THERE ARE TWO SIDES TO DECRIMINALIZING DRUGS

LONDON - Goodfella Henry VIII used to boil poisoners alive. Inhibited by a
more gentle disposition, I would not advocate the same for all British
tabloid journalists, poisoners of the printed work, but neither would I
rule out a dunking for Daily Mirror reporter Dawn Alford, who recently
brought an already suspect trade into even more disrepute.

A few weeks ago the British home secretary's 17-year-old son, William, was
arrested for offering the fetching, 27-year-old Alford (Ten Pounds) worth
of cannabis in a London pub. Scandal. In a dull week the British press made
a meal out of the news, speculating on whether the embarrassed home
secretary would have o resign. The home secretary, Jack Straw, happens to
be something of a puritan. He has pronounced parents responsible for their
children's transgressions and has even suggested that he might impose a
curfew on young offenders. He is also on record for being adamantly opposed
to even considering the legalization of soft drugs.

And then, lo and behold, his very own son. who seems to fancy the
occasional toke, became a victim of a sleazy tabloid entrapment.

Responding to an anonymous tip about alleged drug dealing, "socially
concerned" Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan dispatched his bimbo of a
reporter, and an equally attractive girlfriend, to a pub to come on to
young William. Alford pretended to be a trainee real estate agent in search
of a wowsy time. Some fun. Some games. Plying the home secretary's son with
a good deal of beer, she let on, at pub closing time, no doubt batting her
eyelashes, how much she'd fancy some dope. So the obliging William obtained
1.93 grams of cannabis for her from a friend and was able to read about his
favor rendered in the next morning's Daily Mirror. of the Daily Mirror
behaved disgracefully, that's the nature of the beast, but, as it turned
out, the righteous Jack Straw would behave even worse, and win praise for
it.

Mindful of the Daily Mirror's steadfast support of Labor, he didn't barge
into the editor's office to smash him one for entrapping his son. Instead,
his manner smarmy, he publicly thanked the editor for bringing his son's
sin to his attention and marched William over to the police station to be
charged. In the end, William was let off with a caution, but I doubt that
things between the pious, calculating home secretary and his son will ever
be the same again.

Surely the time has come to recognize that the prohibition of soft drugs,
readily available in any Montreal bar I've ever been to, doesn't work any
more than did the earlier attempt at prohibiting the sale of alcohol. Of
course drugs can be addictive, but the same can be said of Harlequin books.
Or TV sitcoms. Or cellular phones. Or, for that matter, cigarettes or
booze. Fortunately, however, most of us can handle it. The so-called War
on Drugs has so far been a huge and expensive failure, which has only
served to enrich mobsters and corrupt the police. If, as Pierre Trudeau
once famously argued, the government has no business in the nation's
bedrooms, neither is it the government's affair if many prefer marijuana
to nicotine, the latter probably more dangerous to our health, but I do not
look to Jean Chretien, constantly glancing over his shoulder at Preacher
Manning, to do the bold thing and decriminalize drugs. On the other hand,
Paul Martin, salivating at the taxes he could reap from the legal sale of
marijuana, might spring for it.

Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, who can hardly be confused with Mick
Jagger, once argued in Newsweek: "On ethical grounds, do we have the right
to use the machinery of government to prevent an individual from becoming
an alcoholic or drug addict? For children, almost everyone would answer at
least a qualified 'yes'. But, for responsible adults, I, for one, would
answer, 'no'." Me too.