Search CC | Subscribe to CC

advanced search

store

pot-tv

seeds

Recommendations of the LeDain Commission Report on Cannabis

The LeDain Commission was set up in 1969 as a Commission of Inquiry into the non-medical use of drugs. It was established under the Honourable John Munro, then Minister of National Health and Welfare. Although the commission's terms of reference included a broad range of psychotropic substances, they felt that the issues surrounding cannabis warranted detailed examination in a separate report, which they issued in 1971. This report is an extremely thorough examination of the use and effects of cannabis consumption, and is still considered to be among the best of its kind.

The commission was made up of five members. Two of the commission members chose to give separate conclusions and recommendations from the majority.

The majority recommendation of the commission was written by Gerald Le Dain, Heinz Lehmann and J. Peter Stein. In essence, they recommended that simple possession of cannabis and cultivation for personal use be permitted, but that criminal sanctions be continued against the importation and trafficking of cannabis. What follows is the text of their recommendations:

We recommend the following changes in the law respecting the illegal distribution of cannabis:

Importing and exporting should be included in the definition of trafficking (as they are under the Food and Drugs Act), and they should not be subject to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment. It might be appropriate, however, to make them subject to somewhat higher maximum penalties than other forms of trafficking.
There should be an option to proceed by indictment or summary conviction in the case of trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking.
Upon indictment, the maximum penalty for trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking should be five years, and upon summary conviction, eighteen months. It should be possible in either case to impose fine in lieu of imprisonment.
In cases of possession for the purpose of trafficking it should be sufficient, when possession has been proved, for the accused to raise a reasonable doubt as to his intention to traffic. He should not be required to make proof which carries on a preponderance of evidence or a balance of probabilities.
Trafficking should not include the giving, without exchange of value, by one user to another of a quantity which could reasonably be consumed on a single occasion.

The costs to a significant number of individuals, the majority of whom are young people, and to society generally, of a policy of prohibition of simple possession are not justified by the potential for harm of cannabis and the additional influence which such a policy is likely to have upon perception of harm, demand and availability. We, therefore, recommend the repeal of the prohibition against the simple possession of cannabis.
The cultivation of cannabis should be subject to the same penalties as trafficking, but it should not be a punishable offence unless it is cultivation for the purpose of trafficking. Upon proof of cultivation, the burden should be on the accused to establish that he was not cultivating for the purpose of trafficking, but it should be sufficient for him, as in the case of possession for the purpose of trafficking, to raise a reasonable doubt concerning the intent to traffic.
The police should have the power to seize and confiscate cannabis and cannabis plants wherever they are found, unless the possession or cultivation has been expressly authorized for scientific or other purposes.

The first of two dissenting opinions was written by Marie-Andree Bertrand. She argued that the sale and distribution of cannabis be brought under the control of the provincial and federal governments. Her recommendations are as follows:

The federal government should remove cannabis from the Narcotic Control Act, as the Commission recommended in its Interim Report.
The federal government should immediately initiate discussions with the provincial governments to have the sale and use of cannabis placed under controls similar to those governing the sale and use of alcohol, including legal prohibition of unauthorized distribution and analogous age restrictions. Furthermore, this government-distributed cannabis should be marketed at a quality and price that would make the 'black market' sale of the drug an impractical enterprise.
The federal government should initiate a program to develop efficient practical methods for cannabis production and marketing in Canada. A standard form of natural marijuana would seem to be most feasible at this stage, but hashish and synthetic preparations should also be explored.
The federal government should initiate prospective multi- disciplinary epidemiological research to monitor and evaluate changes in the extent and patterns of the use of cannabis and other drugs, and to explore possible consequences to health, and personal and social behaviour, resulting from the controlled legal distribution of cannabis.
All stages of the production and marketing of cannabis should be conducted by the federal and/or provincial governments.

The final dissenting opinion was that of Ian L. Campbell. In the preamble to his recommendations he states that, "I must dissent from their recommendation that the prohibition of the simple possession of cannabis be repealed and from part of the recommendation concerning cultivation. I am in full agreement with all of their other recommendations." The reason he gives for opposing the repeal of simple possession at this time is that it is "apt to be seriously misinterpreted, particularly by young people" as reflecting the judgement that cannabis is indeed completely safe and without potential for harm. He concludes that prohibition of simple possession be maintained, but that punishment be limited to a fine.

I must dissent from the recommendation of the majority of my colleagues and recommend that the prohibition of cannabis be maintained, for the time being at least. Possession of cannabis should be punishable, upon summary conviction, by a fine of $25.00 for the first offence and by a fine of $100.00 for any subsequent offence. I fully realize that these penalties will not be a potent deterrent to those who will not be deterred by the purely moral force of the law. But far heavier penalties have clearly failed to deter. I believe that the reduction of penalties to this level will on the one hand maintain most of the existing deterrent capacity of the law and on the other help to reduce the stigmatization to appropriate levels- levels similar to those for under-age drinking or buying alcohol from a bootlegger.
With respect to the cultivation of cannabis other than for purposes of trafficking, I recommend that it continue to be an offence with penalties identical to those which I recommend for simple possession.

Despite the fact that the Commission was created to advise government policy, and that it is regarded as being among the most comprehensive reports of its kind, none of its recommendations have ever been acted upon by any Canadian government since it was written.