Pubdate: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 Source: Montreal Gazette (CN QU) Copyright: 2012 Canwest Publishing Inc. Contact: http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/letters.html Website: http://www.montrealgazette.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/274 Author: Henry Aubin WHAT ARE THE LIBERALS SMOKING? Party Delegates Vote to Legalize Marijuana. This Will Make Drugs Seem More Acceptable and Increase Their Use Among Youth The main policy issue that federal Liberals dealt with at their party's weekend convention was whether or not to legalize marijuana. They voted overwhelmingly in favour. A well-considered stance? Let's see what the resolution says. - - It declares the ban has "exhausted countless billions of dollars spent" on ineffectual enforcement. This is the familiar argument that, because drugs remain so common in society, the war on them is a waste of money. But the war on cancer, the war on illiteracy and the war on terror are also falling far short of victory. Yet no one ever calls for ending those campaigns. Those who demand ending the campaign against marijuana on grounds of cost-effectiveness hold it to an uniquely high standard of performance. - - Indeed, the resolution says the prohibition of marijuana is an outright "failure." That would be the case if the ban failed to keep pot away from young people. - - The Institut de la statistique du Quebec's latest survey, however, shows that the portion of secondary-school students across the province who had used marijuana in the previous year had fallen from 43 per cent in 2000 to 28 per cent in 2008. That's an encouraging curve. And the trend line in Canada as a whole is no less remarkable. Statistics Canada says the share of users aged 15 to 24 who had smoked weed in the previous year dropped from 37 per cent in 2004 to 25 per cent in 2010. - - The resolution says that once a Liberal government legalizes marijuana it will tax it. Wow: Government, not traffickers, would rake in the billions. Yet if government were to slap a high tax on marijuana, it would create a market for private dealers who'd sell it for less. (Think of the black market for cheap cigarettes.) And if government were to keep taxes low, that could encourage consumption. - - A Liberal government, the resolution affirms, would crack down on illegal marijuana trafficking. The confident assumption is that if the product became legal, gangs would have less of a market. However, in addition to the golden opportunity that a high tax would give them, illegal dealers would also find a ready market for superior strains of marijuana. Note, too, that the illegal drug industry as a whole would stay strong: The market for cocaine, heroin, crack, crystal meth, etc., would remain. The idea that legalization of pot would significantly shrink the role of gangs, and thus save taxpayers billions in law-enforcement costs, is magical thinking. - - Legal possession of marijuana would presumably apply to people aged 18 and up, and indeed the resolution says that the government would ramp up anti-marijuana education programs aimed at youth. The Liberals think this would somehow nullify the implicit message that government would send by selling weed over the counter - that is, the message that pot is acceptable. The record of education campaigns against cigarettes and alcohol suggests this is more naivete. I've written critically of drug legalization before, and I've also supported government-supervised injection sites for hard drugs. One reader calls me "colossally hypocritical" for holding both views at the same time. But there's no inconsistency. If injection sites save lives (if in case of an overdose, for example, the on-duty nurse calls for an ambulance), it's hard for anyone who believes life is sacred to object to such a facility. For the government to bless the sale of drugs, however, is another thing entirely: It can only lead to banalizing drugs and thus increasing their use among youth. (Restricting sales to adults would only make it more of a "forbidden fruit.") Society needs to try to keep young people from starting out on drugs, but that doesn't mean it can't help people who've already become addicts. To be our "brother's keeper," we need to do both. If the Liberals want to be a positive force, they could return to the stance they had a decade ago. They then wanted the justice system to cease clobbering citizens with criminal charges for possessing 15 grams or less of marijuana (and instead to simply fine them, as for parking offences). That's a far cry from turning the government into a glorified drug pedlar. - --- MAP posted-by: Richard R Smith Jr.