Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 16:57:05 -0700

Subject:Amusing Development from DEA regarding UMass Amherst project Up TOC

from Rick Doblin, Ph.D., MAPS (www.maps.org)

Friends,

For the last several years, MAPS has been working with Prof. Lyle Craker,
UMass Amherst Dept. of Plant and Soil Sciences, in an effort to obtain a DEA
license to establish a small facility to produce high-potency marijuana for
FDA-approved research. If we can break NIDA's monopoly on the supply of
marijuana (low-potency) that can be used in FDA-approved research, medical
marijuana research will move forward with a substantially greater chance of
success.

In informal discussions, a senior DEA official has indicated to me that DEA
is likely to cite US international treaty obligations from the Single
Convention as preventing private production facilities.  As a result, I've
asked Graham Boyd of the ACLU Drug Policy Litigation Group, and Peter Hutt
and Alexei Silverman of DC law firm Covington & Burling to draft a legal
opinion regarding US Int. treaty obligations, for submission to DEA.  This
opinion is being completed early next week. It's clear to us that the Single
Convention would permit DEA to issue the license, in a manner similar to the
Home Office's licensing of GW Pharmaceuticals. However, it's quite possible
that DEA will disagree.

As an amusing aside, we submitted the application to DEA last June, at the
same time as the MA. Dept. of Public Health application.  I'd been told by
DEA that it wouldn't consider the application until it had state approval,
but thought it best to submit both applications at the same time. In
December, MA. Dept. of Public Health said it had no objections in principle
if DEA was willing to grant the license.  I called DEA then to see what it
had to say, and was told the application was lost!! UMass Amherst Dept. of
Grants and Contracts had saved a photocopy of the original application, with
date stamp showing it was mailed in June 2001, so we faxed that in.  In Feb.
2002, DEA refused to accept the application, saying that it lacked an
original signature (DEA lost the application with the original signature).

I then planned to resubmit a new application with the legal analysis and a
letter from several Congressional reps (signatures gathered by Steve Fox at
MPP) saying they support licensing private production in order to facilitate
medical marijuana research.

Last week, Prof. Craker received a package from DEA. The package had a
printed return address of DEA headquarters, but didn't identify anyone in
particular. There was no letter or card inside. The only thing inside was the
original application and cover letter, date stamped by DEA showing it was
received in June 2001!

DEA has now broken the Administrative Procedures Act, though of course that
doesn't mean much. I spoke to a senior DEA administrator who was incredibly
embarrassed and I think unaware of the license having been found (if it ever
was really lost) and then returned without comment.

Next week the same old application will be returned with the legal analysis
of US Int. Treaty obligations, and a letter from 5 MA. Congressmen saying
they support licensing private production in order to facilitate medical
marijuana research.

Rick Doblin, Ph.D.,
MAPS (www.maps.org)
 ------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 18:20:33 -0700

Subject: Canada: High On (Wink Wink) 'Coffeehouses'

Newshawk: CannabisNews http://cannabisnews.com/
Pubdate: Fri, 19 Jul 2002
Source: Toronto Star (CN ON)
Copyright: 2002 The Toronto Star
Contact: lettertoed@thestar.com
Website: http://www.thestar.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/456
Author: Rosie DiManno
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Cannabis)

HIGH ON (WINK WINK) 'COFFEEHOUSES'

AMSTERDAM - I was supposed to write this column about drug cafes, see? But
(as the song goes) "then I got high, then I got high, then I got high."
Man, I am so ... mellow. Better than a couple of hours ago, though. A
couple of hours ago, I was zonked.

(Disclaimer: It is not my practice to get high whilst working. I am not
advocating drugs. DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME! This was an assignment.)

In the trailing haze of Justice Minister Martin Cauchon's recent admission
that he'd smoked marijuana in his youth (he's still only 39), there has
arisen (I'm told) a rekindled debate about loosening up Canada's drug laws.
Britain took that political toke last week, where those in possession of
marijuana and hashish will not be arrested for simple possession. Millions
of potheads lit up a spliff to celebrate; the national drug czar resigned
in protest.

But in Holland, where I felicitously happen to be at the moment, possession
of pot for personal use has been legal since 1976, which makes Amsterdam in
particular the mecca for stoners. A very laid-back place, especially in the
Damstraat area near the central train station, where the majority of the
city's 300 recognized "coffeeshops" -- euphemism for dope joints -- can be
found. (Of these, 86 also sell alcohol.)

Strictly in pursuit of front-line journalism, we set about investigating
these establishments yesterday, starting out the morning at Barney's
Breakfast Bar, a hole-in-the-wall (as many coffeeshops are) that comes
recommended in many of the local druggie guide books.

(Break here for munchie attack. Clean out entire snack content of hotel
mini-bar.)

At Barney's, run by a jolly Irishmen, I quickly settle on the full Irish
breakfast but have more of a quandary picking from the drug menu: hash,
weed, pre-rolled joints, seeds. A beggar's banquet of mood-altering
substances. Dutch Delight, Sky High, Zero-Zero, Afghan gold, Mother's
Finest, White Widow Special.

In a sentimental mood, I opt for a gram of Mazar-e-Sharif hashish -- it's
slick, black and oily. Also, relatively expensive at 11.50 euros. But,
hell, I'm on expenses.

A mess of bacon, beans and eggs, a pipe of monster hash -- nice way to
start the day. At Barney's, with only a handful of bench tables, patrons
are expected to jam in together. I'm squeezed in with a couple from
Birmingham, old-time tokers in their late 40s, who are just ecstatic about
the drug developments back home. "Bloody well time," snorts Andrew, a
pipe-fitter who has been coming to Amsterdam twice a year since he was a
teenager. "How can smoking a joint hurt anybody? It's crazy that we've been
putting people in jail for it. You don't see smokers starting football
riots, do you? It's relaxing, the last thing you'd want to do is start a
row." His wife, looking up from her copy of the Sun tabloid, murmurs
agreement as she expertly rolls a jay.

Feeling just a pleasant buzz, I meander down the street to Pink Floyd, a
psychedelic coffeehouse where every second song played over the sound
system is by that revered psychotropic band. Elaine, the painfully thin
girl behind the front counter, is just mixing up a batch of batter for the
"Special Cake" that is featured on the menu. I have a piece of it from
under a glass display. It's a ganja-green wedge, surrounded with pink
something-or-other. Cappuccino on the side, as Elaine complains about an
increase of heroin junkies from Northern Africa, whose presence is changing
the ethos of the soft pot neighbourhood. "They make trouble, they bring
crime. Lots of robberies around here."

Holland is specific about the quantity and variety of drugs that it will
legally tolerate. No more than five grams on any individual, only legal for
those above 18, no hard stuff. "The thrust of our drug policy is to
discourage use but combat the drug trade," a police spokesman had earlier
explained to me. "Making soft drugs legal minimizes the risk for users, we
have found."

The drug industry here is not heavily scrutinized, although any coffeehouse
found to have hard drugs on the premises will be immediately shut down.
Hence the warnings posted in most establishments: "No heroin! No cocaine!"

At Blue Velvet, stop for a milkshake and a couple of puffs on a
Tutti-Frutti jay. A large white cat jumps into my lap. Together, we scan
the International Herald Tribune. I read the same paragraph five times. I
cannot remember what I've just read.

ALERT! ALERT! As is rapidly becoming evident, soft drugs have become
remarkably stronger in the years since my youth. Most dope in Amsterdam is
substantially laced with high-quality THC. That doesn't put the grass and
hash around here into the hallucinatory category, but a serious high is to
be expected, especially for those long out of practice.

I am now entering the realm of completely silly. At Freeland, I shoot pool
and watch golf on the TV over the bar. Golf is a stupid game. It's even
stupider -- and slower -- with a buzz on. The owner and I cackle over golf
clothes, golf shoes, golf hats.

He switches the channel and I watch an entire episode of Cheers in Dutch.
This does not strike me as a waste of time. Somewhere in the back of my
expanding head, though, there's an unfinished thought nudging at my brain.

Something I'm supposed to be doing ...

In the Netherlands, there's even a Cannabis Retailers Union, and its
members stick professional decals in their windows. It's all quite
civilized and casual. And perhaps it's this attitude that permitted the
Dutch to go where no Just Say No program would ever dare to go. The
consensus is that cops should spend their time on more important matters
than hauling in nickel-and-dime (bag) users. And -- while statistics can be
massaged any which way -- there's no evidence that Holland's permissive
drug laws have led to a huge social problem or a surge in drug addicts.
Authorities claim there are no more than a thousand drug "nuisances" in
Amsterdam and about 5,000 hard-drug users. For the rest, drugs are a casual
and intermittent diversion.

(Break here. Have become fascinated with music videos on TV. Think Eminem
is poetic and profound. Wonder why I never realized this before.)

I'm looking at a stack of individually wrapped Sweet Tooth joints. Think
these would make nifty souvenirs for friends back in anal-retentive
Toronto. Then I think again.

At Popeye's, I surf the net. And surf contentedly in my head. The man
behind the drug bar is playing a mean air guitar ...

Ducking in and out of coffeehouses now, getting a top-up off second-hand
fumes: Global Chillage, Rookie's Bar, La Grotte with its zebra stools. The
Doors, with Jim Morrison posters on the wall and a yellowed ad for a
Psychedelic Rock line-up at the New Haven Arena, Dec. 10, 1967: The Doors,
Sly and the Family Stone, Jefferson Airplane ...

Write a column! That's it. I'm supposed to be writing a column! Yet
deadlines suddenly don't feel so imperative. Don't worry, be happy.

Order a pint of Amstel at Pub Emmelot, which doesn't sell dope. Watch the
crowd go by in the company of fellow beer drinkers. It's noisier in here
than at any of the chill-out drug cafes. And, in truth, I prefer the more
convivial atmosphere of a saloon. Alcohol is my preferred poison.

Prime Minister Jean Chretien, saying he would leave any movement on
reformed drug legislation to his justice minister, doesn't sound opposed to
the idea -- this, three decades after Canada's Le Dain commission
recommended that cannabis should be decriminalized. Even the Canadian
Medical Association is cool with the idea. After all, with an estimated 3
million Canadians using marijuana and hashish, however sporadically, it
seems silly to classify them as criminals.

I don't know how it would go over in Toronto, though, a city ruled by
health Nazis. Legalize pot and it might lead to -- smoking cigarettes!

Really must take a nap now ...
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Terry Liittschwager 

------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 19:57:25 -0700

Subject:HI: Mayor Kim signs MedMJ rules Up TOC

Honolulu Star-Bulletin
Saturday, July 20, 2002

Kim signs medical pot rules

By Rod Thompson
rthompson@starbulletin.com

HILO >> Big Island Mayor Harry Kim signed two sets of rules yesterday
intended to guide police dealings with marijuana. But the rules appeared to
do nothing to quiet critics of police.

Residents of Puna Beach Palisades south of Hilo were angered Thursday when a
marijuana eradication helicopter landed on a vacant lot to seize 14 plants,
said resident Judith Mura. Residents are circulating a petition to Kim to
halt such activity, she said.

But new eradication rules signed by Kim say nothing for or against
helicopters landing in residential areas, although they do say helicopters
are supposed to stay 500 feet away from homes.

Hilo police, meanwhile, said they had ripped up 9,283 marijuana plants in a
five-day eradication effort that ended yesterday. The plants were ripped up
from 609 separate plots in Puna, Hilo, North Hilo and Hamakua, police said.

Kim also signed medical marijuana rules, which say people with state permits
may have three mature plants among other supplies.

The county definition of "mature" is the same as the state definition in
Hawaii administrative rules. A mature plant is one that "has flowered and has
buds that are readily observed," the rules say.

Critics, including four Big Island medical marijuana patients whose plants
with buds were seized by police in the past two weeks, said the mere presence
of buds does not mean a plant is mature and usable for medicine.

"If an avocado has fruit on it, does that mean (the fruit) is mature?" asked
Tom Mountain of the Honolulu Medical Marijuana Patients' Co-op.

The majority of medical marijuana users are on Oahu, but there are few safe
places on Oahu to grow marijuana, and Big Island police are making medical
marijuana even harder to get, he said.

Police officials drafted the new Big Island rules. They were not available to
comment.

=A9 2002 Honolulu Star-Bulletin -- http://starbulletin.com


 


**




web:     http://www.crrh.org/

------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 10:26:31 -0700

Subject:CMAP: CN ON: Pot law changes pondered  Up TOC

Newshawk: CannabisLink.ca (http://cannabislink.ca)
Pubdate: Friday, July 19, 2002
Source: Orillia Today (CN ON)
Website: http://www.simcoe.com/sc/orillia/
Address: Fitton's West Centre, 425 West Street North, Orillia L3V 7R2
Contact: oeditor@interhop.net
Author: Torstar News Service

Pot law changes pondered

Canada may follow Britain's lead in decriminalizing marijuana use by making
simple possession of small amounts of pot a ticketing offence, said Justice
Minister Martin Cauchon.

"We're not talking about making it legal. We're talking about the
possibility of moving ahead with what we call the decriminalization of
that," said Cauchon.

"It would still be illegal. It wouldn't be criminal, of course; but it would
still be illegal. (The law would be) easier to apply. You would get a
contravention (ticket) and you would have to pay something. I guess we would
be maybe more effective, more efficient in proceeding that way," he said in
response to reporters' questions after a cabinet committee meeting.

In one of the strongest statements by a minister of this government, Cauchon
expressed doubts about the effectiveness of the current laws.

He noted the law makes drug possession a crime, and results in a criminal
record - sometimes jail - for convicted persons. Criminal records can often
lead to a person being barred from professional certification, or from
travel to the U.S. "Very often the legislation will simply not be applied,"
depending on where you live across Canada, said Cauchon.

Cauchon said he will consult with the Senate and Commons committees and the
public before any changes are made.

------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 10:27:49 -0700

Subject:  CMAP:_CN_QU:_Quebec' s_happy_stoners?' 

Newshawk: http://www.marijuanaparty.org/
Pubdate: July 18, 2002
Source: Mirror (CN QU)
Website: http://www.montrealmirror.com/
Address: 400 McGill St., Montreal, Quebec H2Y 2G1
Contact: letters@mtl-mirror.com
Author: Patrick Lejtenyi

Quebec's happy stoners

Pot smokers and those thinking it's high time to get real about marijuana
laws were surprised this week by federal Justice Minister Martin Cauchon's
statements about decriminalizing the weed. Cauchon said it is important for
law enforcement across the country to have one coherent policy, rather than
a patchwork of different ways from province to province.

So which province is best and worst for potheads? According to the most
vocal pot advocates in the country, the federal Marijuana Party, the best
place to smoke is right here.

"Having travelled up and down this country, I'd say Quebec is the best, and
that's shown from having the lowest arrest rates per capita in the country,"
says Marc-Boris St-Maurice, head of the Marijuana Party. "B.C. is second.
And the rest of the provinces all pretty much suck."

When pressed, he admits Ontario probably rates third-although he says it is
still "really bad." And Atlantic Canada and the Prairies are the worst.
St-Maurice thinks rural parts of the country-including Quebec-are more
inclined to bust pot users and send them to the courts out of boredom and
small-town attitudes on the parts of the police and judges.

The Marijuana Party has gone on record opposing decriminalization, because
they feel it will be easier for cops to ticket casual users rather than
either ignoring them or letting them off with a warning. :

- -Patrick Lejtenyi

------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 10:59:12 -0700

Subject:NV: Marijuana Forum To Be Televised Up TOC

Newshawk: Plylar For Co. State Congress (http://www.plylar.org)
Pubdate: Thu, 18 Jul 2002
Source: Reno Gazette-Journal (NV)
Copyright: 2002 Reno Gazette-Journal
Contact: rgjmail@nevadanet.com
Website: http://www.rgj.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/363

MARIJUANA FORUM TO BE TELEVISED

A public forum on the statewide ballot question to decriminalize possessing
a small amount of marijuana will be televised from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. Monday
on Channel 16 in Reno.

The forum, hosted by the Nevada secretary of state, will feature
representatives on both sides of the issue. Viewers will be able to
telephone and e-mail live questions to the representatives.

Nevada voters will decide Nov. 5 whether the state should decriminalize the
possession of less than 3 ounces of marijuana after Nevadans for
Responsible Law Enforcement gathered enough signatures for a successful
citizen initiative petition.
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth

------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 11:00:17 -0700

Subject:LATimes: Court Accepts Medical Pot Use Up TOC

Newshawk: Terry Liittschwager
Pubdate: Fri, 19 Jul 2002
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Webpage:
www.latimes.com/templates/misc/printstory.jsp?slug=la%2Dme%2Dpot19jul19012049
Copyright: 2002 Los Angeles Times
Contact: letters@latimes.com
Website: http://www.latimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/248
Author: Maura Dolan, Times Staff Writer
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?115 (Cannabis - California)

COURT ACCEPTS MEDICAL POT USE

Law: A Patient Who Grows Or Smokes Marijuana For Personal Health Reasons,
With A Doctor's OK, Cannot Be Prosecuted In State Court, California
Justices Rule.

SAN FRANCISCO -- Californians who use or grow marijuana for personal
medical use are protected from prosecution in state court as long as they
have doctors' approval, the California Supreme Court decided unanimously
Thursday.

In its first review of the medical marijuana initiative, which was approved
by voters in 1996, the court said a medical user who is arrested can get
the charges dismissed without a trial if the patient has a note on a
prescription pad or any other evidence of a doctor's approval.

The ruling overturns the felony conviction of a blind man with diabetes who
was arrested after police spotted 31 marijuana plants growing in the
frontyard of his home in Twain Harte in Tuolumne County. Under the state
law, "the possession and cultivation of marijuana is no more criminal--so
long as its conditions are satisfied--than the possession and acquisition
of any prescription drug with a physician's prescription," Chief Justice
Ronald M. George wrote for the court.

The decision widens the gap between the treatment of marijuana cases in
California's state courts and in federal courts in the state.

Until Thursday, all major rulings on Proposition 215, the state's medical
marijuana law, have been made by federal courts and based on federal law.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a case on the California initiative, ruled that
there is no medical exception for the use of marijuana under federal law.
As a result, people can still be prosecuted in federal court, regardless of
the state law.

But individual users and growers in California are generally prosecuted in
state courts, which are required to follow Thursday's ruling.

Gerald Uelmen, a University of Santa Clara law professor who argued the
case for defendant Myron Carlyle Mower, 40, said the decision would reduce
prosecutions throughout the state.

Since 56% of voters approved Proposition 215, dozens of Californians have
been arrested on marijuana charges despite claims of medical need, he said.

"It is a wonderful victory for patients," Uelmen said.

He said he hoped the ruling would discourage police from arresting those
who grow marijuana and have doctors' notes recommending its use.

"I don't think police are interested in arresting people who are not going
to be prosecuted," he said.

Ann Brick, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, which also
argued for Mower, praised the court for being "quite protective of the
rights of medical marijuana patients."

"The court is making very clear that it understands the people of
California wanted to confer real protection to the medical users of
marijuana, and this decision helps make that possible," Brick said.

The state attorney general's office, which represented Tuolumne County
prosecutors in the appeal, said it was reviewing the decision.

California is one of nine states with medical marijuana laws. The decision
was the first by a state high court on such a law, Uelmen said.

After Mower's conviction, a state appeals court said the voter initiative
had merely given defendants the right to present a medical defense during a
trial.

That ruling, by a Court of Appeal in Fresno, also said that users or
growers must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they had the
marijuana solely for medical purposes.

Under Thursday's ruling, by contrast, a grower or user can ask a judge to
dismiss the charges without trial.

If the amount of marijuana involved is considered large or the doctor's
approval questionable, the defendant might still face a trial to determine
whether the marijuana was purely for the defendant's medical use.

But the ruling also made it easier for such defendants to win if a case
goes to court. Under the court's ruling, the defendant does not have to
prove that the marijuana is solely for medical use. If there is any
reasonable doubt about the marijuana's use, the defendant wins. "Most
similar is the defense of possession of a dangerous or restricted drug with
a physician's prescription, against a charge of unlawful possession of such
a drug," George wrote.

"For that defense, a defendant need raise only a reasonable doubt as to his
or her possession of the drug in question with a physician's prescription."

The court cited a provision in the initiative that says criminal penalties
"shall not apply to a patient, or to a patient's primary caregiver, who
possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the
patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician."

"The provision," the court said in People v. Mower, S094490, "renders
possession and cultivation of marijuana noncriminal" when it is done for
medical purposes.

Mower, who has had diabetes since he was 8 years old, testified that the 31
plants would supply him with 5 pounds of marijuana in a year and estimated
his consumption at eight grams a day.

An expert witness for the defense testified that the plants would yield
4.35 pounds a year, but an expert for the prosecution countered that the
plants would produce 31 to 62 pounds.

"Had the jury properly been instructed that defendant was required merely
to raise a reasonable doubt about his purposes ... it might have found him
not guilty," George wrote for the court. "We come to this conclusion
because the jury might have found that defendant raised a reasonable
doubt--to wit, whether the 31 plants would yield a harvest of only about 5
pounds for a year's supply."

Mower, who said he cannot maintain his weight without using marijuana, had
been sentenced to five years' probation for growing the plants.

"I have a doctor who completely agrees with me that I need to have this,"
Mower said. "I have nausea all the time and wasting syndrome. And if I
smoke a little, I am in the kitchen looking for something to eat and drink."

He said marijuana also puts him in a good mood and gives him stamina.

The issue in Mower's case was the number of plants he was growing. A
Tuolumne County police policy says medical users may have three plants.

"They pulled out all but three of the worst plants and two weeks later took
us to jail, booked me and kept my wife overnight," Mower said.

He said he now hopes to return to court and ask a judge to permit him to
grow more than three plants, which are "not anywhere near enough." He said
he needs to smoke about six or seven marijuana cigarettes a day and has
been forced to buy from an illicit dealer.

"Those drug houses are dangerous places to be," he said.

Counties around the state have different policies about how many plants a
medical user may grow. The permitted amounts range from three plants to 99.
The ruling did not address the variance in policies.

"That's a bit of a disappointment," said Uelmen, Mower's lawyer, "because
it is an issue of a grave statewide concern and a cause of a lot of
confusion....We need a statewide standard, but that will have to wait for
another day."

For users who are not advised to smoke marijuana for medical reasons,
possession of less than an ounce in California is a misdemeanor punishable
by a $100 fine. Cultivation is a felony.

Lael Rubin, special counsel to the Los Angeles County district attorney,
said the district attorney's office does not prosecute growers unless they
have at least 25 plants and there is evidence of a commercial purpose, such
as scales and plastic bags. Other cases are treated as misdemeanors and
referred to the city attorney, she said.
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth

------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 11:16:06 -0700

Subject:Canada: Advocates Get Puffed Up Over The Use Of Marijuana Up TOC

Newshawk: CannabisLink.ca (http://cannabislink.ca)
Pubdate: Sat, 20 Jul 2002
Source: Globe and Mail (Canada)
Page: A10
Copyright: 2002, The Globe and Mail Company
Contact: letters@globeandmail.ca
Website: http://www.globeandmail.ca/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/168
Author: Brian Laghi

ADVOCATES GET PUFFED UP OVER THE USE OF MARIJUANA

Judging By The New Statistics, Smoking Pot Keeps Getting More Acceptable

Jennifer and her husband, Greg, know it will be hard when they ultimately
sit down to tell their children that Mom and Dad smoke marijuana. But it
won't be any more difficult than talking to them about sex or any of the
other big issues most conscientious parents discuss with their children
these days.

"Our parenting style is to not to hide anything from them," says Jennifer,
an Ottawa lawyer in her late 30s who says she regularly smokes marijuana on
weekends. "It's sticky, but talking about sex, that's difficult, too," she
says.

Jennifer, not her real name, is one of a growing number of Canadians who
have continued to smoke marijuana well into their 30s. She and her husband
have jobs with good salaries, a cottage and young children who go to
private school.

Jennifer says that most of their friends smoke marijuana, too, as do a good
number of lawyers in Ottawa.

"Quite frankly, I'd rather my kids smoke marijuana rather than drink," she
says. "I have never delved into any other kind of drug, and I don't plan to."

Federal Justice Minister Martin Cauchon began musing publicly this week
about decriminalizing simple possession of marijuana.

The 39-year-old Mr. Cauchon told reporters that he also had smoked
marijuana once or twice in his youth, and those who have been pushing for
the drug's decriminalization say it is a good thing that he is willing to
admit it, because it will probably get other individuals his age who have
smoked marijuana out of the closet.

Some researchers say the fact that the number of older Canadians who smoke
marijuana -- or have smoked it in the past -- has increased is also having
an effect, by removing the stigma and mystery of the drug for others.

According to a series of recent surveys compiled by the Toronto-based
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in 2000, about 12.3 per cent of
Ontarians between the ages of 30 and 39 reported having smoked marijuana in
the previous year, an increase from 4 per cent in 1982.

The numbers are also up among those between the ages of 20 and 29, with
28.2 per cent saying they had smoked the drug during the previous year,
compared to 22.7 per cent in 1982.

And, although statistics show marijuana smoking drops substantially by the
time Canadians reach their 40s, there are still more middle aged smokers
now than their were in the 1980s.

Addiction researchers say the Ontario results on marijuana tend to be a
fairly good reflection of what's going on in the rest of the country. West
Coast residents smoke a little more, statistics say, while those on the
East Coast may be a little less inclined to indulge.

Meanwhile, another national study conducted eight years ago shows that
about one-third of those Canadians in Mr. Cauchon's age group (35 to 44)
have tried marijuana on at least one occasion.

Alan Young, a Toronto lawyer and law professor who smokes marijuana, says
many Canadians stop imbibing in their mid-20s because it proves
incompatible with their lifestyles and family lives.

But a small percentage, like himself, continue to smoke marijuana, he said
in a phone interview from his Toronto home.

Mostly, Mr. Young said he smokes in his home, at the end of a long day when
the ordinary responsibilities of being an adult have been taken care of.

"For me, it's all about withdrawing and relaxing from the pressures of the
day," he said. "A momentary vacation."

As a lawyer, Mr. Young said his use of marijuana is fairly well accepted
among his peers, many of whom also use the drug.

He acknowledges, however, that many Canadians won't discuss their decision
to smoke because, of course, possessing marijuana is still illegal.

He congratulates Mr. Cauchon for acknowledging his past behaviour, but adds
that the minister should remove the stigma for other Canadians by moving
quickly to decriminalize the possession of marijuana.

"I say to the minister, 'You've committed a crime. If you recognize the
horror of having that label put upon you and that you would not have become
minister of justice if you got caught, that should motivate you to make the
change quickly without having five years of consultation.' "

Mr. Young, a champion of decriminalization, is also a strong advocate of
discussing marijuana smoking with children and has talked to his
stepdaughter about it.

"You have to have discussions with young people about this," he said.

"I don't understand this cloaking in a veil of silence. I want to make sure
they have the correct information to make the right choices."

Craig Jones, a research associate with Queen's University's Centre for
Health Services and Policy Research, says it's difficult to say how far
into the middle class marijuana consumption has reached.

Research suggests that, among those of working age, the highest prevalence
of marijuana smoking is among those looking for work and semi-skilled workers.

Mr. Jones argues that the more salient fact is that many who smoked
marijuana in their youth are now into their 40s and have observed that
their earlier behaviour has not had a deleterious effect on them.

"I think the most important consideration is the process of demystification
that has happened as a result of the sixties and seventies generation
graduating into their 40s and 50s and realizing that we have a social
policy that's just dysfunctional," he said.

Mr. Jones notes that it has taken a substantial amount of time to get to
the point where Canadians are willing to dismiss some of the myths about
marijuana.

He points to the days in the earlier part of the 20th century when
marijuana was linked with insanity and violence, and later in the century,
when antimarijuana lobbyists argued that excessive use of the drug made
people lazy.

Indeed, some researchers say there is little doubt that fear can be a
factor in the rates of marijuana use.

In Ontario during the late 1980s and early 1990s, the rate of consumption
dropped, a decline that one researcher attributes to publicity surrounding
a rise in the use of cocaine, which triggered general anxiety about drug
addiction.

"The more a population perceives a greater risk, there will be a change in
behaviour," said Edward Adlaf of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

Mr. Young, for his part, says that if antimarijuana advocates want to study
cannabis and its effects on health, they now have a captive population of
guinea pigs.

"I know hundreds and hundreds of people over the age of 40 that smoke
marijuana," he said.

"We have a population of long-standing marijuana smokers to study for
research purposes to determine if some of the harms the prohibitionists
claim are actualities."

WHO USES MARIJUANA?

Ontarians over 18 who have used cannabis over the past decade.

..............................1991......1992......1994.....1996.....1998.....2000

Total surveyed.....1,047.....1,058.....2,022.....2,721....2,509....2,406

Percentage

of users..........8.7%.......6.2%......9.0%......8.7%......8.6%...10.8%

Men...............11.5%.......9.1%.....11.4%.....12.6%.....12.1%...14.3%

Women..............6.0%.......3.6%......7.0%......5.3%......5.4%....7.7%

Age

18-29 years.......19.9%......13.3%.....19.6%.....18.3%.....25.2%...28.2%

30-39 years........9.1%.......6.6%.....10.2%.....11.3%......8.2%...12.3%

40-49 years........3.0%.......2.4%......4.3%......6.1%......4.6%....6.4%

50-64 years.........-.........1.3%.......-.........-........1.4%....2.9%

65+ years...........-..........-.........-.........-.........-.......-

Never married.....20.2%......13.7%.....20.9%.....19.5%.....22.9%....26.4%

Married............4.0%.......3.5%......4.1%......4.9%......4.3%.....6.2%
Live in Toronto...12.3%.......6.7%......9.9%.....10.9%.....13.3%....14.0%

Toronto outskirts..7.3%.......6.5%......8.0%......9.6%......8.4%....10.5%

West.............10.3%.......4.2%......9.5%......7.3%......7.6%....10.0%

East..............5.1%.......7.1%......8.2%......7.9%......6.9%.....9.1%

North.............3.8%.......5.6%......7.8%......6.3%......7.1%.....8.4%

Less than high

school education..6.3%.......6.3%......8.5%......6.1%......6.8%....10.4%

Finished

high school.......9.8%.......5.2%......9.6%......9.5%.....10.7%.....9.5%

Some college

or university....10.7%.......6.7%.....10.3%.....11.3%.....10.2%....15.7%

University degree..7.6%.......7.2%......7.0%......7.0%......5.6%.....7.0%

SOURCE: CENTRE FOR ADDICTION AND MENTAL HEALTH
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom

------------------------------
End of Restore-Digest V2002 #142
********************************