WEEDING OUT THE COMPETITION

By Regulating The Drug Trade, Canada Could Cut Down On Law
Enforcement, Protect Its Citizens And Make A Little Bit Of Extra Cash
On The Side As Well

Because of crimes that are related to the drug trade--most notably
the killing of the four police officers in Mayerthorpe two years
ago--many have been pushing for increased punishment for drug-related
crimes recently. While a tactic such as increased jail time would
theoretically make criminals think twice before becoming involved in
the trade, there's no statistical evidence that supports this claim.

The fact remains that it's just too profitable an industry to be
deterred by harsher punishment. Instead we need to end this failed
experiment called prohibition and regulate most, if not all, drugs.

In 1916, Alberta introduced legislation--based on a plebiscite--that
prohibited alcohol. It didn't curb people's desire to consume
alcohol. In fact, criminal elements profited by providing alcohol to
many who, despite the law, still wished to drink. Realizing the
ineffectiveness, the government repealed the law--ironically, a move
also based on a plebiscite--and introduced regulation of the sale of alcohol.

Similar legislation for drugs could help Canadians for many reasons.
First, drug dealers don't care how old their customers are--in fact,
it's easier for a minor to obtain marijuana than alcohol in this
country. Studies have proven that the most negative effect marijuana
has is on the developing minds of people under the age of 18. If the
sale of marijuana and other drugs was regulated, with stiff penalties
for those who buy for minors, we'd see less kids obtaining and using drugs.

Drug dealers are also not held accountable for the safety of their
product. Tainted ecstasy hospitalized young adults in Edmonton
recently, and similar cases happen all the time.

The regulated sale of drugs would mean that one of the biggest
dangers of drug use, drugs that are laced with more dangerous
substances, would be systematically eliminated. As well, it would
allow people to find a more accurate description of what they are
taking, what it does to them, recommended doses and possible negative
side effects. A more honest approach on the effect of these drugs
would work better than just saying that drugs kill.

If there's a demand for illicit drugs, like any other product, why
should criminal elements be the ones who profit from it? Marijuana,
for example, is more profitable than any other crop in Canada.
Instead of letting criminals sell it, using the profits for other
nefarious purposes, why doesn't the Canadian government make it and
sell it, eliminating the criminal element in the process? People are
still going to buy it either way, after all.

Critics of this strategy argue that legalization would lead to
increased use. A senate committee has recently argued against that
myth, however. Looking at usage in countries of varying levels of
drug enforcement, it was found that there's little difference in
usage despite enforcement. One interesting example is the difference
of marijuana usage between the Netherlands and the US.

According to a 2002 study, Americans smoke nearly twice as much as
the Dutch, despite its heavy anti-drug enforcement. Canada spends a
huge amount of its anti-drug budget on law enforcement--money that
could be used so much better in treatment and prevention.

Drug policies in this country aren't going to change any time soon,
especially under Harper's Conservative government. They're quite
happy wasting billions on enforcement of prohibition that has and
will continue to fail.

Meanwhile criminals in Canada will continue to make billions off the
trade of illicit drugs. In order to curb the problems associated with
drug use, we need to start thinking outside the box, and find better
solutions than prohibition.