From: [m--g--s] at [hempbc.com] (Dana Larsen)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 18:29:12 -0700
Subject: long article about decriminalization in Vancouver

I don't normally do this, but I thought that recent events in Vancouver
warranted a decent explanation. This is an article that will appear in the
coming issue of CANNABIS CANADA, the on-line version of which can be found
at http://www.hempbc.com.

I can't receive email, so if you have questions or comments send them to
[s--o] at [hempbc.com.]



Decriminalization in Vancouver!?

On May 17, senior federal drug prosecutor Lindsay Smith wrote a letter to
Vancouver police, advising them that the Crown would only approve drug
possession charges in Vancouver if there was an aggravating factor
involved. This came about after members of the drug squad had complained
of recent drug cases being dropped or refused by federal prosecutors. The
reason given was that there are currently more drug cases than the Justice
Department can deal with. Despite the fact that two provincial courtrooms
in downtown Vancouver run almost exclusively drug cases, the system is
being stretched thin.

A month later, on Sunday, June 18, the front page headline of The Province
read “Just Say Woah”. This typically unrestrained prose was followed with
a story on page A5 by Greg Middleton entitled “Users Off the Hook”. The
article quotes Tony Dohm, Lindsay Smith’s superior, as saying “We were
simply indicating the system is badly overtaxed and we have more drug
cases than we can deal with... It’s not a licence to do drugs, and we’re
not telling police to turn a blind eye.”

Vancouver Police deputy chief Rich Rollins was quoted as agreeing with
Dohm, stating that the letter had come after a number of meetings with
federal justice officials and drug prosecutors, and adding that “We have
to be practical, that is the bottom line.”

The day after the article was printed, those of us at Hemp BC and Cannabis
Canada were at the centre of a media maelstrom. Marc Emery and the Hemp BC
staff were giving interviews two or three times a day for the next week,
curious citizens started calling on a regular basis, and everyone here was
very happy. Although the right thing was being done for the wrong reason
(too expensive as opposed to immoral), it is still a considerably positive
decision.

The next day’s Province had a story on page A4 by Lora Grindlay, with the
headline “ Looser drug rules get a mellow thumbs-up.” The article began by
saying that “The people at Hemp BC answered phone calls yesterday by
calling hemselves ‘the happiest store in the world.’” It also quoted
Vancouver Mayor Philip Owen as saying “They are saying there is a law but
we are going to ignore it. You either legalize the drugs or you enforce
the law.” Owen also said that the new guidelines “encourage the thug drug
dealers” and forces the city and province to deal with the social problems
caused by drug addiction.

That afternoon the Senior General Counsel and Regional Director for the
Department of Justice, James D. Bissell, issued a press release. It
explains that “the Department of Justice does not have a “no charge”
policy with respect to proposed charges of possession of any narcotic,
hard or soft.”

However, it continues to say that all cases referred to them by the police
are reviewed according to two main criteria. These are whether the
evidence “is sufficient to justify the institution of proceedings”, and
“does the public interest require a prosecution to be pursued?”

The press release explains that there are a number of public interest
factors, including the seriousness of the alleged offence, the likely
length and expense of a trial, the availability of alternatives to
prosecution, the accused’s background and degree of responsibility, and
significant mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

The press release concludes with the following statement:

“It would be wrong for anyone to assume that there is a predetermined
policy that stipulates against the prosecution of possession charges for
the so-called soft drugs. Such a policy simply does not exist.”

Not surprisingly, the media attention and conflicting reports brought
about a great deal of public confusion. I called Greg Middleton, the
reporter who first broke the story. He told me that he had been shown
Smith’s original letter by an upset police officer, probably in hopes of
evoking a negative public reaction. He explained that the press release
did not really contradict the earlier letter, and that although the
Department of Justice obviously does not want to create the public
perception that it is being “soft on drugs’, it has no other option but to
reduce the number of drug cases that it deals with.

The Province’s editorial on Tuesday, June 20, chastised the Justive
officials for “backpedalling,” and supported the idea of informally
decriminalizing drug use. It states that “the fact is, we are wasting the
time of the police and the courts bringing drug addicts to ‘justice,’
while ignoring the problem of their addiction. Go after the pushers, but
drug addicts meed help, not jail.” The editorial also favourably mentioned
the Coroner’s Report released in January.

We have spoken to police officers on the street, asking them what they
would do if someone were to begin smoking a joint right in front of them.
The general response is that they would ask the smoker to put it out.
Although this is a far cry from a complete end to prohibition, it is an
excellent first step, and shows that the present system cannot continue
indefinately, and that change must soon come in some form. It is simply
not possible to arrest every drug user in Vancouver, nor is it practical
to try.

An interesting aspect to these events is that Bill C-7, the proposed
replacement for the Narcotic Control Act, was withdrawn from the current
session of parliament on Thursday, June 15, two days before the letter to
Vancouver police was written by Lindsay Smith. The Vancouver Sun reported
a Canadian Press story which quoted Hedy Fry, a member of the
sub-committee which examined Bill C-7 and also the secretary to Health
Minister Diane Marleau, as stating that the government did not want to be
accused of ramming the bill through the Commons.

The article explained that on Monday, June 12, Hedy had stated that the
bill would be passed before the House rose for its summer break, but that
a Commons committee that was to go through clause-by-clause scrutiny of
the legislation that Wednesday had been abruptly cancelled.

An editorial the next day in the Vancouver Sun described how they hoped
that Parliamentarians would grow some backbone during the summer session
and modify Bill C-7 so as to  decriminalize the possession of marijuana.

Although the withdrawal of Bill C-7 and the events in Vancouver could be
seen as part of a larger plan, it is difficult to say for sure what
actually motivated these decisions. What is clear, however, is that the
issues surrounding the “War on Drugs” are coming under a great deal of
scrutiny. There is momentum developing at a national and international
level for a complete rethinking of our policies towards the use and trade
in recreational drugs.

If we are actually being presented with an opportunity to alter our
nation’s drug policies, then we must be more vigilant and outspoken then
ever. It is important that any new policies firmly enshrine the individual
right to personal choice, and the futility and immorality of prohibiting
drug use through criminal sanction. If we settle for anything less then we
will ultimately find that any gains we may make are taken from us again in
the future.

-- 
Dana Larsen, Editor, Cannabis Canada
email: [m--g--s] at [hempbc.com]     web: http://www.hempbc.com    
phone: (604) 669-9069              fax: (604) 669-9038
Suite 420- 21 Water St., Vancouver, B. C., Canada, V6B 1A1