Man with a Plan- a Discussion with Alan Young- by Preston Peet: Drugwar.com

(Editor's note- This interview was conducted as research material for an article about Alan Young, the High Times Freedom Fighter for July, 2003.)

Man with a Plan- A discussion with Alan Young

by Preston Peet

posted at DrugWar.com
May 19, 2003

Alan Young (photo- Sherryll Sobie
www.sherryllsobie)

Preston Peet- Why do you do what you do?

Alan Young- It's partly personal, partly political. I grew up in that drug-taking decade of the 1970s, and understand the folly of criminalizing this behavior. Politically, most of my work in law has been to try to streamline the beast. Criminal law has become so overburdened and fat that it doesn't serve its purpose, which is protecting us from violence, be it physical or psychological. So my goal was to try to remove crimes of moral hygiene. I've brought challenges to pornography, prostitution and gambling laws, and most recently that one that's more personal to me, the cannabis laws.

P- So what are you after personally, legalization or decriminalization?

AL- The way I see it is decriminalization is a non-existent entity. It simply means the absence of penal law. It doesn't tell you what replaces it, so it clearly can't be a permanent position. I see it as a stepping-stone for legalization, the only clear alternative. The reason we need a stepping stone is to get over the discomfort people have, to habituate people so they are more tolerant. Eventually when they don't think marijuana a big deal, we can look at forms of distribution, either through the public or private sectors. If I were king for a day, I wouldn't even be talking decriminalization, as it's a silly concept.

P- I personally agree. So, tell me a little bit about Medical Marijuana Access Regulations please.

AY- Sure. Through the period of 1997-1999, through a process of negotiations and court challenges, Health Canada was compelled to set up a program. Even though they parade as though they are a maverick nation on this, the reality is that they set up a burden-laden process that probably does a disservice to medical marijuana users. However, the way it works is that you have to recruit either your personal doctor or a specialist, who has to fill out a form indicating that you fit within certain health categories and that marijuana is therapeutically valuable. Now, the first problem is that the medical profession is not prepared to sign most of these forms, and they've been warned not to by their own governing body. Health Canada knew this. Basically they put in a request that is really asking the impossible for most patients and doctors. But our issue lately is that those people who do slip through the cracks and get an exemption to use medical marijuana, they've no lawful source. Currently the most exciting development for me is that now there is a court order compelling the government of Canada to start distributing in the next 6 months, or loose their whole program.

P- This is Judge Lederman's ruling? When did this happen?

AY- Jan. 9, 2003. They have until July 9, but they are applying now to extend that time, which we are fighting vigorously. Having the clock ticking is in our favor. That's what I think is the most exciting development, because the fact that Health Canada really only entered this program to pay lip service to medical needs is now coming back to haunt them, and may eventually lead to the loss of the possession law, which is what we set out to do in the first place.

P- Will this effect everybody?

AY- What happens is if the medical program is struck down as unconstitutional, then because of a case known as Parker, the government of Canada is disentitled to maintaining their possession offense. Completely. The idea is that the law is over-broad. It is only constitutionally sound when it co-exists with an operative medical program. If there is no program, you cannot criminalize marijuana possession because you will be penalizing medical users along with recreational users. That's how we played it out. So the failure to attend to the legitimate needs of medical users will rebound to the benefit of all users. On another fun little angle, we did the challenge to decriminalize, and we'll be in the Supreme Court of Canada later this year, saying marijuana isn't harmful enough for criminal sanctions. Though it's a powerful argument, it's not something a court really wants to engage in, the cost benefit analysis of whether or not marijuana is good or bad, but courts are far more eager to issue rulings that benefit sick people because everyone understands illness, whether using marijuana or aspirin.

P- So what do you think is going to happen? Do you think they're going to get the extension? Or do you think by July they're going to have a medical program in place?

AY- I'm not sure. We do know obviously that they have a supply. They did commission and contract for a supply.

P- This is what was grown in the Flin Flan mine?

AY- Precisely. So it is feasible for them to start distributing. However, conceptually, they find it so difficult to get their head around they're trying to get this extension. Failing in that, I can see them just letting the law die. Because one thing the government doesn't want to do at this juncture is become a trafficker to put it in the bleakest terms. They aren't ready for that.

P- So you think they'll just let it drop by the wayside instead?

AY- Ultimately they may, because remember, when you're talking about medical use, you're only talking about five or six hundred people right now authorized to use medical marijuana. They could be on the path to five or six thousand people in a few years. I think that's why they don't want to start it. For them it is a very difficult position. They have appealed and could win on appeal, but quite frankly judges have reflected on the fact that it is a very weak appeal. It seems to make sense, that as a matter of logic, and compassion, that is you authorize use you have to facilitate that use.

P- That would be either by non-enforcement of the marijuana laws or supply it themselves.

AY- Right, those are the options.

P- And they prefer not to be the suppliers.

AY- That's my speculation. They're going to fight tooth and nail to buy as much time as possible. But if their back is against the wall I think they will prefer to let the law die.

P- So what would you say to people like US Drug Czar John Walters, or have you already had an opportunity to say anything to Walters?

AY- John Walters and I appeared on a Global Television show on one stipulation, that he would only appear if we didn't get to speak to one another. So we spoke in sequence but there was no discussion or debate.

P- What show was this?

AY- It was a Global News show. One of our three national networks is Global Television.

P- When was this, recently?

AY- Fall of last year, Oct. 2002. I welcome the opportunity to engage in some sort of debate with him but quite frankly I think he'd be out of his element. I think his best strategy is to avoid debating with those who are informed, which is what he pretty much does.

P- He issues decrees.

AY- Exactly.

P- So, what would you say had you the opportunity, fifteen or twenty seconds, to say something directly to him?

AY- I would just tell him that it is bad for the spirit to foster a world of delusion and hardship. That's the one thing, these people aren't accountable for what they do, there's such a diffusion of consciousness. They actually believe like a crusader that they are doing the right thing. They have no real sense of how much they're hurting people.

P- You think that goes for all of them? They must have some idea of the damage they're causing but simply don't care.

AY- I think it is a psychological defense mechanism that any drug warrior has to adopt, because how can you live with yourself once you realize the folly of your actions? They have to believe that marijuana is destructive of American society, they have to believe that. So I would just tell Walters that it is bad for the spirit to live a life of delusion. He'll die unhappy.

P- Something like the Scrooge syndrome.

AY- [laughs] Yeah, something like that.

P- Where are you a professor?

AY- Osgoode Hall Law School. Toronto. I'm a professor of Law,teaching criminal law and procedure, and constitutional law.

P- How old are you?

AY- 46

P- Where and when did you graduate law school? When did you start practicing?

AY- I graduated from law school in 1981, here at Osgoode, the same place I now teach. I started practicing law in 1983, then went back and got a Masters from Harvard in 1986, a Masters in law which enabled me to become a professor.

P- Are you optimistic about how things are going in Canada, particularly when compared to the situation here in the US?

AY- Compared to the US it's paradise here. The situation in the US is dismal, off the map in my mind. In terms of criminal justice policies, the US has lots of problems. It's a wonderful country but criminal justice is a big problem for you down there. But I'm not optimistic that things will happen at the legislative or political levels. Partly it is because of American intimidation. However, that's one of the reasons I started and continue this litigation strategy, knowing that there is political inertia, that the only way we could get this issue was perhaps by getting favorable court rulings. It's been a slow process but it's starting to bear fruit. So I am optimistic that down the road something will move in Canada, but if we left it to politicians it would just get buried this year despite all the talk.

P- Really? I've been under the impression that reform in Canada was right around the corner.

AY- The press kind of portray it that way which plays right into the government's hands. They will introduce something, and you'll probably hear about it as big news in the next week or two. But introducing something doesn't mean it automatically becomes law. This government has a limited life-span, because the Prime Minister if stepping down next February. I think it is a little bit too late and I think it's a nice game because it shows the Canadian electorate that the government is committed to this- there is a fair amount of public support to do- while at the same time the Americans can be reassured it doesn't happen. but it looks good and you can get voted in saying give us another opportunity, we'll try it again. It's always been a world of smoke and mirrors with drug policies at the political level. It's always been murky. It isn't changing that much there nor here in Canada. Something will happen though because there is this major onslaught going on in the courts. I have most of the cases, but there's a few other too, so combined it's not something which is just going to disappear.

P- Yeah, I've been seeing reports and headlines online like, "Canada's Marijuana Laws Scrapped," and things along those lines.

AY- Yes, there's a lot of chaos and confusion but ultimately that will rebound to our benefit in the long run.

P- Because some Canadian judges are refusing to prosecute marijuana cases now, right?

AY- Yeah, it's a backlash, they're saying they're sick of this and take care of it already, having heard so much about it. The strategy is bearing fruit, but stranger things have happened, because we were on the verge of change in the late 1970s, the US appeared that way too, but the 1980s brought in a whole other era. If it doesn't happen soon I wonder how long the momentum will continue.

P- People ask me all the time when is pot going to be legalized, and I have to remind them that we've been here before, almost to the point of legalizing or at the least decriminalizing marijuana use.

AY- Yes, it's a bit of a deja vu.

P- Who did you start the litigation process with. Did you do it with anyone else, any organizations?

AY- Yes and no, depending on when you date things. To me the litigation strategy actually started in 1995 with the invalidation of our drug literature prohibition. It was my work and that ruling that allowed High Times to begin clearing Canadian Customs. That's where it started. Then as information started to flow more readily in the public domain, in 1997 myself and another lawyer and student of mine, Paul Burnstein, basically did this major challenge to the laws which is going up the Supreme Court of Canada this year. At the time there very modest funding from Soro's Drug Policy Foundation for a couple of witnesses to come in from the US, but basically we just did it for nothing.