The day's hearings began at 10am, although many of the Senators drifted in between 10 and 10:30. First to testify was the hemp delegation.
Geof explained how the most recent research done into Canadian hemp was in 1971, by Dr Ernie Small. Dr Small grew 350 different strains of cannabis in Ottawa. His research concluded that there are different varieties of cannabis, and that it is possible to differentiate between cannabis hemp and cannabis marijuana.
Geof also explained his difficulties in applying for a license to grow the crop, but was also optimistic about hemp's potential as a profitable crop, if released from the control of the Ministry of Health.
Dr Sumach explained that Europe, and Germany in particular, are moving into first place in a rapidly emerging world hemp market. According to Dr Sumach, the Europeans "sell hemp with confidence, and fully intend to take the lead over nations such as Canada, who are watching from the sidelines."
Larry spoke briefly about the health and environmental dangers of synthetic fabrics, then moved on to describe Canada's over-reliance upon US cotton. He explained that cannabis is much better suited to the Canadian climate than is cotton, and that unlike cotton, which requires "more than half of all the pesticides and herbicides used in North American agribusiness," cannabis is a hardy crop with few natural enemies, and thus requires few, if any, pesticides.
Marc began his presentation by describing what a marijuana high feels like. He described it as a "warm, gooey, fun sensation," which can lead to introspection, listening more attentively to his children, and getting more out of the trash on television.
Marc explained that prohibition found its beginnings in racism against the Chinese, and that Canada's first drug law was passed in 1908 in order to allow for the deportation of Chinese labourers who had become unnecessary after the railroad had been built and the gold mines were exhausted.
Marc brought the human tragedy of marijuana prohibition into focus, explaining how the government spends large amounts of tax money to degrade, humiliate, and persecute marijuana users.
Marc also disagreed about educating children to believe that drug use is wrong. He argued that children will naturally want to experiment with drugs, and that for him to tell his child that marijuana smoking was wrong would be hypocritical. He explained that the first time his oldest son had smoked pot was when they were on a helicopter ride together, as he had wanted it to be a special experience for him, and not something his son would take for granted.
I explained how the standard letter from the Department of Justice claims that if marijuana were decriminalized the rate of its use would increase, that international treaties forbid decriminalizing marijuana, and that most Canadians support the current prohibitionist regime. However, the governmental records I obtained revealed that rates of marijuana use are not affected by decriminalization, that international treaties do in fact allow Canada to decriminalize marijuana, and that about 70% of Canadians support the decriminalization of marijuana in some form.
Of the ten Senators at the hearing, five of them openly stated that they supported the decriminalization of marijuana. The others seemed supportive of the idea, and none of them expressed shock or anger at any of the statements made by Marc Emery or myself.
I have to admit that it was a refreshing experience to speak before the Senate. Most of my other communication with politicians has been frustrating to the extreme. Yet while testifying before the Senate committee I felt as if these people actually cared about what we were saying, and that they were possibly going to do something to help us end the prohibition of cannabis. I hope that my optimism is not misplaced.
For more information, or to get a copy of the trancgi of those who testified before the Senate, contact Committee Clerk Heather Lank by phone at 1-800-267-7362, or by email at sencom@magi.com.
Please request the transcript hearings. It's good to let the Senate know that we're going to be reading up on what they say and do.