|
|
Three lies my government told meor, can we start the revolution yet?by Dana Larsen 
Over the past four years I've written many letters to the Ministries of Health and Justice about the issue of marijuana prohibition. The standard form letter response, which has remained unchanged between Conservative and Liberal governments, gives three reasons why the government doesn't want to decriminalize marijuana. The first reason is that "decriminalizing cannabis could well result in a greater use of the drug by Canadians, thereby increasing the health and safety hazards associated with it." The second reason is that "easier access to the drug would likely put Canada in contravention of international agreements to which Canada is a party." The third reason is that "decriminalizing cannabis is likely to meet with considerable opposition from the public." 
This is backed up with the statement that "past surveys of public attitudes toward drug use and its control have consistently shown that most groups oppose liberalizing access to drugs." These claims are falseThe government's own records reveal all of these claims to be false or misleading. I have made a number of requests to the Ministries of Health and Justice under the Access to Information Act, seeking records and information which would justify these three claims. It took me over a year of letter writing to finally get results, but what I eventually discovered surprised me.If you have ever written to the Ministries of Health or Justice and have received their form letter reply, write back and include the following information in your response. Be sure to ask them to reply to your letter. #1 Would usage rise if marijuana were decriminalized?The first reason given by the Ministries of Health and Justice for continuing marijuana prohibition is that "decriminalizing cannabis could well result in a greater use of the drug by Canadians." Aside from the question of whether it's more harmful for Canadians to be smoking pot than it is for them to be in jail, I asked the government for some references for their claim, under the Access to Information Act.After an incredible fourteen months delay, I was finally sent twelve pages of references. The first six of these pages were from the 28th UN Convention on Narcotic Drugs, held in 1979, and were simply various comments made by organizations in the Narcotic Drugs Division that legalizing cannabis could increase demand. Typical of these is a statement from the South-East Asia Division of Narcotic Drugs, "that frequently discussed policies for the legalization of the non-medical use of cannabis in any form would increase demand, and therefore illicit production, often at the expense of important food crops. . ." No references or sources were provided for this or any of the other claims made at that meeting. 
The other six of the twelve pages were excerpts from a very interesting
document called Questions and Answers on Cannabis, prepared by the
Department of Health in 1980. This document asks the question "Can
increases in cannabis use be attributed to reduced penalties for the
drug?" The answer they give, based upon two separate American studies, is
as follows:
"Evidence from these two independent sets of data from the US indicates that reducing legal consequences for possession of small amounts of cannabis does not accelerate the growth rate in use." The report also states that "the growth of marijuana use was slowest among states which reduced the penalties for possession in the mid 1970's, and most rapid among those maintaining severe legal regimes." So the only two actual studies which the Canadian government has on record show that marijuana use would not increase if penalties were reduced or eliminated. In fact, these studies indicate that severe marijuana prohibition is even counter productive. An interesting corollary to this point is the finding by the Addiction Research Foundation that 92% of people who spend time in jail for a marijuana offence continue to smoke marijuana once they are released from prison. Clearly the law is not a deterrent either. #2 Would decriminalizing marijuana put Canada in violation of international treaties?The second reason given for prohibition is that decriminalizing cannabis would put Canada in violation of international drug control treaties which we have signed.My Access to Information request on this matter got me 33 pages of documents, divided into three sections. These documents clearly show that the treaties do not obligate member nations to jail or even punish users of illegal drugs in any way. Further, Canadian law always takes precedence over international treaties, and Canada can also withdraw from all these drug control treaties without penalty. The first section was a single page titled International Implications of Cannabis Reform, prepared for the Health Protection Branch in 1980. This document simply states that "with regard to the possession, cultivation and transfer of small amounts of marijuana or hashish, punishment is not required to be of a criminal nature." 
The second section was a 1979 memorandum prepared for the Ministry of Justice
by a "Senior Scientific Advisor." This document was specifically
written to advise the government on the International Implications of
'Decriminalization' of Marijuana Possession. In this paper, the authors
conclude that "there is no question that Canadian legislation takes
priority over international treaties."
This memorandum also mentions the 1972 amending protocol, which specifically allows "treatment, education, rehabilitation and social reintegration" as alternatives to punishment for all drug offences. The third section was the most substantial, a lengthy excerpt from a larger document called "Cannabis Control Policy" prepared for the Ministry of Justice in 1980. Under the heading of International Considerations there is a quote from Adolf Lande, who served as secretary of the UN Permanent Central Narcotics Board and the UN Drug Supervisory Body, and who was also one of the main drafters of the 1961 Convention. Lande writes that "the term 'possession' used in the penal provisions of the Single Convention means only possession for the purpose of illicit traffic. Consequently, unauthorized possession and purchase of narcotic drugs including cannabis for personal consumption need not be treated as punishable offences or as serious offences." The section on International Considerations also quotes the official UN commentary on the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, as prepared by the UN Secretary General. He writes "parties may undoubtedly choose not to provide for imprisonment of persons found in possession, but to impose only minor penalties such as fines or even censure." (My dictionary defines censure as "an official reprimand"). Finally, this document explains how amendments to the international treaties can be proposed by any party, and also how any party can withdraw from the treaties simply by informing the Secretary General of the UN in writing. There are no official penalties against nations who choose to withdraw from the treaties. It is clear from this information that Canada could reduce or eliminate penalties for the possession of marijuana or any drug without violating international treaties. There is also no reason why we should not simply withdraw from these treaties, or at least officially seek to have them modified to promote harm reduction and tolerance as the building blocks of international drug policy. #3 Does the public oppose marijuana decriminalization?The third and final reason given by so many successive Ministers of Justice and Health as a reason for continuing the criminal prohibition of cannabis is that "public opinion surveys have consistently shown that most Canadians oppose liberalising access to marijuana."In correspondence from both the Ministries of Justice and Health, I was assured that the surveys to which they referred had been conducted by the Ministry of Health in the early 80's. However, my Access to Information request for copies of these surveys revealed that neither department had any record at all that such surveys had been done. They simply didn't exist. 
The only survey they could find was Canada's 1994 Alcohol and Other Drugs
Survey. This survey clearly showed that Canadians are much more tolerant
towards marijuana users than the government would have us believe.
This survey reveals that 27% of Canadians think that the possession of marijuana should be completely legal, and that 42.1% of Canadians believe that marijuana should be decriminalized, punishable only by a fine or other non-jail sentence. Only 16.8% thought that possession of marijuana should be illegal with a first offence being subject to a jail sentence. The remaining 14% did not express an opinion. So despite repeated government claims that decriminalizing cannabis would meet with "considerable opposition" from the public, the government's own survey shows that 69.1% of Canadians support the decriminalization or legalization of marijuana and trherefore oppose the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and only 16.8% support this kind of brutal and intolerant behaviour on the part of our government. It's worth remembering that these tolerant attitudes exist despite years of government propaganda and misinformation aimed at marijuana. What might the statistics say if all Canadians had easy access to accurate information? In conclusionAccording to all of the evidence provided to me by the Ministries of Health and Justice:Decriminalizing marijuana would not increase the rate of its use among Canadians. Decriminalizing marijuana would not put Canada in violation of our international treaties. Decriminalizing marijuana would be supported by a strong majority of the Canadian people. The federal government's own records clearly show that there is no basis to any of the official reasons for continuing the prohibition of marijuana. In fact, these records reveal that the government has been knowingly lying to Canadians about all of these issues for at least 15 years, since all of the studies and information I received dated from 1981 or earlier, with the exception of the public opinion poll. Can we start the revolution yet? Make some official requestsI encourage all Canadians to request these documents for themselves and use this information when writing to the media or the government. It's easy and fun to make an Access to Information request, and it only costs $5 for each question.Use this letter which includes my reference numbers, so you just need to copy or print it out, add a cheque for $15 made out to the Receiver General of Canada, and send it to Anne Brennan, Departmental Coordinator, Access to Information Office, Suite 34 Ð Justice Building, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0H8. phone (613) 952-8361. 
|