Laws against cannabis in this country are the domain of the federal government. This is because cannabis is currently a controlled substance subject to the provisions of federal criminal law. In the current political climate, Stephen Harper’s Conservative government is unlikely to consider changes to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. But this hasn’t stopped activists in B.C. from pushing hard to end cannabis prohibition.
Sensible BC is pushing forward a ballot initiative that would direct the B.C. provincial government to pass the Sensible Policing Act. It would redirect all police in the province from taking any action, including searches, seizures, citations or arrests, in cases of simple cannabis possession by adults. This would apply to all RCMP and municipal police in B.C.
The success of these initiatives relies heavily on the political opportunity created by the intersection of media coverage and police claims about marijuana production in this province. In the past ten years, newspapers in B.C. have routinely covered marijuana issues by repeatedly pointing out the extent to which the production of this plant is controlled by organized crime and beset with violence and general social chaos. In a move sure to have the scholars of social movements talking for years, Stop the Violence BC (STV-BC) has moved into the space created by this media/police spectacle and garnered the support of key politicians, including four former Attorney Generals, to oppose the continued prohibition of cannabis.
Yesterday, one of STV-BC’s founders, Dr. Evan Wood, spoke at a study session at the annual Union of B.C. Municipalities convention in advance of a vote on a resolution on decriminalization scheduled for Wednesday of this week. His presentation emphasized the failures of prohibition and urged the audience to consider regulation as an alternative. This study session featured a debate between Wood and a key opponent of regulation, Dr. Darryl Plecas, RCMP University Research Chair at the University College of the Fraser Valley.
Plecas’ support for municipal programs that crack down on grow ops did not sit well with some members of the audience, especially where these programs have unnecessarily targeted innocent homeowners with intrusive electrical inspections and fines. The comments of his fellow opponents of regulation including Dave Williams, RCMP, and Pat Slack, Snohomish Regional Drug and Gang Task Force in Washington State, also seemed to admit the failure of drug prohibition even as these speakers ardently opposed the regulation of cannabis. This was apparent in their repeated comments that cannabis enforcement usually results in market displacement rather than eradication.
Another speaker at this debate, Geoff Plant, a former B.C. Attorney General, grabbed the attention of his audience by speaking directly to their concerns about rising costs, and emphasizing that current laws are out of step with the social, economic and other potential harms of cannabis use. He urged them to consider that a law that is routinely and widely flouted makes all law a joke. Plant evoked laughter from his audience when he suggested that we need to get over our “multigenerational Reefer Madness” and deal with drugs as a public health issue, rather than through a failed criminal justice policy.
These sentiments were echoed in a public event sponsored by Sensible BC later in the evening. Dana Larson kicked off the ballot initiative campaign with a roster of speakers who again forcefully made the case that current cannabis laws are routinely disregarded and that its harms do not nearly approximate the harms that ensue from continued prohibition, which include a vast underground economy, loss of tax revenue, drug violence, and an unregulated product.
While speakers from both of these events were able to make the case that drug laws need to be changed, the “how” of cannabis regulation still requires further development and some creative thinking.
The CDPC is committed to talking with Canadians about the possibilities of cannabis regulation and helping to build a regulatory framework that takes into consideration what we’ve learned from public health approaches to alcohol and tobacco. Stay tuned for more.
