David Warren Lloyd's webfolio  
  • editorial column
• SEE Magazine
• MA thesis
• IASPM paper
• resume & publications
 • contact
• home 		Like it is

21 September, 2002
Thinking about marijuana

Much has been said this month about the legalizing marijuana. A Senate committee has released a report that was two years in the making, saying it has studied marijuana use in Canada and concluding that the drug ought to be legalized, production government-licensed, and sales restricted to those over sixteen years of age. Given that marijuana is currently legal in no Western nation, this is, obviously, a radical thing to propose.

Edmonton police Chief Bob Wasylyshen commented: The direction that I hope we would be going is to advocate for a drug-free society." In a past column, I addressed the problem of pharmaceutical corporations, pointing out that they have a tight grip on North American medical practice and have massively influenced public perception of health care in order to make billions of dollars. Prozac causes akathisia, which results in suicide and homicide. My question, with these facts in mind, is this: who, exactly, wants a drug-free society? And for what reason?

The very question of legalizing marijuana is evidently very complicated. First of all, why is marijuana illegal? Cigarettes hurt people, including those who don't smoke. Alcohol reduces cerebral function. Prozac seriously alters the mental state. Video lottery terminal cause addiction; many claim that marijuana does not.

For centuries, the American government encouraged production, use and trade of hemp. Then, Mexican immigrants who flooded the United States after the Mexican Revolution in 1910 introduced Americans to recreational marijuana use. Marijuana became associated with Mexican immigrants, and racism did the rest. The "Marijuana Menace" (i.e. the wave of Mexicans coming north) was accused of many crimes, and so, like Mexicans, marijuana was criminalized. If you do not believe that, can you deny that it is odd that marijuana ended up criminalized while tobacco are not? Indeed, who benefits from criminalization?

The U.S. government does, if allegations from critics hold water. And Canada certainly has no history of doing things the way the American government wants them done.

The people who give Alberta its politically right-wing reputation should like the Senate committee's report, for it guarantees the people's right to choose. Cancer patients and others who want to use marijuana for medicinal purposes will also be glad to take something more natural and time-tested than laboratory-manufactured chemicals.

The Canadian Police Association may have denounced the report, and stories may abound regarding police officers using marijuana as an excuse for a gleeful power trip, but I suspect (read: hope) that some police officers may be relieved to have the money and time spent on marijuana enforcement re-directed to more serious crimes.

The CPA's executive officer, David Griffin calls the report "nothing more than a back-to-school gift for drug pushers." But how drug dealers would benefit from 7-11 and Winks selling marijuana eludes my grasp.

Also, one must consider the extent to which criminalization has not slowed booming cultivation outfits in British Columbia and Quebec, and increasing use by Canadian youth.

Of course, is not the bottom line in a democracy the will of those who constitute its population? Justice Minister Martin Cauchon has said he has found that existing marijuana laws are not consistent with public opinion about possession and use of the drug, and said "When I started to get involved in the issue, it's because I felt as justice minister that the legislation in place actually is disconnected with Canadian reality."

Given the gains to be made, the shady roots of criminalization, and the present laws concerning other drugs, I would tend to support, if not legalization, then at least de-criminalization.

[top]


 




Content and design of this web site ©2004 David Warren Lloyd