DECRIMINALIZATION OF CANNABIS MAKES SENSE

There is no easy way out of the marijuana box.

Preserving the existing system would continue the scattershot arrest and
criminal conviction of Canadians for an activity in which an estimated
third of the population has engaged.

Decriminalizing possession of small amounts would free Canadians from the
threat of a criminal record, but the supply would remain largely in the
hands of organized crime.

Legalizing marijuana, while the state could control the quality and potency
of the drug by regulating its supply and distribution, would send the wrong
signals to youths about the safety and wisdom of taking mind-altering
drugs, and particularly antagonize our closest neighbour and largest
trading partner. And it wouldn't necessarily put a crimp in organized
crime, since illicit suppliers would continue to ship marijuana abroad and
serve a continuing Canadian market for pot of a higher potency than the
government permitted.

No, legalization is too radical a step, even if a Senate committee did
recommend it in September, and even if Newfoundland Premier Roger Grimes
last week extolled it as a revenue-enhancing opportunity, with factories
pumping out the stuff and stiff taxes helping to finance health care.

Three choices, all with drawbacks. In its report last week, a special
parliamentary committee on the use of non-medical drugs settled on the best
of a bad lot. It recommended the decriminalization of the possession and
cultivation of up to 30 grams of cannabis for personal use. This possession
would still be illegal, but offenders would receive the equivalent of a
traffic ticket, with a fine; there would be no criminal record. Even before
the report's release, Justice Minister Martin Cauchon said last week that
he would introduce legislation to that effect in the new year.

Criminalization of simple possession puts prohibition ahead of common
sense. It does not make sense, in a country where an estimated million
Canadians between 12 and 17 have tried marijuana within the past year and
one-quarter of them smoke it daily, to impose criminal records on anyone
convicted of smoking a joint. The authorities know it doesn't make sense;
the police often turn a blind eye to crowds using cannabis, and, when they
do make arrests, the courts impose light penalties on those tried and
convicted of possession, particularly first offenders.

But those offenders still wind up with a record, and the variability of
enforcement flouts the principle that all are equal under the law. Imposing
a fine may be necessary to signal Canada's official disapproval of
marijuana and concern about its effects; but the penalty should be no more
than that, to be proportionate in a country where hazardous materials
(tobacco) and drinks with frequently lethal effects (alcohol) are widely
and legally available.

U.S. drug czar John Walters -- his official title is director of the
National Drug Control Policy in Washington -- last week decried the
parliamentary committee's recommendation to decriminalize. He said Canada
would pose a "dangerous threat" to his country, which has a policy of zero
tolerance, and said decriminalization would mean longer waits and tougher
security at the border.

Certainly Canada would be foolish to ignore the concerns of its largest
trading partner and powerful neighbour. However, the United States' chief
problem is not with the casual smoker, but with Canadian criminals who
already grow great quantities of high-potency marijuana and smuggle it
south of the border. Customs officials are attuned to that threat, and the
committee's recommendation wouldn't alter it; its report would not ease the
criminal laws against trafficking.

What it would do is strip the Criminal Code of an overly punitive regime
for Canadians whose only offence is to use a forbidden recreational drug.
Thirty years after this country's Le Dain commission recommended
decriminalization, we may finally see the day.