Reports urging a liberalization of drug laws come out with monotonous frequency. What sets last week's report by the Global Commission on Drug Policy apart from the pack is its unusually glittering roster of authors - among them Kofi Annan, Louise Arbour, Paul Volcker and Richard Branson.
But the report shares the same fragile premise as the others: "The global war on drugs has failed," it posits in its opening sentence.
To be sure, the war on drugs contains many failures. Indeed, Quebecers had their faces rubbed in that discouraging reality last week when a judge released members or associates of the Hells Angels on grounds that their trial on drug-trafficking charges was being held up too long.
But such failures - and, yes, there are many of them - hardly warrant the conclusion that the global law-enforcement campaign against drugs is an overall failure. To dismiss the war as a failure and abandon it would be like condemning the war on cancer as a failure because that disease remains the No. 1 killer in many countries and therefore ceasing to fund more research. You can make the same parallel with the war on terror.
The undeniable fact is that these so-called wars are racking up many individual successes. (Not to sound like Pollyanna, but let's note that 124 Angels and associates remain behind bars on other charges while awaiting trial.)
The question is this: Is the war on drugs worth its great financial cost? Last week's report, like every other proliberalization report, says no. Instead, it urges governments to legalize drugs - especially marijuana - to undermine the power of organized crime.
That's Fragile Premise No. 2. The idea that drugtrafficking will dry up once drugs are legalized is magical thinking. Even the most permissive government would always prohibit some drugs (crack and crystal meth, for example) because of their ultra-addictive nature and their effect on health. Gangs will always be there to supply these. And they'll always be there to provide "better" grades of the pot, heroin or other staples at the local government shop.
But, for me, the biggest problem in this report and all the others is the lack of attention to a certain demographic: kids.
Most pro-liberalization reports, politicians and pundits don't even mention minors. They simply say only people aged 18 and up could have access to government stores and leave it at that.
Yet if adolescents and teenagers see adults openly consuming drugs, they're going to want to also, more than ever. Forbidden fruit and all that.
The Global Commission is unusually generous: It gives kids three paragraphs. But its recommendations reflect that same magical thinking. It breezily suggests that drugeducation programs (supposedly savvier than those simplistic "just say no" messages) will have a proper preventive effect.
Never mind that the government's sale of drugs will send a signal that they can't be that bad.
I don't care if adults consume drugs (though if I were their employer, I might think differently). It's their business. But I do care about kids. They're prone to making reckless decisions that can ruin their lives. Youth is a time for dealing with reality. Getting off to good start in life is a lot harder if your brain is in la-la land.
A United Nations report, World Drug Report, said in 2007 that Quebec students in grades 7 to 9 smoked more marijuana than their peers in any other province, a behaviour that helped make Canada the No. 1 pot consumer in the industrialized world. It would be hard to imagine this does not factor into Quebec's status as this country's dropout leader.
It's remarkable how little concern society gives the next generation. Countries accumulate huge debts and blithely accelerate climate change with little regard for the inevitable impact on today's youngsters. When it comes to making recommendations on drug policy, the intelligentsia reflects the pattern.
[email protected]
© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette
