FOR SALE: B.C. BUD: PROPOSAL TO LEGALIZE AND TAX POT IS PRAGMATIC, BUT WRONG-HEADED

Smaller government and lower taxes -- these are the sort of positions
the Fraser Institute is known for. But the legalization of marijuana?
What have they been smoking?

Yet, that's what author Stephen Easton advocates in a Fraser study
entitled Marijuana Growth in British Columbia.

Here's his case: marijuana laws are largely ignored by a huge segment
of Canadian society, with 7.5 per cent of Canadians saying they are
regular users and 23 per cent having used marijuana at least once.

Law enforcement is ineffective, in British Columbia in particular,
where 55 per cent of those convicted of operating marijuana grow-ops
receive no jail time and, of the 35 per cent who receive fines, the
penalty is typically less than $1,200.

Finally, grow-ops make huge profits: It costs on average $1.50 to
produce a joint that sells for $8.60. With $7.10 in profit on each
joint, these margins are fertile ground for these home-based businesses.

Since Canadians are defying the law anyway and police resources are
being wasted enforcing unenforceable laws, Easton argues, the
government should legalize the product, cut out the producers and
middlemen, pocket the $7 per joint in taxes, and make off with an
estimated $2 billion in revenues.

"The broader social question becomes less about whether we approve or
disapprove of local production," writes Easton, "but rather who shall
enjoy the spoils."

Such pragmatism has a fatal flaw.

Using such logic, if surveys showed that 23 per cent of the public had
shoplifted at some point in their lives, even though conviction and
jail time for these crimes remains low, theft should be legalized --
clearly unacceptable.

Similarly, drug pushers should not be given a free pass. Although this
newspaper supports decriminalizing the possession of small amounts of
marijuana, legalization is a different game. The fear of dealing with
criminals in the black market, for example, may be keeping a segment
of society from trying or using narcotics, which should be the objective.

Easton argues legalizing would at least remove organized crime from
the production and trafficking of marijuana. But it won't reduce the
number of mobsters in the country -- they'll just switch to peddling
other drugs. Unless the government is willing to legalize all drugs,
the effect on organized crime would be minute.

It is distasteful for the government to profit off the vices and
weaknesses of its citizenry; this is no less true in the sale of
tobacco, alcohol or VLT games than in the sale of marijuana. It
creates a perverse incentive: Although the taxes are punitive and
intended to dissuade use, it's in the government's interest to ensure
people remain hooked.

Adding marijuana to the mix would only compound the
problem.

This study at least affirms the notion that government ought to use
its power to punish sinful behaviour. If that's the case, we prefer
the existing legal framework for dealing with drug pushers, and
maintaining the social stigma that attends it.