DRUGS AREN'T DANGEROUSE -- THE WAY THEY'RE USED IS

Health Minister Allan Rock may have inadvertently highlighted the insanity
of the war on drugs last week during his tour of Canada's only legal
marijuana growing operation.

Dressed in blue coveralls and a miner's helmet, he visited the grow-op
under tight security in an abandoned copper mine hundreds of feet below
ground. The low-grade marijuana, less powerful then the street product, is
held under stricter security than the nation's stores of the Ebola virus.

Marijuana, as its users will tell you, brings about feelings of contentment
while the Ebola virus causes sudden fever, weakness, muscle pain, headache,
and sore throat, followed by vomiting, diarrhea, rash, limited kidney and
liver functions, and both internal and external bleeding. Nine of ten
people infected die within days.

Thanks to the war on drugs, thousands of Canadians are in jail for what is
a consensual act. Nearly $400 million a year is spent on arresting,
prosecuting and jailing drug criminals in Canada to hammer at a crime which
essentially harms no one but the drug user.

There are two basic groups opposed to legalization -- those who are wrong
about the facts and those who don't care about them. The first are
characterized by poor assumptions, while the second fight against liberty
itself.

Critics argue that illegal drugs can be deadly. While it's been proven that
they can bring a host of problems, as for being deadly, the figures clearly
prove otherwise. While the numbers vary -- with cannabis considered as
having never been responsible for a death to heroin which takes about 1.5
per cent of its user's lives -- deaths due to drug use are rare.

A trickier, but no less flawed argument involves the social costs of drug
use. Critics argue that whether to use drugs should not be an individual's
choice alone because it may do harm to others. There isn't much doubt the
harm the drug user does to themselves may cause anguish to family and
friends. Thus, society is justified in banning drugs to prevent "harm to
others."

But people constantly engage in any number of activities that, like drug
use, only endanger themselves physically, but threatens to cause emotional
harm to others if they die or are seriously injured: whether it's skiing or
driving on highways at night. Using that argument, any action could be
banned. It would mean the end of freedom.

Then there's the addiction. It is true that people can addict themselves on
both a psychological and physical level, but no more so than on tobacco,
alcohol or even chocolate. And remember: drugs don't cause the addiction,
the person does. There are addictive users, but no addictive drugs.

What opponents of drug legalization are arguing is that drugs are
intrinsically evil and should be banned, period. What they fail to see is
that whether something is good or evil can only be determined by how
something is used and to what end.

Politicians in the west used to be guided by John Stuart Mill's assertion
that "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any
member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to
others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient
warrant." Liberal democracies like Canada and the U.S. were formed on this
principle.

The fact of the matter is drugs are not deadly to all users. Drugs are also
not addictive to all users. These two salient points add up to the
inescapable conclusion that drugs are not intrinsically evil. If you accept
that drugs aren't intrinsically evil, it then raises the question: Are
drugs of any value?

The vigor of the drug trade and the seemingly endless parade of purchasers
who are risking jail time and even death suggests that they are of value to
someone.

What do they value about drugs? Are their reasons valid?

All the actions taken by governments since the turn of the century against
drugs has been wasted because the war was based on a false idea: that drugs
are intrinsically evil.

Enough people are willing to take extreme risks for something that they value.

Enough people are willing to go outside of the law to obtain a product that
they value.

Despite the spraying, armed troops, incarceration, repressive laws, and
incredible amounts of money spent, drugs can be valued and many people do
value them.

What do you think? Leave a brief comment, your full name and hometown at:
604-605-2029, fax: 605-2099 or e-mail: provletters@pacpress.southam.ca