GROW OPS AND YOU

Individuals Can Weaken The Drug Trade, Regardless Of Legal Reforms

Over in British Columbia, a police investigation is underway into possible
political and bureaucratic links to the drug cartels, including one
now-fired assistant to the minister of finance.

Here in Calgary, as Herald reporters noted this week, the effect of drug
demand has produced: strengthened organized crime, booby-trapped homes that
are a danger to law enforcement when busted, weakened property values in
affected neighbourhoods, higher insurance rates, and a massive expenditure
of tax dollars to combat the drug trade.

Some argue that full drug legalization is the answer. After all, given that
23 per cent of the population has used marijuana at some point (and that
five per cent of the population has used LSD, speed, heroin or cocaine),
respect for the law has been damaged through disregard.

But it's not clear that legalization of drugs would be the panacea some
suggest. When Alaska and Oregon merely decriminalized marijuana (never mind
legalization), use among children rose to twice the national average.
Possession is now a crime again in both states.

Also, one canard about soft drug use is that it's no more addictive than
alcohol. The RCMP argue differently and note that only 10 per cent of
drinkers become alcoholics compared with 75 per cent of regular drug users
who become addicts. Disturbingly, 60 per cent of children who are regular
marijuana users before age 15 go on to use heroin and cocaine. The RCMP
also note that 12- to

17-year-olds who smoke pot are 85 times more likely to use cocaine than
those who do not.

This paper supports limited decriminalization (not legalization) of
marijuana and only on the understanding that enforcement would be more
rigorous, particularly for those who peddle drugs. But beyond the debate
over drug decriminalization or legalization (and which drugs should fall
into either category), there is another side to this issue rarely explored:
the demand side -- the users.

As one waits for a change in drug laws, democracy imposes an obligation in
exchange for freedom: While a citizen can and should work for changes to a
law one thinks unnecessary, there is an obligation to obey it -- unless
it's obviously tyrannical -- precisely because it can be changed through
peaceful means.

This is especially the case when the stakes are so high. We're not talking
about parking violations here.

Drug users are unlikely to quit because of an editorial, but until the law
is changed, those who flout it should hardly get sympathy from the rest of
us, given the damaging societal consequences they help create.

No harm comes from obeying a law against soft drug use. Much damage results
from skirting it.