Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Editorial: PM undermines marijuana law

Has Ottawa led marijuana-dispensary owners up the garden path? Are municipalities that have begun licensing these outlets jumping the gun? Judging by remarks Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made in Victoria last week, that might indeed be the case.

Has Ottawa led marijuana-dispensary owners up the garden path? Are municipalities that have begun licensing these outlets jumping the gun? Judging by remarks Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made in Victoria last week, that might indeed be the case.

During the 2015 federal election campaign, the Liberal Party promised to legalize marijuana. The party also said it would regulate and restrict access to the drug, but not surprisingly, the message most Canadians heard was that legalization is on the way.

However, during his visit here last week, the prime minister appeared to walk back, or at least qualify, that promise: “I cannot stress enough that until we have a framework to control and regulate marijuana, the current law applies.”

That is saying the drug remains illegal if sold without a physician’s prescription. And it can only be construed as a warning against premature licensing of dispensaries.

The arrest this week of marijuana retailers Marc and Jodie Emery is a reminder that limits are still in place.

Are Trudeau and his advisers having second thoughts? Medical authorities are troubled about the potential health hazards of smoking any burned plant material. They point out that several constituents of marijuana smoke are carcinogens, and that inhalation is one of the least effective ways of absorbing the active ingredient.

Most physicians are strongly opposed to acting as gatekeepers if marijuana is legalized, since there is insufficient research into its effectiveness or its side-effects.

Inevitably, some of these concerns will have been included in briefings for the prime minister. What might have appeared straightforward at the outset might no longer look as simple.

Some of the region’s local governments appear to understand that uncertainties still exist. Langford Mayor Stew Young has said that he opposes dispensaries until the legal issues are cleared up. Both Sidney and Esquimalt have issued bans.

But by some accounts, there are already 35 outlets in Victoria and several in Sooke. If this goes on, the capital region could become the pot centre of Canada.

There is a risk of jumping the gun. Victoria city council has said it will permit the sale of marijuana if dispensary owners obtain a $5,000 business licence, acquire the necessary zoning permit and prohibit on-site consumption. Sale to minors is also forbidden.

But even with these restrictions, it’s not clear that dispensaries will be given a green light when Parliament finally acts. It is conceivable that only pharmacies will be allowed to sell the drug.

Moreover, there are also uncertainties about the kinds of products that would be authorized. While outlets in Victoria sell marijuana oil, capsules and edibles such as brownies, dried marijuana for smoking is often their most popular item.

What happens if smoking marijuana is prohibited in the new federal regulations? Some of the dispensaries that already have local government approval might be ruined if their largest source of income is outlawed. Yet given the concerns raised within the medical community, this is a distinct possibility.

In short, by licensing dispensaries before the new legislation is finalized, municipalities such as Victoria are groping in the dark. The quasi-legal framework they’ve constructed could collide head-on with whatever Ottawa decides.

Most of the blame for this rests with the prime minister and his colleagues. They’ve undermined the moral authority of the existing law, without producing an alternative. That leaves everyone, from the police to local governments to the business community, in a state of confusion.

Perhaps Trudeau hoped to clarify the situation by reminding us that the old law still stands. He would have done better to tell us what the new law will look like, if not in detail, then at least in outline. We are entitled to know.