Reform in Canada Pretense & Perils

2. Decriminalization: A Humanitarian First Step
2.1 Definition
Several variations of decriminalization have been implemented or proposed in various
jurisdictions around the world. Generally speaking, cannabis decriminalization could
address minor offences such as possession of small amounts by removing the
possession offence from the criminal code or by replacing criminal penalties with civil
ones. In the latter case, possession is still illegal, but with lesser consequences for
those who are apprehended. Offenders typically pay a small to moderate fine without
acquiring a criminal record. In a few jurisdictions, fines have been removed and
replaced with cautions. In some of its incarnations, decriminalization occurs de facto by
which the laws are not actually changed, but rather apprehension and/or prosecution
practices of local authorities are abated as a matter of practice.
2.2 Introduction
Historically, opposition to decriminalization usually came from those who favoured
continued prohibition. They expressed fears that decriminalization would send a
counter-productive message that would increase cannabis use and related problems.
They also asserted that decriminalization would sustain and possibly strengthen the
criminally-controlled contraband trade in cannabis and other illegal drugs. Despite these
largely unsubstantiated fears, many nations as well as state jurisdictions within the US
have proceeded to decriminalize possession of cannabis, and continue to do so.
This section of Cannabis Law Reform in Canada: Pretense & Perils assesses the
viability of the decriminalization of possession of small amounts of cannabis as a first
step in cannabis law reform. It reports the evidence for the impact of decriminalization
where it has been adopted in jurisdictions world-wide. This section also reports on the
literature on the nature of the contraband cannabis trade and assesses the likely impact
of decriminalization in Canada across several relevant domains.
2.3 Impact on Consumer Demand, Ease of Access, Use and
Associated Problems
(Duff et al., 2011) have studied cannabis use patterns among regular users in four
Canadian cities. Their results demonstrated that under prohibition, cannabis users for
the most part, even in times of easy access, moderate their cannabis use such that it
does not interfere with their lives or lead to adverse health consequences. These
patterns appear to persist under decriminalization. For decades, research on the impact
of cannabis decriminalization has shown that, in a variety of jurisdictions in Australia,
Europe and the United States, decriminalization does not cause an increase in
consumer demand or ease of access. Nor does decriminalization lead to a sustained
16