The Canadian Debacle to Legalize Cannabis

The Canadian Debacle to Legalize Cannabis

The Canadian government has recently been stumbling through the process of legalizing cannabis; a process far overdue and one needing serious public attention. Bill C-45 has been proposed to change Cannabis’ legal status. Through September, a government committee that aimed to amend the Bill has listened to over 100 witnesses, to zero benefit. Great statements were made by a variety of industry and health experts which correctly called the bill out for what it is – garbage!

()

The Canadian government is trying to reap the benefits of a market that for decades they tried to level. As with tobacco and alcohol before, the government is ending the prohibition on their own terms; you can own a certain amount, own a certain kind, do certain things, buy from certain places, buy certain types, share certain amounts, etc. All of this legalization with potentially 14 years in jail if the correct guidelines aren’t followed. The purpose of C-45 is not to bring Canadians the altruistic freedom to use cannabis but to provide government continued control and claim a source of revenue from a market place it couldn’t beat.

The Liberal Party of Canada successfully campaigned in 2015 on the message of decriminalization and the end of prohibition, however, their policy now states, “We will remove marijuana consumption and incidental possession from the Criminal Code, and create new, stronger laws to punish more severely those who provide it to minors… and those who sell it outside of the new regulatory framework.”(note1) This statement hardly reflects the ending of a prohibition.

Under the bill, various restrictions will be put in place: possession of ≤30g for adults 18+, possession of ≤5g for persons 12-17, distribution of only the adult personal amount, limitations of certain products, required licencing, etc. Has the government really learned nothing? Witness Michael Spratt, a criminal lawyer and witness for the committee, made the point on youth possession, “Simply put, there is no reason to believe that making it a criminal offence for a youth to possess five grams of marijuana will deter youth from possessing marijuana any more so than the current criminalization does.”(note2) It has been repeatedly demonstrated that criminalization does not prevent use or distribution. This bill will be further proof.

If the government is capitulating that it cannot control the use of the substance, what is the purpose of the restrictions? Money! Like all prohibitions, regulations line pockets. The Canadian government was unable to prevent (at great cost to themselves) the flow of money into the black-market industry and now they are looking to get their slice.

The free market is exceptional at meeting consumer demand. It also does this at the lowest price possible when allowed to compete for market share. This of course is not what the government wants. Mark Kleiman, Professor at New York University made this comment to the committee in regards to Colorado prices where legalization took place in 2014, “legal prices are falling at 2% per month and there's no bottom in sight.”(note3) If unrestricted, cannabis as a drug would become nearly worthless, as it should be. It is an exceptional plant that grows nearly everywhere.

What then is the proposed purpose of C-45 and these restrictions - Public Safety. Even if we ignore the fact that there has never been a true Cannabis overdose recorded (or at least the likely hood is near zero over lifetime use), the questions remain: Does legalization increase use? Does it lead to other drug use? Is the government looking out for its citizenry? Of the numerous publications we could examine, perhaps the most relevant and indeed exemplary documents of use is the 2002 Canadian Senate Cannabis Report. In a rare victory of government evaluation, the report concluded that not only did long term use of Cannabis not rise, nor did the use of any other drugs in countries where more liberal laws have been applied such as the Netherlands, Spain, Italy or Portugal.

As early as 2002 it was recommended by the Canadian Senate that Cannabis prohibition end. It was reasoned that policies were ineffective, irrelevant to Canadian safety, and a drain on public resources. “In effect, the main social costs of cannabis are a result of public policy choices, primarily its continued criminalization, while the consequences of its use represent a small fraction of the social costs attributable to the use of illegal drugs.”(note4)

Prohibition of naturally occurring plants is amongst the vainest proposals of government. After its utter failure to eliminate cannabis, it now proposes legalization with conditions as nonsensical as before. The explanation is obvious as to why: government simply can’t give away control, especially when there is an opportunity to profit from it. It is beyond frustration that a step in the right direction for freedom will nevertheless be marred by snide attempts to control Canadian’s personal lives.

Recognition: After writing the above article I feel it necessary to distinguish Member of Parliament Don Davies from the rest of the committee. Davies attempted to amend many of the gross errors in this legislation including the quantity restrictions, sentencing terms and even regulation as a whole. If his amendments would have been carried through, this article need not be written.

1- Liberal Party of Canada, Marijuana, https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/marijuana/, October 10, 2017.
2- House of Commons. “Standing Committee on Health”, Evidence, Monday September 11, 2017.
3- House of Commons. “Standing Committee on Health”, Evidence, Monday September 14, 2017.
4- Committee Members & Staff. “Summary Report.” Cannabis: Report of the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs, September 2002, pg. 30.

Links:
House Meetings (64-72) - http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/HESA/meeting-64/evidence
42nd Parliament, First Session, Bill-C-45 - http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-45/second-reading
Canadian Senate Report - https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/371/ille/rep/summary-e.htm