As the Summit of the Americas concluded, it seemed clear that the organization was divided into two camps: Canada and the USA in one, and all other members in the other. Indeed, the division was so obvious that one begins to fear for the life of the organization.
Two issues divide the group:
1. The War on Drugs, and thoughts of legalizing or at least decriminalizing currently-illegal drugs, most notably cocaine and marijuana.
2. The potential admittance of Cuba into the Organization of American States (OAS).
Stances on the first issue come as no surprise. On the second, it's slightly different. The USA is expected to oppose any softening of its embargo, etc., if only to placate the Spanish voters in Florida. Canada, on the other hand, seems determined to play its hypocrisy card: we invest in Cuba, hundreds of thousands of Canadians visit Cuba as tourists, and more. And yet Stephen Harper's government kowtows to the United States regarding membership in the OAS, citing human rights as the main reason, and going so far as to say that when Cuba becomes a democracy, we may reconsider.
Considering the governments in several OAS countries (not to mention trade agreements with China), this stance is laughable at best. It is an embarrassment to the people of Canada, and an embarrassment on the worldwide stage.
Showing posts with label War on Drugs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War on Drugs. Show all posts
Monday, 16 April 2012
Sunday, 15 April 2012
Rethinking the War on Drugs
At the recent (April 10-12) Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia, several presidents (from Colombia to Mexico) proposed a radical change in thinking about the War on Drugs. After 40 years of failure to win this war -- one might even argue that not even a battle has been won, let alone with was -- it's definitely time for new thinking on the issue.
That new thinking is a proposal to legalize drugs, from top to bottom. That is, to legalize the cultivation of coca plants, their harvesting, and subsequent manufacture of cocaine, all the way to its legal distribution in some sort of regulated market along the lines of the alcohol market.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President Barack Obama want no part of this. For my part, I cannot think of a single good reason to oppose legalization, and lots of reasons for it.
First, the War on Drugs has been lost, and despite such efforts as giving billions to South and Central American countries to fight the war with military force, not to mention active participation (Canada for example provides frigates to patrol the oceans near Colombia, Peru and other points of exit).
Second, several South and Central American nations are at serious risk of becoming narco-states. Guatemala is the murder capital of the world. Mexico is no slouch in this department, either.
Third, on both ends of the supply chain, billions and billions of dollars are flowing into the wrong hands, and out of the reach of taxation. Add to this the vast sums expended on police officers, equipment, snitch funds and all the ancillary spin-offs, all of which do virtually nothing to stem the flow of drugs, or their consumption, or the crimes committed by users to finance their habits.
All in all, the current picture makes no sense at all. Unless, of course, we are asking the wrong question. Perhaps the question should be, How does the status quo benefit the US and Canadian governments? Perhaps the easiest answer is that it shores up support among the religious segments of the voting populace. A slightly more cynical answer may be kickbacks, whether direct or in the form of campaign contributions. Another answer might be more sinister: confiscation of shipments leads to subsequent re-sale of same, resulting in funds that cannot be traced back to the governments involved, and thus available to fund off-the-books activities. Early examples of this sort of thing date back to Oliver North's adventures, and further.
In my view, the real problem is that the issue of drug abuse is framed in a context of criminality rather than in a context of health. Imagine the consequences of, say, making it a criminal offence to be poor, or schizophrenic.
That new thinking is a proposal to legalize drugs, from top to bottom. That is, to legalize the cultivation of coca plants, their harvesting, and subsequent manufacture of cocaine, all the way to its legal distribution in some sort of regulated market along the lines of the alcohol market.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President Barack Obama want no part of this. For my part, I cannot think of a single good reason to oppose legalization, and lots of reasons for it.
First, the War on Drugs has been lost, and despite such efforts as giving billions to South and Central American countries to fight the war with military force, not to mention active participation (Canada for example provides frigates to patrol the oceans near Colombia, Peru and other points of exit).
Second, several South and Central American nations are at serious risk of becoming narco-states. Guatemala is the murder capital of the world. Mexico is no slouch in this department, either.
Third, on both ends of the supply chain, billions and billions of dollars are flowing into the wrong hands, and out of the reach of taxation. Add to this the vast sums expended on police officers, equipment, snitch funds and all the ancillary spin-offs, all of which do virtually nothing to stem the flow of drugs, or their consumption, or the crimes committed by users to finance their habits.
All in all, the current picture makes no sense at all. Unless, of course, we are asking the wrong question. Perhaps the question should be, How does the status quo benefit the US and Canadian governments? Perhaps the easiest answer is that it shores up support among the religious segments of the voting populace. A slightly more cynical answer may be kickbacks, whether direct or in the form of campaign contributions. Another answer might be more sinister: confiscation of shipments leads to subsequent re-sale of same, resulting in funds that cannot be traced back to the governments involved, and thus available to fund off-the-books activities. Early examples of this sort of thing date back to Oliver North's adventures, and further.
In my view, the real problem is that the issue of drug abuse is framed in a context of criminality rather than in a context of health. Imagine the consequences of, say, making it a criminal offence to be poor, or schizophrenic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)