Lit_Match

It's the great marijuana debate
07-28-07|Osprey Media|By Catherine Colton

This week, I've decided to get a bit more serious and give some consideration to the issue of marijuana, and the debate over whether or not to decriminalize it.

Since 1923, it's been illegal to possess marijuana in Canada. But the law has always been scoffed at by recreational users (who just like to get high) and by medicinal users (who seek relief form illness and/or pain).

Pot and politics have always been a hot mix, and despite much discussion, the law has always endured.

As far back as the Neolithic Age, we have evidence of the inhalation of cannabis smoke.

Ancient Hindus of India and Nepal used it; cannabis leaf fragments have been found in Chinese mummified shaman from 2,800 years ago; hemp seeds have been discovered suggesting ceremonial use as far back as the 5th century BC.

Fast forward to today.

A quick Internet check suggested (literally) hundreds and hundreds of slangs used in place of the word marijuana; a short version: Ace, bammy, chillums, ditchweed, funk, ganja, giggle weed, Indian hemp, Johnson grass, Lucas, moocah, muggles, snop, vipe, wacky terbacky, airplane, Aunt Mary - well, you get the message.

The fact that there are literally hundreds of substitutions for the word suggests that its use is pretty darn widespread (despite the laws!).

The situation as it now stands is like this: Since 1997, marijuana has been covered by the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

In the year 2000, more than 30,000 Canadians were charged with possession of marijuana.

Current laws are not enforced evenly across Canada.

Most of those who are convicted of possession don't go to jail, but they do receive a criminal record. So, where are we right now?

Two parliamentary committees have looked at anti-drug policies and legislation in Canada.

They both came to pretty well the same conclusions.

The Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs reported in September of 2002 that marijuana is not a "gateway drug" (meaning that its use will lead to increased likelihood of more serious drug use) and that it should be treated more like tobacco or alcohol.

The House of Commons Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs issued its report in December of 2002, in which it concluded that, although marijuana is unhealthy, the current penalties for possession and for use of small amounts of it are disproportionately harsh.

They recommended that the government design a decriminalization strategy. (It should be added here that the Liberal government attempted three separate times to pass legislation in accordance with these recommendations, but none of these passed. Our current government has not passed any legislation in this regard, nor does it intend to do so.)

There are both supporters and opponents for these parliamentary recommendations.

There are, of course, those few who support the complete legalization of the use, possession and growing of marijuana - they are not likely to have their wishes granted any time soon!

But more realistically, there are many who feel that the decriminalization of marijuana makes sense - that current penalties are far too harsh, that law enforcement resources should be directed elsewhere and that those convicted of marijuana possession, for instance, acquire a criminal record that causes all kinds of undue hardship.

As well, it is felt that charging someone with this crime destroys families, and indeed fuels the growth of a vast criminal empire.

On the other hand, those opposed to decriminalization claim that it would only cause increased drug use, that it is a "gateway" to harder drug use and that it would send the wrong message to our youth.

The debate continues amongst and between the two groups: Some say that marijuana is very helpful for relief of cancers, movement disorders, epilepsy, glaucoma and pain in general.

Others retort that a stiff jail sentence is required in order to penalize the offender and to dissuade others from offending.

The "gateway drug" hypothesis, whereby marijuana use only increases the likelihood that someone will go down the path of drug addiction, has been largely dismissed.

Much study has revealed that it is more likely that tobacco use will lead to hard drug use, not marijuana use.

Many studies claim that marijuana use is less harmful and less addictive than either alcohol or tobacco.

Worldwide, there is much controversy over this issue:

In the U.S., it is mish-mash of a mess, with some states literally throwing away the prison key and others penalizing very little.

In the United Kingdom, marijuana is currently rated as a Class C drug, but the debate goes on.

Mexico has legalized small amounts of it.

Italy has followed suit.

Australia fines $100 for possession of up to five plants.

Holland has "coffee shops" selling marijuana.

Hong Kong fines a person found to be consuming it without a licence from its Department of Health - $1 million (with the option of serving seven years in jail instead!)

It gives one a lot to consider - should pot be sold at corner stores to anybody over 16?

Probably not.

Should someone serve a long jail sentence for possessing or using it?

Probably not again.

Are users just miscreants and dropouts?

No - they include athletes, scholars, and student council members.

Give it some thought. Let me know what you think.

Catherine Colton holds a B.A. in psychology, a certification in alternative dispute resolution and is currently completing a master's degree in humanities. She is a writer, rights adviser, counsellor and mediator. Readers can provide feedback at ckidd@onlink.net.

__________________
Donation links to NORML (The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) | MPP (Marijuana Policy Project)