Pubdate: Thu, 23 Mar 2017
Source: Sun Times, The (Owen Sound, CN ON)
Copyright: 2017 Owen Sound Sun Times
Contact: http://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/letters
Website: http://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1544
Author: Floyd Perras
Page: A4

LAW NOT THE TOP DRUG USE ISSUE

Ronald Reagan once quipped that the government's view of the economy
could be summed up as follows: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps
moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.

For better or for worse, the Canadian government seems to have decided
that marijuana has been on the move long enough to start taxing and
regulating it.

For the uninitiated, legalizing marijuana would mean that the drug
would be available for purchase but regulated by the government --
similar to alcohol or tobacco. The difference is that marijuana is far
cheaper to produce at scale than either of those two.

In fact, marijuana would be so cheap to produce at scale that analysts
suggest it might even make sense for businesses to give it away as a
complimentary product, similar to ketchup packets or sugar packets.

Decriminalizing marijuana, on the other hand, would mean that the drug
is not available for legal purchase but possessing it and using it
would not longer be considered a crime.

Obviously, there are rigorous and impassioned arguments on all
sides.

Since we see so many cases of addictions at Siloam Mission -- and
believe me, marijuana pales in comparison to legal drugs like tobacco
and alcohol, both of which have killed far too many of our friends --
I'm often asked what I think about the issue.

My conservative friends argue that legalizing marijuana would put our
children at risk by exposing them to drugs. When it comes to alcohol
and tobacco, they argue people need to make their own choices about
their health and take responsibility for their actions.

My liberal friends argue that legalizing marijuana would create tax
revenue on a commodity that is already readily available to anyone who
wants it. Regulating it would make it safer for society, not more
dangerous. When it comes to alcohol and tobacco, they make the same
argument as my conservative friends.

To be honest, I'm not sure it matters either way.

Economists will tell you that most drugs have a very inelastic demand.
That means if you raise the price of the product or if you find a way
to decrease supply, people will still buy at the same quantity --
which only means higher revenue and profit for those selling it.

The only way drugs like marijuana become less profitable -- and in
turn less prolific -- is by decreasing the demand.

Our problem isn't the availability of drugs -- it's that the demand
for drugs, be it legal or illegal, is simply too high.

All of us have seen people die from cancer related to cigarette
smoking. Fentanyl has taken thousands of lives and has become a plague
of the addicted.

Addictions are always devastating to individuals and families. Beyond
the personal price, they also cost our society millions of dollars in
social services and lost productivity.

My worry isn't whether marijuana is illegal, decriminalized or
legalized.

My worry is changing behaviour to make sure demand for drugs goes down
in the first place. That's a daunting task -- but whatever we're doing
right now isn't working.

Floyd Perras is executive director of strategic initiatives at Siloam 
Mission.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt