June 10, 2003
Kamloops Daily News



Marijuana was made illegal 80 years ago in a puritanical
panic.  The federal government's solution is to
decriminalize marijuana but leave it illegal.  It would be
wrong to possess marijuana but not as wrong as before.  Seem
confusing?

There is a better way. Canada's law courts already have a
good  start in changing our arcane marijuana laws.

For instance, it's already legal to possess less than 30
grams of marijuana in Ontario.  The recent ruling of the
Ontario Superior Court has "effectively erased the criminal
prohibition on marijuana possession from the law books in
Ontario," said the lawyer who challenged the law on behalf
of a 17-year-old client.

Canadians in Ontario can possess small amounts of marijuana
without any legal sanctions - - not even fear of a ticket.

The Ontario court ruling is consistent with other court
rulings over the last 3 years.  It all started with the case
of epileptic Terry Parker.  First the court ruled that the
Canada's law violated the constitutional rights of sick
people to possess marijuana for medical reasons.  Later,
other courts ruled that if sick people could possess
marijuana then so could all Ontarians.

The Supreme Court of Canada is also very interested in the
proposed bill.  They suspended hearing a constitutional
challenge of Canada's marijuana laws pending the outcome of
new laws.

The federal bill has been hastily constructed as a response
to the court challenges.  And even if passed, the proposed
bill may not withstand subsequent court challenges. 

The bill is flawed because it doesn't address fundamental
problems with the old law.  For example the new law would
criminalize the growing of just one plant but make the
possession of marijuana a minor offence.  The difference
growing and possession could hinge on whether the plant is
growing or dead.  If the plant is growing you are a criminal
and if it is dead, you'll get a ticket.  I see it all now -
-  dramatic court debates determining when a plant ceases to
live.

If the Ontario court ruling became the law of the land, then
possession of less than 30 grams would have no legal status. 
Possession would not be criminal nor illegal.  You could
possess it for medical, recreational, or contemplative
purposes.

Marijuana has been used for centuries to alter consciousness
and achieve spiritual insights. Scientist Dr. Carl Sagan
writes  "I do not consider myself a religious person in the
usual sense, but there is a religious aspect to some highs.
The heightened sensitivity in all areas gives me a feeling
of communion with my surroundings, both animate and
inanimate (1969)." 

The religious right in the U.S. Bush administration has a
different view of marijuana use.  They don't see it as a
gateway to enlightenment but as a gateway to hell.  They
imagine one toke as being the corruption of our youth and
ruin of society.

These kind of puritanical views from the U.S. got us in the
predicament that we are in today.  After California enacted
anti-marijuana laws in 1915, an epidemic of moral outrage
gripped Canadians.

Emily Murphy, the otherwise rational champion of women's
rights in Canada, took her cues from a Los Angles police
chief.  The chief  said that marijuana use drives users
"completely insane." 

In 1922, writing under the name "Janey Canuk"  for Maclean's
magazine and in a book called "The Black Candle,"  she said
that users become  "raving maniacs and are liable to kill or
indulge in any form of violence to other persons, using the
most savage methods of cruelty without, as said before, any
sense of moral responsibility."   A year later,  marijuana
was criminalized.

The guardians of North American morals are now in
Washington, D.C.  They don't worry about the ruinous effects
that legalized booze has on society or carnage on our
highways caused by drunk drivers.  For the good ol' boys in
the halls of power, "white lightning's still the biggest
thrill of all (Merle Haggard, 1969) "

I hope that the government of Canada's proposed bill to
decriminalize marijuana fails.  But even if it passes, I
doubt that it will withstand legal challenges any better
than the old law did.

The Constitution of Canada would bring a rational resolution
to decades old half-baked misconceptions borrowed from the
U.S.  And not even keepers of North American morality in
Washington could criticize a defence of our constitution.

go back to my Columns in the