LEGALIZING DRUGS NO SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM

Re: "Here's a way to hit drug lords in the wallet," Kevin Brooker, Opinion,
Aug. 8.

Last week, freelance writer Kevin Brooker argued in this space for the
legalization of drugs after his car was broken into by a crack addict.

Listening to his arguments, you would think legalization and free drugs are
a panacea for the drug-related problems we face. They are not. As a
lawmaker and former Calgary police officer, I would like to use this space
to dispel some of the myths about drug legalization.

Myth No. 1: Free drugs will stop crackheads and heroin addicts from
committing crimes to support their drug habit.

In the Netherlands, marijuana is sold over the counter, and heroin and
cocaine are decriminalized for all "practical purposes." Legalization has
led to a significant increase in drug addiction and the problems associated
with drug use in that country. Addicts in Amsterdam, for example, commit 80
per cent of all property crime and the city now has a police presence far
greater than cities of a comparable size in North America, according to a
recent report issued by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Myth No. 2: Drug prohibition is analogous to alcohol prohibition.

There are two flawed assumptions behind this argument. One is that drug
prohibition is a failure (like alcohol prohibition) and the second is that
drugs are no different from alcohol so they shouldn't be illegal.

Drug and alcohol prohibitions are not analogous. It's like comparing apples
and oranges. Alcohol prohibition was a solitary effort of the U.S. not
shared by other countries, including our own. Drugs, on the other hand, are
illegal in most countries, which makes enforcement easier.

Drugs are illegal around the world for good reason too. Crack, for example,
the alleged drug of choice of the guy who broke into Brooker's car, has an
addiction rate as high as 75 per cent compared to 10 per cent for alcohol.
Even so-called "soft" drugs such as marijuana are extremely dangerous.

In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 per cent more cancer-causing
carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke. This is just the tip of
the iceberg. There isn't room here to begin to do justice to all the health
risks posed by illegal drugs, marijuana included. The fact that some
dangerous substances are legal does not mean that all dangerous substances
should be -- particularly when there are such differences between them.

Myth No. 3: Legalizing drugs will put organized crime out of business.

Unless all drugs are legalized to all people, there will always be an
illegal dollar for organized crime to make. Obviously, this won't happen.
Governments will always want to impose age restrictions on who gets to use
drugs, impose restrictions on those working in certain occupations (thank
God), and undoubtedly certain types of drugs are too dangerous ever to
legalize, such as LSD or crack.

Even if it were true that organized crime would lose money from
legalization, it fails to account for the tradeoffs that would occur from
legalization. There is no doubt drug addiction would increase if we were to
legalize drugs, as the experience has been in other countries that have
pursued this destructive course.

With increased drug addiction, there would be an increase in drug-related
crime such as robbery, rape and assault, for example -- not an appealing
tradeoff.

Besides, replacing organized crime with government as the nation's drug
pusher is hardly preferable. Even if we were to accept the argument that
legalized drugs, freely dispensed to addicts, would keep them tranquil,
happy and out of Brooker's car, what does that say about a society that
endeavours to keep them addicted to these harmful substances rather than
treat them?

Bureaucrats might salivate at the prospect of all the drug-tax revenue they
might rake in, but the purpose of government should be to help people, not
help to harm them.

Myth No. 4: The drug war is a failure and a waste of government money.

We have two legal drugs already: alcohol and tobacco. According to Stats
Can, 72.3 per cent of Canadians 15 years or older have consumed alcohol in
the last year and 27 per cent of Canadians are smokers.

By comparison, only 3.8 per cent of Canadians used cocaine or crack and
only 7.4 per cent used marijuana. The reason cocaine and marijuana use is
so much lower is precisely that they are illegal. If we removed the
prohibition of illegality, we would have numbers of users of marijuana and
cocaine similar to that of tobacco and alcohol, according to Dr. Robert
Dupont of the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). The societal
costs would be staggering.

Just because the war on drugs has not eliminated all illegal drug use does
not make it a failure. If we feel current drug reduction strategies have
not been successful enough, we should look at ways to improve them, rather
than throw the baby out with the bath water and surrender, as Brooker would
have us do.

Instead of legalization, we should be looking at ways to further reduce
drug use -- not increase it. We can start by coming up with a real national
drug strategy and by developing stronger links with our U.S. and European
allies to curtail the international drug cartels, traffickers and producers.

Domestically, our country needs to employ a drug-free prison strategy and
then crack down on drug pushers so they never see the light of day. Sorry,
Mr. Brooker, I don't buy the legalization argument. What our country needs
is a reality check. Drugs hurt our kids and I won't be a part of anything
that further promotes the destructive influence of illegal drugs.