SOURCE: Ottawa Citizen

CONTACT: letters@thecitizen.southam.ca

The Liberal drug taboo

The Ottawa Citizen

Faithful readers will have noticed that this newspaper's campaign against
Canada's drug policies, particularly its prohibition of marijuana, has elicited
no reaction at all from the federal government. Not one word.

If it were just us, we'd put it down to their subscription having expired or
their being busy with other things. But in fact informed thinking in drug
policy is rapidly coming to a consensus: Drug criminalization does not work.
The Liberals cannot write in defence of prohibition because they have no
experts to call on to provide them with ammunition.

Prohibition has always faced criticism from many on the "progressive" left.
But in recent years, as the crashing failure of the war on drugs has become
evident, the left has been joined by voices from across the political
spectrum. The Economist, the world's bestknown proponent of market
forces, is an ardent supporter of the full legalization of all drugs.
Legalization to various degrees is also sought by Nobel Prizewinning
economist Milton Friedman and by former U.S. secretary of state George
Shultz. William F. Buckley favours legalization, and so does National
Review, the archconservative magazine he founded. Billionaireinvestor
George Soros is devoting $15 million to lobbying for legalization. And
even that paragon of Canadian social conservatism, Ted Byfield's Alberta
Report, recently supported decriminalization of at least marijuana. Any
policy that has Ted Byfield on the same side as many Rastafarians can
fairly be said to have generated a consensus.

There is also considerable support for liberalization in the medical
community. Almost all the physicians and counsellors who specialize in
studying and treating drug harms including the Addiction Research
Foundation reject zerotolerance policies. They see criminalization as an
attack on people who need help, not jail, and want relaxed laws, if not
outright legalization, to encourage users to get that help.

Even Ontario Justice John McCart recently concluded, after hearing
extensive expert testimony in trial, that marijuana is "relatively harmless"
compared to alcohol and tobacco and that decriminalization does not spur
consumption.

So why do drugs, and particularly marijuana, remain criminalized? To
paraphrase Bill Clinton, it's about politics, stupid.

Drugs can inflict serious harms, as even legalization advocates admit, so a
tough ban on drugs enforced by the police is the obvious response. It
promises immediate an effect and it's clear and simple. Next to this, the
argument for legalization is anything but simple. In fact, it's strongly
counterintuitive to suggest that legalizing drugs would actually lessen the
damage they do. And yet the messy, complicated facts have proved exactly
that.

Unfortunately, public debate in this democracy isn't conducive to complex
data and counterintuitive conclusions. So, not surprisingly, there is still
majority public support for drug criminalization, even of marijuana.
Prohibition continues despite its failure because politicians, far from
challenging public misconceptions, pander to them for votes. That's the
nature of the political beast.

The harm done to innocent lives, the waste of police resources, the
enrichment of organized crime all these will continue as long as drugs are
criminalized. And criminalization will remain as long as the public doesn't
demand a drug policy that penetrates beyond the simple. Ultimately, the
buck stops with us.