On the Global Sunday talk show – “the forum for the issues and topics that matter most to Canadians,” discusses perceptions of government motives of decriminalizing marijuana and relations between Canada and the U.S. For this topic ‘why decriminalize marijuana,’ host Heather Hiscox interviews Allan Young, Osgoode Hall law professor for a more realistic approach to marijuana. Professor Young says:
“Too much talk, we should have done something about it thirty years ago, but I think the reason why it's front and centre is because we live now in an era where there's more Canadians smoking marijuana than ever. Plus the fact we're devoting more law enforcement resources prohibiting cannabis so there's sort of a log jam there. More people smoking, more police officers enforcing the law. Something's got to break. Canada would no different than it is today. The only thing that would happen is we'd free up a lot of money to fight predatory crime, serious crime. But in terms of Canadian social life, we're not going to become a nation of potheads. Studies show that any country that decriminalizes, consumption rates usually drop or stay the same. A lot of young people smoke marijuana because of the forbidden fruit syndrome. You take away that criminal allure and suddenly consumption rates go down. So the only things that would happen would be good things…” (CN Staff, 2002).
Despite the fact that marijuana is illegal, it is still included in several drug survey studies. One of the social cognitive concerns is teens and marijuana. The 2003 Ontario Student Drug Use Survey (OSDUS) is the longest ongoing school survey of adolescents in Canada. A study research conducted by the Institute for Social Research, York University describes drug use in 2003 and changes since 1977. According to results, the average age of first cannabis use is currently about 14; historically this age increased throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, and now decreased again in recent years (OSDUS, 2003). No one is advocating marijuana use by teens. Just as some young people have always obtained alcohol, though, some will obtain marijuana. The “gateway theory” which emphasizes that marijuana leads to serious drugs such as heroine or cocaine. This notion is mistaken for causation of behaviours associated with alcohol consumption. If there were a fundamental base for linking the gateway theory and decriminalization it would only be in the benefit that those who obtain marijuana today often come in contact with criminal black markets, which no longer would profit anything from selling drugs. Thus, it should be available as a legal drug such as alcohol or nicotine – reducing trafficking and large possessions of marijuana.
Many people will accept that marijuana is safer than either tobacco or alcohol, since alcohol consumption has more of the tendency to become partially mental ill and or violent during the time, than marijuana. In particular, a journal article on behavioural assessment discusses anxiety related factors of marijuana. A present investigation evaluated the frequency of use of marijuana results in relation of anxiety and depressive symptoms. For those who drink alcohol, the affectivity and anxiety sensitivity is more negative than marijuana, (Bonn-Miller et al., 2005). After observing the basic factors of marijuana, it is clearly evident by this article that those who smoke marijuana are less likely to engage in criminal or immoral acts. Marijuana is less of a threat than other drug abuse. In the case of, [Dupuis v. Canada (Attorney General).2004, F.C, 919.] the applicant Johnny Dupuis has suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTS) since he fell victim to a criminal act in 1977. On July 29, 2000, Health Canada received an application from Dupuis for an exemption of authorization to possess marijuana for medical purposes (Federal Court, 2004). This case was an application to seek judicial review on constitutional exemption based on section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, asking that Health Canada process the applicant's application under section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, without requiring that he provide a report from a psychiatrist. In the decision of this case, the court did not recognized marijuana as a treatment for the symptoms of PTSD (post-traumatic stress distress or any other anxiety disorder, including chronic stress, (Federal Court, 2004).
What about health effects? -- Marijuana is not completely harmless, anyone using marijuana should be aware of the risks. Conversely, the health risks are lower than those for alcohol and tobacco. Besides, there are no mortality statistics that show a significant correlation between marijuana use and early death -- something which cannot be said for tobacco. Although, in any case, the government should not intervene in the health choices of adults in a free society, for this reason some feel infringement on rights and freedoms. Canada being a multicultural/racial society, should consider a popular belief of smoking marijuana as part of religious or cultural rationale (See further, Tucker v. The Queen). A concrete example of religious ideology group is Rastafarians, which hold and express Black identity by people in Jamaica and throughout the world. The liberating of this philosophy is the bonding their activism and social critique with religious beliefs that hold Ehtiopian Emperor Haile Selassie to be the Christ returned (Price, 2003). The Rastafari, being a group and identity are frequently punished because of their beliefs and practices. How is group and cultural discrimination protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? It violates Charter under equality rights. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: a) freedom of conscience and religion; b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and d) freedom of association (Department of Justice Canada).
In the case of, [Tucker v. The Queen. 2003, F.C, 1008.] held on June 23, 2003, the defendant alleges and issue for trial by claiming that their use of marijuana constitutes a religious practice. However, the plaintiff did not consider the grounds for the motion did not raise a genuine issue for trial which is protected by paragraph 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and constitutes a breach of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The defendant contended they are Canadian citizens and that they belief and live their daily lives on the advice of the Lord God’s word -- revealed in The Holy Bible, Book of Revelation (Chapter 22, verse 2). The book states: “In the midst of the street and on either side of the river was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations,” (Federal Court, 2004). In verdict, the court determined no there are no reasonable and probable grounds cause upon which the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act can be used to justify an offence and or punishment in relation to God's Tree of Life, (Federal Court, 2004).
There is a mentality where any permission that the current laws need change is seen as a sign of weakness. However, with the decriminalization of marijuana it sends a sign of strength. It signals that we are trying to make the laws fair and proportionate. In this amendment it encourages respect for the law. Moreover, when people realize that marijuana is not the “bad” drug they have been led to believe, it will not be as big of an issue. Considering the mental health and criminal behavioural assessment of marijuana it is evident that marijuana is a non-threat. Provided all the facts of religious and medicinal rationales, from drug survey reports, to federal court cases, the government clearly infringes and intervenes in the rights and freedoms of persons. The decisions made in many of the court cases, a lot of them were profound under no reasonable grounds and appeals were rejected. In Canada’s future reflection, if marijuana is legalized marijuana sellers would fall short of business, also studies show that there would be no gradual increase on marijuana use. In this, it is also in best interest for law enforcers to focus on the threatening and serious crimes in Canada – not marijuana.
Works Cited
Bonn-Miller, Marcel et al. “Marijuana Use Among Daily Tobacco Smokers: Relationship to Anxiety-Related Factors.” Journal of Psychopathology & Behavioural Assessment. 27.4 (2005): 279-289. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. UOIT-Durham College Library. 30 Sept. 2005 <>.
Department of Justice Canada. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 31 Oct. 2005
<>.
“Dupuis v. Canada (Attorney General).” 05 Jan. 2005. Federal Court. 01 Oct. 2005
<>.
Khoo, Lisa. “Up in smoke? Canada's marijuana law and the debate over decriminalization.” CBC News. 24 Nov. 2004. 01 Oct. 2005 <>.
Price, Charles R. “Social Change and the Development and Co-Optation of a Black Antisystemic Identity: The Case of Rastafarians in Jamaica.” Rastafari Movement. 3.1 (2003): 9-27. . Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. UOIT-Durham College Library. 30 Sept. 2005 <>.
“Should Marijuana Possession be decriminalized?” Global Sunday. 07 October 2002. Cannibasnews.com. 01 Oct. 2005. <>.
“The 2003 OSDUS Drug Report Executive Summary.” 2003. 29 Sept. 2005. <>.
“Tucker v. The Queen.” 05 Jan. 2005. Federal Court. 01 Oct. 2005 <>.
