DRUG CASE SHOWS NEED FOR CHANGE

Any doubt that Parliament should move quickly to modify the marijuana law
was removed last week in a Windsor courtroom.

There, Mr. Justice Douglas Phillips tossed out a charge of possessing
marijuana that police had laid against a 16-year-old boy who cannot be named
because of his age.

In the judge's opinion, Parliament had not adequately responded to a request
from the Ontario Court of Appeal that it modify its marijuana law. The
appeal court made that request in the now-famous Parker case. In that case,
the court said the total ban on marijuana contained in the Controlled Drugs
and Substances Act violated Terry Parker's right to receive medical
treatment. Parker suffers from epilepsy and he successfully argued that he
needs marijuana to control his seizures.

The appeal court handed out that decision in July 2000 and gave Parliament
12 months to amend the act, a requirement that Parliament failed to meet.
The government responded with the Marijuana Medical Access Regulations, but
they are, as the name implies, regulations, not legislation. In the
circumstances, the judge in Windsor had reasonable grounds on which to agree
with the accused's lawyer, Brian McAllister, that the law against possessing
marijuana is no longer applicable.

This ruling is the decision of only one judge. And the federal government
has already announced that it will appeal the ruling. The judge's decision,
however, could stand up because it fits in with trends in the judiciary,
committee rooms on Parliament Hill and the Ministry of Justice. A Senate
committee last year recommended that marijuana be a legal product and a
House committee suggested that possessing small amounts of marijuana no
longer be treated as a criminal matter but instead be regarded as a
regulatory offence. Justice Minister Martin Cauchon has said he is in favour
of the law evolving, a comment that implies support for changing the current
legislation.

In the Windsor case, the judge may have technically been following the
letter of the law but he was also following the spirit of Canadian society,
which has come to regard smoking marijuana more like smoking tobacco or
drinking alcohol in private -- something that may be unwise in many cases
but not something that should be a crime.

Cauchon should regard this case as providing one more reason for him to move
swiftly to introduce legislation removing criminal sanctions for possessing
small quantities of marijuana. Too much time has already been wasted on
debating a legal issue when the real focus should be on the wisdom of
smoking this drug. Police officers and the courts have more important
matters to worry about than whether a person caught with marijuana is a
dangerous criminal. The answer to that question is obvious.