Pubdate: Thu, 24 Jul 2014
Source: London Free Press (CN ON)
Copyright: 2014 The London Free Press
Contact: http://www.lfpress.com/letters
Website: http://www.lfpress.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/243
Author: John Robson
Page: A7

HAS TIME COME FOR US TO REVISIT PROHIBITION?

Ottawa has a problem with guns and gangs. Several problems actually. 
But the biggest one, as usual, is conceptual, because if you don't 
realize what you're doing wrong you can't change it.

On the surface our problem is a spate of people being shot in the 
legs in public housing. The victims then "refuse to cooperate with 
the police," sociology-speak for "they won't tell the cops who did it."

They know, of course. This is drug trade violence and they are shot 
by partner-competitors when deals go bad or over turf. But they won't 
talk partly because they are more afraid of their rivals than of 
polite society and partly because they are deeply alienated from 
polite society.

So far so bad. Now what shall we do?

One obvious measure is to ban handguns. Admittedly they are already 
illegal and a salient feature of criminals is they don't obey the 
law. Nevertheless it's Olivia Chow's solution to Toronto's 
considerably more serious gun violence even though (a) the people 
using handguns there are already breaking the law just by owning 
them; (b) city council did ask Parliament to re-ban them in 2008; and 
(c) Chicago and Washington D.C. long had handgun bans and hideous 
rates of handgun violence.

Another obvious measure is to "reach out to the community." If 
sociologists with uniforms and sidearms study the root causes, tell 
people it's naughty to shoot other drug dealers in the leg, and set 
up midnight basketball or something, the problem will turn its hat 
around, pull its pants up and get a straight job.

There are two other obvious things we can do, so obvious we rarely 
notice they are choices. We can maintain Prohibition on virtually all 
psychoactive drugs except alcohol, caffeine and tranquilizers (even 
nicotine is being driven underground). And we can maintain a lavish 
welfare state to trap people into dependency.

Occasionally a voice is heard crying in the wackiness that the first 
two policies aren't fixing the problem because they don't address the 
root causes and the other two aren't fixing it because they are the 
root causes. Besides, if the current approach isn't working we need 
something new, even in Canada, where we hate to upset things with 
fresh, bold thinking.

Fundamentally I'm against drug prohibition for adults. First, we must 
all work out our own salvation in fear and trembling. Second, as with 
prostitution, if I have no right in a state of nature to prevent you 
smoking pot I can't delegate that authority to the state.

I realize some people don't agree, and think they should be able to 
belt you with a nightstick if you like different drugs than them. 
Others insist that intoxication is not a private matter because it 
affects the community by its consequences or its example. But so do 
gluttony, greed, sloth and pride. And surely we realize asking the 
Nanny State to eliminate them, minutely regulating every aspect of 
our conduct, will render us miserable without purging sin from our hearts.

Certainly we should be able to shun the dissolute and deny them 
charity. But that means less government not more. Which is also the 
solution to gang gun violence.

Right now drugs are popular but illegal. This creates a lucrative 
black market. People in this trade cannot call the police if they are 
robbed or cheated, so they develop "informal" enforcement mechanisms. 
The resulting gunplay menaces innocent bystanders, scandalizes the 
public, and frustrates normal policing because its main victims 
aren't on the side of the law.

Is this price worth paying for the satisfaction of knowing millions 
of Canadians are taking drugs illegally rather than legally? If not, 
at the risk of thinking clearly about what we're doing, we should 
revisit Prohibition.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom