VIANARCHRIS
Well-Known Member
PART 2
The chief question back then was whether there was a well-founded social concern about cannabis’s non-medical use, and if so, how that concern should express itself in social policy. The issue turned on the question of whether marijuana was harmful.
Le Dain and his four fellow commissioners concluded the developing brains of adolescents could be damaged by cannabis and singled that out as the most serious issue in the legalization debate.
“There is a good deal to suggest that frequent use of cannabis may have adverse effects on these functions, mainly because of its effect on short-term memory and attention. It is a virtual certainty that heavy use of cannabis will have an adverse effect on these functions,” they wrote.
“It seems completely unrealistic to assume that adolescents, beginning as early as the age of 12, can persistently resort to cannabis intoxication with its hallucinogenic effects without seriously interfering with development of the capacity to cope with reality that is an essential part of the process of maturation.”
It recommended no one under 18 be allowed to legally possess marijuana, but acknowledged that making it available to adults would, like booze and cigarettes, have the effect of making it more available to minors. Adult use also would make it seem relatively harmless to kids.
Beyond that, however, the inquiry found no evidence to support 50 years of “reefer madness” sensationalism.
Emily Murphy, a police magistrate and juvenile court judge in Edmonton, and later leader of the Famous Five champions of the rights of Canadian women, had spearheaded an anti-narcotics campaign in the 1920s that would profoundly influence national drug policies, including the demonization of cannabis. Her 1922 book, Black Candle, warned of the menace of marijuana and quoted the chief of police of Los Angeles saying many users experienced utter insanity.
Some believe Murphy’s fear-mongering led to marijuana being criminalized in 1923 without any apparent public debate, scientific basis or any real sense of social urgency. Over the years, stiffer penalties for opium, heroin and other heavy narcotics were automatically applied to cannabis. And its increasing illegality seemed to make it more dangerous.
Yet a Senate committee examining drug trafficking in 1955 reported no domestic marijuana problems beyond a few isolated seizures from foreigners and returning Canadian tourists.
No matter, the maximum sentence for trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking was doubled to 14 years. Then, in 1961, trafficking and possession for the purpose offences became liable to life imprisonment – just as the leading edge of the baby boom entered teenagehood. Simple possession, as an indictable offence, was punishable by up to seven years in prison. A summary conviction carried a maximum six months in jail and/or a $1,000 first-time fine and $2,000 for subsequent convictions. (The average annual Canadian wage then was about $5,700.)
Lawmakers had no inkling of the dilemma their legislation would cause in the late ’60s by disproportionately targeting middle-class kids and young adults looking to get high. It took another eight years for the social and political consequences to waft up to Parliament Hill and, in 1969, spark the four-year Le Dain inquiry.
“The attempt to enforce the prohibition … is bringing the criminal law to bear against thousands of young people with very serious consequences for their lives,” Le Dain later declared.
The growing costs for police, prosecutors and the courts was another concern, as was the hit-and-miss prosecutorial assault on recreational dopers. The law, the commission revealed, was catching less than one per cent of a conservative estimate of the total number of users. “A law which can only be enforced in a haphazard and accidental manner is an unjust law,” it proclaimed.
It recommended laws against trafficking and distribution be softened but kept on the books to restrict availability. And it called for what became a new law against the cultivation of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.
Reaction to the report split along predictable lines: Church and social groups approved. Police, justice officials and many politicians did not.
British Columbia premier W.A.C. Bennett summed up The Establishment response: “I am opposed to the legalization of these drugs, period, double period, triple period.”
The chief question back then was whether there was a well-founded social concern about cannabis’s non-medical use, and if so, how that concern should express itself in social policy. The issue turned on the question of whether marijuana was harmful.
Le Dain and his four fellow commissioners concluded the developing brains of adolescents could be damaged by cannabis and singled that out as the most serious issue in the legalization debate.
“There is a good deal to suggest that frequent use of cannabis may have adverse effects on these functions, mainly because of its effect on short-term memory and attention. It is a virtual certainty that heavy use of cannabis will have an adverse effect on these functions,” they wrote.
“It seems completely unrealistic to assume that adolescents, beginning as early as the age of 12, can persistently resort to cannabis intoxication with its hallucinogenic effects without seriously interfering with development of the capacity to cope with reality that is an essential part of the process of maturation.”
It recommended no one under 18 be allowed to legally possess marijuana, but acknowledged that making it available to adults would, like booze and cigarettes, have the effect of making it more available to minors. Adult use also would make it seem relatively harmless to kids.
Beyond that, however, the inquiry found no evidence to support 50 years of “reefer madness” sensationalism.
Emily Murphy, a police magistrate and juvenile court judge in Edmonton, and later leader of the Famous Five champions of the rights of Canadian women, had spearheaded an anti-narcotics campaign in the 1920s that would profoundly influence national drug policies, including the demonization of cannabis. Her 1922 book, Black Candle, warned of the menace of marijuana and quoted the chief of police of Los Angeles saying many users experienced utter insanity.
Some believe Murphy’s fear-mongering led to marijuana being criminalized in 1923 without any apparent public debate, scientific basis or any real sense of social urgency. Over the years, stiffer penalties for opium, heroin and other heavy narcotics were automatically applied to cannabis. And its increasing illegality seemed to make it more dangerous.
Yet a Senate committee examining drug trafficking in 1955 reported no domestic marijuana problems beyond a few isolated seizures from foreigners and returning Canadian tourists.
No matter, the maximum sentence for trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking was doubled to 14 years. Then, in 1961, trafficking and possession for the purpose offences became liable to life imprisonment – just as the leading edge of the baby boom entered teenagehood. Simple possession, as an indictable offence, was punishable by up to seven years in prison. A summary conviction carried a maximum six months in jail and/or a $1,000 first-time fine and $2,000 for subsequent convictions. (The average annual Canadian wage then was about $5,700.)
Lawmakers had no inkling of the dilemma their legislation would cause in the late ’60s by disproportionately targeting middle-class kids and young adults looking to get high. It took another eight years for the social and political consequences to waft up to Parliament Hill and, in 1969, spark the four-year Le Dain inquiry.
“The attempt to enforce the prohibition … is bringing the criminal law to bear against thousands of young people with very serious consequences for their lives,” Le Dain later declared.
The growing costs for police, prosecutors and the courts was another concern, as was the hit-and-miss prosecutorial assault on recreational dopers. The law, the commission revealed, was catching less than one per cent of a conservative estimate of the total number of users. “A law which can only be enforced in a haphazard and accidental manner is an unjust law,” it proclaimed.
It recommended laws against trafficking and distribution be softened but kept on the books to restrict availability. And it called for what became a new law against the cultivation of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.
Reaction to the report split along predictable lines: Church and social groups approved. Police, justice officials and many politicians did not.
British Columbia premier W.A.C. Bennett summed up The Establishment response: “I am opposed to the legalization of these drugs, period, double period, triple period.”