DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH

Governments Won't Let Weed Decriminalization Happen In Canada Anytime Soon

History's tendency to repeat itself is something Canada's marijuana
advocates are all too familiar with.

Over the last 30 years, three separate federal studies have looked into the
issue of Canada's illegal drug trade. Among their many varied
recommendations, decriminalizing the simple possession of marijuana has
been a constant. With a report by the Senate Special Committee on Illegal
Drugs expected next month, it's anticipated the federal government will
once again face a similar recommendation.

In a recent update on its findings, Senator Pierre Claude Nolin, chair of
the special committee, said preliminary conclusions are already apparent,
notably the fact that scientific evidence does not support the claim that
marijuana is a "gateway drug" that opens the door to further
experimentation with harder drugs. "It may be appropriate to treat it more
like alcohol or tobacco than like the harder drugs," Nolin said in a recent
press release.

At a cost of about $400,000, the committee is a tiny price to pay to make
the federal government appear liberal. It's also small potatoes when
compared to the estimated $464 million Ottawa spent on drug enforcement
between 1999-2000. That contradiction is all too typical of Canada's
approach to drug debates, in which liberal talk seldom translates into policy.

Such talk has also been echoed increasingly in recent years by high-profile
figures of all stripes who have advocated decriminalizing small-time
marijuana possession and putting more money into drug education and
fighting organized crime. ("Decriminalization" is variously defined as
having a fine or ticketing system replace sentences, or allowing those
convicted to have no criminal record.) Proponents of that view have
included the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs, which recommended
decriminalizing possession to the federal government, and Julian Fantino,
chief of the Toronto Police Service, who has said police forces and courts
are weighed down prosecuting minor cases.

The Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police's official drug policy is that
it "would entertain endorsing any government initiative to decriminalize...
certain offences related to the possession of small events of marijuana or
other cannabis derivatives with the proviso that there be corresponding
intiatives instituted by the government including a balance of prevention,
education, enforcement, counselling, treatment, rehabilitation and
diversion programs."

In May, 2001, current Justice Minister Anne McLellan and then-Health
Minister Allan Rock said they were open to a discussion about changing
laws. Federal opposition politicians have also supported change.

Listen to all that talk accumulate, and it may seem as though Canada were
on the verge of following in the footsteps of much of Europe, where
countries including Italy, Spain, Portugal, Holland, Belgium, Germany and
Switzerland have decriminalized either through changed laws or relaxed
policies. Only Sweden and France are notable holdouts.

But Alan Young, a professor at Osgoode Hall and one of Canada's leading
legal proponents of decriminalizing marijuana, doesn't think governments in
Canada are going to change laws to allow for decriminalization. He thinks
the wave of high-profile supporters of liberalization are still just making
empty statements.

"I've seen these pronouncements forever," Young says. "They mean nothing."
He also can't see Toronto adopting a marijuana amnesty project such as a
much-watched one now going on in Britain (see "Brixton blueprint," page 12).

Dominic Cramer, president of the Toronto Hemp Company (THC) and an
organizer of the Toronto portion of the annual worldwide Million Marijuana
March, also thinks there's little substance to high-profile calls for
decriminalizing small-time marijuana possession. He does note, however,
that the reality on Toronto's streets suggests police are taking a more
relaxed approach. "You have to be a real asshole to get busted for small
amounts these days," he says.

"I would suggest avoiding such sweeping generalizations," responds Det.
Courtland Booth of the Toronto Police Service's major drugs unit. "While we
don't have people out looking specifically for small amounts, possessing
marijuana is still against the law. Each case, however, is at the
discretion of the arresting officer. Most possession charges stem from an
arrest for some other offence and we happen to find a few joints in the
process." But enforcement and justice around simple possession still has a
lot to do with the luck of the draw: charges and sentencing can vary among
and within police jurisdictions.

Young says that one in two officers he knows of may look the other way, and
that while a federal diversion initiative exists in Canada, through which
first-time suspects of minor possession can get off, in practice that
depends on a completely discretionary call by a crown attorney.

There's also little evidence to suggest Canada will voluntarily go the way
of Europe anytime soon. America's obsession with drug issues is likely a
major reason for the Canadian government's reluctance to act on calls to
decriminalize possession of soft drugs like marijuana. In June, U.S. drug
czar John Walters warned that it's time to step up the war on marijuana,
not to decriminalize it or move further along the road to facilitating its
use for medicinal purposes.

Moreover, statistics for 1999 show that of the 50,000 Canadians charged
with drug offences, cannabis accounted for almost two-thirds of the
charges; half of those were for possession.

When it comes to sentencing numbers, Young says there's a statistical
vacuum, and he doesn't think that's an accident.

He says there were 2,000 people a year going to jail in Canada for simple
possession up until 1985, when Statistics Canada stopped keeping numbers,
claiming it was due to a budget cut. "There's no way it was a budget cut,"
says Young, who believes that as long as no sentencing figures are being
published, the federal government can say it's taken care of the
decriminalization debate through more lenient sentencing.

There's also a great enthusiasm in this country for cracking down on
growers, particularly "grow houses."

Take a look at what's happening on the drug prevention front in Canada, and
it also doesn't fit with calls to increase funding for abuse and education,
calls that are the constant refrain of those who've called for marijuana
decriminalization.

Dr. Eric Single, a professor of public health at the University of Toronto
and a senior policy advisor on decriminalization issues, says efforts
dedicated to addiction research and prevention have fallen by the wayside
due to the Canadian government's emphasis on reducing the supply of drugs
rather than the demand. According to auditor-general David Brittain's
report for 2001, 95 per cent of Canada's anti-drug expenditures went toward
efforts aimed at reducing supply, leaving 5 per cent for studies into drug
dependency and addiction prevention.

So why do police chiefs and others go on record proposing decriminalization
if they don't actually want it to happen? Young says it could be due to the
fashion in some conservative circles to advocate a less stringent approach
to the drug. But Young is convinced that those high-profile advocates are
powerful enough to have made an impact if they truly so desired. "If they
wanted it to happen, it would happen," he says.

If lawmakers won't act, the country's top justices may do the work for
them. Young is involved in a case scheduled to be heard by the Supreme
Court on October 30. It concerns Chris Clay, a former London, Ont. hemp
store owner, and is a constitutional challenge that could effectively
decriminalize marijuana possession. It could also have a much wider effect
on Canada's vice laws, says Young, because parliament would have to have a
"reasoned basis" to declare an activity harmful.