CONFLICTED VIEW OF MARIJUANA CULTIVATION

The news that Ontario Provincial Police destroyed thousands of marijuana
plants worth millions of dollars in Leeds and Grenville this fall will be
no revelation to many area residents.

Marijuana has become a significant cash crop in these parts and we suspect
the harvests discovered and destroyed by police are just a small part of
this burgeoning industry.

It's all part of a worrisome trend that, as Public Safety and Security
Minister Bob Runciman remarked last week, has made Canada the third-largest
supplier of marijuana to the United States.

The trouble with this scenario is that the Americans take prosecution of
drug crimes very seriously. If they believe Canada is a major source of
illegal drugs, they will clamp down at the border and this will disrupt the
normal flow of goods, services and travellers across the border.
Considering the dependence of the Canadian economy on the U.S. market, this
is certainly a matter of concern.

Runciman's solution is to press the federal government for stiffer
penalties, with mandatory prison terms for those growing marijuana for the
purpose of trafficking.

He says the current sentence for the proprietor of an average drug-growing
operation - 300 plants worth $350,000 - ranges from house arrest to nine
months in jail.

"The profits are so high and the penalties are so low there's no risk. The
police use fishing terminology - catch and release," Runciman said Friday.
"Police dedicate all those resources to shutting these people down, then
they're right back in business. We're looking for penalties that will deter
this activity - stiff, minimum penalties."

We've seen cases in this area in which the operators of so-called "grow
houses" were given house arrest. This does seem unusually lenient - perhaps
the idea is to allow the farmer to complete the fall harvest.

But the situation is nonetheless more complicated than Runciman's analysis.

Right now, there is a disconnect between the way police view drug
cultivation and the way society does.

Runciman is correct that police are devoting significant resources to
shutting down marijuana-growing operations. Anyone who has witnessed a bust
can attest to the large number of police vehicles, ranging from
four-by-fours to helicopters, and manpower involved in finding and
eradicating even a small crop of marijuana.

To be fair to the police, they are only doing their job. The law clearly
makes it illegal to grow and sell marijuana and the police are responsible
for upholding that law.

Yet at the same time, we have a committee of the Senate recommending a
radical overhaul of drug laws, one that would allow 16-year-old
schoolchildren to smoke pot.

No doubt most Canadians - we're among them - feel the Senate proposal is
ill-considered and, frankly, ludicrous. Yet many Canadians apparently don't
feel recreational or medicinal use of drugs such as marijuana is all that
big a deal.

This may account for the thriving marijuana-growing business in these
parts. Many people feel a bit uneasy about it, but they apparently don't
feel so strongly that they're willing to report their neighbours to the
police. It is this conflicted view of marijuana cultivation and use that is
behind the lenient sentences handed out by judges in drug crimes. In other
words, the judges may be reflecting society's wishes when it comes to soft
drugs better than Runciman or the police.

We believe Runciman's views are correct - particularly his reflections on
the way a lenient approach to drugs in Canada could damage our relationship
with the United States - but his is only one opinion among many.

Perhaps Runciman's pursuit of the issue at a meeting of federal and
provincial justice ministers in Calgary this week will kick-start the
national debate that is needed to give not only judges, but also the
police, some guidance on how Canadians view the cultivation, sale and
consumption of soft drugs.