Give pot a chance

So here we go again about pot. On Wednesday, the Union of B.C. Municipalities pushed a resolution to lobby the federal government to decriminalize marijuana. Prince George Coun. Brian Skakun voted and spoke in favour of the resolution, calling it a revenue issue as well as a way to ease the backlog in the court systems. “I think it’s about being progressive. I’m not going to judge someone on whether or not they smoke pot,” he said. “I mean, I tried it when I was younger. I turned out okay.” While proponents like Skakun cited a potential revenue stream governments were missing out on, those in opposition decried the effect decriminalization would have on young people and its lack of effect on organized crime. “I think this resolution is a thinly disguised attempt to take an important issue of principle and make it all about money,” said Tom Siddon, a director with the Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen. “As a teacher, a school trustee formerly and a parent and grandparent of 10, I worry about where we’re leading our nation in the values we set as elected politicians. I think we’ve been frying too many brains.” The Stephen Harper government has made it abundantly clear that the UBCM and anybody else can lobby all they want about pot decriminalization, it ain’t gonna happen under his watch. In 2009, the minority Conservative government brought forward legislation introducing mandatory minimum sentencing for cannabis trafficking, which died on the House of Commons floor when Parliament was dissolved. There’s no reason to believe a similar bill won’t be back before the Tory majority in the House. Siddon’s statement about opposing pot on principle begs a bigger question. What is the principle behind opposing the decriminalization or even legalization of pot? And even if you buy the principle of pot being bad for society, shouldn’t the principle of dealing a significant blow to organized crime by eliminating a major source of its revenue outweigh that concern about pot? When the United States brought in prohibition, it did so in an attempt to deal with rampant alcoholism and other social issues. The social issues didn’t go away because the booze didn’t go away. It just went underground and into the hands of organized crime, who were happy to take the profits. When prohibition was repealed, it was done so because political leaders realized that the social issues caused by alcohol consumption couldn’t be addressed with a ham-fisted law and the proceeds from alcohol were better served in the hands of government, then in the hands of gangsters (not always the same thing –harharhar!). There is nothing inherently bad about marijuana and its increasing use for medicinal use speaks to that. Booze, on the other hand, from beer and wine right up to the finest Scotch, have no value beyond their taste, the high and the place its production has in our cultural history. Someone asked the often-repeated question on the Citizen website about how many people have died from drunk driving and how many people have died from car crashes where the driver was high? Making pot right by making alcohol consumption wrong isn’t much of an argument, but it does expose the hypocrisy of anyone who defends the legalization of alcohol but rejects decriminalizing pot. Siddon is an elected representative in one of the largest wine-producing regions in the country and if his comments applied to wine, instead of pot, Siddon would soon find himself out of a job. The Okanagan, with its numerous wineries and micro-breweries, is prospering thanks to the production and sales of a product once illegal in the United States. Times change, society changes and outlooks change on a variety of social issues, like alcohol consumption, so why not pot? All we are saying is give pot a chance. But seriously, good for our municipal leaders at UBCM for pushing forward on some progressive action to address a serious social issue – and maybe creatively raise some new revenue in the process.

— Managing editor Neil Godbout