The Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs by Edward M. Brecher and the Editors of Consumer Reports Magazine, 1972

Discussion in 'Marijuana Legalization' started by jainaG, Nov 6, 2015.

  1. http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cu60.html


    60. The Le Dain Commission Interim Report (1970)

    \t\tIt is often said that little
    is known about the psychological and physical effects of marijuana on
    the human user. This is a simple error of fact. In addition to many
    hundreds of significant papers reporting marijuana research through the
    past century, an impressive series of official investigating bodies have
    reviewed all of the available evidence and have presented their
    findings at length. The most important of these official marijuana
    investigation reports are listed here.

    \t\t The Indian Hemp Drugs Commission Report
    (1894). This 3,281-page, seven-volume report, published in Simla,
    India, in 1893-1894, has been justly called "the most complete and
    systematic study of marijuana undertaken to date." 1
    The seven commissioners–– four of them British and three of them
    Indian, including one rajah–– secured testimony on every aspect of
    cannabis use from 1,193 witnesses. A digest of the findings of the
    Commission by Dr. Tod H. Mikuriya can be found in the Spring 1968 issue
    of the International Journal of the Addictions. A reprint of the
    final (Summary) volume, edited by Professor John Kaplan of the Stanford
    University Law School, was published by the Jefferson Press, Silver
    Springs, Maryland, in 1969.

    \t\t\t

    \t\t\t
    \t\t\t
    The Panama Canal Zone Military Investigations
    (1916-1929). A succession of military boards and commissions inquired
    into marijuana smoking by American military personnel stationed in the
    Canal Zone, beginning in 1916 and concluding with a full-scale
    investigation in 1929 under the chairmanship of Colonel J. F. Siler,
    M.D., of the Army Medical Corps. Sitting with him were two lieutenant
    colonels, a major, a naval commander, and the chief of the Canal Zone's
    Board of Health Laboratory. Colonel Siler and his associates reported
    the findings of their own and earlier Canal Zone investigations in the
    Military Surgeon in 1933 (volume 73, pages 269-280).

    \t\t\t

    \t\t\t
    \t\t\t
    The LaGuardia Committee Report
    (1939-1944). In 1939, at the request of Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia of New
    York City, the New York Academy of Medicine established a committee
    composed of eight physicians, a psychologist, and four New York City
    health officials. The committee studied marijuana smoking both under
    natural conditions in the city's "tea pads" and other marijuana centers,
    and in the laboratory. Its report was published in 1944, and reprinted
    in The Marijuana Papers (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966).
    This report is second only to the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission report in
    scope and thoroughness, and explores many areas of interest not
    considered by the Indian report. It is of particular contemporary
    importance because the pattern of marijuana smoking in New York City in
    the late 1930s that it describes was quite similar in many respects to
    the national pattern of marijuana smoking today.

    \t\t\t

    \t\t\t
    \t\t\t
    The Baroness Wootton Report
    (1968). In April 1967, the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence of the
    United Kingdom Home Office appointed a subcommittee under Baroness
    Wootton of Abinger (formerly Barbara Wootton, a member of the House of
    Commons) to inquire into marijuana and hashish use in the United
    Kingdom. Her eleven fellow members included several of Britain's most
    eminent drug authorities. The report of the subcommittee, published in
    1968, confirmed in all substantial respects the findings of the Indian
    Hemp Drugs Commission, the Panama Canal Zone investigations, and the
    LaGuardia Committee report.

    \t\t\t

    \t\t\t
    \t\t\t
    The Interim Report of the Canadian Government's Le Dain Commission
    (1970). In May 1969, on the recommendation of Minister of National
    Health and Welfare John Munro, the Government of Canada appointed a
    Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs. The commission
    became known as the Le Dain Commission after its chairman, Dean Gerald
    Le Dain. The 320-page Interim Report of the commission, published in
    April 1970, marked a turning point in official North American thinking
    about psychoactive drugs in general–– and about marijuana in particular.
    The commission's Final Report is scheduled for publication in 1972.

    \t\t\t

    \t\t\t
    \t\t\t
    In 1970 a sixth official body–– the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse––
    was established by Congress and President Nixon, under the chairmanship
    of Raymond P. Schafer, former governor of Pennsylvania. Its initial
    findings, scheduled for 1972, were not yet available when this Consumers
    Union Report was completed.
    \t\t

    \t\tIn addition to these official
    investigations, four outstanding books on marijuana by individual
    authorities, and one important symposium, were published in 1970 and
    1971. In alphabetical order by author, they are:

    \t\tThe Marijuana Smokers,
    by Erich Goode, associate professor of sociology, State University of
    New York at Stony Brook (New York and London: Basic Books, 1970).

    \t\t\t

    \t\t\t
    \t\t\t
    Marijuana Reconsidered,
    by Lester Grinspoon, M.D., then associate clinical professor of
    psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, and director of psychiatry
    (research), Massachusetts Mental Health Center (Cambridge,
    Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1971).

    \t\t\t

    \t\t\t
    \t\t\t
    Marijuana: The New Prohibition, by Professor John Kaplan of the Stanford University Law School (New York: Crown, 1970).

    \t\t\t

    \t\t\t
    \t\t\t
    The Strange Case of Pot,
    by Michael Schofield, a member of the Baroness Wootton subcommittee and
    author of numerous works on psychology (Baltimore: Penguin Books,
    1971).

    \t\t\t

    \t\t\t
    \t\t\t
    The New Social Drug-Cultural, Medical, and Legal Perspective on Marijuana,
    edited by David E. Smith, M.D., medical director of the Haight-Ashbury
    Medical Clinic, assistant clinical professor of toxicology at the
    University of California–– San Francisco Medical Center, and editor of
    the Journal of Psychedelic Drugs–– with contributions by Gilbert
    Geis, Frederick H. Meyers, Roger C. Smith, Andrew T. Weil, Norman E.
    Zinberg, and others (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1970).
    \t\t

    \t\tRemarkable as it may
    appear, all five of the reports of investigating bodies listed above,
    ranging in date from 1894 to 1970, and all of the books listed are in
    substantial agreement on substantially all major points of fact.

    \t\tWe have chosen, accordingly, to summarize and review in some detail only one of these major studies: the Interim Report of the Le Dain Commission. This decision was reached on several grounds:

    \t\t
    \t\t\t(1) The Le Dain Commission's Interim Report
    is the most recent of the official investigations and therefore takes
    account of recent research Dot available for the earlier investigations.

    \t\t\t(2) The findings and conclusions of the Le Dain Commission Interim Report are a fair sample of the findings and conclusions of the other studies.

    \t\t\t(3) The drug scene in Canada
    on which the Le Dain Commission focuses is very similar in many respects
    to the comparable drug scene in the United States; and the problems
    Canada faces are very similar to United States problems.

    \t\t\t(4) In our opinion, the
    methodology followed by the Le Dain Commission, in collecting data
    concerning other drugs as well as marijuana, is a model that future
    investigating bodies in the United States might well follow.

    \t\t\t(5) Finally, the marijuana recommendations of the Le Dain Commission's Interim Report seem to us in many respects directly applicable to United States conditions.

    \t\t
    \t\tFour of the five members of
    the Canadian Commission of Inquiry brought to their task a broad
    experience in public affairs and social problems, but relatively little
    knowledge of drug use: Gerald Le Dain, Q.C., Chairman, Dean of the
    Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, Toronto; Marie-Andree
    Bertrand, Associate Professor of Criminology, University of Montreal;
    Ian L. Campbell, Dean of Arts, Sir George Williams University, Montreal;
    and J. Peter Stein, social worker, Vancouver.

    \t\tThe fifth member of the
    commission, Dr. Heinz E. Lehmann, Clinical Director of the Douglas
    Hospital in Montreal, is an internationally known authority on drugs, a
    Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, a past president of the
    American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, and the author of more than
    140 medical papers and publications.

    \t\tLike the Indian Hemp Drugs
    Commission three-quarters of a century earlier, the Le Dain Commission
    adopted at the outset of its inquiry a "policy of the open ear." It held
    twenty-one days of formal hearings in twelve Canadian cities from coast
    to coast, traveling some 17,000 miles. Equally important, the
    commission listened to young people actually familiar with the drug
    scene, including many drug users. For this purpose it held numerous
    informal hearings on college and university campuses and in coffeehouses
    located near the heart of the drug scene of various cities (much as an
    1884 Royal Commission had held hearings in a British Columbia opium
    den). To protect witnesses, an understanding was reached with the Royal
    Canadian Mounted Police, Canada's federal police agency, that
    appearances and statements "would not be exploited for law enforcement
    purposes." 2
    In addition, witnesses were permitted to testify anonymously, some of
    them in private, and to submit anonymous statements; the press
    cooperated by refraining from publishing photographs. In all, the
    commission estimated, nearly 12,000 Canadians had attended these formal
    and informal hearings up to February 1, 1970.

    \t\t
    \t\t\tOpinions and feelings have
    poured forth in the hearings with great spontaneity, particularly in the
    more informal settings [the Interim Report notes]. The
    Commission has been deeply impressed, and on several occasions, moved by
    the testimony which it has heard. It has been struck by the depth of
    feeling which [drug use] and the social response to it have aroused. As a
    result of the initial phase of its inquiry, the Commission is more than
    ever convinced that the proper response to the non-medical use of
    psychotropic drugs is a question which must be worked out by the people
    of Canada, examining it and talking it over together. It goes to the
    roots of our society and touches the values underlying our whole
    approach to life. It is not a matter which can be confined to the
    discrete consultation of experts, although experts obviously have their
    role, and a very important one, to play. 3

    \t\t
    \t\tExperts did play an important
    role in the Le Dain Commission deliberations. Scores of eminent Canadian
    scientists concerned with all aspects of drug use–– the biochemical and
    pharmacological as well as the sociological and psychological–– either
    testified personally or participated in the preparation of written
    submissions on behalf of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the
    Addiction Research Foundation of Ontario, the Narcotic Addiction
    Foundation of British Columbia, l'Office de la Prevention et du
    Traitement de l'Alcoolisme et des Autres Toxicomanies, numerous
    religious groups, and other respected Canadian organizations. Experts
    and organizations from the United States also submitted data and
    opinions; and members of the commission visited western European
    countries, consulting with drug authorities there and examining the
    European drug scene for themselves. Thus the inquiry was truly
    international.

    \t\tThe strictly
    psychopharmacological data were coordinated by a staff member specially
    trained in drug research, Dr. Ralph D. Miller. Chapter 2 of the Interim Report, entitled "Drugs and Their Effects," 4
    prepared by Dr. Miller with the assistance of Dr. Charles Farmilo, is
    one of the most authoritative short statements of drug effects
    (beneficial and damaging) available, and is central to the conclusions
    that the commission reached.

    \t\tDespite intensive American and
    Canadian law-enforcement efforts, the Le Dain Commission learned,
    marijuana smoking has become endemic in Canada–– and here it cites
    high-school, college, and general population surveys showing levels of
    use quite comparable to those in the United States, reviewed above. Also
    as in the United States, use has spread from the "youth culture" to
    older age groups:

    \t\t
    \t\t\tThe Commission has... been
    made aware of what appears to be an extensive and growing marijuana use
    by adults. The evidence of such use has come to us largely from the
    statements of individuals, many of whom have given private testimony,
    and from a large volume of correspondence received at the Commission's
    office.... Most were married and on the whole claimed to have reached an
    average or above average level of education. The Commissioners have
    spoken to physicians, lawyers, bankers, politicians, teachers,
    scientists, pilots, business executives and journalists, to mention only
    a few, who have smoked marijuana or hashish. Many of these reported
    using the drug with colleagues and many expressed the opinion that the
    use of these drugs would increase among their friends and associates. 5

    \t\t
    \t\tWhy do so many young people smoke marijuana?

    \t\tIn the United States, a variety of reasons have been suggested:

    \t\tThe general revolt of youth in the 1960s against their parents and parental taboos.

    \t\t\t

    \t\t\t
    \t\t\t
    The sense of "alienation" or of "anomie" among youth in the 1960s.

    \t\t\t

    \t\t\t
    \t\t\t
    The sense of impending
    nuclear doom, the draft, the war in Vietnam, and other factors leading
    youth to look to the immediate present rather than the future for
    satisfactions.

    \t\t\t

    \t\t\t
    \t\t\t
    The widespread advertising of mind-affecting drugs on radio and television.

    \t\t\t

    \t\t\t
    \t\t\t
    The widespread use of stimulants, depressants, and tranquilizers by parents.

    \t\t\t

    \t\t\t
    \t\t\t
    Parental and educational "permissiveness"; progressive education.

    \t\t\t

    \t\t\t
    \t\t\t
    The alleged breakdown of moral fiber among youth today.
    \t\t

    \t\t The Le Dain Commission's Interim Report
    cites a quite different set of factors. In this as in other respects,
    the commission goes far beyond previous official reports and, largely as
    a result of its willingness to listen directly to young people,
    pioneers new ground. While many of its findings will come as a surprise
    and shock to nonsmokers of marijuana, these findings deserve careful
    consideration if the contemporary marijuana explosion is to be
    understood. "A major factor appears to be the simple pleasure of the
    experience," the Le Dain Commission explains. "Time after time,
    witnesses have said to us in effect: We do it for fun. Do not try to
    find a complicated explanation for it. We do it for pleasure." 6

    \t\tThis pleasure explanation, the report adds, is offered not only by college students but also by adults in the working world.

    \t\t
    \t\t\tA mother of four and a
    teacher said: "When I smoke grass I do it in the same social way that I
    take a glass of wine at dinner or have a drink at a party. I do not feel
    that it is one of the great and beautiful experiences of my life; I
    simply feel that it is pleasant and I think it ought to be legalized." 7

    \t\t
    \t\tA witness directly involved in work with drug users is quoted in much the same vein:

    \t\t
    \t\t\tI think maybe it is time we
    stopped all the sociological nonsense about social milieus, and how your
    daddy fell off a horse, and how your mommy burnt the pablum or whatever
    it is–– or what kind of sociological trip you want to blast off on, and
    just say what you mean which is "I get loaded because I love to do it."
    8

    \t\t
    \t\t The commission partially accepts this "we do it for fun" explanation.

    \t\t
    \t\t\tWe feel it would be a serious error, at least as far as cannabis use is concerned [the Interim Report
    declares] to think of use as symbolic of or manifesting a pathological,
    psychological or even sociological state. Simple pleasure, similar to
    that claimed for the moderate use of alcohol, or food, or sex, is
    frequently offered as the general explanation for most current drug use.
    This is particularly true of the growing number of adult users (who
    share perhaps little else but their taste for cannabis with the members
    of the "hip" culture). It is no doubt true that for some the use of
    drugs is a reflection of personal and social problems. But the desire
    for certain kinds of psychological gratification or release is not
    peculiar to the drug user or to our generations. It is an old and
    universal theme of human history. Man has always sought gratifications
    of the kind afforded by the psychotropic drugs. 9

    \t\t
    \t\tThis use of marijuana for pleasure, the Interim Report
    continues, must not be interpreted as meaning that the motivation is
    trivial. On the contrary, it is one among many indications that the
    younger generation has profoundly reevaluated the proper role of
    pleasure in human life:

    \t\t
    \t\t\tYoung people speak often of a
    desire to overcome the division of life into work and play, to achieve a
    way of life that is less divided, less seemingly schizophrenic: and
    more unified. They seem to be talking about the increasingly rare
    privilege of work that one can fully enjoy–– of work that is like one's
    play. They claim to be prepared to make considerable renunciation or
    sacrifice of traditional satisfactions like status and material success
    for work in which they can take pleasure. Indeed, one of their frequent
    commentaries on the older generation is that it does not seem to enjoy
    its work, that it does not seem to be happy. This is said sadly, even
    sympathetically. It is not said contemptuously. The young say, in
    effect, "Why should we repeat this pattern?" The use of drugs for many
    is part of a largely hedonistic life style in which happiness and
    pleasure are taken as self-evidently valid goals of human life. 10

    \t\t
    \t\tIn addition to this
    happiness-and-pleasure motive, however, the Le Dain Commission notes
    that a number of young people also cite self-improvement as a reason for
    drug use:

    \t\t
    \t\t\tIn the case of cannabis,
    the positive points which are claimed for it include the following: it
    is a relaxant; it is disinhibiting; it increases self-confidence and the
    feeling of creativity (whether justified by objective results or not);
    it increases sensual awareness and appreciation; it facilitates
    concentration and gives one a greater sense of control over time; it
    facilitates self-acceptance and in this way makes it easier to accept
    others; it serves a sacramental function in promoting a sense of
    spiritual community among users; it is a shared pleasure; because it is
    illicit and the object of strong disapproval from those who are, by and
    large opposed to social change, it is a symbol of protest and a means of
    strengthening the sense of identity among those who are strongly
    critical of certain aspects of our society and value structure today. 11
    \t\t In these respects, the Interim Report adds, marijuana is seen as quite different from alcohol:

    \t\t
    \t\t\tIn our conversation with
    [students and young people], they have frequently contrasted marijuana
    and alcohol effects to describe the former as a drug of peace, a drug
    that reduces tendencies to aggression while suggesting that the latter
    drug produces hostile, aggressive behavior. Thus marijuana is seen as
    particularly appropriate to a generation that emphasizes peace and is,
    in many ways, anti-competitive. 12
    \t\t\tFeeling this way about his
    drug, the report continues, the cannabis user naturally "seeks to
    convert others to what he sincerely believes to be a superior outlook
    and life style. The smoking of cannabis becomes a rite of initiation to a
    new society and value system. These are aspects of cannabis use,
    particularly among the younger, more idealistic members of our society,
    which merit serious consideration in any attempt to measure its
    potential for growth." 13 LSD users, of course, voice these self-improvement and other idealistic themes with even more fervor than marijuana users.

    \t\t\tOn the whole, the Interim Report views these idealistic claims with some sympathy:

    \t\t\tWhile pleasure, curiosity,
    the desire to experiment, and even the sense of adventure, are dominant
    motivations in drug use, there is no doubt that a search for
    self-knowledge and self-integration and for spiritual meanings are
    strong motivations with many. 14

    \t\t
    \t\t The Interim Report
    notes that drug use is not indispensable for achieving these new
    insights, and that it may in some cases be only a temporary stage in
    reaching fresh insight:

    \t\t
    \t\t\tSome people are fortunate
    enough to be what users call a natural "turn on". It is conceded that
    you can be "turned on" without drugs–– vital, human, and aware of all
    your senses, enjoying authentic, non-exploitative human relations, and
    alive to beauty and the possibilities of the moment. Indeed, there is an
    active doctrine of transcendence which sees drug use as a catalytic or
    transitional thing to be abandoned as soon as it has enabled you to
    glimpse another way of looking at things and of relating to life and
    people. The doctrine of transcendence carries much hope for the future.
    One witness said: "I don't do too many drugs anymore because I have gone
    beyond them. They have taught me the lesson and there isn't so much
    need for them anymore. I mean it's still fun to get stoned but there's a
    lot more to it. There is more to it than just fun. After you have
    learned the lesson, you have fun in virtually anything." 15

    \t\t
    \t\t Many former drug users, the Le Dain Commission continues,

    \t\t
    \t\t\thave stated that the insights
    gained through drug use have carried over and remained with them.... In
    listening to these statements one cannot help feeling that this
    discovery was often made in other ways in the past–– through traditional
    religious experiences, for instance.

    \t\t\tModern drug use would
    definitely seem to be related in some measure to the collapse of
    religious values–– the ability to find a religious meaning of life. The
    positive values that young people claim to find in the drug experience
    bear a striking similarity to traditional religious values, including
    the concern with the soul, or inner self. The spirit of renunciation,
    the emphasis on openness and the closely knit community, are part of it,
    but there is definitely the sense of identification with something
    larger, something to which one belongs as part of the human race. 16

    \t\t
    \t\tAgainst this background, it is
    hardly surprising that the Le Dain Commission opposes the imprisonment
    of young people for the possession or use of marijuana. It is in
    exploring a wide range of alternatives to suppression and imprisonment
    that the commission makes its second major contribution to a reasonable
    consideration of marijuana.

    \t\t
    \t\t\tWe see non-medical drug use
    generally, [the commission states] as presenting a complex social
    challenge for which we must find a wise and effective range of social
    responses. We believe that we must explore the full range of possible
    responses, including research, information and education; legislation
    and administrative regulation; treatment and supportive services;
    personal and corporate responsibility and self-restraint; and generally
    individual and social efforts to correct the deficiencies in our
    personal relations and social conditions which encourage the non-medical
    use of drugs. We attach importance to the general emphasis in this
    range of social responses. We believe that this emphasis must shift, as
    we develop and strengthen the non-coercive aspects of our social
    response, from a reliance on suppression to a reliance on the wise
    exercise of freedom of choice. 17
    \t\t As a first step toward improving the social response to the nonmedical use of drugs, the Interim Report
    suggests, society must abandon the transparent pretense that it
    considers all such use of drugs as ipso facto and per se evil and in
    need of suppression. This pretense is no longer tenable:

    \t\t
    \t\t\tAlcohol is a sedative which is
    widely used for the relief of tension. Have we taken a strong moral
    position against its use? Some have done so and still do, but they are
    obviously in a minority, and the vast majority of the society pays
    little attention to them. As for the stimulants, we take in enormous
    quantities of caffeine and nicotine. We stimulate our systems and modify
    our mood by cup after cup of coffee through the day. The nicotine in
    tobacco is clearly a psychotropic drug used to modify one's mood. Have
    we adopted a moral position against the use of caffeine and nicotine?
    Hardly. We are beginning to react against tobacco because of its clear
    danger to health, but the effect on sales is so far unimpressive. 18
    \t\t In place of the pretense that
    the alcohol, caffeine, and nicotine one generation uses are nondrugs
    while the marijuana its children use is evil, the Interim Report recommends that each drug be judged on its merits: "The
    extent to which any particular drug use is to be deemed to be
    undesirable will depend upon its relative potential for harm, both
    personal and social." 19

    \t\tAgainst this background, the
    Le Dain Commission reviews the allegations traditionally made against
    marijuana, and reaches conclusions generally similar to those reached by
    the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, the Panama investigating committees,
    the LaGuardia Committee, the Wootton Subcommittee, and other responsible
    bodies which have critically reviewed the evidence. It concludes, for
    example, that marijuana is not an addicting drug. Users do not develop
    tolerance in the classical sense–– the kind of tolerance that leads to
    increasing the dosage. The Commission takes note, however, of the
    statements of some users "that if they stay 'high' for several days in a
    row the drug experience loses much of its freshness and clarity and,
    consequently, they prefer intermittent use. 20 Whether or not this is a tolerance effect, it is clearly a beneficent one.

    \t\tPhysical dependence on
    marijuana, the report adds, has not been demonstrated; "it would appear
    that there are normally no adverse physiological effects or withdrawal
    symptoms occurring with abstinence from the drug, even in regular
    users." 21
    Reports to the contrary from the East are suspect. "Since hashish is
    smoked with large quantities of tobacco and other drugs in many Eastern
    countries, these mixtures could be responsible for the minor symptoms
    reported." 22 Marijuana, it is true, may in some cases produce psychological
    dependence–– but "psychological dependence may be said to exist with
    respect to anything which is part of one's preferred way of life. In our
    society, this kind of dependency occurs regularly with respect to such
    things as television, music, books, religion, sex, money, favourite
    foods, certain drugs, hobbies, sports or games and, often, other
    persons. Some degree of psychological dependence is, in this sense, a
    general and normal psychological condition." 23

    \t\tThe short-term physiological
    effects of marijuana use, the report continues, "are usually slight and
    apparently have little clinical significance." 24
    Even overdose produces little acute physiological toxicity; "sleep is
    the usual somatic consequence of overdose. No deaths due directly to
    smoking or eating cannabis have been documented." 25
    The stepping-stone theory that marijuana use leads to heroin use is
    stated but given little credence. "In Canada... it appears that heavy
    use of sedatives (alcohol and barbiturates) rather than cannabis has
    most frequently preceded heroin Use." 26 And 'again: "Persons dependent on opiate narcotics generally have a history of heavy alcohol consumption." 27 The same, as noted in Part I of this Consumers Union Report, is true in the United States.

    \t\tThe commission takes notice of
    the fear that marijuana smoking, like cigarette smoking, might lead to
    lung cancer and other lung pathology. No evidence currently exists, it
    points out, to support this view. Moreover, "the quantity of leaf
    consumed by the average cigarette smoker in North America is many times
    the amount of cannabis smoked by even heavy users. The present pattern
    of use by regular cannabis smokers in North America is more analogous to
    intermittent alcohol use (e.g., once or twice a week), than to the
    picture of chronic daily use presented by ordinary tobacco dependence." 28
    The commission adds, however, that "the deep inhalation technique
    usually used with cannabis might add respiratory complications." 29

    \t\t With respect to psychoses and
    other adverse psychological effects associated with marijuana, the Le
    Dain Commission report is on the whole quite reassuring. "Although there
    are some well documented examples of very intense and nightmarish
    short-term reactions (usually among inexperienced users in unpleasant
    situations and with high doses), these cases seem to be relatively rare
    and generally show a rapid recovery. Although many regular users have
    had an experience with cannabis which was in some way unpleasant,
    'freak-outs' are apparently rare." 30
    A Montreal psychiatrist of broad experience with adverse reactions to
    other drugs, Dr. J. R. Unwin, is quoted as reporting in the Canadian Medical Association Journal
    in 1969: I have seen only three adverse reactions in the past two
    years; all following the smoking of large amounts of hashish and all
    occurring in individuals with a previous history of psychiatric
    treatment for psychiatric or borderline conditions." 31

    \t\tThe United States experience,
    the commission notes, has in general been similar. Thus Dr. David E.
    Smith of the Haight-Ashbury Clinic in San Francisco is cited as
    reporting that he had not observed any cases of "cannabis psychosis"
    among the 35,000 marijuana users attending that clinic. 32

    \t\tTrue, the commission adds,
    there are some reports pointing in the other direction. But reports from
    the Eastern countries are of dubious value, since no control groups
    were studied; the question is not whether some marijuana smokers (like
    some nonsmokers) develop psychoses, but whether the use of marijuana increases the incidence of psychoses.
    Dr. J. T. Ungerleider (later appointed a member of President Nixon's
    National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse) reported observing
    1,887 "adverse reactions" to marijuana in Los Angeles–– but... these
    data are difficult to interpret since no clear definition of adverse
    reaction is provided and no follow-ups were made." * 34
    A few psychoses reported among United States forces in Vietnam may or
    may not have been traceable to cannabis use; they involved "individuals
    who have consumed large doses of potent material under conditions of
    increased physical and psychological stress." 35
    It is hardly necessary to invoke marijuana as an explanation for a few
    psychoses among soldiers billeted in a distant land and fighting on
    foreign fields. To the extent that psychoses do occur on rare occasions
    following cannabis use, they appear to be "a reflection of very special
    personality difficulties in the subjects involved or exceptional dose
    levels." 36

    \t\t

    \t\t
    \t\t\t
    \t\t\t\t* Other Los Angeles
    observers have failed to confirm the Ungerleider findings. Thus Dr.
    George D. Lundberg, associate professor of pathology at the University
    of Southern California School of Medicine, and two colleagues, with the
    aid of a computer, searched the records of 701,057 consecutive
    admissions to the Los Angeles County-University of Southern California
    Medical Center from July 1, 1961, to January 1, 1969. Nine admissions
    involved marijuana, "Total marijuana users in the region served by this
    hospital during this time period arc estimated to be in the hundreds of
    thousands, with tens of thousands of frequent or chronic users." Of the
    nine admissions, three were marijuana smokers, who experienced "mild
    illnesses... transient euphoria, a dream state, dizziness, confusion,
    and hallucinations." Two patients recovered rapidly. "The third later
    was diagnosed as a chronic paranoid schizophrenic, a state which
    preceded his marijuana-induced hospitalization." Another patient
    ingested "a 'handful of marijuana leaves,' which produced drowsiness and
    headache with recovery following intravenously given fluid and
    cathartic therapy." Five patients had "mainlined" marijuana–– four a
    seed extract and the fifth a leaf "juice"; they became acutely ill with
    "nausea, vomiting, fever, chills, shock, tachycardia [rapid heartbeat],
    weakness, headache," and an increase in white blood cells; all recovered
    following the "intravenous administration of fluids, antibiotics, and
    steroids.... a variety of comparative studies indicated that hospital
    admissions due to alcohol, tobacco, barbiturates, amphetamines,
    tranquilizers, and certain nonprescription drugs (all legal) were much
    more frequent and the cases much more serious medically...." 33

    \t\t\t
    \t\t
    \t\t

    \t\tThe Canadian report also notes
    two public-health considerations that have generally been lost from
    sight in the American antimarijuana literature. The first concerns the
    somewhat greater hazard of eating marijuana and hashish as compared with
    smoking them. "'Grass' and 'hash' are generally used interchangeably
    and great variations in potency of different samples are accommodated by
    the experienced user through a 'titration' of dose–– i.e., intake is
    stopped when the smoker reaches a personally comfortable level of
    intoxication. Such precision is generally not possible with oral use,
    however, due to the long delay in action, and a 'non-optimal' effect is
    much more likely to occur with this practice." 37
    In the United States this message rarely gets through to young people
    primarily because the channels of public-health communication are
    overloaded with generalized antimarijuana propaganda, much of it
    unreliable and counterproductive.

    \t\tThe second public-health
    consideration noted in the Canadian report concerns the relative hazards
    of marijuana and hashish. As has already been noted, the two are
    related much as beer or wine is related to whisky or gin; the effects of
    equivalent doses are rather similar, but it is somewhat easier to
    overdose with whisky, gin, or hashish than with beer, wine, or
    marijuana. While a prudent and experienced cannabis smoker can limit his
    hashish "high" to the level of his customary marijuana "high," the Interim Report
    cautiously suggests the possibility that a nationwide conversion from
    marijuana to hashish might significantly increase the incidence of
    deleterious effects. "Moderate use of the milder forms is one thing;
    excessive use of the stronger forms may be quite another." 38

    \t\tIn this context, the American
    and Canadian trend from marijuana toward hashish, beginning in 1969, was
    naturally a cause of concern for the Le Dain Commission. It attributes
    this trend in considerable part to American law-enforcement policies:

    \t\t
    \t\t\tThe [Royal Canadian Mounted]
    Police representatives of the Department of justice, and a number of
    witnesses have reported that marijuana, long the staple of the
    drug-using subculture, is now being replaced by hashish as the widely
    used illegal drug in some parts of the country. This shift in popularity
    can probably be attributed to a growing difficulty in obtaining
    marijuana (American and Mexican authorities lately have been
    intensifying their efforts to control its cultivation and prevent
    smuggling activities), the greater ease with which hashish, a
    concentrated form of cannabis, can be hidden and thus transported, and
    the greater profits in hashish trafficking. Hashish can be purchased at
    its source for around $50 a kilo and resold in Canada at $1,400 a kilo,
    while marijuana costs from $20 a kilo in Mexico to $100 a kilo in
    Southern California and can be resold in Canada for about $300 a kilo;
    an ounce of hashish sells for between $75 and $100 in contrast to about
    $20 an ounce for marijuana. 39
    \t\t As marijuana repression
    becomes more efficient, of course, the cost of marijuana rises and the
    relative competitive advantages of smuggling hashish instead become even
    greater.

    \t\t The Le Dain Commission does not
    conclude that marijuana is harmless. The available evidence, it
    indicates, warrants a cautious approach. Additional problems may arise
    as marijuana research proceeds and as experience accumulates. Even so,
    the commission points out, reliance on the "hazards" theme to curb
    marijuana, smoking has proved fruitless or worse in the past and is
    unlikely to prove more effective in the future.

    \t\t"Many of the young people who
    have appeared before us have been critical of the drug education to
    which they have been exposed," the Interim Report notes. "In
    particular, they have said that the attempts to use 'scare tactics' have
    'backfired' and destroyed the credibility of sound information." 40 The commission itself fully endorses these complaints from its young witnesses:

    \t\t
    \t\t\t The conclusion we draw from the
    testimony we have heard is that it is a grave error to indulge in
    deliberate distortion or exaggeration concerning the alleged dangers of a
    particular drug, or to base a program of drug education upon a strategy
    of fear. It is no use playing "chicken" with young people; in nine
    cases out of ten they will accept the challenge. 41
    \t\t In place of the traditional deterrents to drug use–– imprisonment and scare campaigns–– the Le Dain Commission's Interim Report
    then proceeds to outline in the broadest terms, yet with many detailed
    recommendations, a major reorientation of attitudes toward the
    nonmedical use of psychoactive drugs, and major changes in laws and
    public policies. Many of these recommendations apply to the opiates, the
    amphetamines, the barbiturates, LSD, and other psychoactive drugs as
    well as to marijuana, and they closely parallel suggestions to be made
    in Part X, Conclusions and Recommendations, of this Consumers Union
    Report; they will therefore be noted there. The Le Dain Commission's
    comments on some of the special problems of marijuana legislation and
    marijuana law enforcement closely parallel comments in the Wootton
    subcommittee report and other recent publications, and are considered
    here.

    \t\t
    \t\t\tThe victim of a crime against
    person or property [the Commission points out] usually complains to the
    police, gives them information, and assists them to commence an
    investigation. The police react to what they have been told about a
    specific offense. If, on the other hand, someone has a drug in his
    possession, and has bought it from someone else, it is rare that anyone
    will feel affected enough to lay a complaint. Hence, instead of reacting
    to a specific request, the police must go out themselves and look for
    offenses. Moreover, it is difficult to discover these offenses. Because
    the parties to the offense or transaction are all willing participants,
    they can agree to carry out the prohibited conduct in a place of privacy
    where it is not likely to be seen either by witnesses or the police. 42
    \t\t Legislators, the report
    continues, have responded to these special drug law enforcement
    difficulties by widening police powers of search and seizure in
    extraordinary ways. "Under the ordinary law, a person can be searched
    only after an arrest has been made, and in order to discover any
    evidence of the crime for which the arrest is made. Where there is not
    an arrest, there is no power to search premises without a search
    warrant. Again, such warrants assume specific evidence that the
    particular premises contain something incriminating. The point of these
    rules is to prevent indiscriminate interference with privacy in an
    attempt to turn up evidence of a crime and to prevent such interference
    by requiring cogent evidence that the person or premises affected are
    peculiarly worthy of search, before such search is authorized by an
    independent judicial officer who reviews the evidence." 43

    \t\tUnder the Canadian drug laws,
    in contrast, "there is no longer a real requirement that the police
    obtain external review and confirmation of their judgment.... Any police
    officer can enter and search any place other than a dwelling house
    without a warrant. 44

    \t\tEven with respect to dwelling
    houses, moreover, Canadian drug law since 1929 has made available a
    legal device called a "writ of assistance." Such writs, as most United
    States schoolchildren learn in an early grade, were one of the causes of
    the American Revolution. An enforcement officer must apply to a judge
    for such a writ in the first instance, as in the case of a search
    warrant or warrant for arrest; but the writ of assistance does not
    specify any particular premises. "It remains valid so long as the
    officer retains his authority and it empowers him to enter any dwelling
    in Canada at any time, with such assistance as he may require, and
    search for narcotics and other proscribed drugs." 45

    \t\tCanadian drug law has also had
    a "no-knock" clause like the one enacted by the United States Congress
    in 1970; this clause provides that a peace officer armed with either a
    warrant or a writ of assistance may, "with such assistance as he deems
    necessary, break open any door, window, lock, fastener, floor, wall,
    ceiling, compartment, plumbing, box, container or any other thing," 46
    may search any person found in such a place; and may seize and take
    away any narcotic or other proscribed drug in such place, as well as
    anything that may be evidence of the commission of a drug offense. (The
    possession of such extraordinary powers has not made the Canadian police
    forces noticeably more effective than American police forces in
    stamping out illicit drug trafficking.)

    \t\tThe difficulties of drug-law
    enforcement, the Le Dain Commission adds, have led to yet another
    "unusual practice–– what is known in other jurisdictions as 'entrapment'
    but which may be described as 'police encouragement.' A person is
    encouraged by a police agent to commit an offense [and is then
    prosecuted for that offense]. It is impossible to say how extensive this
    practice is, but it is reflected in a number of cases." 47
    Many people approve such laws and practices, of course, on the ground
    that the "drug evil" must be stamped out at any cost. The Le Dain
    Commission points out that the cost is very high:

    \t\t
    \t\t\tDuring the initial phase of our
    inquiry, we have heard bitter complaints and criticisms of the use of
    entrapment and physical violence to obtain evidence. We have not
    verified the particular circumstances of these complaints and
    criticisms, so that we make no charge of any kind at this time but we
    deplore the use of such methods to the extent that they may be resorted
    to on occasion. We believe that such methods are not only a serious
    violation of respect for the human person, but they are
    counter-productive in that they create contempt for law and law
    enforcement. The price that is paid for them is far too great for any
    good that they may do.
    \t\t\t We recommend that
    instructions be given to police officers to abstain from such methods of
    enforcement, and that the RCMP use its influence with other police
    forces involved in the enforcement of the drug laws to try to assure
    that there is a uniform policy in this regard. 48 [The emphasis here and in the quotations below is in the original.]

    \t\t
    \t\tThe commission reviews the
    arguments in favor of legalizing marijuana, and indicates that serious
    consideration should be given to them. They are summarized in the Interim Report as follows:

    \t\t
    \t\t\t1. The use of marijuana is increasing in popularity among all age groups of the population, and particularly among the young;
    \t\t\t2. This increase indicates
    that the attempt to suppress, or even to control its use, is failing and
    will continue to fail–– that people are not deterred by the criminal
    law prohibition against its use;

    \t\t\t3. The present legislative
    policy has not been justified by clear and unequivocal evidence of short
    term or long term harm caused by cannabis;

    \t\t\t4. The individual and social
    harm (including the destruction of young lives and growing disrespect
    for law) caused by the present use of the criminal law to attempt to
    suppress cannabis far outweighs any potential for harm which cannabis
    could conceivably possess, having regard to the long history of its use
    and the present lack of evidence;

    \t\t\t5. The illicit status of
    cannabis invites exploitation by criminal elements, and other abuses
    such as adulteration; it also brings cannabis users into contact with
    such criminal elements and with other drugs, such as heroin, which they
    might not otherwise be induced to consider.

    \t\t\tFor all of these reasons, it
    is said, cannabis should be made available under government-controlled
    conditions of quality and availability. 49

    \t\t
    \t\t The commission concludes, however, that legalization is not warranted at this time
    (spring of 1970). One reason for postponing the decision is that the
    scientific evidence concerning marijuana is not yet all in–– but the Interim Report adds a cogent warning:

    \t\t
    \t\t\t"How long can society wait for
    the necessary information? It is very serious that the scientific
    information concerning cannabis lags so far behind the rapidly
    developing social problem caused by its illegal status." 50
    \t\tOne reason for this lag in
    scientific information, the commission notes, is government restraints
    pn research. "Many scientists interested in such research have expressed
    feelings of dissatisfaction and frustration with governmental research
    policy. They have stated to the commission that they have been unable to
    carry out such work under their own authority as scientists in the
    present atmosphere of restraint. They say that they have been frustrated
    by the administration of the formal and unwritten governmental policies
    which surround the right to undertake research in this field. 51

    \t\tMany American scientists, of
    course, have expressed similar dissatisfaction and frustration.* One
    reason for this governmental repression of research, the Le Dain
    Commission suggests (though it does not actually state) is the fear that
    sound research may fail to support the traditional allegations against
    marijuana and may thus lead to a change in public policy. "The public,
    including interested scientists, are justly dissatisfied and impatient
    with the present state of research. The public does not know whom to
    blame, but it will not lightly tolerate an indefinite reliance on
    inadequate knowledge to justify a social policy which is coming under
    increasingly severe criticism." 53 (Emphasis added.)

    \t\t

    \t\t
    \t\t\t
    \t\t\t\t * An example of the perils of marijuana research in the United States was reported in Medical World News in 1969:

    \t\t\t\t
    \t\t\t\t\t"At ten minutes before
    midnight last June 27, [a psychiatrist] was rousted out of bed... by
    callers from the narcotics division of the Texas Department of Public
    Safety and the local police, callers armed with a warrant for the
    psychiatrist's arrest on a charge of marijuana possession and for a
    search of his home.

    \t\t\t\t\t"[The psychiatrist]
    informed them that he did, indeed, have marijuana in his possession, not
    in his residence but in his adjoining office, where he used it in fully
    authorized research. He removed it from his office safe and turned it
    over to the officers, who confiscated it and arrested him. They also
    seized 208 Cannabis sativa plants the doctor showed them growing in his backyard.

    \t\t\t\t\t"But he also showed them
    his permit to import marijuana, his Class 4 and Class 5 federal tax
    stamps covering marijuana used in research, and the paragraph in a
    booklet issued by the federal bureau of narcotics stating that Class 5
    researchers may produce such quantities of marijuana and compound or
    manufactured marijuana preparations as are necessary for their research,
    instruction, or analysis.' [The psychiatrist] was nevertheless
    arrested, spent the night in the [county] jail and was released the next
    morning on $1,000 bond.

    \t\t\t\t\t"Although it appeared
    unlikely that he would be prosecuted, [the psychiatrist] considers his
    research to have been effectively stopped, and himself to have been all
    but run out of town. 'My patients have been scared away,' he says, 'and
    my experimental subjects are afraid to come in because it was reported
    in the local papers that I was under surveillance for a month and that
    the police are watching me with binoculars." 52

    \t\t\t\t
    \t\t\t
    \t\t
    \t\t

    \t\tA second reason given by the
    Le Dain Commission for not recommending the immediate legalization of
    marijuana was a purely practical one: public opinion was not yet ready
    (in the spring of 1970) for so drastic a change, and the recommendation
    would no doubt be rejected.... It is our impression that there has not
    yet been enough informed public debate. Certainly there has been much
    debate, but all too often it has been based on hearsay, myth and
    ill-informed opinion about the effects of the drug. We hope that this
    report will assist in providing a basis for informed debate..." 54

    \t\tA third reason for delaying the legalization decision, the Interim Report
    adds, is that "further consideration should be given to what may be
    necessarily implied by legalization. Would a decision by the government
    to assume responsibility for the quality control and distribution of
    cannabis imply, or be taken to imply, approval of its use * and an
    assurance as to the absence of significant potential harm?" 55 Finally, the commission cites "jurisdictional and technical questions involved in the control of quality and availability." 56

    \t\t

    \t\t
    \t\t\t
    \t\t\t\t* In other situations, it
    should be noted, the repeal of a punitive law does not imply official
    approval of the behavior that is legalized. Thus the New York state
    legislature years ago repealed that state's law punishing suicide
    attempts, a number of state legislatures have in the past few years
    repealed state laws against homosexual acts between consenting adults,
    and the Oregon legislature in 1971 repealed that state's law restricting
    cigarette smoking by minors–– not because the legislatures approved or
    wanted to encourage suicide attempts, homosexual acts, and cigarette
    smoking by minors, or because they thought such acts harmless, but
    because they recognized that criminal penalties are an unwise and
    ineffective response to such acts.

    \t\t\t
    \t\t
    \t\t

    \t\tBoth in the United States and
    Canada, the argument is sometimes made that international treaty
    obligations under the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotics Drugs,
    1961, prevent the legalization of marijuana. The Le Dain Commission
    gives short shrift to this argument. Any country can withdraw from the
    Single Convention on January 1 of any year by giving six full months'
    notice; withdrawal "would not, of course, be in violation of
    international obligations since it is a right expressly provided for in
    the Convention." 57

    \t\tOne step short of legalizing marijuana would be the abolition of all penalties for the possession of marijuana–– leaving trafficking a criminal offense. The Interim Report
    concludes that this policy merits conscientious study, with respect not
    only to marijuana but to the psychoactive drugs in general, including
    heroin.

    \t\tOne Le Dain Commission
    argument in favor of abolishing the offense of simple possession is the
    high cost of enforcing the possession law: "Its enforcement would appear
    to cost far too much, in individual and social terms, for any utility
    which it may be shown to have.... The present cost of its enforcement,
    and the individual and social harm caused by it, are in our opinion, one
    of the major problems involved in the nonmedical use of drugs." 58

    \t\tUnenforceability, the
    commission continues, is another argument in favor of abolishing all
    penalties against possession. "Insofar as cannabis, and possibly the
    stronger hallucinogens like LSD, are concerned, the present law against
    simple possession would appear to be unenforceable, except in a very
    selective and discriminatory kind of way. This results necessarily from
    the extent of use and the kinds of individual involved. It is obvious
    that the police can not maker a serious attempt at full enforcement of
    the law against simple possession. _..." 59

    \t\tIt is often argued that, just
    as the continued commission of murder is not a sound reason for
    repealing the murder laws, so the smoking of marijuana is not a good
    reason for repealing the marijuana laws. The Le Dain Commission
    distinguishes the two cases:

    \t\t
    \t\t\tThe law which appears to stand
    on the statute book as a mere convenience to be applied from time to
    time, on a very selective and discriminatory basis, to "make an example"
    of someone, is bound to create a strong sense of injustice and a
    corresponding disrespect for law and law enforcement. It is also bound
    to have an adverse effect upon the morale of law enforcement
    authorities.
    \t\t\tMoreover, it is doubtful if
    its deterrent effect justifies the injury inflicted upon the individuals
    who have the misfortune to be prosecuted under it. It is, of course,
    impossible to determine the extent to which the law against simple
    possession has deterrent effect, but certainly the increase in use, as
    well as the statements of users, would suggest that it has relatively
    little. The relative risk of detection and prosecution may be presumed
    to have a bearing upon deterrent effect. 60

    \t\t
    \t\tThe likelihood that a marijuana user will be brought to court for possession, the commission adds, "may be under one percent" 61 –– hardly an effective deterrent. *

    \t\t

    \t\t
    \t\t\t
    \t\t\t\t* In the United States,
    where an estimated five million marijuana cigarettes were smoked daily
    in 1971, the likelihood of being arrested on any particular occasion of
    use was far less than one chance in five thousand–– and for many users
    the risk approached zero.

    \t\t\t
    \t\t
    \t\t

    \t\tOn the question of deterrence the Interim Report
    also cites a 1967 opinion of the Ontario Court of Appeal: "Those, of
    whom the accused is one, who have accepted the use of psychedelic drugs
    as socially desirable as well as personally desirable course of conduct
    are not as likely to be discouraged by the type of punishment ordinarily
    meted out to other traffickers. Such treatment will likely serve to
    confirm them in their belief in the drug cult... 62

    \t\tYet another reason for repealing the possession laws is briefly stated in the Interim Report:
    "The extreme methods which appear to be necessary in the enforcement of
    a prohibition against simple possession–– informers, entrapment, Writs
    of Assistance, and occasionally force to recover the prohibited
    substance–– add considerably to the burden of justifying the necessity
    or even the utility of such a provision." 63

    \t\tBut the Le Dain Commission
    waxes most eloquent in attacking the possession laws on the ground of
    the direct harm they do, not only to their victims but to respect for
    law and order:

    \t\t
    \t\t\tThe harm caused by a
    conviction for simple possession appears to be out of all proportion to
    any good it is likely to achieve in relation to the phenomenon of
    nonmedical drug use. Because of the nature of the phenomenon involved,
    it is bound to impinge more heavily on the young than on other segments
    of the population. Moreover, it is bound to blight the life of some of
    the most promising of the country's youth. Once again there is the
    accumulating social cost of a profound sense of injustice, not only at
    being the unlucky one whom the authorities have decided to prosecute,
    but at having to pay such an enormous price for conduct which does not
    seem to concern anyone but oneself. This sense of injustice is
    aggravated by the disparity in sentences made possible by the large
    discretion presently left to the courts. 64

    \t\t
    \t\t Despite these impressive
    reasons for repealing the laws against mere possession of marijuana and
    other psychoactive drugs, a majority of the commission resolved not to
    recommend immediate repeal. More time was needed, the majority concluded, to study arguments against repeal made by the police. The commission indicated, however, that it would announce a decision in 1972.

    \t\tThis was the only point on which the Interim Report
    was not unanimous. The one woman member of the Le Dain Commission,
    Professor Bertrand, did not want to postpone the repeal recommendation
    even for one year. She wrote:

    \t\t
    \t\t\tI find myself in disagreement
    with my colleagues on the Commission in respect of the offence of simple
    possession of cannabis. In my opinion the prohibition against such
    possession should be removed altogether. I believe that this course is
    dictated at the present time by the following considerations: the extent
    of use and the age groups involved; the relative impossibility of
    enforcing the law; the social consequences of its enforcement; and the
    uncertainty as to the relative potential for harm of cannabis. 65
    \t\tIn lieu of recommending
    immediate repeal of the laws against simple possession, the Le Dain
    Commission majority recommended the immediate abolition of imprisonment
    as a penalty for simple possession:

    \t\t
    \t\t\t ... The Commission is of the
    opinion that no one should be liable for imprisonment for simple
    possession of a psychotropic drug for non-medical purposes. * 66
    \t\t

    \t\t
    \t\t\t
    \t\t\t\t* This recommendation, the
    commission made clear, applies to simple possession of heroin and other
    illicit drugs as well as to marijuana.

    \t\t\t
    \t\t
    \t\t

    \t\tTo replace imprisonment the commission recommended "as
    an interim measure, pending its final report, that the Narcotic Control
    Act and the Food and Drugs Act be amended to make the offense of simple
    possession under these acts punishable upon summary conviction by a
    fine not exceeding a reasonable amount. The Commission suggests a
    maximum fine of $100." 67

    \t\tA prisoner who cannot pay his
    fine or who refuses to pay it is ordinarily liable to imprisonment. To
    prevent imprisonment in such cases, the commission "also recommends
    that the power... to impose imprisonment in default of payment of a fine
    should not be exercisable in respect of offenses of simple possession
    of psychotropic drugs. In such cases, the Crown should reply on civil
    proceedings to recover payment." 68

    \t\tThe proposal that offenders
    found guilty of possessing marijuana should not be imprisoned may seem
    radical indeed to some readers of this Consumers Union Report. But, as
    the Le Dain Commission points out, the courts of Canada had reached much
    the same conclusion on their own initiative in 1969, without waiting
    for the Interim Report. Canadian court statistics for the period
    from August through December 1969, this report declares, "reveal that
    imprisonment is now being rarely, if at all, resorted to in cases of
    simple possession of marijuana and hashish and, it would appear, LSD,
    and that such cases are now generally disposed of by suspended sentence,
    probation or fine." 69
    Thus the key Le Dain Commission marijuana recommendation, far from
    representing a radical departure from current Canadian policy, does
    little more than recommend that the current practice of most Canadian
    courts be made uniform and mandatory.

    \t\tMuch the same trend appears to
    be under way in the United States courts, though at a slower pace. As
    the Select Committee on Crime of the United States House of
    Representatives commented in its First Report on Marijuana,
    dated April 6, 1970: "We have observed that the penalties for marijuana
    possession or even for selling are generally not imposed and that jail
    sentences are the rare exception rather than the rule." * 72

    \t\t

    \t\t
    \t\t\t
    \t\t\t\t* Judge Charles W. Halleck
    of the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions, in testimony
    before the House of Representatives Special Subcommittee on Alcoholism
    and Narcotics on September 18, 1969, explained why he no longer gives
    jail sentences to youthful marijuana smokers:

    \t\t\t\t
    \t\t\t\t\t"If I send [a long-haired
    marijuana offender] to the jail even for 30 days, Senator, he is going
    to be the victim of the most brutal type of homosexual, unnatural,
    perverted assaults and attacks that you can imagine, and anybody who
    tells you it doesn't happen in that jail day in and day out, is simply
    not telling you the truth....

    \t\t\t\t\t"How in God's name,
    Senator, can I send anybody to that jail knowing that? How can I send
    some poor young kid who gets caught by some zealous policeman who wants
    to make his record on a narcotics arrest? How can I send that kid to
    that jail?

    \t\t\t\t\t"I can't do it. So I put
    him on probation or I suspend the sentence and everybody says the judge
    doesn't care. The judge doesn't care about drugs, lets them all go. You
    just simply can't treat these kinds of people like that." 70

    \t\t\t\t
    \t\t\t\tDr. David E. Smith of the
    Haight-Ashbury Medical Clinic reported in June 1971 that among the
    psychiatric patients served by his clinic were 25 young men with serious
    psychoses–– all of whom were imprisoned for possession of marijuana and
    all of whom suffered psychiatric breakdowns following homosexual rape
    while they were incarcerated. 71

    \t\t\t
    \t\t
    \t\t

    \t\tTo reduce without delay the damaging effects of law enforcement on drug users, the Le Dain Commission went on to recommend "that
    the police, prosecutors and courts exercise the discretion entrusted to
    them at various stages of the criminal law process so as to minimize
    the impact of the criminal law upon the simple possessor of psychotropic
    drugs, pending decision as to the whole future of possessional offenses
    in this field." 73

    \t\tThe commission also
    recommended a substantial reduction in the penalties for trafficking and
    for possession for the purpose of trafficking and a major restriction
    of the definition of "trafficking." Canadian penalties at the time of
    the Interim Report included a maximum of life imprisonment for
    either trafficking in marijuana or possession for the purpose of
    trafficking. This maximum could be meted out to a young person sharing a
    marijuana cigarette with a friend or giving marijuana to a friend–– a
    gift defined as "trafficking" in Canadian law and as a sale" in United
    States law.

    \t\tIn Canada, importers and
    exporters of cannabis were also subject to a maximum of life
    imprisonment–– and to a minimum mandatory sentence, which the judge
    could not reduce, of seven years' imprisonment. In lieu of these
    penalties, the Le Dain Commission recommended that minimum mandatory
    sentences be abolished altogether and that the maximum, sentence be
    eighteen months for all cannabis offenses including importing,
    exporting, and trafficking. "We further recommend that the
    definition of trafficking be amended so as to exclude the giving,
    without exchange of value, by one user to another of a quantity of
    cannabis which could reasonably be consumed on a single occasion. Such
    an act should be subject at most to the penalty for simple possession" 74 –– that is, a reasonable fine not to exceed $100.

    \t\tIn yet another respect the Le
    Dain Commission sought to minimize the impact of the criminal law on
    young marijuana offenders–– indeed, on offenders generally:

    \t\t
    \t\t\tGreat concern has been expressed
    during the initial phase of our inquiry concerning the serious effects
    of a criminal conviction and record upon the lives of drug users,
    particularly the young. These effects are cited, in the case of
    cannabis, as indicating that the harm caused by the law exceeds the harm
    which it is supposed to prevent. A criminal record may mar a young
    life, forever being an impediment to professional or other vocational
    opportunity and interfering with free movement and the full enjoyment of
    public rights. We believe this reasoning applies to all criminal
    convictions, and we do not believe that there should be a special rule
    in favour of drug offenders. For this reason, we recommend the
    enactment of general legislation to provide for the destruction of all
    records of a criminal conviction after a reasonable period of time. 75
    \t\t The Final Report of
    the Le Dain Commission was not available when this Consumers Union
    Report was completed. The guidelines laid down by the commission's Interim Report,
    however, are sound guidelines for the formation of policy in the United
    States. Consumers Union's own detailed recommendations, which go
    considerably further, appear below in Part X.

    \t\t

    \t\t
    \t\t\t Footnotes

    \t\t\tChapter 60

    \t\t\t

    \t\t
    \t\t1. Tod H. Mikuriya, "Physical, Mental and Moral Effects of Marijuana," International Journal of the Addictions, 3 (Fall, 1968): 253.

    \t\t

    \t\t2. Le Dain Commission Interim Report, p. 8.

    \t\t

    \t\t3. Ibid., p. 7.

    \t\t

    \t\t4. Ibid., pp. 13-126.

    \t\t

    \t\t5. Ibid., p. 145.

    \t\t

    \t\t6. Ibid., p. 154.

    \t\t

    \t\t7. Ibid., p. 155.

    \t\t

    \t\t8. Ibid.

    \t\t

    \t\t9. Ibid., pp. 155-156.

    \t\t

    \t\t10. Ibid., p. 160.

    \t\t

    \t\t11. Ibid., p. 156.

    \t\t

    \t\t12. Ibid., p. 144.

    \t\t

    \t\t13. Ibid., pp. 156-157.

    \t\t

    \t\t14. Ibid., p. 157.

    \t\t

    \t\t15. Ibid., p. 158.

    \t\t

    \t\t16. Ibid.

    \t\t

    \t\t17. Ibid., p. 195.

    \t\t

    \t\t18. Ibid., p. 196.

    \t\t

    \t\t19. Ibid., p. 197.

    \t\t

    \t\t20. Ibid., p. 83.

    \t\t

    \t\t21. Ibid.

    \t\t

    \t\t22. Ibid.

    \t\t

    \t\t23. Ibid., p. 26.

    \t\t

    \t\t24. Ibid., p. 76.

    \t\t

    \t\t25. Ibid.

    \t\t

    \t\t26. Ibid., p. 85.

    \t\t

    \t\t27. Ibid., p. 45.

    \t\t

    \t\t15771

    \t\t

    \t\t28. Ibid., p. 77.

    \t\t

    \t\t29. Ibid.

    \t\t

    \t\t30. Ibid., p. 79.

    \t\t

    \t\t31, Ibid.

    \t\t

    \t\t32. Ibid., p. 80.

    \t\t

    \t\t33. George D. Lundberg, Janeth Adelson, and Eric H. Prosnitz, "Marijuana-Induced Hospitalization," JAMA, 215 (January 4, 1971): 121.

    \t\t

    \t\t34. Le Dain Commission Interim Report, p. 79.

    \t\t

    \t\t35. Ibid., p. 80.

    \t\t

    \t\t36. Ibid., p. 203.

    \t\t

    \t\t37. Ibid., pp. 77-78.

    \t\t

    \t\t38. Ibid., p. 200.

    \t\t

    \t\t39. Ibid., p. 146.

    \t\t

    \t\t40. Ibid., p. 230.

    \t\t

    \t\t41. Ibid., p. 231.

    \t\t

    \t\t42. Ibid., p. 183.

    \t\t

    \t\t43. Ibid.

    \t\t

    \t\t44. Ibid,

    \t\t

    \t\t45. Ibid., p. 184.

    \t\t

    \t\t46. Ibid.

    \t\t

    \t\t47. Ibid.

    \t\t

    \t\t48. Ibid., p. 250.

    \t\t

    \t\t49. Ibid., p. 245.

    \t\t

    \t\t50. Ibid., p. 247.

    \t\t

    \t\t51. Ibid., p. 225.

    \t\t

    \t\t52. Medical World News, September 19, 1969, pp. 15-16.

    \t\t

    \t\t53. Le Dain Commission Interim Report, p. 225.

    \t\t

    \t\t54. Ibid., p. 247.

    \t\t

    \t\t55. Ibid.

    \t\t

    \t\t56. Ibid.

    \t\t

    \t\t57. Ibid., p. 248.

    \t\t

    \t\t58. Ibid., p. 241,

    \t\t

    \t\t59. Ibid.

    \t\t

    \t\t60. Ibid., pp. 241-242.

    \t\t

    \t\t61. Ibid., p. 241.

    \t\t

    \t\t62. Ibid., p. 188.

    \t\t

    \t\t63. Ibid., p. 242.

    \t\t

    \t\t64. Ibid.

    \t\t

    \t\t65. Ibid., p. 258.

    \t\t

    \t\t66. Ibid., p. 242.

    \t\t

    \t\t67. Ibid.

    \t\t

    \t\t68. Ibid., p. 243.

    \t\t

    \t\t69. Ibid., p. 187.

    \t\t

    \t\t70. Charles W. Halleck, testimony in Comprehensive Narcotic Addiction and Drug Abuse Care and Control Act of 1969,
    Hearings before the Special Subcommittee on Alcoholism and Narcotics of
    the Select Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate, 91st
    Cong., 1st Sess., September 18, 1969 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
    Printing Office, 1969), pp. 105-106.

    \t\t

    \t\t71. David E. Smith, "Testimony to
    National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse," presented to National
    Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse, San Francisco, June 14, 1971;
    unpublished.

    \t\t

    \t\t72. First Report on Marijuana,
    Select Committee on Crime, U.S. House of Representatives, April 6, 1970
    (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970), p. 114,

    \t\t

    \t\t73. Le Dain Commission Interim Report, p. 2,43.

    \t\t

    \t\t74. Ibid., p. 250.

    \t\t

    \t\t75. Ibid., p. 251.
     

Share This Page