ABANDONING WAR ON DRUGS WOULD LEAVE OUR YOUTH VULNERABLE

Reports urging a liberalization of drug laws come out with monotonous
frequency. What sets last week's report by the Global Commission on
Drug Policy apart from the pack is its unusually glittering roster of
authors - among them Kofi Annan, Louise Arbour, Paul Volcker and
Richard Branson.

But the report shares the same fragile premise as the others: "The
global war on drugs has failed," it posits in its opening sentence.

To be sure, the war on drugs contains many failures. Indeed, Quebecers
had their faces rubbed in that discouraging reality last week when a
judge released members or associates of the Hells Angels on grounds
that their trial on drug-trafficking charges was being held up too
long.

But such failures - and, yes, there are many of them - hardly warrant
the conclusion that the global law-enforcement campaign against drugs
is an overall failure. To dismiss the war as a failure and abandon it
would be like condemning the war on cancer as a failure because that
disease remains the No. 1 killer in many countries and therefore
ceasing to fund more research. You can make the same parallel with the
war on terror.

The undeniable fact is that these so-called wars are racking up many
individual successes. (Not to sound like Pollyanna, but let's note
that 124 Angels and associates remain behind bars on other charges
while awaiting trial.)

The question is this: Is the war on drugs worth its great financial
cost? Last week's report, like every other proliberalization report,
says no. Instead, it urges governments to legalize drugs - especially
marijuana - to undermine the power of organized crime.

That's Fragile Premise No. 2. The idea that drugtrafficking will dry
up once drugs are legalized is magical thinking. Even the most
permissive government would always prohibit some drugs (crack and
crystal meth, for example) because of their ultra-addictive nature and
their effect on health. Gangs will always be there to supply these.
And they'll always be there to provide "better" grades of the pot,
heroin or other staples at the local government shop.

But, for me, the biggest problem in this report and all the others is
the lack of attention to a certain demographic: kids.

Most pro-liberalization reports, politicians and pundits don't even
mention minors. They simply say only people aged 18 and up could have
access to government stores and leave it at that.

Yet if adolescents and teenagers see adults openly consuming drugs,
they're going to want to also, more than ever. Forbidden fruit and all
that.

The Global Commission is unusually generous: It gives kids three
paragraphs. But its recommendations reflect that same magical
thinking. It breezily suggests that drugeducation programs (supposedly
savvier than those simplistic "just say no" messages) will have a
proper preventive effect.

Never mind that the government's sale of drugs will send a signal that
they can't be that bad.

I don't care if adults consume drugs (though if I were their employer,
I might think differently). It's their business. But I do care about
kids. They're prone to making reckless decisions that can ruin their
lives. Youth is a time for dealing with reality. Getting off to good
start in life is a lot harder if your brain is in la-la land.

A United Nations report, World Drug Report, said in 2007 that Quebec
students in grades 7 to 9 smoked more marijuana than their peers in
any other province, a behaviour that helped make Canada the No. 1 pot
consumer in the industrialized world. It would be hard to imagine this
does not factor into Quebec's status as this country's dropout leader.

It's remarkable how little concern society gives the next generation.
Countries accumulate huge debts and blithely accelerate climate change
with little regard for the inevitable impact on today's youngsters.
When it comes to making recommendations on drug policy, the
intelligentsia reflects the pattern.