However, from a DEAland perspective, an even greater miracle would be having major newspapers editorialize against – hell, even report something about – marijuana prohibition. The Washington Post is yet to tell its readers about the Swiss move to legalize marijuana!
See
Swiss Proposal To Legalize and Regulate Sale of Cannabis
Driven By Realism, Not Libertarianism

WEEDING OUT CANADIAN CRIMINALS
April 30, 1999
From The Toronto Star
Opinion
lettertoed@thestar.com
http://www.thestar.com/
By Dave Haans, graduate student studying drug policy issues at the University of Toronto

Something of a miracle happened in Canada this month, in its implications for our national drug policy.

The Canadian Association of Police Chiefs’ board of directors agreed to start pressing the federal government to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana and hashish.

The reason? Canada’s courts are backlogged with thousands of minor possession cases, and police across the country are finding themselves without the resources to go after traffickers and other more serious criminals.

They didn’t always feel this way. When the feds were looking at introducing the present drug law (The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act), the CAPC found itself to be one of the few critics of softening marijuana laws in the county.

The majority of groups, including the Canadian Bar Association, the Criminal Lawyers Association, the Canadian Police Association, the Canadian Medical Association, along with policy researchers, and addiction specialists, argued for the rethinking of marijuana laws.

The bill eventually passed with only minor modifications—marijuana offenders are still given a criminal record, rather than a ticket or fine, for the possession of even tiny amounts of the drug. What actually changed was that marijuana offenders could be processed through the courts more efficiently, actually exacerbating the previous situation by allowing police to bring even more possession cases before the courts.

Since marijuana possession cases make up the majority of all drug offences prosecuted in Canada, the courts remain clogged, and the ability of police to go after bigger drug offenders remains diminished.

Now, the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs has opened up the debate considerably. In doing so, it has also implicitly allowed other cops to finally speak their minds on the issue of decriminalization, where before many remained silent.

However, some Police Chiefs have spoken out as being for decriminalization, notably Ottawa-Carleton’s Brian Ford. Now, the silence is no more. Vancouver, Edmonton, Sudbury and Brockville’s police chiefs, and even the RCMP, have all come out in favour of the decriminalization of marijuana.

Given the willingness of these police chiefs to voice their opinion, many more officers will undoubtedly follow.

The federal government’s response has been equally startling. Justice Minister Anne McLellan has said she will take seriously the opinions of the Chiefs of Police, stating that "I think this is a significant move on the part of the chiefs and they are a very influential voice."
See
Decrim Bill Introduced In Canadian Parliament – By Member of A Conservative Opposition Party!

Of course, there have already been some voices of dissent to the proposal, including that of Calgary’s police chief Christine Silverberg, saying that such a move will send the wrong message to children.

But what would really happen should marijuana possession be decriminalized in Canada? In the 1970s, 11 American states decriminalized the possession of less than one ounce of marijuana, replacing a criminal record with a fine. Research noted that while marijuana use increased (this was the 70s, after all), the decriminalization states actually had lower increases in use rates than neighbouring non-decriminalization states. As well, California enjoyed a 74 per cent drop in marijuana law enforcement costs, from $17 million to $4.4 million—savings we could certainly use here in Canada.

More recently, several Australian states have also decriminalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana, and the effects on use rates have been similar—almost non-existent.

See
From South Australia To Northwest DEAland the Party Line is The Same:
"Potent" Cannabis Is A "commodity to swap for stronger drugs."
Prohibitionist Ideology At Work.
and links
In the Netherlands, decriminalization of marijuana has been in effect since the 1970s. The result? The Dutch enjoy much lower use rates among teens and adults alike, and much lower law enforcement costs, than either Canada or the United States.
See
Toronto Star Runs An Op-ed Calling For Full Legalization Of Marijuana
With Slightly Muddled Praise Of Amsterdam

Gerald Le Dain must be watching this with interest. His 1972/3 report, a huge study commissioned by the federal government, recommended pretty much what the police chiefs are recommending now. It was shelved. Hopefully, federal politicians won’t make the same mistake again.

Copyright: 1999, The Toronto Star

REEFER MADNESS
April 30, 1999
From the Globe and Mail -- "Canada’s National Newspaper"
See
"Never mind freedom of speech or expression, the UN says—this is a war."
3 Great Columns From The Globe and Mail
and
Globe and Mail, Canada’s National Newspaper Asks, "What Are G8 Leaders Smoking?"
A Truly Devastating Editorial!
and
Very Accurate Description of Dutch Cannabis Policies
On Front Page Of Canada’s National Newspaper!   Important!
Editorial
letters@globeandmail.ca
http://www.globeandmail.ca/
http://forums.theglobeandmail.com/

Thank goodness Honest Mike Harris is at the helm of Ontario’s ship of state. Perish the thought that either one of that duo of admitted dope-smokers, "Hash" Hampton of the NDP and "Mellow" McGuinty of the Liberals, might ever be in charge.

Premier Harris, in a reflective mood this week, publicly allowed there are some flaws in his storied past. Like Bill Clinton, that great moral exemplar to the south, he’s taken to public confession, and we are all the better for it—aren’t we?

Not only did he cheat on his "diet commitment," he "may"—only may, mind you—have "opened a gift when I shouldn’t have." Phew! Talk about a walk on the wild side.

Still, it’s reassuring to know that when old "Six-Toe Mike" actually did cut loose during those long Northern nights of his youth, it was with a revenue-producing six-pack. Always contributing to the people’s good, that’s Ontario’s Premier.

Mr. Harris never toked, let alone inhaled, but he does push—if that’s not an inappropriate word—a "tough love" policy on those who do.

Maybe he should extend his new-found contrition to rethink his stance on dope. It’s been more than a quarter of a century since the LeDain commission argued for the removal of simple possession of marijuana from the Criminal Code. Even the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police is in favour of decriminalizing marijuana. Besides, it’s a federal, not a provincial matter.

Seize the day, Mr. Harris. After all, if pot were legalized it could be taxed and the huge enforcement machinery that is preoccupied with petty possession could be directed to pursuing serious crimes.

But act quickly, while your credibility is high. Some snitches are already suggesting there are other sins lurking in your dossier. It’s said you once accidentally stumbled and kicked a golf ball out of the rough when no one was looking, that you slept in one morning and missed Sunday school, and, horrors, that you don’t always wash out the sink after one of your famous close shaves.

Nothing less than full disclosure will do, Mr. Harris. So wipe the slate clean before calling the election. And for pity’s sake, don’t make a hash of it.

Copyright: 1999, The Globe and Mail Company

April 30, 1999
From The National Post
letters@nationalpost.com
http://www.nationalpost.com/
http://forums.canada.com/~canada

By Jonathan Kay

WAITING TO INHALE

"Who cares?" That was the reaction of most Canadians when Ontario Liberal Leader Dalton McGuinty and his NDP counterpart, Howard Hampton, admitted on Tuesday to having smoked marijuana during their teenage years.

But we can learn from our indifference. The very fact that so many of us are unfazed tells us how ripe the issue of marijuana decriminalization has become.

Libertarians have long argued that drug policy should be left to individuals. But you don’t have to embrace a laissez-faire world view to support reform of marijuana laws. Garden variety liberalism—and even conservative social accountancy—will lead you to the same conclusion.

Liberalism—the kind that advocates individual liberties, not government largesse—is not hostile to state regulation, but it is suspicious of it. Liberals put the onus on government to justify the elimination of liberties by reference to the attendant harms. And conservatives ask whether the benefits of government intervention outweigh its social costs. Where marijuana is concerned, the government can meet neither burden of proof without making nonsense of the current law on a wide variety of activities that are mildly risky, but totally legal.

To marijuana opponents, this might seem like a trite line of attack. But I have yet to hear it properly refuted. Every year, tobacco kills 3.5 million people worldwide. Alcohol does in another 750,000. Yet, despite the lack of a single confirmed published case of death from cannabis poisoning, marijuana is proscribed under criminal penalty, while cigarettes are sold over the counter at gas stations, and liquor is on tap at Pizza Hut (alongside cholesterol, another proven killer).

That is not to say marijuana does not pose health risks. As with tobacco, heavy marijuana use can cause chronic bronchitis and other forms of lung disease. And, as with alcohol, there is some evidence that very heavy long-term use of marijuana can cause permanent mental impairments and poor pregnancy outcomes. But these potential harms are within the ambit of risk that characterize perfectly legal indulgences such as fatty foods, motorcycle use, contact sports, casual sex, and, of course, alcohol and tobacco.

Moreover, the oft-cited claim that marijuana is a "gateway drug" is nothing but a creature of statistical correlation. A recent Institute of Medicine report commissioned by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy grudgingly concluded, "there is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs."
See
"Those who insist on keeping the plant illegal bear a serious degree of moral responsibility for young marijuana users who do go on to use cocaine, heroin, PCP or other genuinely dangerous or addictive drugs."
Alan Bock, of the Orange County Register On the Real Gateway

Where medical applications are concerned, the case in favour of marijuana is even more lopsided—because proponents can apply elemental utilitarianism to buttress our society’s general preference for individual liberty.

Many experts have argued persuasively that marijuana is highly effective for treating appetite loss arising from HIV medications, intra-ocular pressure caused by glaucoma, chemotherapy-related nausea, as well as muscle spasticity arising from spinal cord injuries, epilepsy, and multiple sclerosis. Compared with other remedies, the side effects of marijuana are mild, especially when it is taken in smoked form. The Institute of Medicine report concluded, in fact, that "the adverse effects of marijuana use are within the range of effects tolerated for other medications."

And marijuana is a case of laymen beating scientists to the truth. Even before the Institute of Medicine study was released, referenda on the therapeutic use of marijuana were consistently decided in favour of its advocates. In 1998, legalization backers made a clean sweep of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, Arizona, and Washington, D.C. In Canada, where "zero tolerance" rhetoric is less widespread, support might be even stronger. A recent Decima Research Inc. survey indicates that 78% of Canadians polled support a federal government proposal to consider the use of marijuana for medical applications.

See
Column By Authors of the IOM Report On Medical Marijuana
Shows Why The Public Does Not Trust The Medical Establishment –
And Why They Should Not! With Analysis by Richard Cowan

The face of the pro-marijuana campaign is changing. Traditional advocates of decriminalization such as soapbox libertarians and recreational bong junkies are being joined by more mainstream groups. Last week, no less a respectable organization than the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police announced its support for marijuana’s decriminalization. If implemented, the chiefs’ plan would permit police forces and courts to redirect the resources wasted on petty marijuana offences. Reform Party MP Keith Martin is even trying to foster their plan with a private member’s bill. Even the Canadian Bar Association agrees with decriminalization—though it would throw a lot of its members out of work.

This respectable reform lobby reflects the growing realization that the official war on marijuana has social costs far higher than those of marijuana itself. In 1997, cannabis offences accounted for 72% of all drug crimes. More than two-thirds of those involved simple possession.

Does it really make sense to prosecute these people as criminals for using a substance no more dangerous than beer, cigarettes, and a juicy hamburger?