Where There's Toke ...

MARIJUANA LAW DEBATE MUST GET REALISTIC

The House of Sober Second Thought has endorsed the outright
legalization of marijuana. Prohibition advocates are clamouring to
have their voices heard.

Both camps have indoctrinated themselves to such a degree that when
approached by legislators who wish to re-examine our nation's
marijuana policies, they downshift into automatic, dogmatic,
sound-bite machines.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin has said that "(pot) is certainly less
grave than alcohol and tobacco as far as health is concerned."

Pro-pot groups love using that argument. They promote the concept that
marijuana is a benign recreational drug, far less deadly or addictive
than cigarettes or alcohol.

With respect, anyone who has spent time on a university campus in the
past few years has gleaned enough empirical data to wholly refute that
claim. As a freshman, I had a friend with a near-photographic memory
and a desire to experiment with anything and everything.

Four years later, he was nearly two years away from graduation, he had
a world-class collection of bongs and he frequently forgot why he had
even walked into a room. Deadly? Definitely not. Benign? Ask my
friend. He's probably still in school, trying to graduate.

We are told that if Canada legalizes pot and brings it under the
umbrella of government regulation, there will be no more black market.
There will be no more organized crime running the show and our kids
will be safer.

The funny thing about criminals is that they don't always agree with
lawmakers. In a legalized Canada, the government would issue licences
to growers and sellers, tax marijuana cigarettes at a hefty rate and
regulate THC levels, the key ingredient in pot.

The government would have instituted a system delivering high-priced,
low-grade pot, the perfect framework for the creation of a brand-new
black market.

If you only listened to supporters of legalization, you'd think that
all that ails our society is rooted in our drug laws: Loosen them up,
and everyone would have jobs, schools would be safe and we'd all live
forever. Such an idea is as ludicrous as total prohibition.

The problem is that neither side has ever painted a realistic picture
of the future. The Marijuana Party would have much more credibility in
the eyes of the public if it conceded that legalization would have
some negative effects on society. Meanwhile, prohibitionists should
stop endorsing such an apocalyptic view of a marijuana-friendly Canada.

In order to make informed decisions, legislators need more than battle
lines drawn in the sand and catchy slogans from pressure groups.

Canadians want to know how our border policy with the United States
would change if our drug laws suddenly became less harmonized. Would
every Canadian under the age of 30 be searched at the border? Would
the cost of travel increase?

Canadians want to know if medicinal marijuana would be covered by
medicare and they want to know if smoking a joint behind the wheel is
tantamount to drinking and driving. Without these details, we cannot
take that great leap into a world of a more sensible and compassionate
view of marijuana.

The Senate committee has taken a bold first step in changing our drug
laws, but until those seeking to legalize pot start painting a more
realistic portrait of a Canada brimming with legal weed, legislators
will tell them to take their recommendations, stick them in their
collective pipe and smoke it.