JUST SAY 'YES'

Legalizing marijuana would actually be safer for kids than
decriminalization, writes BRIAN BERGMAN

FIRST, the obligatory full disclosure. Like most boomers, I did, in my
youth, inhale (repeatedly). In the intervening years -- I'm 47 now, thanks
for asking -- I have, on rare occasions, taken a toke or two, though
today's far more potent pot holds no appeal for me. In fact, there is
little doubt that some current strains of marijuana are a far cry from the
mellow stimulant of yesteryear which, if memory serves, induced little more
than the giggles, the munchies and a heightened appreciation of (often very
bad) music.

That said, I think a strong case can be made that it's time for Canada to
legalize the possession of cannabis and license its production and
distribution in a manner similar to alcohol.

I'm also convinced that federal Justice Minister Martin Cauchon's preferred
approach -- a fine and no criminal record for possession of small amounts
of cannabis, while keeping sale and production illegal -- is perhaps the
worst, and certainly the most hypocritical, option of all.

I say "perhaps" the worst because surely nothing could outdo the status
quo. Officially, possession of cannabis is a crime and first-time offenders
face a maximum sentence of a $1,000 fine or six months in jail, or both
(penalties for producing or selling are much stiffer). Unofficially, the
law is in tatters.

In recent weeks, lower-court judges in two cases have quashed charges
against both recreational users and those who smoke pot for medical
reasons, ruling that current statutes are, in effect, null and void. In
December, the Supreme Court of Canada postponed for several months a widely
anticipated constitutional challenge against Canada's cannabis laws. The
justices complained about the decidedly mixed signals coming from Ottawa.
On the one hand, Justice Department lawyers had filed court submissions
linking marijuana to everything from drug addiction to cancer. On the
other, the lawyers' ultimate boss, Cauchon, had just stated his intention
to change the law to treat possession of this allegedly heinous substance
as no more serious than, say, a parking violation.

Many of the government's legal woes are due to its ham-fisted response to
those who smoke marijuana to alleviate symptoms of epilepsy, multiple
sclerosis and other debilitating conditions. After a series of court
challenges, Ottawa finally agreed in July 2001 to provide a special
entitlement for medical users.

But instead of changing the law, it did so through cabinet decree and
regulations -- a fact defence lawyers for recreational smokers have since
exploited to successfully argue that the pre-existing pot legislation is
invalid.

Moreover, Ottawa has so far failed to provide those who smoke marijuana for
therapeutic reasons with a safe and steady supply, often forcing them to
find it on the street.

In the case of a lawsuit brought by nine medical users, that stark reality
prompted Ontario Superior Court Judge Sidney Lederman, to rule in January
that Ottawa's regulations violated the patients' constitutional rights to
life, liberty and security of person. "Consorting with criminal drug
dealers," observed Lederman, "strikes me as a relatively risky means of
obtaining medicine."

A similar conundrum will face recreational users if and when
decriminalization measures take effect.

Possessing and smoking cannabis will become quasi-legal (we don't, after
all, think of parking offenders as criminals). But those wishing to indulge
will have to either grow their own (which will remain illegal) or rely on
criminal drug traffickers. Where is the logic in that?

A more sensible approach was laid out in detail by a recent Senate special
committee on illegal drugs.

Released during the dog days of last summer, the committee's 600-page
report recommends legalizing marijuana, but it didn't get nearly the
attention it deserved.

What there was tended to be derisive, with critics citing the report as
further evidence of a stoner Senate badly out of touch with reality.

That's a pity, because the five core members of the committee -- consisting
of a lawyer, a petroleum executive, an insurance broker, a realtor and a
professional musician, ages 53 to 73 -- delivered a dispassionate and
clear-eyed summary of the medical, legal and ethical issues revolving
around cannabis use.

Reviewing various studies and expert testimony, the senators conclude that
marijuana is actually less habit-forming than alcohol or cigarettes.
Physical and psychological addiction is rare, they say, and the theory that
pot acts as a "gateway" to harder drugs has been widely discredited. At the
same time, the senators acknowledge that much of today's marijuana is more
potent than what was on the market 30 years ago. In its natural state,
cannabis contains between 0.5 per cent and three per cent
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which is its psychoactive ingredient. But
because of improved cultivation methods, the Senate report estimates the
THC content in the average joint now ranges between six per cent and 31 per
cent. Canada has done its part in this particular green revolution, with
high-grade B.C. Bud being one of that province's premier cash crops.

Marijuana enthusiasts will tell you they deal with this phenomenon by
inhaling smaller amounts of the strong stuff or seeking out milder brands
- -- what some have dubbed "decaf pot." Perhaps. But for young, inexperienced
tokers, the lesson is clear: buyer beware, this is not your Daddy's dope.

Some argue the new, improved pot demonstrates the need for continued
criminal sanctions.

The senators take a different view. Far better, they say, to take cannabis
off the black market and out of the hands of organized crime gangs, which
profit mightily from the current situation. License its sale and regulate
its production to ensure the THC content in a legal joint never exceeds 13
per cent and to screen out potentially harmful additives that can appear in
street purchases.

As a bonus, such an approach would generate tax revenues which, if desired,
could be used for drug abuse education.

The Senate report also provides some fascinating insight into marijuana
consumption in Canada -- and the failure of current laws to curb it. The
committee estimates that about three million Canadians, ages 14 to 65,
smoked pot at least once during the previous 12 months, and pegs the costs
of trying to enforce Canada's pot laws at $300 million annually.

Yet only 20,000 people are arrested on cannabis possession charges each
year. How many more billions of dollars, ask the senators, would it cost to
truly enforce the law? And couldn't that money be better spent targeting
the illicit trade in more dangerous drugs such as heroin and cocaine and
funding overall drug use prevention and treatment programs?

Good questions.

But don't expect Ottawa to embrace the Senate report any time soon. When a
House of Commons committee agreed with Cauchon in December that Canada
should follow the lead of such countries as Switzerland and the Netherlands
and decriminalize pot, George Bush's drug czar, John Walters, cried foul.
Walters, director of Washington's National Drug Control Policy, said such a
move posed "a dangerous threat" to the health and security of Americans and
predicted chaos at the border.

Just imagine the sound and fury that would ensue if Canada took the far
bolder step of legalizing marijuana, which would require temporarily
withdrawing from, or standing in violation of, international drug
conventions Canada has signed.

I admit to having a vested interest in all this. I have two sons, soon to
enter their teenage years.

When it comes to marijuana -- or any mood-altering drug -- my sincere wish
is that they will heed the sage advice of Nancy Reagan and "just say no."
Failing that, though, I'd like to think any experimenting they do could be
made as safe as possible, from both a legal and health perspective. If
nothing else, it would mean one less anxious scenario to run through my
head as I lie awake on Saturday nights, wondering what the heck they're up to.