“Penalties against drug use should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against the possession of marijuana in private for personal use.”

-President Jimmy Carter: Message to Congress, August 2, 1977.

Introduction

Since the 1970s, more than a dozen government-appointed commissions have examined the effects of marijuana, and made public policy recommendations regarding its use. Overwhelmingly, the conclusions of these expert panels have been the same: marijuana prohibition causes more social damage than marijuana use, and the possession of marijuana for personal use should no longer be a criminal offense.

Disturbingly, these findings have typically fallen on deaf ears, often being dismissed by the very governments that appointed them. Taken together, however, they exemplify the consensus that exists among the scientific community in support of liberalizing the legal status of marijuana. Conversely, their omission in the present debate reflects the unfortunate reality that marijuana prohibition is perpetuated not by science, but rather by emotion and rhetoric. We do not let these factors dictate other public policies, nor should we let them dominate the debate over marijuana-law reform.

NORML encourages the role of science in this debate, and applauds the efforts of previous commissions that have examined this issue. In an effort to better publicize this work, NORML has compiled the findings from more than a dozen government-appointed drug advisory committees, and highlighted their recommendations regarding the legal status of marijuana. Their conclusions, as well as those of several prominent private commissions, are listed chronologically.

Government Commissioned Reports

“We believe … that the continued prohibition of cannabis jeopardizes the health and well-being of Canadians much more than does the substance itself or the regulated marketing of the substance. In addition, we believe that the continued criminalization of cannabis undermines the fundamental values set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and confirmed in the history of a country based on diversity and tolerance.

… It is for this reason that the Committee recommends that the Government of Canada amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to create a criminal exemption scheme, under which the production and sale of cannabis would be licensed, [and] … to permit persons over the age of 16 to procure cannabis and its derivatives at duly licensed distribution centers.”

- Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs. 2002. Cannabis: Summary Report: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy. Ottawa.

“We accept that cannabis can be harmful and that its use should be discouraged. However, … we do not believe there is anything to be gained by exaggerating its harmfulness. On the contrary, exaggeration undermines the credibility of the messages that we wish to send regarding more harmful drugs. We support, therefore, … reclassify[ing] cannabis from Class B to Class C … [so that] possession of cannabis would cease to be an 'arrestable offense.'”

- British House of Commons Home Affairs Committee. 2002. Home Affairs Third Report. British Home Office: London

“Cannabis … is less harmful than other substances (amphetamines, barbiturates, codeine-like compounds) within Class B of Schedule 2 to the Misuse of Drugs Act of 1971. The continuing juxtaposition of cannabis with these more harmful Class B drugs erroneously (and dangerously) suggests their harmful effects are equivalent. This may lead to the belief, amongst cannabis users, that if they had no harmful effects from cannabis than other Class B substances will be equally safe. The Council therefore recommends the reclassification of all cannabis preparations to class C under the Misuse of Drugs Act of 1971.”

- British Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.


More on Current!