apparently,
wants to threaten our heads too.

But this issue isn't just about marijuana. It's bigger than this.

It's the notion that Washington assumes the need, even the right, to be
consulted by Canada about pending legislation that affects our sovereign laws.

How this sits with many Canadians is far from comfortable. Like any
country, we've got our fair share of no-brainer laws. How we choose to deal
with them, change them, dump them out or improve them is a matter for
Canadians and our law-makers. Not foreigners.

Perhaps, in more amicable times, it may have been useful to discuss changes
to our laws with neighbours, or significant others. But regardless of
outside opinion, once legislation is introduced, voted on, and passed or
defeated, it is done so according to Canada's interests and the will of the
Canadians. Not foreigners.

Washington is a temperamental town with a history of nasty rivalries and
less-than-patient egos. If it did once have more benign tolerance, the Iraq
attack seems to have changed all that, setting political tolerance at an
all-time zero. Sniping at anyone who doesn't agree with its linear thinking
has become modus operandi as it shoots to re-shape the world in its own image.

The problem with this is countries of the world have their own ideas about
their own image. Especially Canada. The decision of the justice minister to
move forward with new legislation will be controversial and will stir up
heated debate, to say the least. But it will be a Canadian debate. It will
be a step in a new direction to reflect what he believes to be good policy
for Canadians.

Mr. Riley and his Canada-bashing brigade will just have to deal with that.

C'est la vie.