Casualties of the Criminal War on Drugs
What would support criminalization is evidence showing that by putting nice, tax-paying businessmen like Marc Emery in prison, we so significantly reduce marijuana consumption and related harms that the benefits of the policy outweigh the costs. Is there such evidence? I’ve studied the issue for more than a decade and I’ve never seen anything remotely suggesting this is true. In fact, I’ve seen plenty of evidence that criminalization has little or no effect on consumption rates and, ipso facto, it does bugger all to reduce related harms.
What criminalization does do is generate a long list of unintended consequences, all of them bad. Take the Taliban. It’s well known they fund themselves, in part, by “taxing” opium growers and heroin traffickers. Less well known is that the Taliban make big money from Afghanistan’s marijuana growers and hashish traffickers — which means there’s a good chance that when a Canadian soldier loses his legs to a roadside bomb, the components of the bomb and the wages of the man who planted it were paid for by the black market in marijuana.
There wouldn’t be a black market in marijuana if it were legal and regulated, and the profits of the marijuana trade would go to nice, taxpaying businessmen like Marc Emery instead of gangsters, goons, and medieval maniacs. Sounds pretty good, doesn’t it? You would think politicians would at least want to study the issue.
But they won’t study it. They won’t even talk about it. Wrapped in a cosy blanket of ignorance and group-think, they’re perfectly comfortable with a policy that funds people who blow the legs off Canadian soldiers and puts guys like Marc Emery in prison.
This is no ordinary stupidity. It’s criminal stupidity. Which is, come to think of it, probably the worst of the many crimes committed in the name of the war on drugs.
Page 2 of 2 | Previous page