TORIES TAKING WRONG TACK ON DRUG FIGHT

Stephen Harper recently unveiled the Conservative strategy in
fighting the drug pandemic. Unfortunately, it was an
all-too-predictable approach that has seen decades of failure
consistently rerun by our friends to the south, Republican and
Democrat administrations alike.

Instead of promulgating myths as Harper did or suggesting the tepid
decriminalization of marijuana offered by the Liberals, the proper
answer should be to legalize everything. The proponents of this
seemingly radical position should be the Conservatives.

The first reason is utilitarian. Harper seems to think that cracking
down on drugs will alleviate organized crime. In fact, the opposite is true.

Like alcohol during Prohibition, drugs are attractive to organized
crime because of the vast amounts of money that can be had. The
threat of prison sentences won't stop drug dealers from potentially
making piles of money.

While no panacea, legalizing drugs will cut the profit margin and
free up police to do what they are intended to do instead of simply
enforcing morality codes.

In a recent Los Angeles Times op-ed that called for the end of the
drug war, retired police chief, Norm Stamper, figured legalization
would dry up the stockpiles of illicit drugs and make cities and
towns healthier and safer places to live.

He wrote that legalization "would put most of those certifiably
frightening crystal meth labs out of business." When you drive
something into the black market, it creates a cesspool for the most
unsavoury aspects of society to flourish.

The second and more important reason to legalize is philosophical.
Conservatives believe in limited government and ideals such as
liberty, freedom, and individual responsibility. The drug war does
not share these values. Civil liberties are frequently run roughshod
over and people are routinely locked up for engaging in an activity
that should be solely left to the individual. Why are grown adults
not allowed to partake in any substance they want if it doesn't harm
anyone else?

Even one of the intellectual influences of conservatives, William F.
Buckley, recognized the futility of the war on drugs and another
favourite figure of the right, the economist Milton Friedman,
concluded that, "on ethical grounds, do we have the right to use the
machinery of government to prevent an individual from becoming an
alcoholic or a drug addict? . . . For children, almost everyone would
answer at least a qualified yes.

But for responsible adults, I, for one, would answer no. Reason with
the potential addict, yes. Tell him the consequences, yes. Pray for
and with him, yes. But I believe that we have no right to use force,
directly or indirectly, to prevent a fellow man from committing
suicide, let alone from drinking alcohol or taking drugs."

Furthermore, the cost of the drug war alone should give fiscal
conservatives pause for thought because as the costs have escalated,
the results have been nothing but negligible.

Pouring more money down this sinkhole will do nothing and what ends
up happening is that the target remains ambiguous and the problem
self-perpetuating -- perfect for the lifeblood of governments.

So when Harper proclaimed his position to 'get tough' on drugs the
biggest cheerleader was likely the very element he is trying to
eliminate -- organized crime. If he and the Conservative party are
serious when they suggest "we have to do something about the drug
crisis in this country" then end the repressive war on drugs.