Pubdate: Mon, 01 Oct 2012
Source: National Post (Canada)
Copyright: 2012 Canwest Publishing Inc.
Contact: http://drugsense.org/url/wEtbT4yU
Website: http://www.nationalpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/286
Author: Marni Soupcoff
Page: A8

DON'T BAN 'BATH SALTS'

Either our government has learned nothing from the failed war on
drugs, or it lacks the courage to put what it has learned into practice

Could the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police have gotten it any
more backwards? In a statement praising the Canadian government's
decision to make the stimulant MDPV illegal, a representative of the
association, Staff Insp. Randy Franks, called the ban "an important
step in stopping organized criminal groups from acquiring and
profiting from this illegal substance." A couple problems: The
substance, which is a key ingredient in the drug known as "bath
salts," was obviously not illegal before the ban. So it's circular to
credit the ban for stopping the acquisition of something illegal.

My bigger problem with the quote is the notion that making a substance
illegal stops organized criminals from profiting from it. This is
precisely the opposite of how things have gone with alcohol, cocaine,
heroin, methamphetamine, marijuana and pretty much every other illicit
drug or beverage in history.

When a substance people want is deemed officially off-limits, it
doesn't disappear. Its distribution just gets forced underground.
Reputable independent suppliers retreat. And violent syndicates that
play by their own rules step in. Indeed, the main benefactor of any
kind of prohibition is organized crime. Take a look at Al Capone's
gang (or any episode of Boardwalk Empire) or the tens of billions of
dollars Mexican and Colombian cartels currently rake in each year by
trafficking illegal drugs to the United States. Black markets are
inherently more likely than legal ones to attract cut-throat players
who maximize their own profits (easier to do when the government has
severely limited the competition), while paying minimal attention to
any ill effects of their products (it's difficult for customers to
lodge formal complaints when they've broken the law by purchasing the
substance in the first place).

So why does the government keep making the same mistake over and over
again, adding to the list of drugs that can land a seller or buyer in
prison, and thereby enriching the criminal organizations that thrive
on doing business underground?

It's one thing to argue that pulling out of the war on cocaine or
heroin is unthinkable now given the crazy amounts of government money
that have already been spent on the battle (though, as any economist
will tell you, those are sunk costs); or given the chaotic
free-for-all and head-exploding moral outrage that would result if
these hard drugs were suddenly legalized after decades of absolute
prohibition. But MDPV is an excellent example of a drug that could
have been left alone without creating mass hysteria.

Yes, MDPV is powerful and dangerous. As with cocaine and heroin, there
are very good health reasons to avoid MDPV entirely, and to teach
young people of its real and significant dangers. But because it's a
relatively new designer drug, it doesn't carry the cultural and
political baggage of cocaine. As a result, Canada would not have made
headlines, or provoked the ire of the United States, or set in place a
flooding of the market, or otherwise caused panic if it had chosen to
quietly handle the MDPV problem with measures other than a ban.

What else could Canada have done to try to mitigate harm from MDPV?
How about public health and education initiatives? Maybe monitoring
MDPV sellers to ensure compliance with existing laws (investigating
instances of fraud, false advertising, etc.) and creating open forums
for MDPV buyers to report complaints, adverse reactions, etc. Heck,
Health Canada could even have formally declared the stuff dangerous,
no good, terrible, very bad and to be avoided by those who know what's
good for them.

How e ffective any of those measures would be in stopping people from
doing MDPV is debatable. But at least they would all have the virtue
of not creating a whole additional set of harms the way a ban will -
at least they wouldn't be a get-rich-quick ticket for an enterprising
crime gang; and a virtual guarantee of increased deaths and violence
related to illicit trade; and a reason for yet another taxpayer
fortune to be spent on drug-related policing and housing of prisoners.

If only Canada had been willing to do something - anything - other
than banning MDPV, we might have served as a useful example to the
rest of the world for ways of handling health and safety concerns
without adding to society's burden and organized crime's profits.

If only. Instead, Canada has proved that either our government has
learned nothing from the colossal and catastrophic failure of the war
on drugs, or our government lacks the courage to put anything it has
learned into practice as official policy.

You can safely assume, then, that Mr. Franks' quote is best understood
if you imagine it delivered in topsy turvy land, where all statements'
meanings have been turned on their heads. Making MDPV illegal is an
important step in helping organized criminal groups acquire and profit
from the substance. If these groups had a business plan, the banning
of the drug would probably have been part of it.

But hey. At least the next time we hear about an MDPV overdose, the
government can say it has taken care of the problem.

Overdose? Awful. But what do you want from us? We banned the stuff
ages ago. Now please move along.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt