Pompo

Drug laws gone to pot
10/8/08|The Edmonton Sun| by Mindelle Jacobs

A report on marijuana written by a team of world experts suggests that countries interested in more rational cannabis laws simply ignore drug treaties and go their own way.

"Control regimes that criminalize users are intrusive on privacy, socially divisive and expensive. Thus, it is worth considering alternatives," says the Global Cannabis Commission Report presented in the British House of Lords last week.

The 170-page paper offers a range of options for countries brave enough to move away from the prohibitionist approach to pot - the most widely used illegal drug in the world and one of the least dangerous substances used recreationally.

The status quo is not an option, the authors emphasize. "The enforcement effort has not had much success in deterring use," they point out. No kidding.

One suggestion is that governments legalize, regulate and tax the sale of pot while imposing controls on things like labeling, potency limits and a minimum age for pot use.

Alternatively, governments could allow only small-scale pot production for personal use, the report suggests.

Countries that opt for the regulated legal availability of marijuana could pay lip service to international conventions while allowing de facto legal access like in the Netherlands.

Or jurisdictions could just ignore international drug conventions, the report says. "A government that follows this route must be prepared to withstand substantial international pressure," it warns.

Another option is for countries to withdraw from the drug treaties and, along with other willing nations, draw up their own cannabis convention.

But any states that legalize and regulate the sale of pot should ban or strictly limit advertising and make information available about the harms of pot use, the report says.

The authors hope the paper will spark debate about cannabis laws in the months leading up to next year's UN drug policy review.

In fact, future policy should be grounded on a scientifically-based scale of harm for all social drugs, both legal and illegal, the report says. Whoa, this makes far too much sense for politicians to take heed. Still, I shall keep beating my little drum about the desperate need for drug policy reform.

"We wanted to point to this issue, facilitate an informed debate ... and then present some options on what individual countries could do," says co-author Benedikt Fischer, a professor of health sciences at Simon Fraser University.

"I will say to Mr. Harper that even from a conservative policy point of view, there are many, many good reasons to not be content with the status quo of cannabis use control in this country," he says.

"It costs a lot of money, it's very ineffective (and) it's counterproductive."

Pot is more popular than tobacco in many population subgroups, Fischer adds. "We have to come to grips with the fact that this is a drug that's being used by a lot of people and so we'd better think about a sensible public policy approach."

The illicit pot industry generates tens of billions of dollars for criminal groups - money that governments could be collecting in taxes, the report observes.

Think about that as you wince over Edmonton's proposed double-digit property tax increase. Do you really care that your neighbour smokes pot? If you do, you poor deluded individual, does it bother you enough that you support Canada spending hundreds of millions of dollars yearly on ineffective drug enforcement?

Wouldn't you rather your tax money go towards something that makes a difference?