POT ON MP TORSNEY'S MIND

Spectator Interview

The last session of Parliament ended on a high note for Paddy
Torsney.

In the closing days of Parliament, the Burlington Liberal MP found
herself talking almost constantly about marijuana.

As chair of a parliamentary committee examining the non-medical use of
drugs, Torsney's job has been to explain why members are recommending
the decriminalization of marijuana.

The 13-member, all-party committee recommended people who possess less
than 30 grams of pot should get a fine rather than a criminal record.
A first offence would bring a $200 fine, second offence $500, third
conviction $1,000. Marijuana would remain an illegal drug, as Torsney
has been repeatedly stressing.

Justice Minister Martin Cauchon -- who has said he might introduce
decriminalization legislation early next year -- called the
recommendations "very interesting, very important."

The Spectator asked Torsney to talk about her committee's
recommendations.

The Spectator: Why does the committee want to decriminalize the possession
of marijuana?

Torsney: First of all, the committee wants to send a strong message that
the possession of marijuana is illegal. We want there to be a strong
education campaign about the health issues related to smoking marijuana.

But for those people who do smoke marijuana -- and it seems there are
a number of Canadians who do on an occasional basis or do at least try
it -- we don't want them to get a criminal record. We don't want their
future job choices or their ability to travel to be affected.

What we think would be more effective, in fact, would be to introduce
a regulatory regime that would fine them and that there would be a
more likely consequence for their action.

Right now, police officers are unevenly applying the law. There are
Crown prosecutors choosing to continue cases or not. There are
alternative measures in some communities but not in others.

In general, that creates a lack of respect for the law and a very
confusing picture, particularly for young adults. We think if you are
20 years old and you get a $200 fine, you'll be paying attention. Then
you will see there are consequences for your actions.

The Spectator: But why shouldn't people have a criminal record or have
travel restrictions if they are caught possessing marijuana or if they
smoke marijuana?

Torsney: There are health risks (to smoking marijuana) but we think the
punishment right now could far outweigh the risks to our community or to
people's individual health.

That's why we give people criminal records. Because they've harmed our
community.

The Spectator: Why is marijuana any different than any of the other drugs?

Torsney: Because Canadians and citizens of the world are continuing to use
marijuana in spite of the laws. The current laws are not having an impact
on their behaviour.

While we are going to continue to demand that it be illegal to
possess, we want them to have a different kind of sanction for
breaking that, within the 30 grams.

The Spectator: What are some of the advantages and disadvantages to
bringing in a decriminalized system?

Torsney: What we're proposing will be used by police officers to
effectively sanction people who break the law. It will be administratively
much easier for police officers to write a ticket.

It will be administratively much less costly to our judicial system
and the consequences will be real and meaningful. Two-hundred dollars
to someone who is between 20 and 30 is a heck of a lot of money.

The disadvantage is certainly there is some confusion by some
Americans as to what we're doing and that's creating some concern.
There is a disadvantage if you don't do the other things which is
communicate on health risks. Then I think people could be concerned
about the messaging.

The Spectator: What kind of message do you think government would be
sending, especially to young people, if marijuana is decriminalized?

Torsney: We want the government to be sending a message to young people and
all Canadians about the use and misuse of substances. We want the
government to educate people about legal and illegal substances.

Whether it's alcohol, cigarettes, illicit drugs, prescription drugs,
over-the-counter drugs -- we've got to do a better job in making sure
people understand how their bodies are affected.

The Spectator: But by decriminalizing marijuana, isn't the message that
this is different than heroin or cocaine or any other drug?

Torsney: Right now we have different regimes for kids who are caught with
cigarettes, alcohol. There are different regimes for different substances
already. So I think we have to get a little more sophisticated in our
messages to young people.

We want there to be a national media campaign as well. Our policy is
not a one-off initiative. It's within a context of changes that we
want to make. That's really quite important and I hope you include
that.

The media plays a very important role in communicating. It's been a
bit of a disaster in terms of what messages kids are getting from the
media about these issues. There is a horrible misunderstanding of what
decriminalization means. It does not make something legal.

The Spectator: What is the difference between decriminalization and
legalization?

Torsney: Decriminalization means the sanctions for breaking the law do not
give you a criminal record which forever marks you and limits your choices
so you might not be able to become a doctor or go into the United States or
travel abroad. Decriminalization means you still get a sanction.

Legalization means the product would be available and open for
sale.

The Spectator: Is this a step in that direction, toward legalization?

Torsney: It might not be. I think that Canadians will have to evaluate in
about five years whether the changes we're suggesting are achieving the
goals they want.

They'll have to look at whether or not there is a need for change,
either more restrictive or less restrictive. It's presumptuous of me
to determine what they will want five years from now.

The Spectator: What about the concerns that using marijuana leads to the
use of other, more serious drugs?

Torsney: If you look at most of the use patterns and experimentation
patterns that young people have, cigarettes are the gateway drug. The first
thing most young people try is cigarettes. It would be rare to find someone
who tried marijuana or heroin who did not try cigarettes.

First you try cigarettes, then you try alcohol, then you try
marijuana. And most people do not try anything beyond that.

The Spectator: The committee acknowledged that marijuana use is linked to
lung cancer and chronic bronchitis. What about the cost of marijuana use to
the health-care system?

Torsney: Frankly, we've got a huge cost in terms of our judicial and
health-care system by ignoring the number of people who want treatment for
alcohol, cigarettes and all drugs.

We would really like to see there be more treatment, more of an
encouragement and the possibility of people having an ability to
reduce their use of substances and pull back from their misuse of substances.

The Spectator: You touched on this earlier in terms of Canada-U.S.
relations. John Walters (the head of the White House Office of National
Drug Control Policy) came out after the committee's report and condemned
it. He says they'll have to tighten up the border if we relax our marijuana
laws. What impact does this have on Canada-U.S. relations?

Torsney: I think that all Canadians understand very clearly that there is
no possibility of import-export on an ad hoc basis. That would be a
disaster if they think that would be helpful or be acceptable.

The other thing is, they should be very careful to examine what the
rules are in the states they're in if they are choosing to possess,
because some states have different laws.

I think Mr. Walters should probably acknowledge that there are
different regimes in different states. If they really look at what we
are saying, we are recommending it continue to be illegal.

The Spectator: Is the committee's recommendation a reflection at all of the
values that politicians have now as opposed to 20 years ago?

Torsney: Maybe, but in 1972 the Le Dain commission (into the non-medical
use of drugs) recommended that we decriminalize possession -- 1972.

The Spectator: Just lastly, I have to ask, have you ever smoked pot?

Torsney: You answer that question first and then we'll go there.

The Spectator: Oh come on.

Torsney: No, it's irrelevant.

The Spectator: Why is it irrelevant?

Torsney: You know what, I'm already on the record that I tried it at
university. But you know what I think is bad is ... that could influence
someone else to not evaluate their own factors. Everyone has to make their
own decisions. I'm concerned about messaging to young people.

I was an adult actually. I was. I was 18 or 20. But I was exposed to a
lot of drugs when I was very young and I chose not to for a very long
time.

Someday I will talk about how young people should be encouraged not to
do things until it's appropriate for them. That includes same kind of
behaviours with sex and alcohol and cigarettes.