Friday, April 30, 1999 - National Post

Waiting to inhale

Jonathan Kay

'Who cares?" That was the reaction of most Canadians when Ontario Liberal Leader Dalton McGuinty and his NDP counterpart, Howard Hampton, admitted on Tuesday to having smoked marijuana during their teenage years.

But we can learn from our indifference. The very fact that so many of us are unfazed tells us how ripe the issue of marijuana decriminalization has become.

Libertarians have long argued that drug policy should be left to individuals. But you don't have to embrace a laissez-faire world view to support reform of marijuana laws. Garden variety liberalism -- and even conservative social accountancy -- will lead you to the same conclusion.

Liberalism -- the kind that advocates individual liberties, not government largesse -- is not hostile to state regulation, but it is suspicious of it. Liberals put the onus on government to justify the elimination of liberties by reference to the attendant harms. And conservatives ask whether the benefits of government intervention outweigh its social costs. Where marijuana is concerned, the government can meet neither burden of proof without making nonsense of the current law on a wide variety of activities that are mildly risky, but totally legal.

To marijuana opponents, this might seem like a trite line of attack. But I have yet to hear it properly refuted. Every year, tobacco kills 3.5 million people worldwide. Alcohol does in another 750,000. Yet, despite the lack of a single confirmed published case of death from cannabis poisoning, marijuana is proscribed under criminal penalty, while cigarettes are sold over the counter at gas stations, and liquor is on tap at Pizza Hut (alongside cholesterol, another proven killer).

That is not to say marijuana does not pose health risks. As with tobacco, heavy marijuana use can cause chronic bronchitis and other forms of lung disease. And, as with alcohol, there is some evidence that very heavy long-term use of marijuana can cause permanent mental impairments and poor pregnancy outcomes. But these potential harms are within the ambit of risk that characterize perfectly legal indulgences such as fatty foods, motorcycle use, contact sports, casual sex, and, of course, alcohol and tobacco.

Moreover, the oft-cited claim that marijuana is a "gateway drug" is nothing but a creature of statistical correlation. A recent Institute of Medicine report commissioned by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy grudgingly concluded, "there is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs."

Where medical applications are concerned, the case in favour of marijuana is even more lopsided -- because proponents can apply elemental utilitarianism to buttress our society's general preference for individual liberty.

Many experts have argued persuasively that marijuana is highly effective for treating appetite loss arising from HIV medications, intra-ocular pressure caused by glaucoma, chemotherapy-related nausea, as well as muscle spasticity arising from spinal cord injuries, epilepsy, and multiple sclerosis. Compared with other remedies, the side effects of marijuana are mild, especially when it is taken in smoked form. The Institute of Medicine report concluded, in fact, that "the adverse effects of marijuana use are within the range of effects tolerated for other medications."

And marijuana is a case of laymen beating scientists to the truth. Even before the Institute of Medicine study was released, referenda on the therapeutic use of marijuana were consistently decided in favour of its advocates. In 1998, legalization backers made a clean sweep of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, Arizona, and Washington, D.C. In Canada, where "zero tolerance" rhetoric is less widespread, support might be even stronger. A recent Decima Research Inc. survey indicates that 78% of Canadians polled support a federal government proposal to consider the use of marijuana for medical applications.

The face of the pro-marijuana campaign is changing. Traditional advocates of decriminalization such as soapbox libertarians and recreational bong junkies are being joined by more mainstream groups. Last week, no less a respectable organization than the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police announced its support for marijuana's decriminalization. If implemented, the chiefs' plan would permit police forces and courts to redirect the resources wasted on petty marijuana offences. Reform Party MP Keith Martin is even trying to foster their plan with a private member's bill. Even the Canadian Bar Association agrees with decriminalization -- though it would throw a lot of its members out of work.

This respectable reform lobby reflects the growing realization that the official war on marijuana has social costs far higher than those of marijuana itself. In 1997, cannabis offences accounted for 72% of all drug crimes. More than two-thirds of those involved simple possession.

Does it really make sense to prosecute these people as criminals for using a substance no more dangerous than beer, cigarettes, and a juicy hamburger?