Posted on 05/11/2003 8:12:29 PM PDT by Chirodoc
OTTAWA— The federal government has backed off plans to make pot possession a mere ticketing offence, the Star has learned.
Instead, sources say the Liberal government will keep simple possession of marijuana on the books as a criminal offence under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
The new plan came days after U.S. officials warned that any easing of Canada's marijuana laws could lead to a crackdown at border crossings.
The government will provide "alternative" civil penalties — fines, not jail — upon conviction and will leave enforcement and the collection of fines to the provinces.
Under the new scheme, a person convicted of possessing a small amount of pot would not register a criminal record, according to insiders.
The move, part of a renewed National Drug Strategy that could be tabled next week, will also include tougher measures to target illegal marijuana growing operations, including the doubling of penalties for drug trafficking, sources said.
The Liberals are also expected to direct more money towards efforts to target traffickers.
The Chrétien government triggered outrage among officials in the Bush administration with months of musing publicly about the "decriminalization" of marijuana. Within the Liberal caucus, some cabinet ministers and backbench MPs have also opposed the move.
Last week, U.S. drug czar John Walters suggested border traffic would slow to a crawl because the U.S. would increase inspections to stop smugglers from illegally shipping "poison" south.
Will Glaspy, a U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency spokesman, told The Detroit News yesterday that talk of decriminalizing pot in Canada would mean "more customs, more border patrols, more DEA. For Canada to decriminalize or legitimize marijuana means a greater availability of marijuana in Canada, which is going to cause individuals and organizations to try and smuggle the drug into the United States.''
The revised plan will allow Ottawa to remain in good stead with the international conventions it has signed on drug trafficking and signal to the United States it is not "softening" its laws, while still ushering in a new approach to enforcing prohibitions against pot.
Justice Minister Martin Cauchon, fresh from a meeting of G-8 justice ministers, refused comment on the timing and substance of the proposals.
"It will be a policy where you will find a reform of the cannabis law and at the same time the renewal of the national drug strategy," Cauchon said in an interview. "What we want to do with that new policy, is to send a better message to the population that the use of cannabis is illegal in our society, harmful to our society (and) be more effective on the enforcement side."
He acknowledged he broadly outlined where Canada wanted to go in a brief conversation with his American counterpart, U.S. Attorney-General John Ashcroft, on Monday at the G-8 justice ministers' meeting, but said Ashcroft did not voice strong opposition to him.
"We have a very good co-operation with the United States. The two countries have the very same vision, heading in the same direction as regards the fight against the use of drugs, organized crime, terrorist activities and all that."
Cauchon said Canada, like other G-8 countries with similar laws, is in the position of having "a piece of legislation which is deemed to be criminal ... that you are not able to enforce, knowing the amount of people that are using cannabis on a daily basis.
"The result of all that is that you have kids using cannabis knowing that it's criminal but we don't enforce it when you get caught with five or 10 grams, for example. So, at the end of the day, there's a high disregard for the justice system. It's not the message I want to send to our people. The message I want to send to our people is that it is illegal, harmful to our society, and therefore I want to make sure that we will develop a piece of legislation that we're going to be able to enforce."
He said two parliamentary committee reports last year — the Senate urged outright legalization while a Commons committee called for decriminalization — "send the message it's time for the government as well as for Canadian society to deal with that question."
No applause this time.
Sadly, the insane War on (Some) Drugs continues. Many conservatives have gotten a clue about this; our politicians still haven't.
________________________________
Just Think
Think of the War on Drugs and the victimless lifestyle crimes. By making so much private behavior illegal, we are in fact making scofflaw criminals of great swaths of the population. This is corrosive to good citizenship, at the least, which leads to degradation of society. Degradation of society is the prime rationale of those who support and demand more victimless crime penalties and lifestyle regulation.
Think about it.
If pot should be prohibited so should liquor.
But because people of Ted Kennedy and Dick Cheney's social standing enjoy liquor, it is legal. Because stinky hippies and college kids like pot, it is illegal. Of course the states would not want to give up their juicy liquor monoplies, so there's another reason to keep that drug legal.
We have made an ass of the law.
Why do you say Nevada is an immoral state?
However, they're not asking for license; they are asking not to be put in prison! That is not the same thing as a license.
Any person so alienated from mainstream society that they would try PCP is already so far gone that they will not care whether or not these norms are codified into legislation! Those who would put something like PCP into their body, despite the risk of physical harm and social embarassment attached to such activities, could care less what a state or federal legislature has to say about it! There is no deterence value to the law in this case.
There would be plenty of collateral benefits to legalization. Legalization of cocaine and marijuana, for example, would bankrupt nearly all militant leftist elements in the Western hemisphere. These are groups that have killed thousands of people in the last half century.
Oh but then we'd have to know that somewhere, some loser fat hippy was smoking joints then falling asleep in a pile of twinkies in his trailer. Or I'd have to face the fact that the investment bankers snorting coke to help them work 120 hour weeks on Wall Street would no longer face prison terms for doing so. Well frankly that's a price I'm willing to pay, because I have an interest in seeing criminals bankrupted and no interest in seeing people imprisoned for what they choose to put in their bodies.
And we saw how well that worked in the 1920s...!
Only if you're Bill Bennett.
And we saw how well that worked in the 1920s...!
I guess according to ohiopyle, refusing to learn from history is a "conservative" trait.
Did "Larry Elders" (sic) renounce his stance on drugs?
Even though I disagree with you, you've earned my respect for being consistent on this. Most pro-Drug War FReepers do not demonstrate this sort of consistency.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.