Pubdate: Thu, 17 Mar 2005
Source: Gateway, The (U of Alberta, CN AB Edu)
Copyright: 2005 Gateway Student Journalism Society
Contact:  http://www.gateway.ualberta.ca/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/3149
Author: Tim Peppin
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mjcn.htm (Cannabis - Canada)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?199 (Mandatory Minimum Sentencing)

OPINION: LEGALIZING DRUGS COULD SOLVE A LOT OF OUR PROBLEMS

Whether you realize it or not, social policies--indeed, all government 
policies--are a form of experiment. Like a proper experiment, their 
hypotheses have certain assumptions at their core and certain strategies, 
methods and instruments at their disposal. Time and human interaction 
provide the necessary lab work and, ideally, at some point past which the 
data has become conclusive, the experiment is deemed either a success or a 
failure--its methods have either produced the desired effect or they have not.

So after having four Mounties shot on a raid that had nothing to do with 
marijuana, Anne McLellan is now recommending mandatory minimum sentences 
for anyone caught growing. What she doesn't seem to realize, or is 
unwilling to accept, is that the experiment has been an abysmal failure. 
The strategy of combatting drug use and addiction using the cumbrous and 
imprecise tools of criminal law was a poor one at its conception, and is 
unlikely to improve with still more time. By acting on instinct and reflex, 
and by neglecting to examine the outcome and the silent assumptions of the 
war on drugs, she has failed to provide a solution, and has failed all 
Canadians.

The most obvious reason to change the way we combat drug abuse is that our 
current methods don't work. Despite massive increases in police budgets, 
feverish governmental attention and widespread creation of drug-control 
task forces, the supply and sale of illegal narcotics are unchecked; 
indeed, largely unaffected. This fact alone should merit a rejection of the 
experiment's hypotheses and a re-examination of its assumptions.

Our drug-control efforts have also been extremely costly and socially 
destructive. Billions of dollars are spent annually either directly or 
indirectly to "control" the drug trade, with precious little tangible 
result. Prison space, law enforcement wages and equipment, judiciary costs, 
port and border security--the costs of our experiment are exceptional. 
Privacy and individual rights and freedoms are often abused in drug 
investigations, while the messages that we are fed about the overwhelming 
dangers of drugs promote an atmosphere of helplessness and fear.

An extremely serious but often overlooked consequence of narcotics 
prohibition is crime. It is not drugs that lead to crime, but their 
illegality. The rise and proliferation of organized criminal bodies fed by 
drug-trade profits is a recognized and obvious consequence of prohibition. 
Less obvious, though, is the immense volume of robberies, assaults and 
other commonplace crimes that are directly attributable to our anti-drug 
efforts.

Because both the product and its suppliers are actively hunted by police, 
and because some of the product is taken out of the market through 
seizures, prices for narcotics are astonishingly high. For some, the cost 
to support their habit is hundreds or thousands of dollars a week. Yet, 
because traditional employment is insufficient to meet the need, and 
because the need is so great, they will turn to illegal activity to satisfy 
it. Theft, prostitution and even some drug trafficking are attributable not 
to the mind-altering influence of drugs, but to their high prices.

Is the answer, then, for the government to provide cheap, high-quality 
narcotics? Perhaps. But we won't know with certainty until we run the 
experiment. All we can say with assurance at the moment is that attempting 
to stop the use and trade of drugs with legal penalties is not only 
ineffective, but flagrantly counterproductive.

We are being shamefully ignorant and naive if we believe that increased law 
enforcement presence and more stringent laws are serving to cure this, or 
any, social malady. The need for a large and rigorous police body is a 
symptom of a decaying society, not a solution to it. The data is in, and 
they damn our methods unequivocally. If we are to solve these problems we 
must have a more sophisticated approach, rooted in the conclusions of 
previous social experiments. So get our your lab coat, Anne, and don your 
protective goggles. You'll need them.
- ---