|
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
MARIJUANA ISSUE ON A MERRY-GO-ROUND
The marijuana issue is on one wild merry-go-round
ride. Around and around it whirls and where it stops, nobody
knows - certainly not the current Liberal Martin government
in Ottawa.
Between the courts and the federal government,
with no consultation with the public, of course, the entire
issue has twisted and turned and been bumped around so frequently
that it has become a mass of confusion to everyone, including
the police.
As usual in Canada, the trouble with this
issue began with the courts - especially those in Ontario,
where judges seem to believe that they have been blessed with
second sight. Ontario judges also seem to believe that they
have been appointed to the Bench for the purpose of setting
the country on the correct path, according to their own instincts
and views, but, not necessarily in accordance with the law.
That is, some of these judges seem to believe that the law
serves only as a guideline, which they are free to adjust
to their own personal perspective. This is apparent in regard
to the law on marijuana.
Leaving aside (if possible) the terrible mess
left behind by the decisions of the Ontario courts on the
use of marijuana for medical purposes (for which, one might
mention, there are no supportive studies to support), the
judges also tinkered with the law on simple possession of
marijuana for recreational use. In January 2003, a lower court
judge in Ontario declared that the law against simple possession
of marijuana was invalid, thus placing police forces in legal
limbo, unable to enforce the law. In October 2003, however,
the Ontario Court of Appeal restored the criminal law banning
marijuana possession (except for medical purposes).
With this news, former Minister of Justice,
Martin Cauchon, immediately began to push his ludicrous marijuana
bill (C-38) through Parliament, sending it, prior to second
reading, directly to a specially reconstituted committee headed
by Liberal MP Paddy Torsney (Burlington). Bill C-38 can accurately
be described as ludicrous because it lacks common sense and
logic, and represents political correctness at its worst.
In short, this is a naïve, superficial and dangerous
bill. The problems with the bill include the following:
- The government admitted, according to its
Legislative Summary, that marijuana use is a serious health
risk. Yet, Bill C-38 proposed decriminalization of possession
of 15 grams of marijuana, the equivalent of 15 to 30 joints.
This amount is far in excess of the possession of 3 grams
permitted in Belgium, one of the most permissive countries
in the world.
- The message the proposed legislation gave
to Canadian youth is "Don't drink and drive, just toke
and drive."
- Bill 38 provided that underage offenders
would receive a substantially reduced fine from that of
an adult, therefore, making it an attractive option for
drug dealers to use minors to peddle marijuana to their
peers, thus making marijuana even more accessible to youths,
with an inevitable expansion of drug use.
- There are no provisions in the Criminal
Code for charging drivers impaired by marijuana because
there is no scientific method by which marijuana use can
now be measured. The result is that police have no power
to get drivers operating under the influence of marijuana
off the roads. This creates a huge problem with regard to
public safety.
- Bill C-38 did not provide for a minimum
sentence, even in the case of large-scale marijuana growth
operations. This omission was critical, since Canadian courts
have regularly imposed light sentences on marijuana growers.
Consequently, the latter regard the courts' penalties as
merely one of the costs of doing their million dollar businesses.
Bill C-38 permitted these sentencing practices to continue.
- The proposed increase in the maximum sentence
from 7 to 14 years was irrelevant, since the courts ignore
it anyway and apply far lighter penalties. Such laxity only
plays into the hands of organized crime, which is quickly
gaining control of the billion dollar marijuana industry,
especially in BC and Ontario. This proposed legislation
is an open invitation for criminals from around the world
to set up shop here.
For example, the Ontario Association of Chiefs
of Police received a report in late December, entitled "Green
Tide" which stated that indoor marijuana growing had
increased by more than 250% in Ontario. Police estimated that
in 2002 Ontario was home to as many as 15,000 operations,
producing marijuana with an estimated value of up to $12.7
billion. A similar situation exists in BC.
Time ran out on Mr. Cauchon and his marijuana
bill. How fortunate, that when Parliament prorogued in November,
Bill C-38 died.
Pot smokers and the politically correct had
more bad news, however, when the Supreme Court of Canada in
a 6-3 decision, on December 23, 2003, concluded that pot smoking
was not a constitutional right and, surprise of all surprises,
even stated that Parliament had the right to criminalize any
behaviour it saw fit in order to protect people from harm.
It is open to Parliament to decriminalize
or otherwise modify any aspect of the marijuana laws that
it no longer considers to be good public policy.
Further, the Court held that the health risks
of smoking marijuana are not insignificant or "trivial"!
The Court stated:
Chronic users may suffer serious health
problems. Vulnerable groups are at a particular risk, including
adolescents with a history of poor school performance, pregnant
women and persons with pre-existing conditions such as cardiovascular
diseases, respiratory diseases, schizophrenia, or other
drug dependencies.
These remarkable words, coming from the Supreme
Court of Canada, may, perhaps, be attributed to the spirit
of the Christmas season, during which the decision was handed
down. Certainly, such remarks are not typical of the court
in other seasons of the year. Again, elevating possession
of marijuana to the status of a human right under the Charter,
is a stretch - even for the Supreme Court.
It may or may not be significant that the
three dissenting judges were all judges from Quebec, their
view reflecting, once again, the different values of Quebeckers
from those of the rest of Canada. Polls in Canada are skewed
time and again by the response from the province of Quebec
and this judgment on marijuana might well be a reflection
of this phenomenon.
Mr. Martin's Reaction to the Supreme Court
Decision
Instead of using this opening handed down
to him by the Supreme Court on the marijuana issue, to carefully
re-think and analyze the situation, Mr. Martin immediately
responded by stating that his government planned to revive
Mr. Cauchon's controversial marijuana bill to decriminalize
possession for "small" amounts of marijuana. This,
in spite of the fact that the legislation has been harshly
criticized as inadequate by police, provincial justice ministers,
the Canadian Alliance Party, some Liberal MPs and Mothers
Against Drunk Driving (MADD), as well as the U.S. government.
Later, senior Liberal officials had second thoughts about
reinstating Bill C-38. They were concerned it might be too
controversial in a pre-election climate. Who knows what will
ultimately be decided?
In a year-end interview in December on CTV
with Lloyd Robertson, Mr. Martin stated, almost regretfully,
that he has never smoked - either tobacco or marijuana. Perhaps
to prove his politically correct credentials, however, he
did state, smilingly, that several years ago he had eaten
brownies made with hash.
Marijuana use, Mr. Martin, is no laughing
matter - especially in regard to adolescents. Such lighthearted
comments from the country's leader only fuels an already surging
debate on pot possession, while giving Canada's youth the
wrong message about drug use. As stated by York Ontario Regional
Police Chief, Armand La Barge (Liberal, Dec 28, 2003):
It's difficult enough for parents to
raise their children. We don't need mixed signals from the
government. …
… As a tax-paying citizen, I thought
the government would have more pressing issues. The government
seems intent on decriminalizing when there doesn't seem
to be a clamour for (decriminalization).
If the Liberal government proceeds with this
proposed decriminalization, it will have failed in its responsibility
to consider the ramifications, such as the message it conveys
to young people, the fact that police forces are ill-equipped
to detect drivers impaired by drug use, and an increase in
demand, fed by illegal grow house operations.
The price we pay in our rush to become socially
liberal and politically correct is very high indeed.
The good news, however, is that Parliament
will not resume sitting until February 2, 2004. A federal
election is expected to be called during the last half of
April, at which time Canada's 37th Parliament will end and
all bills will permanently end (not to be revived, since it
will be a completely different 38th Parliament that will sit
after the election). In the less than two months Parliament
will be sitting prior to the election, hopefully, there will
be enough skillful MPs and Senators to prevent this marijuana
bill from becoming law if Mr. Martin decides to reinstate
the bill.
Please write to your MP and tell him/her to
make every effort to prevent this marijuana bill from being
reinstated and passed.
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
