It is our judgment that the war on drugs has failed, that it is diverting intelligent energy away from how to deal with the problem of addiction, that it is wasting our resources, and that it is encouraging civil, judicial, and penal procedures associated with police states. We all agree on movement toward legalization, even though we may differ on just how far.
"The prosecution of thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens every year is both hypocritical and an affront to individual, civil and human rights." (Raymond Kendall, Secretary General of Interpol).
So why would Harper proceed with a plan that has failed elsewhere. Why would he want to spend more money on a failed plan?
From the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy reports:
"Much of the cost of illicit drugs in Canada is attributable to policing and the criminal justice system. Yet studies have repeatedly shown that prevention and treatment are far more cost-effective than are approaches which depend on the criminal law. Methadone and other forms of treatment can cut down on the amount spent on illegal drugs, and so can reduce crimes committed to obtain drugs.
Treatment can also reduce other criminal behaviour through reducing alcohol and drug use.The result is a saving not only in terms of economic loss due to theft but also in terms of legal and prison costs. Drug treatment is a more cost-effective method than confinement for reducing drug use and crime: about two-thirds of the benefit for one-tenth of the annual cost. Such reduction in criminal behaviour, however, occurs only as long as the user stays in treatment and only as long as treatment is effective. Effectiveness of treatment and whether the user stays in treatment or not depend on the type of treatment they receive. Flexible treatment programs, where multiple options exist for each person, appear to be the most effective in keeping users away from illegal drugs and the most successful at retaining clients.
A recent study by bipartisan public health researchers in the United States found that medical treatment for drug dependence works as well as treatment for diabetes and other chronic diseases, dramatically reduces crime and is much cheaper than jail. The report concluded that: every dollar invested in drug treatment can save $7 in societal and medical costs. These findings confirm those of previous studies of comparative approaches to drug dependence."
So again, the question, WHY spend tax dollars on enforcement?
Why, then, does prohibition persist and alternatives remain such an anathema to law enforcement and many politicians? Gil Puder, an outspoken member of the Vancouver police force puts it bluntly: "The reality is that policing’s make-work project called drug prohibition has been so successful that society can no longer afford to pay for the crime wave we’ve created..." Regarding the relationship between prohibition, weapons, and the industry of law enforcement, Puder writes that the "violence of prohibition is simply good for business."
There it is: FOLLOW THE MONEY!
Puder concludes that: "There are simply too many people who have formed their value system around an idea, an idea that has back fired to magnify social misery and run roughshod over our justice system. Critical thinkers might ask why prohibition advocates are content to blame others for the disaster left in the drug war’s wake. There’s a simple reason for this, going far deeper than the overt examples of personal gain and empire building. The defining characteristic of the drug war is that it enable people to form a self-concept, based not on the quality of their character, but through disparaging the morality of others."
Ah-ha, there we have it again! FOLLOW THE MONEY!
Could Harper be buying off the social conservatives with a little bit of self-righteous and morally superior legislation? A piece of legislation that will cause progressive thinkers to wail in protest. Why would he do that, you might ask? Divide and conquer is a tried and true practise for conservatives.
And well, elections are expensive. If the social conservative base of the Conservative Party of Canada get a little of what they want, maybe they'll pay for his election. Just enough so his "fish or cut bait" threat looks more like a phishing expedition for donors.
8 comments:
Forget social conservatives. This is aimed squarely at suburbanites, particularly, in Vancouver in the 905 belt and in the outer suburbs of Montreal and unless the Liberals do an about face on the issue it is going to work to the Conservatives advantage. The only effective counter open to the Liberals to propose to legalize marijuana. Their current policy of decriminalization plays right into the Conservative hands.
The problem is this. The Liberals have long maintained that Canadians should not be saddled with a criminal record for consuming something that is, after all, less harmful than alcohol. It is this light that Chrétien famously joked about having a joint in one hand and the money to pay for the fine of having it in the other. “I will have my money for my fine and a joint in my other hand.” At the same time as they have downplayed the affects of smoking marijuana they have stressed the importance of stiff penalties for trafficking. In other words, the Liberal policy of decriminalization is inherently incoherent; it is political position; it is an attempt to appeal to both sides of the political divide at the same time. One can not argue for tougher penalties for trafficking, which will inevitably lead one to reference the evils of marijuana, while at the same time arguing for the elimination of possession which will inevitably lead one to reference who harmless marijuana is in the greater scheme of things. Indeed, can you image how ridiculous it would have sounded if this is what Chrétien said? “I will have my money for my fine and a joint in my other hand. Having paid my fine I would hope the cops find the person who sold it to me in put him in jail for a very long time.” This is essentially the Liberal’s current position. The problem is that if the act of consumption is not deemed overly ruinous then the whole punitive rationale comes crashing down. Add to mix an acknowledgment that marijuana can serve a medical purpose and you have a conceptual train wreck as a policy.
All of this plays right into the Conservatives hands. The public is concerned about the growing number of grow ups and wants something down about it. The Conservatives not only promise action, but are going to blame the Liberals for the increase in grow ups. They are going to say that the Liberals have long sent out mixed messages about marijuana. This has led to increased demand for the product and as a consequence an increased number of grow ups have sprouted up to meet the demand. In order to boaster their case the Conservatives are going to force feed the Liberals their own words. One can count on them repeatedly bringing up the Chrétien quote.
Yes, Harper is good at laying a minefield. Fortunately there is enough evidence that the US has created a police state full of prisons from their War on Drugs and even the 905 doesn't want to see Canada become like that.
The CTV comments section yesterday was a good mix of progressives mouthing off at how stupid this idea is. Usually I gag as I'm reading the comments on that website since they are invariably Conservative.
Just thought about Koby's remarks. The Conservatives have probably already got the ads ready!
I wonder what else Harper will bring up in the next few days before the Throne Speech. Maybe we should brainstorm on what nasty ads he wants to run and figure out what the policies are that he'll try to make palatable for the 905, Vancouver and Montreal.
You can hear Dion discussing his position on marijuana decriminalization on Christiane Charette on Radio-Canada (around 16:30) before the leadership (Sep 29, 2006).
Actually the Liberal position that Koby describes makes sense to me in that it doesn't "blame the victim," it blames the people doing the victimizing - seems reasonable to me.
While at the same time supporting harm reduction strategies such as the Vancouver safe-injection site. (Dion has spoken out in favour of this and has called on Harper to continue funding the facility.)
femmeverte;
I don't disagree with what you are saying but I do see Koby's point about the ad with Chretien. We all know it would be in bad taste but so have all the ads that the Conservatives have done.
And we all know that it's not really marijuana that is the problem but Harper could take advantage. Now it would be Harper's risk if voters see through it.
If you get a chance read the comments on , yesterday's CTV-GlobeMedia article. I don't think this drug one is as neat and tidy as Harper would like.
Keep your references handy though, Dion may need to have you on his communication team, femmeverte. Oh, I better not say that on a blog or someone will think that the Liberals pay bloggers too. :-)
Hey Deb & Koby,
Remember what happened the last time they did a Chrétien attack ad? It would be kind of amusing to see them try again actually. Especially when he's just had a quadruple bypass.
My point was just that I don't believe that the Liberal policy (as outlined by Koby) is "inherently incoherent."
I agree that it's pretty obvious that the timing of this announcement and the crime announcement by Harper are setting the stage for attacks on the Liberals as being soft on crime - even though it's actually the Conservatives who have been holding up the crime bills in Parliament - so they can blame the Liberals. Logical!
So if Chretein had of followed through with both decriminalization and smoking J he would have been a “victim”? Look, as the senate report on marijuana said, the "scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates that cannabis is substantially less harmful than alcohol”. That being the case are you really advocating locking people in jail for selling a substance to an adult that is less dangerous beer while all the while joking about how innocuous it is? That again is what Liberal position amounts to. Remember Chretein is not he only one to wax poetic about the issue. Martin mused about eating brownies containing marijuana and examples go all the way back to Trudeau. Indeed Gordan Gibson explained Trudeau’s reaction the Le Dain Commission thus: ““On marijuana, almost 35 years ago, the Le Dain Commission called for decriminalization. I worked for prime minister Pierre Trudeau then. The report was released as we were touring a bull-semen facility in Guelph, Ont. (I am not making this up.) The press cared not at all about productive agriculture and totally about weed. At an end-of-tour press conference, the prime minister was asked if he favoured decriminalization. We were in the semen facility's boardroom and it had a blackboard with a permanent picture of Elsie the cow painted on, perhaps in recognition of the customer base. Mr. Trudeau was very quick. Saying not a word, he went to the blackboard, took the chalk and drew a cartoonist's balloon out of the cow's mouth. Inside he slowly wrote, "I like grass!" The room dissolved in laughter.”
The Liberals have only one effective counter to the Conservative initiative. They can propose to legalize marijuana.
This is not such a bad thing politically. Besides, Dion badly needs to do something bold and advant guard and legalizing marijuana certainly fits that description.
It would work out like this.
Harper has been trying to create distance between himself and his social conservative base and the Bush administration ever since he became Prime Minster. If the Liberals promised to legalize marijuana, not only would Harper find himself in lock step with Campaign for Life and Real Women, but Dick Cheney, George Bush, John Walters, Fox news, the Washington Times, James Dobson, Pat Robinson and the faculty at Bob Jones University will line up behind him. The Liberals could play the nationalist card and social conservative card all at once. The thought of being able to strike a fatal blow the US war on drugs will make Canadians giddy with excitement. If that was not enough, on the flip side of things, a legion of rock stars, intellectuals, movie stars, and high brow magazines, such as the New Yorker and Harper’s will line up behind the Liberals. Imagine a hundred and fifty thousand people or more at a pro legalization concert in Vancouver, say, in the midst of an election campaign. Seattle’s Hempfest regularly draws over a 100,000 and in terms of significance such a concert would, how should I put this?, smoke it. It would not be possible to organize anything now, but should the Liberals announce such a policy now and stave off an election for say another 6 months it is possible. Dion would certainly not lack for name recognition anymore. Overnight he would become a household name, not just in Canada but abroad as well. Continuing on, such a promise would tear the Right apart. Libertarians and social conservatives would be at each other’s throats and the National, Post and great swaths of the Sun Media chain will side with the Liberals on this one! Last but not least the Conservatives would left defending a bunch of talking points that are so discredited they are considered a form of “madness”, “reefer madness”.
OK, so I'm miles behind you Deb, but I just found this interesting Kady O'Malley post about the Drug Prevention Network spokesguy being a former Reform & Alliance MP.
(The Drug Prevention Network being about the only organization that had anything good to say about the Harper plan.)
"From 1993 until 2004, he served as the Member of Parliament for Fraser Valley West, under both Harper and his predecessors, Stockwell Day and Preston Manning. During his lengthy - and colourful - career as critic for public safety and justice for the Reform and Canadian Alliance parties, he worked tirelessly against any attempt by the former Liberal government to reform Canadian drug policy that would see the country take a more moderate approach to dealing with drug addiction and abuse."
Post a Comment