Evidence simply doesn’t support Harper’s claim about marijuana

Conservative leader makes an inadvertent argument for legalization

For those who feel the niqab debate has run its course — or should never have ranked as an issue in the first place — the good news is we have plenty of campaign-worthy issues to discuss.

And it’s not as though the Conservatives have been singlemindedly focused on the niqab issue, either. Stephen Harper, for example, made a rather objectionable observation about marijuana over the weekend, which is a perfect excuse to bring the issue of prohibition to the forefront.

Say what you will about Justin Trudeau and the Liberals, but the fact that a major political party has proposed to legalize marijuana is hugely significant. And long overdue. Perhaps the fact that so many Canadians are prepared to abandon the status quo has muted the controversy, but it’s surprising that Trudeau hasn’t pressed this issue harder.

For someone so at odds with public opinion, the Conservative leader appears more than willing to engage on this issue. A bolder Liberal leader would be more than happy to oblige. Harper’s bizarre declaration is the perfect opening.

The issue did come up during last Friday’s French- language leaders’ debate, but the following day, Harper doubled down. Harper noted the success we’ve had in reducing tobacco use in Canada, but then declared that “tobacco is a product that does a lot of damage — marijuana is infinitely worse.”

Such a claim must not go unchallenged.

It should be noted that Harper has walked right into an obvious contradiction. If tobacco is legal, how can we possibly have had success in significantly reducing teenage usage? Harper is inadvertently making the case for legalization and regulation.

But on what basis is Harper claiming that marijuana is worse — infinitely worse — than tobacco?

First and foremost is the fact that tobacco is responsible for thousands upon thousands of deaths each year in Canada — well over 30,000 annually. Deaths directly attributable to marijuana use are, for all intents and purposes, zero.

Of course, marijuana use leads to impairment, whereas tobacco does not. We don’t want marijuana-impaired drivers behind the wheel, for example. However, the extent of the problem in Canada isn’t clear, and it’s hard to see how the problem would be much worse than it is already. There’s also no shortage of debate over what should constitute a legal limit.

But there’s lots of research indicating that cigarette smokers themselves are at a higher risk of being involved in a crash, so it’s not as though tobacco gets a pass here. One might also note the fact that careless cigarette use remains a leading cause of home fire deaths in Canada.

But even if one factors in the risks associated with marijuana use — and no one is claiming they don’t exist — they still pale in comparison to the toll exacted by tobacco use. When it comes to marijuana, the greatest risks exist for young people, and like alcohol and tobacco, our goal here is to respect the freedom of consenting adults while keeping the drug away from kids.

If we added up all the costs to society ( and don’t forget that marijuana has medicinal benefits, unlike tobacco) and then chose which of the two drugs we could vanquish immediately from the face of the Earth, which decision would offer the greatest benefit to public health?

British researcher David Nutt led an investigation a few years ago along exactly these lines, and ranked 16 drugs on a combined score of their harm to the user and harm to society. On both counts, tobacco was deemed worse than marijuana ( alcohol ranked the most harmful).

Harper’s claim, therefore, is completely at odds with the evidence. But so, too, is our status quo. Whether Harper actually believes it is unclear, but the fact is he needs it to be true. Otherwise, his position crumbles.

But if ever a position deserved to crumble, it’s this. So let’s have this debate.