With Ottawa’s proposed decriminalization of small amounts of marijuana, it seems everyone is ringing in with their opinion.
The Quebec government is concerned that it will help and encourage organized crime. Halifax police are worried that more people will drive stoned. Peter Wlodarczak of the Edmonton Journal claims in a column that marijuana is an “entry-level drug which only leads its users to other forms of illicit narcotics. Then they enter a spiralling black hole from which precious few escape.” And an editorial in the Regina Leader-Post decries the confusion of the proposed new law.
On the other side of the debate, readers claim that the new law will allow law enforcement to direct more resources towards fighting “hard” drugs. And an editorial in the Globe and Mail claims that the new law is “as moderate as it’s possible to be while still doing the right thing”.
There are so many opinions on the subject, it’s dizzying to keep them straight. People are worried that the US will be mad at us. Others are concerned that our tourism industry will be negatively affected or that crime rates will soar. Advocacy groups for cancer patients are angry that growing marijuana remains illegal. Some people want the laws tightened, other people claim the new proposal isn’t relaxed enough. It seems that every political group and constituency is weighing in on this one.
But it is a letter in the Vancouver Sun that most accurately reflects my opinion on the matter:
Marijuana should be legalized and treated exactly the same as alcohol is, distributed only to those with proof they’re at least 19. Just as it’s a legal right to purchase any type of alcohol for use either recreationally or medicinally, the same should apply to marijuana. Period!
The argument being touted about how bad marijuana is for youth is well taken. Just as alcohol is. But then, we haven’t done a very good job at educating or setting an example for our children about the responsible use of booze, have we?
You cannot legislate some peoples’ tragically poor decisions and resultant behaviour. On the other hand, legislation should not restrict the rights and greater benefit to the majority because of those poor decisions of a comparative few. If that were the case, alcohol would be prohibited because it produces drunks.
No, I don’t smoke pot. No, I have no desire to try it. Nor do I smoke cigarettes. But that’s not the point.
It is much worse to be a nicotine-dependent chain-smoker than to occasionally smoke a joint. So why are cigarettes legal and not marijuana? It doesn’t make any sense.
Laws designed to protect people from hurting themselves are all very well and good, but this one simply doesn’t work as-is. All the new law would do is put down on paper what is already essentially true in practice. Police don’t bother prosecuting a teenager caught smoking a joint. There’s just no point in throwing him into the criminal justice system, costing a fortune in the process. It’s already de facto tolerated. I’ve been to numerous rock concerts where the unmistakable scent of thousands of kids partaking was hard to miss. It’s reasonable to assume that the police know this too, and yet I’ve never seen them slap the handcuffs on a fan at a Dave Matthews Band concert before.
If anything, I think the new law doesn’t go far enough. The government ought to make the total leap and just legalize the damn stuff already. That will take organized crime out of the supply business, and generate millions in tax revenue for the government.