Bill Decriminalizing Marijuana

[Tom]

THE LIBERALS' BILL TO DECRIMINALIZE MARIJUANA WAS BAD POLICY AND DESERVES TO DIE ON THE ORDER PAPER.

 

Barring unforeseen plot twists, a federal election will soon be called and a bill decriminalizing marijuana will go up in flames. As a supporter of marijuana reform, I say, goodbye and good riddance. Decriminalization was not only bad public policy, the bill's production and presentation were deceptive, even fraudulent -- as demonstrated by documents obtained under the Access to Information Act.

 

From the beginning, Martin Cauchon, the justice minister who promoted decriminalization, promised an open discussion, a theme repeated by the throne speech of Sept. 30, 2002, which said the government would "act on the results of parliamentary consultations with Canadians on options for change in our drug laws, including the possibility of the decriminalization of marijuana possession."

 

These "consultations" were special committees established by both the Senate and the House of Commons to examine marijuana and other drugs.

 

The first of the committees to report was the Senate's. For two years, senators had worked diligently, commissioning 23 reports on scientific and academic research, holding 50 days of public hearings, and meeting with more than 100 witnesses from around the world. The final report, all 650 pages of it, deployed extensive evidence and careful analysis to argue that marijuana possession, production and distribution should be legalized and strictly regulated.

 

The Commons committee was much less rigorous. Its two reports, released in November and December, 2002, ignored the toughest questions and produced scant evidence. Its recommendations stuck to conventional wisdom, which by that time was for decriminalization of possession in small amounts. One small wrinkle was a call to further decriminalize the cultivation of a very modest amount of marijuana for personal use.

 

After receiving the Commons report, the government announced it would only decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana -- meaning violators would not face criminal charges but would instead be hit with substantial fines. Nothing on the supply side would change except maximum sentences for growing marijuana would be raised, a change that eight decades of experience and stacks of research showed would have no effect on the trade or organized crime.

 

Decriminalization did, however, raise the possibility of what criminologists call "net-widening" -- when punishments are reduced, but not eliminated, lesser offenders who would have got only warnings from the police are no longer let off. In effect, lighter punishment causes more enforcement, which is precisely what happened in South Australia when marijuana was decriminalized in 1987.

 

Of course, it is the government's right to look at the pros and cons of the various models and make the wrong call. But what is not legitimate is for a government to make an important policy decision without any consideration of alternatives, particularly those arising from parliamentary consultations. It appears, however, that this is precisely what the government did.

 

In January 2003, under the Access to Information Act, I requested the Department of Justice provide copies of all policy documents relating to marijuana reform from January 2002 forward. Thirteen months later, I received a large stack of documents that's most notable for the near-total absence of any consideration of either committee's report.

 

The sole discussion of the Commons committee's idea of decriminalizing cultivation for personal use, for example, is a single sheet with a glib list of pros and cons. But even that looks like careful analysis next to the treatment of the Senate report, which only appears in talking points that advise the speaker to say such things as: "The Senate report will be a very helpful contribution to the development of Canada's drug strategy." There is no discussion of the report's ideas. No examination of its voluminous evidence. No weighing of the pros and cons of its many recommendations. Nothing.

 

The government wasn't under any legal obligation to respond to the report, a department spokeswoman told me. "Legalization was not an option. Our international obligations do not permit us to legalize. The minister was very clear that decriminalization was what he wanted to do, not legalization."

 

But the Senate report addressed that issue, and if the government had wanted a serious policy discussion, it would have examined what the report said about it and fleshed out the issue before coming to a conclusion. It did nothing of the kind.

 

Senator Pierre-Claude Nolin, the chair of the committee, was shocked to hear the report was ignored. Mr. Nolin said he personally gave Mr. Cauchon a full briefing. "He told me he was to ask his department to review the report and give him an analysis."

 

The government's disingenuousness wasn't limited to the process that produced the bill. It also misled Canadians about the basic character of the scheme.

 

Polls show a clear majority of Canadians favour either decriminalization or legalization, and they do so because they want less punishment or none at all. They want liberal reform, in other words. And that's certainly how the government pitched decriminalization, primarily by talking up the unfairness of giving young people criminal records. The media bit hard: Canada was praised as a hip young thing in The New Yorker and pictured on the cover of The Economist as a moose in sunglasses.

 

But behind closed doors, the justice department described decriminalization very differently. In a draft cabinet submission labelled "secret," Australian experience with decriminalization is cited as evidence that decriminalization in Canada "will likely increase enforcement" -- a conclusion listed under the heading "Advantages."

 

This moose wears sunglasses and carries a nightstick.

 

If this is the government's idea of liberal reform, I'm happy to see it go up in flames. The status quo might be absurd, unjust and a waste of money, but at least it's honest.