LEGAL DOPE WOULD STILL WREAK HAVOC

After one of my columns about our problems with drug dealers, I heard from
a guy who told me I had it all wrong.

"The problem with drugs in your neighbourhood is caused by a government
which wrongly declares these drugs illegal. But people still want drugs, so
criminals provide them. Since criminals are greedy, they jack up prices.
When prices are high, people have to rob, kill and maim to get sufficient
funds to supply their habits.

"Think of how life would change if people no longer went to the drug houses
for crack," he ranted. "Life in the hood would quiet down if people could
buy their crack at any 7-Eleven, their ecstasy at Esso and their weed at
Wal-Mart.

Competition would increase, and prices would decrease. Then addicts would
no longer resort to crime to support their addiction.

"If government declared all drugs legal, think of the money they'd save in
the failed 'war on drugs.' Then we'd finally have enough money for social
programs and treatment facilities."

We argued for a while. I like the guy but I figure he's pretty naive.

Something really bugs me when folks talk about legalizing drugs. It's wrong
to imagine legalizing drugs would reduce their impact on the body or society.

Erasing criminal consequences of drug use is among the least of the
addict's problems. The addict's relentless self-absorption and multiple
health problems are not wiped out just by legalizing his drugs.

The fact prostitution is legal in Canada has not improved the health of
prostitutes and the communities in which they work. In fact, it has further
shielded prostitutes in my neighbourhood from any meaningful intervention.

Freedom is great, but life without limits gets scary. Even the patron saint
of libertarians, John Stuart Mill, acknowledged that "it would be better to
be Socrates discontented than a fool satisfied."

Or, as my friend Larry says, "It may be true that 'ignorance is bliss,' but
I want more out of life than bliss."

In my neighbourhood, someone else's ignorance may considerably diminish my
bliss.

Lately I've been wondering if the prevailing philosophy of our day is: "If
you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

It seems to work for government. The province makes millions from growing
liquor sales. And who knows how much it pockets through its proliferation
of gambling. But at least it shares more of the profits than did the
criminals who controlled both trades prior to Big Brother taking over the
business.

Meanwhile, the city decides that since it can't beat prostitution, it will
at least get some licensing revenue from massage parlours and escort
services. No wonder it's still nattering about a "red-light zone." Just
think of the revenue from licensing, just imagine the potential for tourism.

If someone concocted a pill with all the carcinogenic ingredients of
cigarettes, Health Canada wouldn't allow its production or distribution,
let alone consumption in public places. But, at least for now, government
contents itself with hikes in "sin taxes" and ugly pictures on the packaging.

Government lowers the age of consent for sex, and the courts expand the
boundaries of "artistic" sexual expression. Schools install condom vending
machines and instruct students in sexual techniques.

These are just a few examples of the "If you can't beat 'em, stop fighting
'em" philosophy.

Playing games with laws doesn't change reality. I figure any adult who gets
sexual with a 13-year-old is still a child molester -- no matter what the
law says about age of consent or freedom of expression.

According to my critic, today's war on drugs is a re-run of the failed
policy of Prohibition in the 1920s. As if everyone lived "happily ever
after" when Prohibition ended. Not in my neighbourhood! Ending Prohibition
stopped problems with criminal distribution while creating more problems
with legal consumption.

Legalizing a substance doesn't necessarily reduce costs. A recent study
obtained from the Addictions Foundation of Manitoba calculated the total
Canadian social and health costs of three substances -- alcohol, tobacco
and illicit drugs.

The costs related to use and abuse of alcohol in Canada were calculated at
$7.5 billion annually, or 41% of the total. Tobacco costs are in the range
of $9.5 billion, or 51% of the total. Illicit drugs, surprisingly, cost
Canadians only $1.3 billion dollars, or 7% of the total.

Go figure! The most "costly" substances are the two which are most
affordable and accessible -- and totally legal. I'm not advocating a return
to Prohibition for alcohol. I just think we have enough problems in our
neighbourhood with legal mind-altering substances.

The last thing we need is more stuff thrown into the craziness.