THERE'S NOTHING CONSERVATIVE ABOUT BANNING POT

Imagine an extremely expensive government policy proven to be
completely ineffective at achieving its stated objectives. Consider
also that whenever this policy is subjected to any kind of impact
assessment, the government's own data clearly show that the policy has
been ineffective, expensive and fuelled the growth of organized crime.
Finally, imagine this remark-able set of circumstances persisting for
decades - at great cost to taxpayers and community safety - and yet
elected officials say and do nothing to address the status quo.

Does this sound like something most conservative-minded voters would
support? Sadly, you don't have to imagine. This policy is marijuana
prohibition and it is an unfortunate legacy for conservatives that we
have consistently elected right-ward leaning politicians who have been
among the strongest defenders of our failed anti-marijuana laws.

If you look at the U.S. government's own data, for instance, despite
the long-standing "war on drugs" in the United States, the U.S.
Nation-al Institutes of Health has concluded that over the last 30
years of marijuana prohibition the drug has remained "almost
universally avail-able to American 12th Graders," with between 80 per
cent and 90 per cent consistently saying the drug is "very easy" or
"fairly easy" to obtain.

Unfortunately, anti-marijuana laws have been much more than simply
ineffective, and famous fiscal conservatives have long under-stood
why. In 1991, conservative economist Milton Friedman noted: "If you
look at the drug war from a purely economic point of view, the role of
the government is to protect the drug cartel." Friedman, who won the
Nobel Prize in 1976, held strong views about the certain failure of
marijuana prohibition shared by virtually all economists. They stress
that costly efforts to remove marijuana supply by building prisons and
locking up marijuana growers and sellers has the perverse effect of
making it that much more profitable for new marijuana producers to
enter the market. The laws of sup-ply and demand, which free-market
conservatives hold dear, explain the ongoing warfare between drug
cartels, including those operating in the Lower Mainland.

Marijuana prohibition is their biggest cash cow and they have
repeatedly shown their willingness to resort to extreme violence to
gain or maintain market share.

While a commitment to stronger families is a conservative value often
cited to support marijuana prohibition, the policy clearly can-not be
credited with helping young families.

In an editorial published last week, former president of Brazil
Fernando Henrique Cardoso wrote: "To protect children from drugs, it
is to my mind now beyond debate that drug laws need to be reformed.
From what we already know, the ongoing and future identified harms of
current drug policies to our children must be considered not as
unintended, but a result of negligence, recklessness or simple disregard."

Earlier this year, a new coalition of legal, law-enforcement and
public-health experts known as Stop the Violence B.C. was launched to
"break the silence" regarding the failure and negative consequences of
cannabis prohibition.

Those reading this article are encouraged to join. Rather than
advocating for a free-market approach to legalized marijuana sales
that would allow for advertisement and promotion of marijuana use, the
coalition is calling for a strictly regulated legal market for adult
marijuana use under a public-health framework.

Research clearly suggests that a regulated model could redirect the
hundreds of millions of dollars that currently fuels violence in the
illegal market to the provincial government in the form of taxation.
More importantly, moving away from a profit-driven and increasingly
violent unregulated market to a strictly regulated legal market has
the potential to actually reduce rates of marijuana use, in the same
way that regulatory tools have dramatically cut rates of tobacco use.

Last week, four former mayors of Vancouver endorsed the Stop the
Violence B.C. coalition in the form of an open letter addressed to
B.C.'s elected officials. The letter encouraged politicians to voice
their sup-port for taxation and regulation of cannabis as a strategy
to reduce gang violence. Despite a recent Angus Reid poll showing that
only 12 per cent of British Columbians support existing marijuana
laws, with almost 70 per cent supporting the taxation and regulation
of marijuana, the B.C. Liberals and their NDP opposition have yet to
show meaningful leadership on this issue. Apparently, they are
concerned that voicing a progressive opinion could lead to a bleeding
of support to the emerging B.C. Conservative Party.

Ironically, based on traditional conservative values of family,
government accountability and fiscal restraint, B.C. Conservative
Party Leader John Cummins should be the first to join the Fraser
Institute in supporting a taxation and regulation strategy. The
conservative think tank's 2004 report concluded that if we treat
marijuana "like any other commodity we can tax it, regulate it, and
use the resources the industry generates rather than continue a war
against consumption and production that has long since been lost."

That's conservative thinking that British Columbians from across the
political spectrum should support.