753...Cut And Paste To Warm Russel Barth's Heart

Going their own way; While the U. S. turns a blind eye,
its 'partner' states are quietly decriminalizing illicit drugs
National Post
Fri Aug 28 2009
Page: A12
Section: Editorial
Byline: Cobly [sic] Cosh
Column: Cobly [sic] Cosh
Source: National Post

Say, are we still having that debate over whether
the United States constitutes an empire?
I remember the idea seeming controversial a few years back.
In 2009, the whole idea of disagreeing with it seems quaint.
But maybe things will look different in a few more years.
Empires do not rise and fall monotonically; they expand and contract,
relax and relent. In an extraordinary turn of events,
Caesar has temporarily turned a blind eye to the policing of morals in the provinces, allowing startling drug reforms in two major "partner" states.

Late last week, the Mexican government,
trying explicitly not to call too much attention to what it was doing,
decriminalized the possession of very small amounts of illicit drugs.
Not just marijuana, which is subject to a possession limit of five grams,
but the whole kaboodle: cocaine, methamphetamine, LSD, even heroin.
In general the U. S. media treated this as a counter-intuitive move
made in the midst of a full-scale war between drug cartels
and the Mexican state.
But it is precisely the bloodiness of that war that has
Mexico moving away from ideological prohibitionism.

The idea is to cut into demand by treating addicts as
potential treatment clients rather than criminals, to fight corruption among the police by taking away one of their major tools for shaking down the poor and marginalized, and to concentrate resources on organized crime. This is, of course, a form of centralized social planning just as much as total prohibition is. Even a borderline-anarchist libertarian (like me) might well question whether it will accomplish the criteria of social peace and harm reduction by which it will be judged; Cato Institute fellow and Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron, for one, worries that decriminalization will get the blame if intensified supply-side enforcement leads to more violence.

But the Portuguese model on which the Mexican reform is based,
which saw the adoption of Europe's most liberal drug laws in 2001,
has been successful in all the ways that most of us would consider
important, particularly in reducing the spread of HIV and
exposure to drugs amongst teenagers.
One feels that what's needed above all else right now,
when it comes to drugs, is a little openness and sincerity.
The single worst effect of criminalizing drug possession is to
make it harder for everyone to talk about drugs.
It has created a world
although things have changed a lot in the last 20 years)
where most everyone has taken a bong hit at one time or another,
but no one wants to admit it,
whether it's to their kids or to co-workers or in the newspaper.

And that, in turn, has made it harder to make the core argument
that it is none of the state's business what you put in your body.
[Doing so inevitably comes off as sounding like a coded apology for
past indiscretions.) But in some places it is being made anyway.
On Tuesday the Supreme Court of Argentina reversed the
conviction of a 19-year-old caught with two grams of pot
and decriminalized the possession of drugs for personal consumption.
The Kirchner government anticipated the ruling and says
it is content to abide by it;
meanwhile, other Latin states, including Brazil,
are talking about following suit. Crucial
to the logic of the court's decision was an
article in the Argentine constitution that states,
"The private actions of men which in no way offend
public order or morality, nor injure a third party,
are only reserved to God and are exempted from the authority of judges."

It's a sentiment one might have expected to hear
coming from the U. S. A., at one time.
President Obama has been a disappointment to
the harm-reduction crowd when it comes to domestic
drug reform, but the rapid pace of change in the
Latin world shows that the State Department is no
longer imposing its will there. Whether it's because
Washington has more urgent priorities like saving the
American economy from reverting to the Stone Age, or
just because the Bush administration's cadre of drug
warriors is gone, American satellites seem to find themselves
free to go their own way, perhaps only for a brief moment.

Canadians who have argued that the adoption of
a harm-reduction approach here would jeopardize
our trade relationship with the United States
can therefore pipe down for the foreseeable future.
Unfortunately, we greet the occasion with a
law-and-order he-man Conservative government
in place -- one which, whatever its virtues when it comes
to crimes that have victims,
is full of people like Peter van Loan,
Rob Nicholson and Tony Clement,
and plenty of others who are
about as likely to give birth to a muskox
on the steps of Parliament as they are to
support rational drug policy. From that standpoint, our timing sorta stinks.

colbycosh@gmail.com 

378...Conservative Get Tough Crime Laws Cheered

David Karp in this morning's edition of the Vancouver Sun writes that a majority of British Columbians approve of what federal Justice Minister and Attorney General of Canada Rob Nicholson and the Tory government are planning to do to fight crime.


You know, stiffer sentences and all that.


Like they have in the States.


The crime free United States.

No surprise here.


An Angus Reid Strategies poll found that a majority of Canadians supported including all sex offenders in the national sex-offender registry, ending conditional sentences for non-personal injury crimes, and implementing mandatory minimum sentences. Throw in ending the faint hope clause that gives convicted murders a chance to get out early, not that early of course, they still have to serve 15 years, but earlier and you have the kit.

Simon Fraser University criminology professor Neil Boyd said he wasn’t surprised by the results. “It’s quite discouraging, because the best available evidence doesn’t support any of [the Conservatives’] initiatives,” he said. “I think what it reveals is the fact that we have really not educated the Canadian public about evidence-based social policy in the realm of crime and justice.” The majority is high, 82 per cent in British Columbia for example.

Here is why the policy/policies are 1/ popular and 2/fail miserably. They are popular because God fearing, hard working, non criminal types, who don't break the law, really, really wouldn't break the law if the penalty was higher than it is today. They fail because, instead of reducing crime they reduce the amount of people who are willing to take the risk associated with being a criminal and select out those who are smarter. Smarter people have options, they can run a grow op or use their education to make something of themselves in a non criminal world. If you make the penalty for running a grow op prohibitive the smart criminals will de criminalize. But the demand will remain and that void will be filled by individuals who are less intelligent and not deterred, probably not aware even, of the mandatory sentences and what not.

Plus, it doesn't work. We have many American jurisdictions that have severe penalties for drugs and still have the plague of drugs. Mayor Michael Bradley of Sarnia, Ontario, made that very point on yesterday's The Point [CBC One] when discussing this very issue. He pointed out that Michigan has super tough drug laws, mandatory sentences and so on and a severe, non relenting drug problem. He also, and here is a guy who has been mayor of his border town since the 1980's, is on the Police Services board, is a pretty even dude, he also pointed out that the never ending war on drugs is expensive, uses up tons of police resources and is futile.

Bottom line is these get tough laws look great on paper but reality shows that they are anything but.

WFDS