cannabisnews.com: A Realistic Revision of The Cannabis Law A Realistic Revision of The Cannabis Law Posted by CN Staff on May 28, 2003 at 07:26:23 PT Commentary Source: Globe and Mail The federal government's bill to decriminalize possession of less than 15 grams of marijuana is as moderate as it's possible to be while still doing the right thing. It would not, for a start, make it any easier to obtain cannabis. Trafficking would remain a criminal offence, with the same severe penalties as before. Cultivation of marijuana plants would remain a criminal offence, though the current penalty -- up to seven years in prison -- would be replaced by a graded penalty. Someone who cultivated one to three plants would, on summary conviction, risk a $5,000 fine or a 12-month jail sentence. Someone who cultivated more than 50 plants could be sentenced to 14 years. What the bill would do is recognize that nothing positive is being achieved, and much damage is being done, by treating users of small amounts as criminals. Under the current law, someone arrested for smoking a marijuana joint will, if convicted in criminal court and saddled with a criminal record, find it impossible to obtain certain jobs (goodbye, law career) and difficult to travel. The penalty is grossly disproportionate to the offence.In fact, it is so harsh that the police themselves shy away from arresting offenders. The government estimates that half the time, officers give offenders a warning instead of laying a charge. This uneven enforcement -- smokers in rural areas stand a greater chance of being charged than city dwellers -- is anathema to a just system.Even the government's proposed bill risks similarly uneven application. If someone were caught in possession of between 15 and 30 grams of marijuana, the police could, at their discretion, either hand out a ticket ($300 for an adult, $200 for a youth) or send the person to criminal court for a jail sentence of six months on summary conviction. What are the odds we'd see the same urban-rural divide in enforcement? This provision needs reassessment.Worries have been expressed that the United States might look askance at this softening of Canada's position, but these worries appear to have been addressed. The Americans want to stop the many thousands of illegal marijuana grow operations in Canada from smuggling cannabis into their country -- and the proposed legislation would stiffen rather than relax the penalties for anyone caught with more than 25 plants. In any case, 12 U.S. states have themselves decriminalized possession of small amounts of cannabis.Does the bill send a signal to young people in particular that marijuana is more acceptable, and that society is less interested in discouraging its use? It could be read that way by someone intent on reading it that way, but in practice the enforcement of penalties is likely to increase rather than decrease.The police would be more likely to issue a ticket than they have been to issue a criminal summons. The fine would be lower for youths than adults, in keeping with the legal system's lighter treatment of young offenders generally. Would kids be more likely to try cannabis because the penalty was relaxed, or less likely because they stood a greater chance of being penalized? Would the removal of a significant element of risk -- getting a criminal record -- encourage use, or would it make the transgression less exciting, and less alluring?The bill's drafters have obviously worked overtime to make the legislation as impervious as possible to critics. If someone smoked in or near a school, the penalty would rise to $400 for an adult or $250 for a youth. The same would apply if someone were found operating a car while in possession of cannabis. The driver could still be charged, as now, with driving while impaired. The stumbling block -- the lack of a reliable test to determine when a driver should be forced to give a urine sample -- would exist with or without the current bill.Even under the current law, the number of cannabis users in Canada has been growing. One can remind them as often as possible of the hazards of regular use of cannabis. For instance, a British Lung Foundation study last fall found that smoking three joints can cause as much damage to the lungs as smoking 20 tobacco cigarettes (more is inhaled, and it's held much longer before being exhaled), and that the tar from marijuana contains 50 per cent more carcinogens than the tar from tobacco cigarettes. Indeed, the federal government proposes to commit a total of $245-million over five years to drug education, treatment and rehabilitation as part of its new initiative.But in the end, Canada faces one question: Do we want to make criminals of hundreds of thousands of Canadians who smoke a joint or two -- an activity in which an estimated one-third of Canadians have engaged?The government has answered no to that question. It's the right response. Source: Globe and Mail (Canada)Published: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - Page A16 Copyright: 2003 The Globe and Mail CompanyContact: letters globeandmail.caWebsite: http://www.globeandmail.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Cannabis News Canadian Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/can.htmExpecting Marijuana Bill To Pass?http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16420.shtmlCanada Bill Eases Penalty for Having Pot http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16419.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #2 posted by afterburner on May 28, 2003 at 15:08:01 PT: Moving on Up. Calgary Sun Survey Today's question is: Will Canada's new marijuana legislation lead to more drug problems among Canadians?Here are the current results: yes [ 58.3 % ] no [ 41.7 % ] http://www.fyicalgary.com/calsun.shtmlToo bad they didn't ask about more financial problems among Canadians. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by FoM on May 28, 2003 at 08:27:15 PT Poll: Calgary Sun DAILY POLL Will Canada's new marijuana legislation lead to more drug problems among Canadians?Current Results: YES -- [ 62.1 % ] NO -- [ 37.9 % ] http://www.fyicalgary.com/calsun.shtml [ Post Comment ] Post Comment