Pubdate: Wed, 17 Apr 2002
Source: Halifax Herald (CN NS)
Copyright: 2002 The Halifax Herald Limited
Contact:  http://www.herald.ns.ca/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/180
Author: Bill Cox

ILLEGAL DRUGS: TO BAN OR NOT TO BAN?

THE GLOBAL illegal drug industry is an octopus-like cancer that penetrates 
to the hearts of its victims. We don't understand why people turn to drugs 
with such disastrous results. If only its customers could be weaned away 
and new victims discouraged, the vile industry would wither on the vine. 
The main attacks against this terrible curse have been against drug 
producers and suppliers. It may be time to shift the emphasis to the customers.

There is growing interest in legalizing illegal drugs, and suprising 
progress in banning tobacco. Yet most governments still use methods that 
make the cure worse than the disease.

Some 80 years ago, the United States prohibited the sale of alcohol, but 
allowed possession of it for home use. That 13-year unenforceable policy 
showed how a ban can distort and corrupt law enforcement, encourage the 
emergence of gangs and gang wars and the spread of crime, endanger civil 
liberties and frustrate public health by making it impossible to regulate 
the quality of a widely consumed product. Current drug wars have achieved 
all of these on a global scale.

Change, if it comes, will begin slowly. Governments find it hard to 
liberalize their approach to drugs. Any politician who advocates it runs 
the risk of being "smeared" as favouring the taking of drugs. Similar 
dilemmas once held true for homosexuality, divorce and abortion; yet on all 
three, the law and public opinion have shifted. Opinion on drugs is now 
shifting. Perhaps the United States' experience with "prohibition" may be 
repeated with drugs. At the time of the 1928 American election, prohibition 
enjoyed solid support; four years later, the public mood had swung to 
overwhelming rejection of prohibition. Once started, change often moves 
swiftly.

First, move slowly but firmly to dismantle the draconian edifice of 
enforcement. Start with the possession and sale of cannabis and 
amphetamines and experiment with various strategies, with tough bans on 
advertising and with full legal liability for any consequent health risk. 
Then move on to hard drugs sold through licensed outlets that might be 
pharmacies or even mail-order distributors. After all, that is how growing 
numbers of people get prescription drugs. Removing the ban on possession 
would make it easier to regulate drug quality, to treat health effects for 
overuse and to punish drug users only if they commit crimes against people 
or property.

Governments allow their citizens the freedom to do many potentially 
self-destructive things: to go bungee jumping, to ride motorcycles and 
ATVs, to own guns, to drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes. Most of these are 
more dangerous to the individual than drug taking.

Should the ultimate goal of reform be to put now-illegal drugs on a par 
with alcohol and tobacco? That would mean legalizing both possession and 
trading. It makes no sense to legalize one and not the other. There must be 
restrictions on access to the most vicious drugs that reflect their 
inherent dangers, and insistence on continuous quality controls.

Many people understandably recoil at such a prospect. Doubtless, legalizing 
drugs would increase the number of people who take them, whatever 
restrictions would be applied. It's hard to make them "hole-proof" and it 
would give rise to extremely difficult distribution problems. Prices would 
be much lower and access to drugs would be easier, but there is no reason 
quality could not be guaranteed. The social stigma against use of drugs 
would diminish and commercialization would encourage extended usage. In no 
time, the market would be backed by political contributions, just as those 
for alcohol and tobacco have been for so long. There is also a fear that 
anything available to adults will be available to children. Drugs might 
come to be used as widely as alcohol. These are extremely disturbing 
possibilities, but they may become realistic expectations.

Legalization would redistribute the harm caused by drugs. Poor people 
would, on balance, be better off, even if more of them used drugs, if they 
were no longer imprisoned repeatedly for use or possession of drugs.

No one is able to predict with confidence that any or all of these fears 
would materialize. But there is a dark cloud of uncertainty hanging over 
us, creating a very difficult situation in which to formulate and put in 
place any kind of long-term policy. Nobody knows with certainty what drives 
the demand for drugs. Fashions come and fashions go, and the use of illegal 
drugs fluctuates, not always proportionately to enforcement enthusiasm. 
Drug usage is very sensitive to social trends such as crime, unmarried 
motherhood, broken families, parent absence or neglect, decline of 
religious observances, failure to accept personal responsibility and the 
"me first" self-indulgent society. These create a need for "pacifiers" for 
relief from social stress. Drugs often fill that role.

An even bigger question is: Can our self-satisfaction society survive or is 
it already on the slippery slope of self-destruction as we slide deeper 
into the consuming bog of individual self-preservation and satisfaction, 
deaf to the inescapable truism that to enjoy any right, you must accept and 
discharge the accompanying responsibility? Nothing is really free. There 
will always be someone who must pay.

Drugs are basically problems for individuals. They can best be solved by 
individuals supported by other individuals. That is where we may find the 
answers that have eluded us for so long. But it won't be easy and the war 
won't be short.

Bill Cox, QC, lives in Halifax.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Larry Stevens