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