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.