To Pot

Legalizing marijuana would benefit everyone: cops, taxpayers, and victims of crime. Everyone, that is, but the stoners
Photograph from Reuters/Mark BlanchReuters/Mark BlanchA man waves a marijuana leaf flag during 2010’s 4/20 rally in Toronto

At the sound of the tone, the time will be 4:20 p.m… bong!

Everybody, let’s be honest — some of you heard that, because some of you are stoned. Such is life in Canada, one of the planet’s leading consumers of cannabis. In 2009, 11 percent of Canadians over the age of fifteen admitted to having used marijuana, hashish, or another cannabinoid at least once, a rate of prevalence that almost trebled the worldwide mean. Jack Layton, Stockwell Day, Neil Young, Pamela Anderson, and several Margaret Atwood characters are all, shall we say, experienced. Stephen Harper, notably, is not.

Within cannabis culture, 420 — always “four twenty,” never “four hundred twenty” — is universal shorthand for:

• A citizenship test (“Roommate wanted. Deposit: $420”);
• Marijuana itself (“Mary, how much for an ounce of 420?”);
• Daily tee-off time (“Quarter past four — roll quickly, Jane”);
• April 20, the day of magical thinking, when potheads rally in the streets to smoke pot together (“Dude, let’s call in sick on 4/20”).


Good StuffFor some tipplers, the end of Prohibition spelled last callIllustration by Joel KimmelJoel KimmelThough swigging moonshine could cause blindness, paralysis, or even death, the homemade brew — also known as mountain dew, white lightnin’, or white mule — had its adherents, even after Prohibition was repealed in 1933. The hooch was “raw and fiery to the civilized palate, with a faint smoky aroma,” mused a writer in Lippincott’s Monthly Magazine. One Kentucky “revenuer” (the colloquial term for federal agents responsible for regulating alcohol production) reported hearing that a majority of drinkers in his district “considered [moonshine] much better” in taste and effect. William Faulkner himself was reputed to prefer his booze illicit: “Between scotch and nothing, I suppose I’d take scotch,” he famously remarked. “It’s the nearest thing to good moonshine I can find.”

Amelia Schonbek
In recent years, scores of 4/20 events have shifted to early May, grouped under the banner of the Global Marijuana March (the reasons are sketchy; stoners are poor explainers). Last May 1, Toronto’s edition of the GMM drew 40,000 participants to Queen’s Park, the seat of Ontario’s government. As usual, it climaxed with a 4:20 countdown to mass ignition. This spring, GMM organizers have targeted 420 international cities as host sites, including (as usual) Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Regina, Calgary, Edmonton, and Vancouver.

Officially, the march is a protest against prohibition. Cannabis consumption has been illegal in Canada since 1923. The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act prescribes up to six months in prison and a $1,000 fine for possession of thirty or fewer grams of marijuana. (Until 1998, the ban included its distant, non-euphoric cousin, industrial hemp.) Still, police rarely interfere with 4/20 events; the website for Toronto’s GMM claims an eleven-year streak of zero arrests. A cop I know who works in the Greater Toronto Area recently told me that 85 percent of his colleagues can’t be bothered to arrest someone for smoking a joint. The crime is considered unworthy of the paperwork, he said.

During the past decade, Parliament has thrice discussed decriminalizing the personal use of cannabis — a half measure that would mildly benefit users (including medical marijuana patients), but leave the hidden foundations of Canada’s $20-billion pot industry in place. The bolder, better choice is legalization, which would root out criminal organizations, including Asian triads and the Hells Angels, which are known to operate some of the country’s estimated 50,000 clandestine grow houses. Legalization would slash hydro theft, move cultivation out of suburban cul-de-sacs, and give farmers a sustainable cash crop. The police would be able to investigate more harmful crimes; courts could decide more important cases. It would stop wholesalers from accepting cocaine from American buyers as payment for pot, a shockingly routine occurrence. And it would prevent marijuana’s unknown Seagrams and Bronfmans from stockpiling fortunes that the Canada Revenue Agency will never see.

Legalization also happens to be the best way to stop the party. Think about how our culture romanticizes law-breaking during Prohibition: running rum across the Windsor-Detroit border was cool; crossing the St. Lawrence with a load of whisky by moonlight was sexy. Now think about how few cannabis users are caught, let alone punished — and realize that the great majority of potheads get to romanticize themselves, because they are cool and sexy and totally getting away with it.

Dry mouth notwithstanding, marijuana is a major social lubricant. It bonds artists with bankers, neighbours with neighbours, and teachers with students. The drug’s illegality gives users something to talk about. Strangers become friends while spying over one another’s shoulders for authority figures — or, roughly once per year, while marching together in rages against the machine’s least fearsome laws.

Little do they realize they are burning themselves. As odd as it sounds, legalization would constitute a victory of sorts in the otherwise unwinnable war on drugs — because retailing pot is one of the worst punishments our government could reasonably inflict on potheads. If you doubt that, try buying a bottle of scotch after midnight, or a pack of cigarettes without photo ID. Meanwhile, cannabis transactions can happen at any time, anywhere (no shoes, no shirt, so what?). Cash moves from buyer to seller, from white market to black, and the only Canadians seeing an advantage are the ones lighting up, and the others taking tax-free payments all the way up the chain.

A national policy of legalization, licensing, and taxation would bring cannabis in line with alcohol and tobacco, both of which are more damaging to consume. There would be an uproar from certain groups — Debbie Downers and the US DEA, for instance — and from cannabis consumers, who would trade their outlaw freedoms for sales receipts with calculated HST. But if that day ever dawns — i.e., if the government chooses to redirect the proceeds from a massive, entrenched industry toward health care, infrastructure, and other public goods — it only seems natural that the mood across the country would become a bit… higher.

14 comment(s)

Evan ComstockMarch 14, 2011 12:00 EST

It is true, legalization would alter the party.
For generations, marijuana has remained at a price that consumers could afford, and more importantly marijuana has remained available.
With taxation and retail fees, smokers lose out.
However,
Tax is collected to offset the costs of public utilities, healthcare.
Marijuana smokers do not pay their fair share into the pot, where the care for their emphysema and other lung diseases are paid for by the general public.
So a tax does seem waranted.

FredMarch 15, 2011 23:28 EST

Recent studies have indicated that marijuana is not as bad for your lungs as Tobacco is. Indeed, some preliminary studies have show that it may repair damage done to the lungs, by encouraging apoptosis, which is a natural process in which unhealthy cells are pruned by the body.

More information and studies are certainly needed to confirm, but the precedent is there - people who smoke only marijuana rarely have lung problems - even if they smoke up to 6 joints a day.

Matt ProkMarch 16, 2011 17:10 EST

Generally, i thoroughly enjoy every single article/essay from the Walrus. However, as a University Student and frequent marijuana user, i find this article perplexing.
First, for any reader who is not privy to the (seemingly common) knowledge of Marijuana Myths vs. Marijuana facts, this article failed to illustrate any of the evidence of physical harms, criminal stigma, tax dollars spent on policing, etc.
Further, based on what i generally see to be the premise of the article, legalizing marijuana would somehow alienate the user? This was not fully explained in the article.
Rather, i will tell you that the purchase of Marijuana at a micro level remains dangerous, unreliable and relatively (to other goods) expensive.Marijuana is not accessible by the push of a cell phone. Often, dealers are too busy, etc, etc.
The legalization of Marijuana would bring reputability and transparency to a natural hallucinogen.
In conclusion, it is impossible to speculate about the actions of society if it were to be legalized. Please write a much more damning and inspiring essay/article on one of the most ludicrous laws still remaining in Canada.

GaryMarch 21, 2011 21:59 EST

Hard to comprehend that in 2011 we are still living in a society that criminalizes the possession and consumption of a medicinal herb with a very long history of providing benign benefits for healing minds and bodies. Let's see, we have no problem with caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, sugar and dubious prescription medications that have proven medium to serious deleterious effects on the those same minds and bodies.

We are indeed a strange species.

RickMarch 30, 2011 08:29 EST

Sorry about your luck with dealers Matt. Move to Calgary.

AnonymousMarch 30, 2011 10:52 EST

Hear, Hear Mr. Prok. Hear, hear.

BrendanApril 20, 2011 12:03 EST

I imagine everyone would lose.

One of the reasons alcohol and nicotine abuse are so prevalent is because they are legal drugs. Sure, legalizing marijuana would bring in tax dollars, but would it bring in enough to cover the scores of people taking up the new high? The illegality of the drug is a barrier for many would be smokers.

MaxApril 20, 2011 13:58 EST

Brendan - "would it bring in enough to cover the scores of people taking up the new high"? Err, cover what, exactly? The health care-related costs of regular marijuana use are pretty difficult to pin down and untangle from, say, the effects of urban pollution and our society-wide shift towards greater levels of physical inactivity. Even if we could clearly identify the costs (and identify the percentage of users who lit up as a direct result of legalization), they would be inconsequential when compared to the windfall - both in terms of reduced policing/incarceration costs and tax revenues - associated with legalization.

Besides, marijuana use is already "prevalent," and if you think its current status as a controlled substance prevents people from accessing it then you're either willfully ignorant or legally blind. We're essentially lighting billions of dollars every year on fire in order to satisfy a moral bias that we've decided to adopt against a plant. We've had the luxury of doing so in the past, but the budget crunch we're in and the ones that are surely to come (thanks, baby boomers) will deprive us of that option. It's high time to place reason above passion on this issue.

ErikApril 20, 2011 13:58 EST

Brendan

Alcohol abuse would be just as prevolent if it were illiegal as it was in the past.

Unfortunately, as humans, we like our drugs, be it nicotene, caffeine, THC or Alcohol. We enjoy the escape from the days problems, to feel/see something differently than we do normaly. To open our minds to new thoughts and experiences.

Why is it up to the governement to tell me I cannot ingest something that is not hurting anyone else if I am a responsible adult as they do with Alcohol and Tobacco. There needs to be guidlines for when and where you can use it, like not at work or while driving(like alcohol). But we shouldn't be put in jail for it. Jail does not help a drug abuser. Proper treatment with councilors and medical staff will help someone who needs it.

Sorry for the long rant.

HeatherApril 20, 2011 14:47 EST

I disagree with both Matt and Brendan

While there is a counterculture rebellious ethos that surrounds pot, i think it is most prominent among young people (look for the obligatory college dorm marijuana leaf poster and ubiquitous marley tunes) who incorporate pot use into their adolescent/young adult rebellion. The mystique of illegality adds to the thrill of use and lets kids feel like theyre fighting 'the man'.

Among more mature pot smokers, i've found the thrill of illegality to be displaced by an ideological resentment of irrational anti-pot laws and the frankly unjustified state infringement on our liberties they represent. These individuals are often politically informed, philisophically grounded, and fundamentally opposed to anti-pot legislation for its societal effects as much as for the inconvenience and risk it presents users. To say that these people "get to romanticize themselves, because they are cool and sexy and totally getting away with it" as though the depth of their engagement involves some juvenile 'cool kids' vs. 'the man' dialectic in which the government is some monolithic enemy rather than an institution of and for the people, is both inaccurate and unfair. Many of us view what we're 'getting away with' - marijuana use - as a noncrime, with its most harmful societal effects stemming from its illegality rather than its use. The libertarian underpinnings of much of this movement present significant questions for all canadians - what is the legitimate role of government in policing our bodies, on what grounds do our laws rest, and is the government behaving in line with the will of its electorate or with its ideology. To disregard this movement as a side effect of a shallow and self-involved quest for indulgence and rebel cred serves only to ensure that our debate on the subject remains superficial, uninformed, and one-sided. The 'social lubricant' effects you describe stem not from the physiological effects of cannabis, but from people getting together, discussing issues, and bonding over common ideals and goals. This essential aspect of civil society will not be eroded by the legalization of pot, but rather strengthened by the open, honest, and critical debate surrounding it.

JRMay 04, 2011 14:37 EST

Forget about healing herbs, historical use, rebel images, etc. What this article fails to address is the none of your business factor! As long as our actions cause no harm to others, they should not be criminal, EVER! Much like Trudeau focused Government away from the bedrooms of the state, our society needs to stop dictating what is good or bad for individuals. If we truly live in a "free" society then this should not even be a question. As a free society, we should definitely not be building bigger prisons to punish the victims of illicit drug abuse.

We need to put drug dealers and the associated "Black Market" out of business. Prohibition, and even punitive taxation (cigarettes), allow cartels to control these markets. When a pound of whatever costs the same amount of money as a pound of coffee, do you think anyone is going to bother to unwillingly sell their body or steal to support their habits anymore?

The human suffering tied to legal and illicit substance addiction is staggering. What we need to focus on is the social problems any substance abuse create. We need to continue to say as a society, I don't think (smoking, drinking, pot, junk food, etc. ) is the best choice for your health. Here are some "more" healthy alternates....

J.May 17, 2011 17:06 EST

There are two reseans why the governemnt will never change the prohibition laws.

First, you cannot generate tax revenue from this product as there is no capture point for the wanted revenues. Anyone can produce this product with the most ubiquitous of technologies/skills and it requires no special or expensive processing or inputs unlike other drugs such as tobacco (flue cure), alcohol (distilation, bottling) and perscription (lab). The product would become so common that the price will most certainly collapse hurting both the governemnt and the large black market producers. The black market would be in better position to deal with this than the government as they would just have to settle for Yukons instead of Escalades as they under cut government pricing. And forget about a \"license\" like fishing or hunting for growing and consumption. Who would buy that ,really, if you are quiet about your consumption and production.

Second, law enforcement currently has no definitive way of calculating your level of intoxication when operating a motor vehicle or other machines. Unlike the breath box for drunk driver testing, there is no yard stick to hold someone too yet. Yes there are tests that show consumption, but not like alcohol where it can be said you had XX amount in you when you hit that light pole.

Who would benefit the most are the persons that the authour claims would suffer from removal of prohibition. This is true as prices would come down, more product would become available when the legal stigma is removed and product quality would rise from competition. The government at best would realise only a savings and not a generated return for thier actions and law enforcement would need a retooling to deal with the new reality. If all of us can live with the taxation catch 22 and someone invents a device for the road side test, then \"To Pot\" for those who want it I say.

KevinApril 20, 2012 16:07 EST

I agree with J. what taxes. People would just grow their own.

SteveApril 22, 2012 21:35 EST

While I've smoked at home in Australia, I don't smoke pot in Canada and I don't smoke pot in the Netherlands where I currently live. Legalised pot doesn't seem to have harmed society here and makes buying it an exercise in getting exactly what you want out of a smoke.

From experience I can tell you that I'd rather go out at night to a bar full of stoned people than a bar full of drunk people - the violence around alcohol is significant and has a huge impact on society.

From discussions I've had with a range of people the main argument seems to be that pot leads to hard drugs which leads to prostitution, robbery, kidnapping, and every other crime possible it seems. This would seem to be an argument that needs to be countered as its one of the scare stories that is often touted.

The law will only get changed if you can influence the middle ground, not those on the extremes.

Add a comment

  
I agree to walrusmagazine.com’s comments policy.

Canada & its place in the world. Published by
the non-profit charitable Walrus Foundation
TwitterFacebookRSS
On newsstands now
New Issue on Sale
June 2012
Subscribe online for as little as $2.49 an issue. Visit The Walrus Store
to buy prints of our covers
The Walrus Foundation National Event Guide

The Walrus HOOPP Pension Debate
Be It Resolved That Canadians Are Incapable
of Saving for Their Retirement Needs Alone

12 pm, Wednesday, May 30 at
Hart House Debate Room, Toronto

The Walrus Glenbow Debate
Calgary’s Cowboy Culture:
Living Legacy or Just History?

6:30 pm, Thursday, June 7 at
Epcor Centre: Max Bell Theatre, Calgary

The Walrus Laughs
The Walrus SoapBox