Pubdate: 27 Sep, 1999
Source: Montreal Gazette (Canada)
Copyright: 1999 The Gazette, a division of Southam Inc.
Contact:  http://www.montrealgazette.com/
Forum: http://forums.canada.com/~montreal
Author: William Watson, Freelance
Note: William Watson, editor of Policy Options, teaches economics at McGill 
University

IF IT DOESN'T MATTER, LEGALIZE IT

The news coverage of Jane Purves's admission that she was a drug addict 
into her late 20s was interesting, to say the least.

After showing clips of the Nova Scotia education minister's press 
conference and then of Premier John Hamm's praise of her candour and 
courage, CTV's reporter followed with three quick person-in-the-street 
interviews, which said roughly, "It shouldn't matter. I don't see how it 
matters. It really doesn't matter." Did no one in the streets of Halifax 
think intravenous drug use mattered?

The reporter then signed off in a way that - though I don't have a 
transcript or tape - made it pretty clear he didn't think it should matter, 
either, and his tone almost suggested we should all be consulting our 
consciences about the fact that we were actually interested in his report.

If nobody thinks it matters, why was it on the national news, why were 
clips from Purves's press conference promo'd twice before the report 
appeared, and why was she Page 1 above the fold in lots of the country's 
newspapers?

Does Purves's past addiction matter?

It and her struggle to overcome it are probably the most important events 
in her life. She's a parent, so that may seem a little harsh, since for 
most parents their children are the most important things in their life. 
But she lost her child for a time because of her addiction. "Drug use could 
have ruined my life. It didn't," she said.

Five thousand missiles if the public has a right to know something about 
the most important formative events in politicians' lives, then, yes, her 
drug use probably does matter. In the same way, if George W. Bush had a 
cocaine habit until he was well into his 30s, that says a lot about the 
kind of person he was, which may say something about the kind of person he is.

If he were applying for dog-catcher or, with apologies to all Nova 
Scotians, education minister of Nova Scotia, no one would care much. 
President of the United States is a different matter. Five thousand 
missiles make it so.

Does her addiction affect Purves's ability to do her job? She says she's 
been clean for 20 years, which is five more years than Bush owns up to.

Recovering alcoholics say they are just that, recovering. Pop 
bio-psychology attributes a susceptibility to relapse to the influence of 
an addiction gene.

Perhaps such persons shouldn't subject themselves to the stress that being 
education minister presumably involves. On the other hand, Purves was 
previously a newspaper editor, so being education minister may be relaxing 
by comparison. And it may be a useful preparation for being a minister 
these days to have known despair up close and personal. (I'm referring to 
her experience of addiction, not editoring.)

Drunk on beer would her past matter if she wanted to be Nova Scotia's 
minister of justice? She has, as she told us Wednesday, a criminal record 
for the possession of marijuana. There is the practical problem that a 
person with a criminal record probably couldn't become a lawyer and a 
non-lawyer is unlikely to become minister of justice.

But, technicalities aside, would it be all right to have as minister of 
justice someone who had once broken the criminal law? It depends what law 
he or she broke, is likely to be many people's reaction.

Violent crime is one thing, but possession of marijuana? Surely that's the 
same order of misdemeanour as getting drunk on beer. Purves's drug use 
evidently went well beyond that, but her record is for something most of 
her peers regard as trifling.

If it doesn't matter - and everything we have heard since Wednesday 
suggests it doesn't matter - why is it still on the books?

If it doesn't matter - and everyone seems to think what George W. Bush 
won't actually say he did doesn't matter - why are people still going to 
jail for it, and why doesn't the party that looks like it might nominate 
him favour changing the law?

Charles Kennedy, the new leader of Britain's Liberal-Democrats, has 
proposed that British marijuana laws be reviewed, which presumably means 
liberalized. I don't know if that makes me hopeful or, since his party is 
something of a political irrelevancy, depressed.

- - William Watson, editor of Policy Options, teaches economics at McGill 
University.

- ---
MAP posted-by: Thunder