Pubdate: Fri, 25 Nov 2005
Source: National Post (Canada)
Copyright: 2005 Southam Inc.
Contact:  http://www.nationalpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/286
Author: Marni Soupcoff
Note: Marni Soupcoff is a member of the National Post editorial board.
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/hr.htm (Harm Reduction)

ONE LAW FOR ALL

Toronto's Drug Policy: A Debate

Let's agree on this: The "war on drugs" is lost, and we would all be 
better off if these damaging substances were legalized. Until that 
happens, however, government-sponsored safe injection sites, 
crack-pipe giveaways and other so-called "harm-reduction" efforts are 
a terrible way to approach the problem.

The government's power to take away our liberty (i.e., throw us in 
prison) is an awesome one, and not to be taken lightly. It is cruel 
hypocrisy for government officials to exercise this power in regard 
to some drug users, while coddling the junkies who happen to live in 
Vancouver, Toronto and other cities that have adopted trendy 
harm-reduction strategies. When the government shows this kind of 
disdain for the law, how can it possibly expect the rest of society 
to take it seriously?

It doesn't matter that the intentions behind the policy are good: By 
flouting the law, the powers that be are sacrificing the moral 
authority they have to force us to obey it. That may not matter so 
much when it comes to victimless crimes such as drug possession, but 
government's ability to command respect for its rules becomes crucial 
in cases where people's lives and person are at stake: murder, rape, 
assault, armed robbery, etc. Erode society's buy-in to obeying 
admittedly ridiculous drug laws and you erode its deference to the 
more serious laws, too.

Just ask Rudy Giuliani, who significantly reduced violent crime in 
New York City by vigorously prosecuting such trifles as graffiti and 
broken windows.

Of course, the difference is that throwing a rock through a 
store-owner's window display, while a minor transgression, is still a 
violation of that store owner's rights, just the same, and is 
therefore deserving of punishment. The desperate and self-ruinous act 
of injecting heroin, by contrast, is an act of destruction aimed at 
oneself. That is precisely why it should never have been made illegal 
in the first place.

So long as the drug laws remain on the books, though, the government 
cannot simply do as it likes, selectively enforcing prohibitions 
here, while openly ignoring them there. At least not without a price.

We all have an interest in preventing the government from 
double-dealing: By doing so, we ensure that only laws that society 
can morally stomach seeing enforced will be allowed to stand. The 
rest, such as drug laws, eventually fall -- allowing the real 
harm-reduction to begin.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman