National Post Vs. The Gazillion-Dollar Pot-Growers Act

Two of the paper's top columnists set their sights on the Tories' infatuation with mandatory minimums. It's about time.

Two columnists at everyone's favourite right-leaning national newspaper, the National Post, have come out guns a-blazin' today against provisions in the Conservative's Gazillion-Dollar Pot-Growers Act. Chris Selley and Jonathan Kay argue that the bill's provisions on mandatory minimum sentences for marijuana growers will drive pot users to purchase from organized criminals and clog up prisons with non-violent offenders. That, or the provisions will be willfully ignored by prosecutors and police alike, meaning the bill won't live up to its real name, the Safe Streets and Communities Act. Selley, who we say is just about the nation's most readable columnist, picks up on a clause in the bill that would mandate a minimum nine-month sentence to anyone who grows weed in a rented apartment and then passes a joint to a friend, as that's considered trafficking under the Criminal Code.

Says Selley: "This is bad policy for at least three reasons. One: It encourages the purchase of marijuana from, and thereby the enrichment of, criminals. Two: It’s draconian. If a Cabinet minister’s child was handed such a sentence, that Cabinet minister would tremble with grief and righteous rage. And three: A Cabinet minister’s child will never be handed such a sentence, and nor, most likely, will anyone else ... It would be unseemly to wish to see a Cabinet minister’s son or daughter banged up for nine months for smoking a joint. But in the very unlikely event it happened, I certainly wouldn’t shed a tear for his or her parents."

(We'd like to take a second to note that we were the first outlet in the country to uncover that hidden gem in the bill, owing to the ever-watchful eye of Anthony Doob, a University of Toronto criminologist and occasional contributer to The Mark.)

Kay highlights the bill's lack of intellectual rigor by dropping by a panel discussion on it, where a reformed cocaine dealer tells the audience that mandatory minimums will, if anything, encourage more violent crime. Says the ex-dealer, Greg Simmons:

"When I was doing my thing, there were times when I thought, ‘if I’m going in [to commit a crime], I might as well go in with gusto. I’m not going back to prison. I’m never going to let them take me back.’ This bill creates that mindset.”

Kay continues:

"I did find it odd to reflect on the fact that – despite all the punditry and propaganda about C-10 – this was the first time I had ever heard a real, live, former prisoner give his opinion on the subject. Instead, I’ve mostly heard from middle-aged, middle-class blowhards like myself who wouldn’t know cocaine from sweet ‘n low. And that disturbs me.

Putting aside my objections to the mandatory minimums contained in C-10, and the prison-happy agenda it epitomizes, the bill represents something larger and more disturbing in our country: a complete divorce between policy-making that affects millions of people, and real-life research and experiences ... Stephen Harper and his cabinet ministers bristle when they are accused of inflicting an 'ideological' agenda on Canada. So I put the question to them: In the absence of evidence or expertise to back up your policy, what other word would you offer me?"

Granted, these are just two columnists in a country overrun with them, and if there's one area in which this Conservative government has truly excelled, it's been in ignoring the analysis of both the media and experts. But if the country's leading conservative newspaper maintains this level of disgust over the more draconian and expensive measures of the bill, then maybe, maybe someone in the cabinet or PMO will start paying attention.