|
|
 Canadian
Medical Association Journal
Home |
|
Legalization of drugs not the answer
In response to: I.G. Brock and V. Gurekas In arguing that drugs are illegal because they are bad, Gordon Brock and Vydas Gurekas seem to assume that drug laws are based on thoughtful consideration of relative harms. In fact, the history of drug law development in Canada more reflects racist views of drug consumption than concern with public protection. Opium, which was favoured in Canada by the middle and upper classes and available in a variety of over-the-counter medications, was made illegal by the 1908 Opium Act, which was directed at Chinese immigrant workers.1 Much of the impetus to make marijuana illegal in 1923 had xenophobic overtones as its use was linked to Mexican farm workers in the United States.2 Use of currently legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco clearly has more devastating public health consequences in Canada than use of all illegal drugs combined. Just as prohibition of alcohol saw prices and crime rates driven up by criminalization, so do current drug policies encourage profiteering and other criminal activity. In 1988 it was estimated that laundered drug money amounted to tax-free sums of over $100 billion per year, more than the gross national products of 150 of the 170 nations of the world.3 The United Nations reported that by 1993, $500 billion or 13% of all international trade was in illegal drugs, compared with $360 billion in petroleum products.4 One approach to this problem at the national level is exemplified by the Dutch policy of normalization, which places a low priority on possession of drugs for personal use and includes low-threshold methadone programs in all cities with 100 or more heroin users.5 These social policies are reflected in rough estimates that 20% of heroin users in the Netherlands are injectors, compared with 50% in the United States.6 In Canada, pragmatic application of drug laws has meant a decreased emphasis in many jurisdictions on prosecuting users in the interest of devoting law enforcement and judicial resources to the pursuit of drug traffickers. Some police departments have defined the quantities of each illicit drug that they consider to constitute evidence of trafficking. Understandably, these departments advocate national consensus on this issue to avoid movement of drugs and migration of drug users. Brock and Gurekas appear to confuse drug decriminalization with legalization. Although there is a diversity of opinion about the merits of each approach, there is general consensus that, in either case, constraints similar to those for alcohol and tobacco should apply to other drugs. These include bans on advertising, channelling of revenues from taxes or the proceeds of crime toward primary prevention, prosecution of those selling or giving drugs to minors, conspicuous warnings about health consequences, and sanctions for driving a car or operating heavy machinery under the influence of drugs. Increasing recognition of the harms associated with current drug laws and their application has led to public debate about how best to reform them. It is high time that in addressing drug law reform we consider all mind-altering drugs used in Canada, both currently legal and currently illegal, rather than accepting that alcohol and tobacco should retain their legal status whereas other drugs should remain prohibited and their users marginalized as pariahs.
Catherine Hankins References
Copyright 2000 Canadian Medical Association or its licensors |
