THE PROS AND CONS OF LEGALIZING DRUGS

Sometimes it's important to question arguments some folk try to pawn
as facts.

Advocates for the legalization of drugs proudly proclaim the "failure
of Prohibition" as the ultimate defence of their position.

The argument goes something like this: "During Prohibition, criminals
controlled the trade. People got stuck with inferior, unhealthy
product. People did it in secret or in dark alleys. Addicts suffered
in silence and fear of the law."

There is an element of truth in each of those statements. But it's
misleading to assert that reversing Prohibition resolved those issues.
Anyone arguing that ending Prohibition ended our problems with alcohol
should give their heads a shake.

Alternately they could walk the wild summer streets and dark lanes of
Winnipeg. They should ride with cops at the beginning of every month.

Perhaps they could spend some time with victims of fetal alcohol
syndrome, or hear AA or Al-Anon members recount their suffering.

We may have ended speakeasies but still have booze-cans. Minors still
drink.

In the end, we've dramatically increased the percentage of alcoholics,
and decreased the motivation not to be a boozer.

History illustrates problems with a decree of prohibition without a
corresponding desire for abstinence. But it also demonstrates the
folly of legalizing and legitimizing intoxicants.

The law is not a solution to problems. But it can be a mechanism to
lever enforcement or intervention for those with little respect for
their fellow man.

Making something legal doesn't make it good. Just look at gambling.
Declaring it legal hasn't wiped out organized crime or reduced
addiction. It's actually increased the number of people vulnerable to
exploitation.

In case anyone failed to notice, ending Prohibition didn't wipe out
organized crime. Crooked minds and criminal clans will always find new
means to exploit vice and addiction.

What are we supposed to do? Follow crooks into every dark alley and
legalize their every illegal activity and substance just to divert
their profits?

When criminals exploit a vice or addiction everyone agrees it's a bad
thing. But when government co-opts the same vice, they pitch it as
compassion and crime prevention. The drug still has the same effect!

Ending Prohibition certainly didn't decrease the damage done to
addicts -- especially when you consider how many more started drinking
when the booze ban was lifted.

People get mugged for a 12-pack. A man across the street died for his
24. Decriminalizing the intoxicant doesn't decriminalize the behaviour
of the intoxicated or desperate.

You'll never stop some people from doing stupid or harmful things. But
that's no reason to facilitate more of the same.

Some assert that while alcohol has an addiction rate of about 10%,
cocaine has a rate approaching 60%. If government pot or crack or
heroin is of a moderated potency, is it reasonable to think
entrepreneurial crooks won't make a killing off an enhanced product?

In fact, having made the substance legal will increase the difficulty
of distinguishing the legal from the illegal version of the same substance.

Picture this: Cops stop some guys smoking week in a car. They can
smell the weed, and suspect this stuff might have been soaked in
scopolamine, embalming fluid, rice wine, PCP or meth. But finding the
bag of pot is no longer enough.

What if the guys in the car insist, "No way officer! This isn't bad
weed. It's good government weed. Here's the receipt -- I picked it up
at the Manitoba Weed Control Commission."

The cop suspects that the receipt is from a different batch but can't
prove it without a portable lab or sending the bag away for testing.
And where's the objective test for stoned drivers? We need to further
complicate the job of cops?

Advocates of legalization argue it will decrease crime because people
will pay less for the drug. But they fail to explain how cheaper -- or
even free -- drugs make better parents, spouses or employees.

Pot is a carcinogen. Can you see Health Canada testing and approving
crack like other drugs before they're legally sold to the public?
Would manufacturers be exposing themselves to the same legal
liabilities as tobacco companies?

Conspiracy theorists might postulate that government will legalize
drugs in order to tax them and, when things go bad, they'll sue the
manufacturers for more money.

It's delusional to assume that legalizing intoxicants or legitimizing
intoxication will reverse crime, save money and increase health.

Am I saying we should return to the days of Prohibition? Not really.
But I'm sick of naive middle-class libertarians pretending that ending
Prohibition ended our problems with alcohol.

I'll tell you what I'd like to see.

It's good to get tough on drunk driving. But what about drunk walking?
Or drunk arguing or scrapping? Keep that breathalyzer handy! Most of
the drunks causing the most problems in my neighbourhood wreak havoc
without a driver's licence.

Advocates argue that legalizing drugs would raise billions of dollars
for government, with at least some of the profit going to addictions
programming.

That hasn't worked real well with alcohol, tobacco and gambling. And
it's no comfort to the guy dying of lung cancer or the gambler getting
ready to hang himself.

Some experts estimate that the costs of alcohol and tobacco abuse
outweigh the taxation income from sales by a ration of 10 to one. Why
would other drugs be different?

It's revolting when government tries to disguise its greed by donning
a veil of compassion.

I know it's too late to put the lid back on Pandora's Box. But that's
no rationale for ripping the proverbial sides off the box and putting
it on the shelf at Wal-Mart.