Ask Questions       

       Grow Guide

This will be followed by a review of conclusions drawn by various government sponsored committees charged with recommending legal reform in this area, and a look at the Supreme Court of Canada’s rational for allowing the continued criminalization of this substance despite seemingly irrefutable evidence that cannabis is no more harmful or addictive than currently legalized recreational drugs such as tobacco or alcohol. Parliaments recent attempts at reform will then be outlined, the wisdom of their work scrutinized, and explanations for the continued failure of such attempts sought. Particular attention will be paid to confounding factors arguably beyond the Canadian Governments control, such as international drug treaties and the influence of the American ‘War on Drugs’. The continued failure and ultimate futility of prohibition will then be exposed, and alternate methods of controlling cannabis proposed.

The Effects of Marijuana

Marijuana is the dried bud of the female cannabis sativa, cannabis indica, or cannabis ruredalis plant (Raaflaub, p.7), and it contains a psychoactive cannabinoid known as delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC for short. In fact, weed contains over 400 chemicals, and 60 cannabinoids, but THC is the one most associated with the ‘high’ felt by users of the substance (Bonsor, 2005). This high is most often described as a general sense of mellow euphoria, during which certain senses such as taste and smell are heightened, along with stimulated imagination and hunger (known as the ‘munchies’). The heart rate of users tends to quicken, the mouth dries up (known as getting the ‘pasties’), the eyes redden, and short term memory is often cited as being impaired. The high usually lasts for two or three hours, and is followed by a general sense of weariness (known as getting ‘burnt out’) which often leads to napping.

For a drug which has been used recreationally and medicinally as long as cannabis, it is surprising how little we know about its medicinal properties and long term effects on the human body. In fact, as of August 2003 no clinical trials on marijuana’s medical uses had ever been completed in Canada (Garmaise, August 2003). This might seem odd, since in 1999 the (then) Canadian Minister of Health, Allan Rock, stated that Health Canada had plans to look into this very issue (Garmaise, August 2003), but, as we will see, such is the nature of pot politics.

There has never been a documented case of death from an overdose of marijuana (Goodwin, p17, Cloud, p.3), which is more than can be said of alcohol. Moreover, though the exact mechanisms at work are not fully understood, several medical uses for the substance are well documented. The American Medical Association (AMA) reports that marijuana has been successfully used to help HIV patients gain weight, thanks to the ‘munchies’ so often associated with getting high. Further, weed has been proven as an effective treatment for Glaucoma, as it reduces pressure on the eyeballs of users by about 25%. Finally, THC is thought to be an effective painkiller, though more tests are needed in this area (Cloud, p.4).

Cannabis is not a harmless drug however. The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) strongly advises against using marijuana. This is primarily because cannabis is a potentially addictive substance, and the most common method of getting high is by smoking joints (marijuana cigarettes). Smoking absolutely anything causes damage to your lungs and increases risks of cancer, so it should be of no surprise that the CMA opposes the recreational use of this substance, much as they oppose the use of tobacco (Sullivan, p.1). It should be noted that while some users (9%) do develop an addiction to weed, the proportion is much lower than alcohol (15%) and tobacco (33%) (Cloud, p.3). This might help explain why the CMA is actually in favor of decriminalizing the possession of marijuana despite its detrimental effects (Schmidt, p.1).

Another area of concern is the effect of regular cannabis consumption on adolescents and teenagers. A recent research paper out of Australia, looking at the effects of use on 2032 schoolchildren between 1992 and 1998, found a greatly increased incidence of depression and anxiety among weekly users (Patton, p.3-5). Though it remains to be seen if these results are directly related to the psychoactive properties of the drug or are socially constructed – somehow related to the illegal counterculture we have forced users into (Patton, p.8) – the findings seem to indicate that, as common sense also dictates, any public policy regarding marijuana should exclude minors from access to the drug.

Though many have heard about the ‘gateway’ properties of marijuana use and how it causes people to crave harder drugs, there is absolutely no hard evidence that this is true in any physiological sense. The only real connection between cannabis and hard drugs is a black market pathology – that is, because pot smokers have no legitimate source for their drug of choice, they are forced to buy off of drug dealers who often also sell other, harder drugs ( www.bccla.org  , Oct. 2003).

Putting it in Perspective

While critics are quick to focus on the negative aspects of recreational marijuana use, it is important to keep two things in mind. First of all, “anthropologists have yet to discover a society that has not featured the non-medical use of drugs” (Sneiderman, Para 92), so while the CMA might be working towards a society in which no one ingests substances which are bad for them, it is doubtful that such a vision will ever become reality. Secondly, if people are hell bent on altering their perceptions purely for the fun of it, marijuana appears to be less detrimental then either tobacco cigarettes or alcohol. 47,581 Canadian deaths were attributed to tobacco abuse in 1998 ( www.cbc.ca ), with another 6,701 caused by alcohol consumption in 1992 (single, p.6). These figures go a long way towards explaining why the Supreme Court of Canada believes “…the health related costs of marihuana use are very, very small in comparison with those costs associated with tobacco and alcohol consumption” (Malmo-Levine, Para 46-47).

History and Current Status

When confronted with the seemingly arbitrary nature of marijuana’s prohibition vis-à-vis tobacco and alcohol, many people wonder why weed is illegal while other comparatively harmful and expensive drugs are not. To answer this question we must quickly review the history of Canadian legislation regarding marijuana.

The Supreme Court of Canada is of the opinion that marijuana’s prohibition has always been a conscious decision by parliament with the protection of the Canadian public in mind (Malmo-Levine, Para 65). This is despite the fact that when cannabis was added to the list of prohibited drugs in the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act of 1923 there was absolutely no debate in the house of commons (johnhoward.ca, Malmo-Levine, Para 31). Others are less certain that clear heads have prevailed with respect to our narcotic legislation, and even if they did it certainly wasn’t with the aid of accurate information.

The most common accusation leveled against drug laws in North America is that they are premised on racism – simply put, the white settlers drugs (alcohol and tobacco) were legalized while the Chinese (opiates) and Mexican (marijuana) drugs were criminalized (Goodwin, p.5, 9). Such a racist motivation would help explain why outrageously incorrect dangers were attributed to marijuana, such as Emily Murphy’s early 20th century Maclean’s Magazine article entitled “The Black Candle,” which stated:

Persons using this narcotic smoke the dry leaves of the plant, which has the effect of driving them completely insane. The addict loses all sense of moral responsibility . . . [w]hile in this condition they become raving maniacs and are liable to kill or indulge in any forms of violence to other persons, using the most savage methods of cruelty . . . (Goodwin, p.10-11, Malmo-Levine, Para 43)

Revelations such as this are what led the LeDain Commission, asked by the Canadian Government to study the legal issues surrounding marijuana in 1969, to publicly declare that science played little if any role in the original prohibition of cannabis (Harper, p.5).

Some would argue that herein lays a big piece to the puzzle of pots continued criminal status. Our legislative body, by design, is very slow to adapt. Most of the time this prevents the ever changing winds of populist opinion from blowing us off our Chartered course towards a more egalitarian society. In this case however, because we brought cannabis into the criminal justice system with a skewed perspective, change is slow and arduous but progress is being made.

In 1929 the minimum sentence for possession of marijuana was six months in prison or a $200 fine (which was a lot back in 1929). The court also had the ability to adding hard labor or a whipping in extreme cases (Malmo-Levine, Para 35). Now, in 2005, marijuana has been moved from Schedule I of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which contains heroin and cocaine, to Schedule II, and as such possession of marijuana is simply a summary conviction offense, with a maximum $1000 fine or six months imprisonment upon first offence (Raaflaub, p.8, Goodwin, p.12). Over the course of 76 years, our government has managed to figure out that weed is less trouble than cocaine or heroin, dropped the mandatory minimum penalties, prevented judges from whipping pot smokers, and downgraded the charges from indictable to summary conviction, which still leaves people convicted with a permanent criminal record. Slow and arduous progress indeed.

The Canadian public has not been quite so slow to appreciate the utility of marijuana as a recreational drug however. It is estimated that 100,000-125,000 Canadians smoke weed on a daily basis, 12.2% have smoked it within the past year (Raaflaub, p.5), and 30% have tried it at least once (USA Today, 05/08/2003). It should be stressed that these are probably under-estimations, since an unknown subset of the population who does use cannabis will likely deny it, even in anonymous surveys, due to the criminal nature of the substance.

The predictable result of such widespread use occurring despite marijuana’s continued prohibition is an extraordinary amount of drug related cases being processed by our criminal justice system, at the taxpayers expense. In 1999 21,381 Canadians were charged with possession of marijuana (Raaflaub, p.6), and another 30,000 were charged in 2000 (Sullivan, p.1). In total, over 600,000 Canadians have a criminal record for smoking a substance less harmful and less addictive than tobacco (Malmo-Levine, Para 22), the stigma from which will forever hinder their ability to get jobs and travel internationally.

Independent Evaluations

It is not as if ‘stoners’ are the only ones calling for reform either, or, if they are, some of them are members of important government committees and independent think tanks. The LeDain commission, mentioned above, held formal inquiries and public consultations with over 12,000 Canadians before releasing their report (Harper, p.2) in 1970 which concluded “that the social costs of marijuana prohibition did not justify the nation’s current drug policies” (Goodwin, p.11) and recommended legalizing or at least decriminalizing the possession of cannabis.

The distinction between legalization and decriminalization warrants clarification. Tobacco and alcohol are legal, and as such they are heavily regulated and taxed by the government, sold in licensed establishments to people over a certain age, and the corporations who produce them are allowed to advertise in certain places. Decriminalization simply means that certain acts, such as the possession of cannabis, would no longer be considered a criminal offense, but could still be subject to fines, much like someone who doesn’t clean up after their dog in a public park. Further, it is possible under a decriminalized system to allow private investors to start up marijuana ‘coffee-shops’, where they sell plant matter containing THC to patrons, much as coffee-shops today sell plant matter containing caffeine, and then their income is taxed by the government. This is the current practice in Amsterdam. There are some who argue that Amsterdam practices true decriminalization, while the down-grading of possession to a ticketable offence is really just ‘depenalization’ (Raaflaub, p. 3-4). There, clear as mud.

Such distinctions are important because a vast majority of analysts have recommended legalization, decriminalization, or depenalization; few if any call for continuing with the status quo. So it should come as no surprise that in 2002 the "Special Committee on Illegal Drugs” of the Senate of Canada recommended that marijuana be legalized for all persons over the age of 16. Logically, they reasoned that since cannabis posed less of a harm to society than tobacco or alcohol (Maich, p.2), and it was widely being used despite its illegal nature, it was in the best interests of Canadians to regulate the trade, ensure a safe supply of the substance, and dissuade organized crime from profiting off its prohibition (Raaflaub, p. 5, 8-9). The Committee further recommended that all Canadians with possession or production charges related to marijuana be granted a general amnesty and have their criminal records erased (Jurgens, p.8)

In a similar, albeit more conservative vein, the 2001 House of Commons “Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs,” recommended that possession of less than 30 grams (slightly more than an ounce) be depenalized and turned into a ticketable offence (Jurgens, p.7). Both committees admitted that the continued criminalization of marijuana is a waste of taxpayers’ money, because it is not a harmful enough substance to warrant such extreme sanctions from the criminal justice system (Thaczuk, August 2003).

The Harm Principle

The widespread consensus that marijuana is not harmful enough to warrant its criminal nature resulted in a Supreme Court of Canada case entitled R. v. Malmo-Levine, R. v. Caine, in which the appellants argued, among other things, that the Canadian government has no right to persecute people who indulge in any private act which does not infringe the safety, rights, or health of others (Schmitz, Oct. 2002). Both the Canadian Bar Association and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association presented arguments in favor of this “Harm Principle,” first proposed as a basic tenant of free and democratic societies by John Stuart Mill, and the Malmo-Levine case sought to have the prohibition of marijuana struck down for violating our fundamental rights (Conroy, July 1996; bccla.org, Oct. 2003).

The Justices were not convinced however. First of all they did not agree that the existence of harm was the only instance in which the state could impose criminal liability, pointing out that many ‘victimless’ crimes such as Cannibalism, Beastiality, and Incest are viewed as fundamentally just in our society (Malmo-Levine, Para 103, 117-118). Note the severe morality manifested as nation wide agreement that these analogous victimless offences possess. More importantly however, the Court rejected the claim that marijuana is a ultimately harmless substance, citing damage to lungs, the impairment of motor functions with respect to operating heavy machinery, and the adverse effects on the young as significant social concerns, particularly among chronic users (ibid, Para 42, 77).

The Court was kind enough to address why it might seem fundamentally unjust that marijuana is illegal; it’s because tobacco and alcohol are legal, but not really that different. This does not mean that the laws against marijuana are unconstitutional however, it simply means that if the government wanted to they could also outlaw alcohol or tobacco (ibid, Para 138-139). Therefore it isn’t unconstitutional to outlaw marijuana, no matter how stupid it might be. The Court was repeatedly very clear about this, stating:

“The Constitution provides no more than a framework. Challenges to the wisdom of a legislative measure within that framework should be addressed to Parliament” (ibid, Para 5); “[there is] an important distinction between constitutional competence, which is for the courts to decide, and the wisdom of a particular measure, which, within its constitutional sphere, is up to parliament” (ibid, Para 123); “However, the question before us is not whether Parliament should change its policy but whether it is required by the Constitution to do so.” (ibid, Para 173)

The courts hands are tied. The judicial system has already done all that it can do by imposing the bare minimum penalty upon most people convicted of offences regarding marijuana – 63% of those caught in possession of marijuana are charged an average $200 fine (Raaflaub, p.6), and a majority of those sentenced to prison for operating grow operations are sentenced to a mere 4-6 months instead of the potential seven year maximum (Plecas, p. 53-56). So it seems that the only possible method of reforming marijuana legislation is through the peoples elected representatives.

Theoretically this is a good thing, especially since a slim majority of Canadians (51%) favor decriminalization, with another 45% against the idea of reform and a critical 4% undecided (Savas, p.1). Further, research indicates that those over the age of fifty-five are considerably more likely to be against reform, indicating that public opinion will swing more in favor as this section of the voting population dies (Savas, p.1).

Decriminalization: Versions 1.0-1.3

Unfortunately, there is a bigger problem with reform than having the necessary support of the Canadian people, which appears to exist if only barley. The simple fact that support exists for change does not mean that any specific proposed piece of legislation will be deemed suitable by the House of Commons. Perhaps because of the more liberal views held by Canadians however, four bills seeking to depenalize the possession of marijuana have been proposed since 2001, the first of which was diverted and the last three all having died on the order paper. These bills are actually best understood as one decriminalization bill which keeps getting dropped when Parliament calls recess for the summer, revised, and re-proposed under a slightly different name.

Version 1.0 of the decriminalization bill came in the form of Bill C-344, proposed by Canadian Alliance MP Keith Martin. It sought to revoke the possibility of any jail time for possessing small amounts of weed, and implement a more structured fine system with a maximum $1000 penalty (Schmidt, Nov. 2001). The House voted to pass version 1.0 onto the House of Commons Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs however (cmaj.ca, April 2002), mentioned above, where it eventually came back, as Version 1.1, in the form of “Bill C-38, An Act to Amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.” (Cauchon, November 2003).

The penalties in Version 1.1 were more specific, stating that anyone in possession of less than 15 grams of marijuana would be subject to a maximum $400 fine. Anyone caught in possession of more then that could still be charged criminally, at the discretion of the arresting officer (Thaczuk, August 2003). This piece of proposed legislation and its updates, as the name suggests, would amend the Contraventions Act, which allows individual provinces to set by-laws regarding non-criminal conduct such as speeding. The wisdom of using the Contraventions Act to reform marijuana legislation will be discussed shortly. For now let it be known that Version 1.1 died on the order paper. The now Prime Minister Paul Martin pledged to reintroduce the bill after some more tweaking (Cruess, December 2003).

And so it was that Version 1.2 of the bill, also known as “Bill C-10, An Act to Amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act”, came to be. This bill looked remarkably similar to its predecessor, though it imposed harsher sentences for producers of marijuana (Cruess, December 2003). In consultation with the Federal NDP two other significant amendments were also made, allowing for the depenalization of (read: only ticketing of) growing 3 or less plants for personal use and ensuring that marijuana related charges could not be detected by third parties (stopthedrugwar.org, May 2004) such as the United States government. Unfortunately, in large part because the Liberals were heading into what promised to be a close federal election at the end of the 2003-2004 parliamentary year, and as such were not about to press contentious legislation, Version 1.2 also fell by the wayside ( www.stopthedrugwar.org ).

The 2004-2005 parliamentary year has, now predictably, seen both the birth and death of Version 1.3, this year called Bill C-17 (“An Act to Amend...”). Version 1.3 is again little different from Version 1.2. Still officially anti-marijuana, its stated purpose is to “discourage the use of cannabis through higher rates of enforcement of cannabis possession offences” (Raaflaub, p.15). Version 1.3 likely also died because the liberals felt it was not the politically proper time to push the cannabis envelope, choosing instead to focus on their Gay Marriage agenda. When the House of Commons reconvenes a version 1.4 decriminalization bill is likely to be proposed, and is just as likely to die. To better understand the high mortality rate for proposed legislation regarding marijuana, let us analyze the worth of versions 1-1.3.

The best aspect of the recently deceased bills is they would eliminate the criminal records currently associated with possessing or growing small amounts of marijuana. Since weed is so easily available on the black market, at prices lower per high per hour than alcohol or tobacco (an average marijuana high lasts three hours and costs less than $2, try getting drunk for as long/much…), despite the governments best efforts to discourage its use, the problems associated with a criminal record are one of the biggest with marijuana’s outlawed status. Further, a system of fines would not only reduce the strain on the judicial system by significantly diminishing the number of drug related cases being processed at any one time, it would actually bring money into government coffers from citizens caught in violation of the proposed by-law (Goodwin, p.41). Finally, it has been widely noted that if Canada were to make possession and personal growth of marijuana a mere ticketable offence, we would still be complying with our international anti-not-tobacco-or-alcohol recreational drug agreements, namely the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, The Convention on Psychotropic Substances, and the Contention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Economist, Vol. 366, Issue 8318; Raaflaub, p. 12; Conroy, July 1996, P.2; Hopeland, Para 6).

The proposed amendments to the Contraventions Act are far from perfect however. Increasing the maximum jail sentence for convicted growers from 7 years to 14 years, when the current average sentence is a mere 5 months, seems drastic and irrational. It makes sense that growers who pose more of a threat to their communities, such as those who keep firearms around for protection, steal electricity, or cause structural damage to their house or its electrical system, should get more severe sentences as these are obviously aggravating factors to be considered at sentencing. However, 14 years for a safe marijuana grow operation seems excessive when you can legally home-brew beer for you and your friends.

Perhaps a matter of more immediate concern to the average toker is the idea of making possession a ticketable offense. While it is a good thing that this measure would save the courts time and money, it might be bad that the government could someday make money off of the possession of marijuana the way it now makes money off of speeders on the roadways. When Australia imposed a system of fines for possession the number of charges for possession rose from 6,000 in 1987/88 to almost 17,000 in 1993/94 (bccla.org, Oct. 2003), and similar results are expected if Canada follows the same legislative path (Raaflaub, p.20). Turning pot smokers from criminals to cash cows somehow misses the mark of progression towards less arbitrary and more egalitarian laws.

This is because the government is still unwilling to admit that its laws are indeed arbitrary. When discussing Bill C-38 (Version 1.1) Justice Minister Martin Cauchon stated “The message we are sending is clear: Don’t use marijuana. Cannabis is harmful and will remain illegal in Canada” (Cauchon, November 2003). He went on to describe the extra $245 million dollars the government wanted to allocate “to improve research and treatment programs and increase enforcement.” Because of the Governments outdated views of marijuana use it is doubtful that, had the Version 1.1 been given Royal Assent, much of this money would have gone towards research or treatment. The Canadian Auditor General said in 2001 that almost 95% of the $500 million annually spent on Canada’s anti-drug strategy goes towards supply destruction (Raaflaub, p.34). Further, the Contraventions Act has only been signed by six provinces, so the Federal Government would have to convince Newfoundland, Alberta and British Columbia to sign before it could be enforced equally throughout Canada (Raaflaub, p.26, bccla.org, Oct. 2003). Finally, Version 1.3 still did not contain any amnesty provisions for those who have received criminal records for possession in the past (Davis, Feb. 2004).

Notwithstanding any such complication in future versions of Canada’s decriminalization bill, there is one major constant problem with any plan to diminish the severity of our laws governing marijuana, and it comes from

South of the Border

Yes, America, where everyone has the right to "the pursuit of happiness,” also known as “the land of the free,” with the highest prison population per capita of any westernized country. Her “War on Drugs” is infamous, and the American governments desire to keep illegal drugs out of its country has often been cited as the number one impediment to Canadian reform, as American law is already much harsher on marijuana users then Canadian law, and we share the longest undefended border in the world (Goodwin, p.30). In the United States of America federal law dictates that anyone caught growing 100 or more pot plants, or in the possession of over 100kg of marijuana, be sentenced to a minimum five year prison sentence (Can/US 2001, p.4). As stated, in Canada there is no mandatory minimum for such an offence, the maximum penalty is currently seven years, and the average sentence is five months.

To their credit, the American Government has been very candid on its position. The Director of the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policies, John Walters, said that any liberalizing of our laws regarding marijuana would make it “probable we will have to do more restrictive things at the border,” (USA Today, 05/08/2003) and the U.S. Ambassador hinted that such moves might mean the militarization of the U.S./Canada border (Goodwin, p.29). Considering the amount of goods Canada exports to the United States, it is understandable why such comments might give Canadian politicians pause. Upon closer inspection however, such concerns are needless because the threats are idle and based on superficial harms.

Superficial Harms & Idle Threats

The superficial nature of America’s outrage at any potential increase in cross border drug smuggling is a matter of scale. It is true that the amount of marijuana produced in Canada is on the rise, up from an estimated 800 tons in 2001 (Can/US 2001, p.3) to 960-2400 tons in 2004 (Can/US 2004, p.3; Hamilton, Time 2004). Seizures of marijuana crossing into America from the Canadian border have also been on the rise, up several hundred percent over the past 4 years, from 4.4 tons in 2001 to 15.8 tons in 2003 (Can/US 2004, p.6). Why isn’t this a big problem? Even at 15.8 tons a year, Canadian marijuana only accounts for 2% of total seizures in America (Can/US 2004, p.3). It seems that a vast majority of the cannabis available in the United States of America is either smuggled up from Mexico, which grows over 7,500 tons of marijuana annually specifically for export into America, or grown domestically, since grow operations have been discovered in every single state (Can/US 2004, p.6; Can/US 2001, p.3; USA Today, 05/08/2003). It seems reasonable to assume that even if Canada were to completely stop producing Marijuana, Mexican smugglers and domestic growers could easily cover the difference.

The idleness of the threats becomes apparent when you realize that the flow of goods and services across the Canadian/American border goes in both directions. Also, as mentioned, Mexico has a much worse drug smuggling record then Canada does, but this hasn’t stopped the American Government from vigorously pursuing increased free trade with that country (Maich, p.2). Canada is America’s biggest trading partner, with $1.2 billion worth of goods and services crossing the border each day (Goodwin, p.33). American cannot afford to slow border crossings any more then Canada can, nor can they afford to beef up security to Mexican crossing levels, at an estimated additional cost of $1 billion annually (Goodwin, p.35).

Sitting on the north side of the border, it seems clear that rather then the United States stiffening their border they should relax their stance on weed, since it hasn’t helped to dissuade the American people from smoking pot anyway. By 12th grade, half of American youth have tried marijuana (Cloud, p.1), a figure which has increased since 1992 despite the billions of dollars spent and hundreds of thousands of citizens charged with simple possession (USA Today, 05/08/2003). America needs to realize that it cannot win the War on Marijuana. The only significant difference in cross border smuggling recorded in the two Canadian/American reports published in 2001 and 2004 was the length of our border – apparently it jumped from approximately 6,000 kilometers (Can/US 2001, p.1) to 8,891 kilometers (Can/US 2004, p.1) in just three years. Both studies concluded that drug smuggling in significant quantities was likely to continue due to the ease of production, distribution, and the level of demand.

Giving up the prohibition on marijuana wouldn’t be unprecedented either. The North American governments were in a remarkably similar situation at the beginning of the 20th century with respect to the prohibition of alcohol (Easton, p.3). Then, as now, the government attempted to prohibit the consumption of a drug in high demand and then, as now, organized crime stepped in to supply that substance for all who wanted it (Easton, p.3). The American drug enforcement agencies claim that today’s marijuana is more like a hard drug than a soft one, as modern growing techniques have allowed producers to drastically increase the THC content of their bud (Goodwin, p.32). Such concerns are confusing, as both the Canadian and American governments ostensibly object to the use of marijuana primarily because of the health risk it poses to users. If the weed is becoming more potent, then smokers require less to get high, and thus that aspect of using cannabis which is the most scientifically proven to cause bodily harm, smoking, is lessened.

After analyzing the futility of the current prohibition, the Canadian Fraser Committee published a report recommending the legalizing of marijuana, stating:

What the analysis reveals is how widespread marijuana use is in Canada and how extensive production is in British Columbia. As a consequence, the broader social question becomes less about whether we approve or disapprove of local production, but rather who shall enjoy the spoils. As it stands now, growers and distributors pay some of the costs and reap all of the benefits of the multi billion dollar marijuana industry, while the non- marijuana-smoking taxpayer sees only costs (Easton, p.4, emphasis added)

Many have echoed the economic wisdom in legalizing pot, which would not only save court and policing costs, but also deprive organized crime of a lucrative source of income (Maich, p.1; Conroy, July 1996). It was estimated that Bill C-344 (Version 1.0), would have saved the Canadian taxpayers $150 million annually (Schmidt, Nov. 2001). Conservative estimates place the potential tax revenue of marijuana, if sold by the government at equal to or less than current street prices, at over $2 billion annually (Easton, p.4), money that could be spent on health care or other worthy causes.

The potential gains facing the American Government should they choose to tax instead of outlawing marijuana are equally substantial, which goes a long way towards explaining why so many individual states have begun the slow process of reform. Twenty-five states have eliminated mandatory minimums for simple possession, a primary motivating factor for which has been the lessened strain on the state judicial systems, a move which is estimated to save Washington state alone $45 million each year (Goodwin, p.37-38). California and New York have gone further, implementing small fines for the offence of possessing less than an ounce of marijuana (Cauchon, November 2003), and Nevada attempted to legalize the drug but was prevented by the federal government (Nicola, p.1). There has also been a move internationally to lessen punishments associated with recreational pot smoking, as Australia, Spain, Italy, and Germany have all moved towards decriminalized systems (Raaflaub, p.13-14).

Conclusion

Will the U.S. and then Canada reform their laws? In 1513 Machiavelli uttered the famous observation “those trying to create a new system would have the strong opposition of those who stand to loose, but only the luke-warm support of those who stand to benefit” ( www.authenticbusiness.co.uk  ). Such is the nature of the political milieu in North America. Not all wars are designed to be won, and it would be inaccurate to suggest or believe that because laws against marijuana are arbitrary, needless, and futile, they do not benefit anyone. The ‘costs’ associated with the enforcement of marijuana legislation are gains for many, such as the members of the Drug Enforcement Agency, politicians who have come to power on anti-drug platforms, and the thousands of other members of the criminal justice system who would like to keep their jobs (Sneiderman, p.90). Further, the fundamental Christian voters in the United States, traditionally against drug liberalization, are a much more significant presence than in Canada.

So when will we finally modernize out legislation regarding marijuana? When both the governments in North America come to terms with the fact that cannabis is no more harmful, in fact less addictive, than either alcohol or tobacco, that people who use marijuana are therefore not inherently worse than those who choose legal vices, and the current prohibition is arbitrary, ineffective and needlessly expensive.

Works Cited:

Authenticbusiness.co.uk, Staff Writer. Machiavellian experience. Authenticbusiness.co.uk, January 3, 2004. Available at: HYPERLINK "http://www.authenticbusiness.co.uk/archive/Mache/" http://www.authenticbusiness.co.uk/archive/Mache/ 

bccla.org, Association Writer. Submission of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association to the Special Committee on the Non Medical Use of Drugs (Bill C-38). British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, October 2003. Available at: HYPERLINK "http://www.bccla.org/othercontent/03nonmedicaldrugs.html" http://www.bccla.org/othercontent/03nonmedicaldrugs.html 

Benson, Iain T.; Miller, Brad. Marijuana Use, Fundamental Justice, and Morality. Lex View, Issue No. 41.0

Betteridge, Glenn. Marijuana and the Law. Canadian HIV/AIDS Policy & Law Review, Vol. 8, No. 1, Aprili 2003.

Betteridge, Glenn. Proposed amendments to medical marijuana regulations released for comment. HIV/AIDS Policy & Law Review, Vol. 9, No. 3, December 2004.

Bonsor, Kevin. How Marijuana Works. Howstuffworks.com, 2005. Available at: HYPERLINK "http://science.howstuffworks.com/marijuana.htm" http://science.howstuffworks.com/marijuana.htm 

Bourette, Susan. Marijuana industry booming in Canada. Christian Science Monitor, Vol. 97, Issue 74, March 11, 2005.

Burstein, Paul. Never truly about recreational use. The Lawyers Weekly, Vol. 23, No. 24, October 24, 2003.

Canadian HIV/AIDS Policy, Staff Writer. Health Canada makes marijuana available for medical use. Canadian HIV/AIDS Policy & Law Review, Vol. 9, No. 1, April 2004.

cannabiscoalition.ca, Staff Writer. Bill C-10 is worst case scenario for Marijuana Prohibition. Cannabiscoalition.ca, March 15, 2004. Available at: HYPERLINK "http://cannabiscoalition.ca/pr/billc10.htm" http://cannabiscoalition.ca/pr/billc10.htm 

Can/US 2001. United States-Canada Border Drug Threat Assessment, December 2001. Published by the US Department of Justice and the Solicitor General of Canada. Available at: HYPERLINK "http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pdfs/cid/CanadaUSDrugThreat.pdf" http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pdfs/cid/CanadaUSDrugThreat.pdf 

Can/US 2004. United States-Canada Border Drug Threat Assessment, October 2004. Published by the US Department of Justice and the Solicitor General of Canada. Available at: HYPERLINK "http://www.psepc-sppcc.gc.ca/publications/policing/pdf/drug_threat_e.pdf" http://www.psepc-sppcc.gc.ca/publications/policing/pdf/drug_threat_e.pdf 

Cauchon, Martin. Speech for the Honourable Martin Cauchon, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. Presented to the ‘Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs’ regarding Bill C-38, November 4, 2003. Available at: HYPERLINK "http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/sp/2003/doc_31036.html" http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/sp/2003/doc_31036.html 

cbc.ca, Staff Writer. Report says Canadian tobacco deaths on rise. Cbc.ca, January 12, 2004. Available at: HYPERLINK "http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/01/12/canada/tobacco_deaths040112" http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/01/12/canada/tobacco_deaths040112 

Cloud, John. Is Pot Good For You? Time, Vol. 160, Issue 19, November 4, 2002.

cmaj.ca, Staff Writer. Bill C-344 defeated by political hanky-panky: MP-MD angry after marijuana bill derailed. Cmaj.ca, April 23, 2002. Available at: HYPERLINK "http://www.cmaj.ca/news/23_04_02.shtml" http://www.cmaj.ca/news/23_04_02.shtml 

Copeland, Paul. Attica. The Dope Sheet; Criminal Lawyers’ Association, Ontario. Vol. 21, No. 5, p. 9, September/October 2000.

Copeland, Paul. The Dope Sheet. Criminal Lawyer’s Association, Ontario. Vol. 15, no. 3, p.41, October 1994.

Conroy, John. Canadian Bar Association Joins Protest Against Bill C-8. Canadian HIV/AIDS Policy & Law Newsletter, Vol. 2, No. 4, July 1996.

Cruess, Gordon. Ontario court affirms that medical marijuana regulations are unconstitutional. Canadian HIV/AIDS Policy & Law Review, Vol. 8, No. 3, December 2003.

Cruess, Gord. Supreme Court upholds criminal prohibitions on possession of marijuana for recreational use. Canadian HIV/AIDS Policy & Law Review, Vol. 9, No. 1, April 2004.

Davis, Libby. Update on Bill C-38. Libby Davies MP, Vancouver East, and Federal NDP Social Policy Critic, February 2004. Available at: HYPERLINK "http://www.greentide.ca/davies.htm" http://www.greentide.ca/davies.htm 

Easton, Stephen T. Marijuana Growth in British Columbia. A Fraser Institute Occasional Paper, May 2004.

Economist, Staff Writer. Under the Needle. Economist, Vol. 374, Issue 8413, February 2, 2005.

Economist, Staff Writer. Just say maybe. Economist, Vol. 366, Issue 8318, April 5, 2003.

Elliott, Richard. Recent Court Rulings on Medical and Non-Medical Marijuana. Canadian HIV/AIDS Policy & Law Review, Vol. 5, No. 4, 2000.

Garmaise, David. Clinical Trial on Medicinal Use of Marijuana Cancelled. Canadian HIV/AIDS Policy & Law Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, August 2003.

Garmaise, David. Physicians Dislike New Medical Marijuana Regulations. Canadian HIV/AIDS Policy & Law Review, Vol. 6, No. 3, March 2002.

Gold, Jennifer; Elliott, Richard. Medical Marijuana and the Law: Recent Developments. Canadian HIV/AIDS Policy & Law Review, Vol. 6, No. ½, 2001.

Goodwin, Kara Godbehere. Is the End of War in Sight: An Analysis of Canada’s Decriminalization of Marijuana and the Implications for the United States ‘War on Drugs’. Buffalo Public Interest Law Journal, 2003-2004, Vol. 22, p.199, 38p.

Hamilton, Anita; Bergman, Ben; Blue, Laura; Daniels, Chris; Jones, Debora; Shannon, Elaine. This Bud’s for the U.S. Time, Vol. 164, Issue 8, August 23, 2004.

Harper, Debra. Marijuana in the Nineties: Social or Legal Issue? Cannabislink.ca, written June 1994. Available at: HYPERLINK "http://cannabislink.ca/papers/nineties.htm" http://cannabislink.ca/papers/nineties.htm 

Jaffey, John. Rules for medical use of marijuana eased as court keeps recreational use criminal. The Lawyers Weekly, Vol. 23, No. 23, October 17, 2003.

Johnhoward.ca, Staff Writer. Canadian Cannabis Policy. John Howard Society of Canada Factsheet, August 2002. Available at: HYPERLINK "http://www.johnhoward.ca/document/drugs/fact/1.htm" http://www.johnhoward.ca/document/drugs/fact/1.htm 

Jürgens, Ralf. House of Commons Committee Releases Report on Canada’s Drug Strategy. Canadian HIV/AIDS Policy & Law Review, Vol. 7, No. 2/3, December 2002.

Maich, Steve. A Case for Marijuana Inc. Maclean’s, Vol, 117, Issue 47, December 22, 2004.

Oscapella, Eugene; Riley, Diane. Senate Urges Review of Canada’s Drug Laws, Policies and Programs. Canadian HIV/AIDS Policy & Law Newsletter, Vol. 3, No. 1, October 1996.

Patton, George C.; Coffey, Carolyn; Carlin, John B., Degenhardt, Louisa; Lynskey, Michael; Hall, Wayne. Cannabis use and mental health in young people: cohort study. Center for Adolescent Health, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.

Plecas, Darryl; Malm, Aili; Kinney, Bryan. Marihuana Growing Operations in British Columbia Revisited. Centre for Criminal Justice Research, Department of Criminology at University College of the Fraser Valley. Available at: www.ucfv.ca/pages/Special/Marihuana_Grow_Ops_in_BC_Study.pdf  

HYPERLINK "http://ql.quicklaw.com/servlet/qlwbic.qlwbi?qlsid=C1VTrSWaTjtRauow&qlcid

=00003&qlvrb=QL002&RGET=3"  R. v. Malmo-Levine, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571 CASCC - 2003 Dec 23 SCR 19852

Raaflaub, Wade. Legislative Summary: Bill C-17: An Act to Amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Law and Government Division, 5 November 2004. Available at: HYPERLINK " http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/summaries/c17-e.pdf  " http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/summaries/c17-e.pdf 

Savas, Daniel. Canadian Attitudes Towards Decriminalizing Marijuana Use: What Surveys Show. A Fraser Institute Publication, Last Modified Wednesday, October 20, 1999. Available at: HYPERLINK "http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/forum/1998/june/survey.html" http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/forum/1998/june/survey.html 

Schmitz, Cristin. SCC faces Charter challenge of power to criminalize acts. The Lawyers Weekly, Vol. 22, No. 21, October 4, 2002.

Sibbald, Barbara. Medical marijuana program “a sham”: lawyer. Canadian Medical Association Journal, Vol. 167, Issue 10, November 12, 2002.

Single, Eric; Robson, Lynda; Xie, Xiaodi; Rehm, Jurgen. The Costs of Substance Abuse in Canada. Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, 1996. Available at: HYPERLINK "http://www.ccsa.ca/pdf/ccsa-006277-1996.pdf"

www.ccsa.ca/pdf/ccsa-006277-1996.pdf 

Schmidt, Lisa. MPs support decriminalizing marijuana, Martin. Canoe.com, November 7, 2001. Available at: HYPERLINK "http://www.canoe.com/CNEWSPolitics0111/07_mps-cp.html" http://www.canoe.com/CNEWSPolitics0111/07_mps-cp.html 

Sneiderman, Barney. Just Say No to the War on Drugs. Manitoba Law Journal, Vol. 24, 1996, p. 497-531.

stopthedrugwar.org, Staff Writer. Canada Marijuana Decriminalization Bill (C-10) Dying as Government Prepares to Call Elections. Stopthedrugwar.org, May 14, 2004. Available at: HYPERLINK "http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/337/ca.shtml" http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/337/ca.shtml 

Sullivan, Patrick. CMA issues Marijuana warning. Canadian Medical Association Journal, Vol. 168, Issue 12, June 10, 2003. Jones, Nicola. Rising swell of support for marijuana. New Scientist, Vol. 176, Issue 2374/2375, December 21, 2002.

Thaczuk, Derek. Health Canada considers dispensing medical marijuana through pharmacies. Canadian HIV/AIDS Policy & Law Review, Vol. 9, No. 2, August 2004.

Thaczuk, Derek. Ottawa Moves to Decriminalize Small Amounts of Marijuana. Canadian HIV/AIDS Policy & Law Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, August 2003.

Thaczuk, Derek. Troubled Times for Canada’s Medical Marijuana Program. Canadian HIV/AIDS Policy & Law Review, Vol. 8, No. 1, April 2003.

USA Today, Staff Writer. U.S., Canada clash on pot laws. USA Today, May 08, 2003, Pg. 03a. a

posted by BenJamin'