Not surprisingly, Cheech Marin and Tommy Chong are not very impressed with Stephen Harper’s plans to intensify the war against cannabis and its derivatives. They noted earlier this week that the Prime Minister appears to have his head up George Bush’s butt (they are speaking metaphorically, I assume); their advice is characteristically blunt, “Wise up, you douchebag”.

Politically careful and sensitive they are not; they don’t appear to be trying very hard to win over those Canadians who are unsure of the best approach for the federal government to take on the problem of cannabis. It’s certainly fair, however, to say that Mr. Harper’s approach to cannabis control is very similar to the kind of approach that has been undertaken in the United States during both the Reagan and Bush eras – imprison small scale growers and dealers for mandatory minimum terms, and spend billions of dollars building new prisons to accommodate cannabis criminals.

Has this had any impact on the rate of consumption of cannabis? Not at all. The irony is that in the Netherlands, where the Dutch can buy cannabis at any one of hundreds of coffee shops, there is actually less use of the so called “herb”. Last year 10 per cent of adults in Canada and the U.S. smoked pot; among the Dutch the figure was about 7 per cent.

Cheech and Chong are quite right to call for regulation of cannabis, even if they appear to be far from the most appropriate spokespersons for thoughtful and careful change of the law. When they say that pot is “quasi-legal”, one has to agree that there is some merit to the claim. Most Canadians no longer view adult consumers of cannabis as criminals, and don’t have any desire to put them in jail. Pity that Mr. Harper is so far out of step. As Cheech and Chong might have said, again metaphorically, I suppose, “Don’t Bogart that joint my friend, pass it over to Stephen”.

I don’t want to talk about it, how you broke my heart…

By Neil Boyd and David Hocking

Fourteen 10 acre waterfront parcels are now for sale on the southwest tip of Bowen Island; it is anticipated that each lot will retail for about $2 million.

In late December of 2009, a 59 lot subdivision was approved for the 600 plus acres of Cape Roger Curtis, the apparent conclusion to a long battle over the appropriate use of this land. The current owners of the land, Don Ho and Edwin Lee, bought the property in 2004 for about $16 million, with the intention of developing it. Many Islanders were dismayed, because the previous owners had allowed day use of the southwest facing, low-bank waterfront property, treasured for its trails that took visitors through deep forests, along ocean bluffs, and past sunny beaches to reach an iconic lighthouse overlooking Georgia Straight. In the eyes of many, it was already a park, one of the very few places on our steep-sided island where those who didn’t own waterfront property could walk along a wild, untouched coastline.

The developers’ first approach was to proceed with a plan that was fairly similar to the present one: 10 acre lots, conforming to the subdivision by-law, with virtually no public access to the waterfront, but well under the possibility of the more than 220 lots contemplated by the official community plan (a density of one home for every 2.5 acres). Many of us were very much opposed to the 10 acre lots back in 2004; a public opinion poll established that the majority of islanders wanted more than 50 per cent of the land “protected from development” and more than 60 per cent of the shoreline “reserved for public access”. We hoped that the entire parcel would be purchased as a park, and if not, that at least a significant portion of the Cape would be purchased, again, as a park. In the 2005 municipal election, a mayoral candidate and one prospective councillor promised to save 50 per cent of the land as a park. The mayor won a landslide and the councillor topped the polls.

This new council strongly opposed the development plan, arguing that the public interest required conserving the majority of the coastline for ecosystem protection and recreation along waterfront trails, and the clustering of homes to minimize land disturbance. Instead of a traditional subdivision that followed the land use bylaw, council proposed a rezoning that followed sustainability principles. At first, the owners resisted, and began bulldozing a road into the forest. But in the face of continued public and council pressure, in 2006 they capitulated, hired a new development team, and set out to plan for a rezoning that would align with the stated public interest, as well as the sustainability agenda that Council was developing.

Between 2006 and 2008 the owners spent several million dollars, creating the vision of a neighbourhood that they hoped would be a legacy for the community and for themselves – a substantial waterfront park, a seniors centre that would allow aging in place, trails, and affordable housing. The only problem with the plan: in order to make it work economically – to have more than more 50 per cent of the entire property and 85 per cent of the coastline as park — the land densities would have to be increased beyond those provided in the official community plan: 390 market housing units, instead of 224, as well as additional units that the municipality required for affordable housing. The economist hired by the municipality agreed with the developer’s assessment – the densities provided for in the official community plan were simply not sufficient to make the neighbourhood plan economically realistic.

What did the council of the day do? After staff negotiated with the developers to reduce density as much as was possible, they went ahead with first reading of the new neighbourhood plan, believing that public consultation was needed to determine the community response to the park for density tradeoff. The new density was still to be an average of about one dwelling per acre, and most Bowen Islanders currently live on lots that are less than an acre in size. Further, the contemplated build-out for the neighbourhood plan was 25 years; it would not have produced a rapid spike in the population of the island – about 15 more people every year from about 2015 to 2040.

But at some point during the summer of 2008 the mayor lost his initial enthusiasm for the neighbourhood plan, and campaigned against it during the fall election of 2008. Trouble was, however, that the mayor told the developers that he had lost his enthusiasm for the plan just hours before he announced his decision publicly — no dialogue and no compromise. The developers were left to twist in the wind, vilified and caricatured as wealthy profiteers, foisting an urban vision on the rural life of Bowen islanders. More significantly, after the fall election of 2008, the new council reneged on the public consultation plan agreed upon by the previous council. Many on the new council expressed a clear preference for the politics of confrontation: one councillor spoke of the need to “drown” the neighbourhood plan.

In retrospect, what is so sad – what does break our hearts – is that the island hardened quickly into two factions, those in favour of the neighbourhood plan and those opposed. Most of those opposed probably believed that the 59 lots would never happen – that some combination of a public interest statement, and philanthropic or government contributions would save the day, ultimately transforming Cape Roger Curtis into a park. History shows this was a rather naïve strategy, inappropriately discounting both the ability of the owners to meet the requirements of subdivision and the deep pockets of the owners, relative to the municipality, should the municipality try to block the owners’ attempt to subdivide. There were also those who were not at all unhappy about the prospect of 59 large and entirely private lots for the very wealthy — at least Bowen’s potential future population would effectively be reduced. Most of us in favour were prepared to accept the increased density, given the many amenities that were provided, the sense of community that the neighbourhood plan would have created, and the historic opportunity to protect forever a significant parcel of the most ecologically and recreationally valuable land on the island.

Well, both sides lost. We’ve each lived on Bowen Island for a rather long time and each served three separate years as both a municipal councillor and the island’s representative to the government of Metro Vancouver. Bowen politics – largely a “take no prisoners” politics of confrontation – can take its toll. Sadly, what Cape Roger Curtis proves is that we don’t seem to be able to develop a constructive dialogue about change. We all too quickly take sides and entrench our positions.

How could our friendly small community with well-meaning politicians give us such a grim legacy: both the worst possible result for this majestic landscape, as well as a harshly divided community. Put differently, why did it happen?

Bowen’s leaders and traditions were not up to the task of dealing with a complex issue. Like most public policy conundrums, there was no easy, good-versus-bad decision. Instead, we had the usual situation: a series of tradeoffs, each with their benefits and costs. Antagonistic council meetings that tried to blame staff for the situation, petitions and leaflets aimed to drum up support for either side, along with a single town hall-style meeting where the public lined up at microphones to give impassioned defences for the positions they had already taken – that was the approach. In other words, no open dialogue, no listening, and no attempt to find compromise.

In the complex world in which we live it’s easy to find fault with pretty well everything, and in our public processes today, it is also easy to oppose things – to see black and white when grey is usually the better route forward. It will take strong leadership to take Bowen beyond its historic good guys versus bad guys mentality. It won’t be easy, but we’ve written this history with the hope that it might be possible.

In these days of public sector restraint there is one realm of waste that is often neglected – the planned and pointless expenditure of billions of tax dollars on new provincial and federal prisons, the consequence of a series of Conservative crime bills.

Never mind that Canada already is a global leader in rates of incarceration, far ahead of almost all of the nation states of Western Europe – and, perhaps paradoxically, Canada typically has higher rates of crime. The more interesting and relevant finding from recent research is that rates of imprisonment and rates of crime are not related in any systematic way, from one nation state to the next. What is significant, however, is the relationship between confidence in the political and justice systems of a country and rates of imprisonment. Polls consistently demonstrate that nation states with the lowest rates of imprisonment also have citizens who have the highest levels of confidence in their political systems and their justice systems.

As one contemplates the lack of science in virtually every crime bill dutifully trotted out in Parliament by the Harper Conservatives, one is tempted to either laugh or cry. It’s easy to dismiss them as ideologically-driven fools (and there is certainly a wealth of evidence in support of such a proposition), but I think we have a deeper problem – a fundamental lack of belief in the tenets of science.

The Harper Conservatives are Republican talk show host Nancy Grace on steroids – shrill, angry and posturing. Consider the recent legislative initiative regarding mandatory minimum sentences for any person who grows more than six marijuana plants. Not mandatory minimum terms for cultivators who use or threaten violence, but mandatory minimums for those who simply grow the so-called “herb”. Does it make sense to spend billions of our tax dollars putting the producers of a relatively benign mind-active drug in jail, at the same time that the executives of tobacco and alcohol companies are regarding as contributing corporate citizens?

Of course not. This situation is a testament to the reality that we all go through life with cultural blinders, unable to see the absurdity and contradictions of the world in which we live. But enough of this. Best to enjoy Canada Day and hope that the federal government will not be quite so foolish as to spend our limited tax resources on the building of ever more prisons for those they choose to define as criminal.

In 1910 Winston Churchill stated that one of the “unfailing tests” of a civilization lies in how it treats crime and criminals. In 1967 Pierre Trudeau told Canadians that the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.

Pronouncements from our current politicians are rather different in tone. Conservative Public Safety Minister Vic Toews has opposed same sex unions, argued in favour of reducing the age of criminal responsibility to 10, and suggested that if sexual orientation was to become a protected category under Canada’s hate crime legislation, “homosexual activists” might sue hotel chains to remove Bibles as a form of hate literature.

As part of a “getting tough on crime” agenda, our current Justice Minister Rob Nicholson wants to impose a minimum term of six months in prison on anyone who grows more than six marijuana plants, and to lengthen terms of imprisonment in a wide range of other contexts, (even though rates of serious violent crime are much lower today than they were 30 years ago).

More simply put, the federal government wants to put more people in jail. The approach that they advocate has no empirical support – no examples from other jurisdictions to establish that crime rates will be affected in any beneficial manner. And yet the opposition, until very recently, has avoided criticism of this legislative package, explaining that they fear being tarred as “soft on crime”.

The unfortunate reality is that many in opposition, like the Conservatives, are allowing fear to drive their agenda. Worse than that, they appear to believe that Canadians can’t actually be convinced of the unproductive and costly heart of the Conservative agenda. Worst of all, our culture and our country are being shortchanged by a barrage of name-calling and finger pointing.

Consider two recent legislative initiatives and how they might have been more productively handled. First, mandatory minimum terms for marijuana growers. We know from polling that most Canadians don’t think that adults who use the drug should be treated as criminals. Polling also tells us, however, that Canadians are concerned about large scale grow operations that have violence or the threat of violence attached – traps, rip offs, handguns on the premises, and the possibility that children may be victimized.

A thoughtful Minister of Justice might say something like the following, “ We have no desire to target adult Canadians who use this drug in private, by themselves, or with other consenting adults. We do, however, have concerns about the violence attached to some parts of the marijuana trade, and we are, accordingly, suggesting that minimum terms of imprisonment be imposed in circumstances where marijuana cultivation is combined with violence or the threat of violence. We are not concerned about individuals who grow small amounts of marijuana for themselves, but we are concerned about a large scale system of distribution, backed by violence or threats of violence”.

My guess is that most Canadians would agree with such a statement, but what the Conservatives are proposing is so far from this reality that it is difficult to know whether to laugh or cry.

Consider, secondly, the pardon granted to convicted sex offender Graham James. The Prime Minister’s office described the pardon as “deeply troubling and gravely disturbing” and demanded an explanation from the Parole Board, a reaction designed to foment public fear and anger.

A more responsible Conservative Prime Minister, one more in keeping with the character of Winston Churchill, might have said something like the following:

“I understand that many Canadians, particularly the victims of Mr. James, might be very upset by the granting of this pardon. Current law dictates that there are only a few categories of convicted criminals who are not eligible to apply for a pardon, most notably those convicted of murder, and those designated as dangerous offenders. I will ask the Parole Board to look into the specifics of the granting of a pardon to Mr. James, and we will similarly consider, as a government, whether there are other categories of criminal conviction that might best be excluded from the pardon process. The difficult task here is that of balancing individual case decisions with the more broad objectives of granting pardons to those convicted of criminal offences”.

Again, the objective in this instance is one of acknowledging a concern, setting out potential solutions, and moving forward without fear or anger as the motivating priorities. The tragedy is that Canada’s current approach to crime and justice is not about logic, frank discussions or debates grounded in relevant information. Could we do better? I certainly hope so.

There is probably no better statement of the need for electoral reform than the now familiar slogan that a Labour-Liberal Democrat Coalition in the United Kingdom would have been a “coalition of losers”. The Vancouver Sun splashed the headline from the Daily Telegraph across its electronic edition.

Only those rigidly wedded to a first past the post system of government would ever claim that the prospect of government by two parties that secured more than 50 per cent of the popular vote is somehow abhorrent. What these folks appear to have been telling us is that they would rather be run by a party that received 36 per cent of the vote; this is somehow more democratic than government by a coalition.

While it seemed that the Liberal Democrats have more in common with the Labour Party than they do with the Conservatives, they have now decided to share legislative power with the Conservatives. And there is an important goal that may still be achieved with this perhaps unlikely coalition – the passage of legislation that will lead to a more democratic system of government, where the composition of Parliament better reflects the popular vote of the people.

It is, of course, quite discouraging that we don’t have the same opportunity in Canada today — to forge a working coalition, or more important, to be facing the prospect of some improved system of proportional representation. We don’t seem to be able to challenge an extremist minority in Ottawa, a government driven by virulent strains of ideological fervour, opposed to the rigour of science — and legislating as if they actually represent a majority of the Canadian public.

The market value of a commodity always says something interesting about our culture. You can, for example, buy a Spanish Cava for about $15, but a bottle of French Champagne will set you back more than $50. Is the difference in taste and experience substantial enough to justify the greater expense? Let the debate begin.

There are, however, some realms of human experience where the market value of particular commodities suggests that we live in a rather troubled culture. Consider the price of an evening’s entertainment. In the next few months front row seats at a number of different performances are a possibility, provided that you are willing to pay the amounts set by various ticket brokers.

A seat in the first five rows at Vancouver’s GM Place for the upcoming Simon and Garfunkel concert will cost you about $500; a similar seat for The Eagles about $950, and for Michael Buble about $800. If you want to see Sting at our city’s Chan Centre (with the Royal Philharmonic and, again, up close and personal), expect to pay about $700, and for cellist YoYo Ma at Vancouver’s Orpheum? Well, you can have that ticket for the bargain price of $400.

If, on the other hand, you’d like to sit in the first five rows for this June’s Ultimate Fighting Competition in Vancouver, you can expect to pay about $1,500 for your evening of enjoyment. In the culture in which we live it seems that watching grown men punch and kick each other into the possibility of unconsciousness is a good deal more valuable an experience than watching any number of the world’s most talented musicians.

In fairness, however, ultimate fighting has evolved; head-butting, eye-gouging and spitting at your opponent are no longer allowed. And some rules have been put in place, just to ensure that your evening will not be “boring” — “It is against the rules to be timid in the octagon. Fighters get penalized for running from an opponent. Fighters cannot fake an injury or purposely spit our their mouthpiece….you can’t just give up fighting because you have had enough”.

How far removed are we from the days of bloodsport as entertainment — lions and gladiators at the Roman Coliseum? Not very far, if at all. The market confirms Pogo’s aphorism: we have seen the enemy and they is us.

My first foray into marijuana research began 40 years ago, in the spring of 1970. It was what sociologists call participant observation research; I smoked some hashish with my friends in my final year of high school, and observed its effects on my behaviour. I noticed that the experience enhanced my appreciation of music, increased my appetite, and made me laugh at things that I might not ordinarily think were very funny. In sum, not a bad way to spend an evening in a small town in Ontario. Not as wild and crazy as an alcohol-fueled evening, but not entirely disappointing either.

In 1972, after my second year of university, I was awarded a summer scholarship with what was called the Non-Medical Use of Drugs Directorate to study attitudes towards marijuana laws. My survey of a population in London, Ontario established that people who had more punitive approaches to marijuana control were more likely to be dogmatic (as measured by the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale) than people who had less punitive approaches. In retrospect, a relatively self-evident result.

By the time that I graduated from Osgoode Hall Law School in 1977 I had become convinced that the criminal prohibition of marijuana was a waste of resources and, from the vantage point of the relative harms of various drugs, an absurd proposition. A few of us surveyed the graduating class and found that 85 per cent had smoked pot – and that 70 per cent intended to continue with this indulgence beyond graduation (we failed to appreciate that red wine would ultimately appear to be both more sensible and seductive). The Globe and Mail ran the story on the top of its front page. The Dean of the Law School was not amused; he was in the midst of the “Osgoode Excellence Campaign”, trying to raise $1million from former alumni, and our disclosure was probably not very helpful.

When I arrived at Simon Fraser University in 1978 there was very limited support for decriminalization and legalization of cannabis, the industry itself was still an import-export business, and the medical use of cannabis was almost unknown. A clear majority of Canadians opposed legalization. My comments on radio and television in favour of legalization occasionally provoked claims that I should be shot, imprisoned , and/or fired; it was a very different era.

Fast forward to the present: a majority of Canadians think the drug should be taxed and regulated in much the same way we tax and regulate alcohol and tobacco. Additionally, we now have a domestic production/export industry, along with a cumbersome and costly bureaucracy of “Medical Marijuana Access Regulations”.

What are the obstacles to sensible change? Some would say that smoke-ins like 4/20 are counter-productive, displaying marijuana users as childish, indulgent and maybe just a little decadent – the portrait of cannabis consumption that your mother warned you about. But that criticism misses an important point: 4/20 rallies are best understood simply as political exercises, demonstrating a blatant disobedience by thousands — the tip of an iceberg of opposition — to a justifiably unpopular law.

Additionally, no one who has the power to change the law has been listening — has actually done anything to improve the status quo. I’m not sure whether the spectacle of 4/20 actually works to convince those Canadians who may be undecided, but I sympathize with the frustrations of the young hempsters.

Paradoxically, Canadians both support the removal of criminal penalties for marijuana use and tougher penalties for commercial grow operators. Put differently, Canadians are saying that they do not think adults who smoke pot in private should be treated as criminals, or otherwise penalized. They do, however, understandably, have some issues with at least part of the system of distribution—young thugs with guns, guarding valuable plantations, not a scenario that we are willing to tolerate.

You would think that the solution here would be easy – change the system of distribution — tax and regulate. Unfortunately, the Harper government has only prohibition as a strategy, and actually wants our province to spend millions of taxpayer dollars building new jails to house marijuana growers, violent and non-violent. And the United States – the linchpin for change – has not shown much desire to move, at least in the near term.

Let’s acknowledge that cannabis is not harmless. Quite clearly, not as dangerous as tobacco or alcohol, at least for most users, but not benign. It can damage the lungs and impair short term memory. Second, let’s acknowledge that criminal prohibition is costly and counter-productive; there is no compelling evidence from any corner of the civilized world to suggest that rates of consumption are related to the state of the criminal law. And third, let’s continue, some 40 years on, to ask for more creative legislation than the failed and costly status quo of criminal prohibition.

Handguns are potentially dangerous commodities, though gun advocates will also insist that they are more protective than dangerous – tools for the protection of home, family and personal property.

Let’s acknowledge first, however, that handguns can be dangerous, like automobiles, knives, axes, and chainsaws.

It’s quite clear that the dangerousness of a commodity does not predetermine its legal status. Put differently, countries around the world do not prohibit commodities on the basis of the danger that they pose. In many circumstances this is an entirely rational decision. Automobiles create, arguably, benefits in excess of the dangers that they pose. So too do knives, chainsaws and axes (let’s not pause here to contemplate the logic of something like cannabis prohibition – it says a little too much about the limited analytical capabilities of human beings).

But what of handguns? Beyond target shooting, where is their utility? A few criminologists argue that gun ownership leads to more safety, not less, once you factor out the risks posed to gangsters – individuals using guns as part of organized – -or more likely — disorganized criminal activity. With intentional gun deaths, however, suicides and gangsters are the biggest slice of the pie.

What we can say with some certainty is that countries with less handgun ownership and less handgun use have strikingly lower rates of intentional gun death and gun crime. If we contrast the United Kingdom (excepting Northern Ireland) with the United States, the point is well illustrated – many fewer guns per capita, and much less gun death. Systematic research across more than one million households also demonstrates that in cases of domestic violence the presence of guns in the home is more likely to precipitate lethal violence.

The banning of handguns could be seen as a symbolic gesture, one that says something about our culture and its view of the role of the gun – and it’s a symbolic gesture that I support, educating the citizenry about the possibilities of a world with less violence, less confrontation, and less lethality. Will the prohibition of handguns make a society more or less safe — in any given nation-state at any given time? The best research does not answer that question with any degree of certainty. What we can say, however, is that if we create a society in which guns are less common, we will be creating a safer society.

“Mr. Harper. Why aren’t we keeping marijuana away from children by controlling it as we control alcohol and tobacco? Why are we encouraging gangs & crime by making marijuana so profitable? Why are you ignoring how ineffectual the current policy is?

Anna, from Ottawa

Dear Anna:

My government wants very much to keep marijuana out of the hands of children. You may know that I told reporters last year that we “have to do something about the drug crisis in this country” and that since the Liberals started talking about decriminalizing marijuana “we have seen a rapid expansion of the drug trade”.  Now I know that people who conduct surveys will tell you that most forms of drug use have actually been declining, with the exception of cannabis, and that, in any event, cannabis is a much less dangerous drug than tobacco or alcohol. And I know, despite what I said, that there isn’t any good evidence that ties expansion of the illicit trade in cannabis to Liberal pronouncements regarding the possibility of decriminalization.

But I do think that we’re all entitled to our own opinions, irrespective of credible science. Take Stockwell, for example. He believes that the earth was created by God in seven days. And if he wants to believe that, we should all respect his right to do so.

Your second question about profitability misses the point that gangs and crime would exist even if we took marijuana off the table. There are plenty of other opportunities for organized criminal activity. Yes, it’s true that prohibition of cannabis can put profits in the hands of young thugs, but I’m quite sure that there are also plenty of very decent people who are making money from the trade in cannabis. Your third question regarding the “ineffectual” nature of current policy unfortunately misses the mark again. Our polling has told us that getting tough on people who cultivate marijuana is winning us votes. And I don’t think that policies that win governments votes are ineffectual. If you’re suggesting that our policies regarding cannabis are not consistent with our policies regarding more problematic drugs like alcohol or tobacco, you might be right. But please be aware that our policies are not “ineffectual”  — they simply play well with an increasingly large population of poorly informed and somewhat fearful Canadians. And like Stockwell, these folks have just as much right to their opinions as you do.

Why do you keep lying about the dangers of cannabis and giving countless millions of dollars to police to enforce the worst laws in Canada? Why do you ignore the majority of adults who want this plant legalized?

Greg, from Vancouver

Dear Greg:

Last year I told reporters in British Columbia that a criminal record for possession of marijuana was an appropriate response from government – that we have to “send a message”. I also noted that people who become addicted to harder drugs almost always say they started with marijuana.

Now I know that experimentation with alcohol and tobacco predates cannabis use, and that it would be more correct to describe alcohol and tobacco as gateway drugs than to describe cannabis as a gateway to heroin and cocaine and other drugs of a similar kind. But I’m not lying.  Most of the people who are currently using heroin and cocaine did use marijuana at one point. I will concede that it’s not a very useful statement – that there’s no compelling pharmacological  or sociological evidence that marijuana use predisposes those who experiment with the drug to move on to cocaine or heroin. Better evidence of gateway effects exist for our longstanding drugs of choice, alcohol and tobacco. But I wasn’t lying, and it’s not very nice to accuse your Prime Minister of lying.

I must also tell you that marijuana laws are not the worst laws in Canada. Take a look at section 365 of the Criminal Code; it criminalizes “any kind of witchcraft, sorcery, enchantment or conjuration”, along with the telling of fortunes. Now, that’s even sillier than marijuana law, don’t you think?  Your claim that “the majority of adults want this plant legalized” misunderstands the Canadian parliamentary system. I lead the Conservative party — and the country — with the support of a minority of Canadians.  And yet I can govern as if I have a majority; I have no legal mandate to listen to the majority, particularly if most of them are not voting for me and for my party. Finally, I do want to raise a response to a related criticism — that my singing of the Beatles lyric, “I get high with a little help from my friends” is a hypocritical act. Let me assure you that when I sing that song I am not thinking of smoking marijuana with Stockwell, or Jason, or even Rahim Jaffer. I sing in metaphor, thinking of the pleasure that comes from drinking a nice glass of white wine – a perfectly legal and enjoyable alteration of my consciousness.

Stephen Harper, your Prime Minister.

There is no shortage of potential issues of protest in Vancouver and beyond – a lack of support for homelessness, mental illness and addiction, the missing and murdered women of the downtown eastside, a dearth of affordable housing, an increasing gap between the rich and poor in Canada; all of these problems come quickly to mind.

As many have noted, some of the funding that has gone towards the winter Olympics might have been usefully diverted to address these more pressing issues. That did not happen, however, and so here we are in the first week of Vancouver 2010. What to do?

My response is that it’s time to join the party. None of our issues of concern are going to disappear from the political agenda, and raising them now as part of an anti-Olympic agenda –- confronting the dedication, effort and joy of athletic excellence – seems to be little more than a display of misplaced anger or sulky self-indulgence.

More important, will anyone be convinced by those who made it impossible for Canadian veterans to view the passage of the Olympic torch, or by those who wore masks and balaclavas as they paraded through the streets? These weren’t people interested in constructive social change; their behaviour alienated the overwhelming majority. We read that “native warriors” and “anti-capitalists” are asked to unite in a “street march to clog the arteries of capitalism”. Do these people deserve the label of protesters? They can’t seem to move beyond tired and tiresome slogans.

The protests that are making sense and receiving some support are not those addressing the presence of the Olympics, but the specific problems noted above – the missing and murdered women of the downtown eastside, and homelessness and addiction. They try not to disrupt the celebration of Olympic pride, but rather to draw attention to the problems that we must begin to face after the party is over.

I suggest we enjoy the ride, and applaud the competitors, maybe even take a little pride in our country. Who could not be enchanted by the joy of Alexandre Bilodeau and his brother Frederic, celebrating at Cypress Mountain? By the constant interchanges and affection among competitors from countries as diverse as we could possibly imagine? These are two weeks in which we can celebrate diversity and athletic excellence, and hopefully, in a constructive and a thoughtful way, also tell the world a little bit more about the challenges that we face.