Wynne’s one toke too many
THE IDEA OF LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA HAS NEVER BEEN DEEPLY EXAMINED.
OK, I’ ll say it: What was she smoking?
Except that Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne’s vision of a staterun monopoly on the fragrant weed, courtesy of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, is quite plausible, given the logic of imminent legalization. What becomes readily apparent, as t he federal Liberals continue to find their footing, is that the idea of legalization of marijuana has never been deeply examined.
Legalization was a terrific attention- getter in 2013, and a powerful emblem of change. That worked for Justin Trudeau two years ago. It highlighted his youth and cool. It made Stephen Harper and his sternly anti- pot front bench look like fussy old bores — Sister Matilda, waggling a disapproving finger at the rambunctious kids at the back of the bus.
But that was then. Scratch beneath the surface and the file is rife with complex problems — social, legal and political. Members of the snowboard- andmunchie set, consequently, may have to wait a bit before they can proudly present themselves, bong in hand, at their local liquor store, and order a gram of what we used to call the Polio, which removes one’s ability to stand up.
Which is, of course, as good a place as any to begin. What self- respecting stoner would be caught dead buying marijuana in a state- owned store, with the government’s blessing? At least half of pot’s appeal, when I was a teenager, was its illegality. This was something one did furtively, off the books. It was a middle digit raised defiantly toward authority. The actual taste, not to mention the smell, I’m sure most people found appalling, and still do.
Marijuana use is, of course, more socially acceptable now than it was in the early 1980s. My sense though, from speaking about this to young people, is that counter- culture is still part of the cachet. Setting medicinal marijuana dispensaries to one side, therefore, it seems this future state- owned enterprise is ripe for bootlegging. Baby boomers of the Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix era may enjoy a subtle frisson as they watch their B.C. bud get bagged alongside the evening’s Pinot noir. But it’s difficult to see how teenagers — for whom pot acquisition was supposed to become more difficult, under a new regulatory regime — can be prevented from continuing to obtain it from wherever they do now.
Those sources, as the Lib- erals have correctly pointed out for years, are everywhere. The price of illegal pot cannot help but be well below the LCBO standard, due to the lack of taxation and, let’s face it, the absence of public- service wage rates and a benefit plan for growop staff.
All of this raises questions of enforcement, which itself will have a cost. Statesanctioned grow ops will in effect compete with momand- pop outfits operating off the books. Will there be criminal sanctions for bootleggers and, if so, what will those be?
And there’s another aspect to this that is potentially far more problematic, as the state of Colorado has discovered. T hat is marijuana- impaired drivi ng. Colorado began the process of legalization for medical use in 2006, and since 2013 has implemented full legalization. Data gathered by the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, established to monitor the effects of legalization, shows a dramatic increase in impaired driving due to marijuana. In 2014, according to a report released in September, the rise in pot- related road deaths was 32 per cent. From 2010 to 2014, the rise in marijuana- related traffic deaths was 92 per cent, compared with an eight per cent increase in all Colorado traffic fatalities over the same period.
The difficult with pot and impaired driving, very simply, is that unlike drunk driving, there is no quick way to test for it. The det ermination usually occurs after the fact, with a blood sample. There’s also no standard “dose” of THC ( Tetrahydrocannabinol), after which a person can neatly be deemed impaired, because different people react to the drug in different ways. One person’s catatonic slumber ( I speak from past experience, here) might be another’s mild buzz.
This raises the question of what’s to prevent our aforementioned nostalgic boomers from sparking up a fatty in the Volvo in the L CBO parking l ot, t hen driving home? More broadly: If smoking pot is legal but doing so before or while driving is not, how can this be enforced? Also, how will regulators establish the length of any post- puff “cooling- off ” period, given the drug’s residual effects last longer in some than in others?
In his mandate l etter to Justice Minister Jody Wilson- Raybould, Prime Minister Trudeau put legalizing marijuana sixth on the to- do list, well down from dealing with physician- assisted death, and convening an inquiry into murdered and missing i ndigenous women. Overhauling criminal- justice sentencing is fourth on the list.
Each of those reforms, particularly the first two, will require intense focus and consume a great deal of political oxygen, and capital. Given this, and the sheer thorniness of marijuana legalization, it should be no surprise if this gets shoved to the back burner. Ganja liberalization activi sts: Best not hold your breath.