Drugs, Drugs, Drugs. Which are good, which are bad?

The marijuana legalization policy, which passed at last weekend's Liberal convention, has been generating a fair amount of media buzz this past week. The strongest arguments in favour of it come, somewhat surprisingly, from this National Post editorial and Toronto Sun column, while this Globe article raises some legitimate questions about the feasibility of legalization.

There are many logistical hurdles to overcome, but I tend to think one of the many alcohol and cigarette distribution systems we use could be adapted to marijuana. Once a mechanism is settled on and border issues with the Americans are worked out, the benefits are obvious.

Those hippies at the Fraser Institute peg it as a $7 billion cash crop which would generate $2 billion a year in tax revenue. Those stoners in the Senate like the idea because it would deal a financial blow to organized crime by bringing the economy above-ground. Anyone watching Boardwalk Empire knows what happens when you try to enforce an unenforceable prohibition.

But those are the debate arguments, and the political arguments are a bit more complex. After all, as carbon taxes and the HST have taught us, sound policy doesn't always make for sound politics.

It's easy to point to a poll and say Canadians are onside with Liberal members on this issue, but it's not as simple as that. There are at least 6 things the Liberals need to mull over before lighting up on this policy.


1. Strength of Support: Maybe people think pot should be legalized, but do they feel strong enough about the issue to vote for a party because of their stand? The "stoned slacker" vote is a lot harder to mobilize than the "mothers worried about their kids smoking pot" vote.


2. The Liberal Coalition: It's good to be behind an idea voters like, but it also matters which voters like it. Will this win the Liberals any votes from New Democrats or libertarian conservatives? Will it be enough to get young people to vote for them? Will it win them Vancouver? Will it scare off longtime Liberals?


3. The Big Picture: How does this policy fit into the key themes of the next Liberal platform? Does it play to a larger narrative about the Liberals being bold...or being soft on crime...or being a party with new ideas...or being a joke? There are a lot of ways this can be spun.

There's also the the 2 billion in budget flexibility this policy would open up. A lot of voters may not feel a legalized pot policy impacts them personally, but if it leads to a 2 billion dollar tax break? That's something they'd be stoked about.


4. A sound byte campaign: I have no doubt that even Michael Ignatieff could best Stephen Harper in an hour-long debate on marijuana legalization. But during elections, policies are all about the 10 second elevator pitch. The Conservatives will say the Liberals are soft on crime. They'll say they've promised tax breaks for kids sports while the Liberals offer kids a joint. I can guarantee you the party that brought us Oily the Splotch is thinking up clever ad campaigns as we speak.

Is the Liberal pitch as compelling? I'm not saying it can't be, but if it isn't this policy could become an albatross.


5. Stickiness: The knock on the Liberals in past campaigns is that their policies have seemed bland - a billion for this and a National Strategy for that. Pot legalization would make Canadians take notice and talk - something a third party can't take for granted.

The flip side is that this is such an attention grabbing policy it might detract from the rest of the Liberal platform. Do you want to make a policy voters are this divided on your flagship platform plank ahead of, say, a pharmacare program that would have more widespread popularity?


6. Fundraising: Rob Silver talked about the Liberals using this policy as a fundraising tool on Power & Politics last week. After all, Liberal members clearly support it - I know I'd probably give them some dough if they put it in the platform and asked for cash to air commercials in support of it on Much Music at 2 am.

Beyond that, this would be a case of the Liberal Party doing something because their members asked them to. The impact of this in terms of engaging existing members and recruiting future ones should not be discounted. Every policy wonk in Canada would take this as a sign it's worth their time to go to the next Liberal policy convention.


I don't have the answers to all these questions, but it underscores just how big an issue this is. It's one that requires a lot of thought before it finds its way into the party platform.

The good news is, by endorsing the policy overwhelmingly this weekend, Liberals have guaranteed that every leadership candidate is going to need to take a position on pot legalization. Before they do, candidates will need to think long and hard about the questions discussed above, as well as a 7th - will supporting this policy increase my chances of winning the leadership race?

Drugs are bad...Marijuana's bad...mmkay....

Michael Ignatieff shows he can relate to the kids these days:

"If I had to tell you as a parent or as someone who has spent his whole life working with young people, the last darn thing I want you to be doing is smoking marijuana," the federal Liberal leader said.

"I want you to be out there digging a well, digging a ditch, getting a job, raising a family ... doing stuff, instead of parking your life on the end of a marijuana cigarette."

Coincidentally, S-Harp was also trying to show he's down with the young ones by doing a YouTube interview and, wouldn't ya know it, the topic of marijuana cigarettes came up there as well. While Harper didn't come out for a national ditch digging program, he too was adamantly against pot legalization.

*sigh*

Remember when Canada was all set to decriminalize marijuana 7 years ago? The Economist put the moose with sunglasses on its cover and called us "cool". It made sense to most people, even stodgy old senators and stodgy old writers - after all, criminalizing the stuff clearly wasn't curbing its use, and it's hard to enforce a law which, if properly enforced, would saddle millions of Canadians with a criminal record.

But for a variety of reasons, those plans went up in smoke. And judging from the comments above, it doesn't look like things will change any time soon. Which is a shame, because the current laws are asinine - the stuff should just be legalized outright.

Because once you legalize, you can tax and control it - you don't see a lot of rum runners these days, do you? You think we'd have learned our lesson from alcohol prohibition, but I guess not.

The arguments being put forward by our leaders are so weak, I have a hard time believing they actually believe what they're saying. First up, is Mr. Ignatieff:

Noting he likes an occasional drink and having a good time, Ignatieff didn't seem concerned if his anti-weed stance made him appear conservative.

"Given the things we need to do together [ed note: ditch digging?], that's what I think," he said, adding that legalizing marijuana would create problems in dealings with the U.S. because the drug would remain illegal there.

I won't even touch the "I like an occasional drink" comment, but when you consider the relative effects of alcohol and marijuana on human beings, well, that kind of tells you how we should be handling this issue.

As for his second point, over 20 states have gone ahead and decriminalized marijuana. And, as someone quite familiar with border crossings, I'm sure Michael is fully aware that you can still prevent legal items from crossing the border - so just treat marijuana like we treat oranges. Problem solved.

Harper, meanwhile, goes the emotional route in his YouTube interview:

I have to say young children, I guess they’re now…Ben and Rachel are now getting pretty close to 14 and 11, but maybe they’re not that young, but they are at the age where, you know, they will increasingly come into contact with drug use, and I guess as a parent, you know, this is the last thing I want to see for my kids or anyone else’s children.

Agreed. But the thing is, under the current prohibition system, Ben and Rachel are able to get marijuana. Easily. However, if we legalize it, you could ban sales to minors, just like we do now with non-marijuana cigarettes, or dozens of other things. I know some will say it's about sending a message that we don't condone it, but anyone who thinks teenagers will avoid something because it's condoned by society has never been a teenager.

But his heart is probably in the right place on that comment. So go on Mr. Prime Minister:

Now, I also want people to understand what we’re really talking about here when we’re talking about the drug trade. You know, when people say focus on violent crime instead of drugs, and yeah, you know, there’s lots of crimes a lot worse than, you know, casual use of marijuana. But when people are buying from the drug trade, they are not buying from their neighbour. They are buying from international cartels that are involved in unimaginable violence and intimidation and social disaster and catastrophe all across the world. All across the world.

And, with that, Stephen Harper gives the best argument I have ever heard in my life...for legalizing marijuana. Because the second you legalize it and decide to sell it in LCBOs or licensed stores/restaurants/etc, you drive a stake through the heart of organized crime and drug cartels, both inside Canada and around the world. By controlling who sells it, you move the industry above ground and choke off a huge source of revenue from organized crime.

Maybe Iggy and Harper do believe the talking points they're dealing. But if they were being completely honest, I suspect their answer to the kids would go something like this:

"Yeah, I don't have a problem with legalizing the stuff. It just makes sense. But let's be honest. The second the media and opposition gets wind of that, I'll be faced with daily questions, ridicule, attack ads, and 10-percenters on the subject. I'm sure legalization will happen one day - probably within your lifetime. But until enough of us old fogeys die off and the public attitude on this shifts enough, I'd be crazy to go near this one. Next question."


This post is supported by the National Pardon Centre.

Drugs are bad...mmmkay...

This is a bit off-topic but I was at a Liberal policy thingy (for lack of a better term) on Monday and got into an argument with a fellow participant (and blogger) about marijuana legalization. I could do a lengthy post on this but that would probably mean looking up facts and figures and, well, I don't really feel like doing that. Unless you favour a return to alcohol prohibition, there's no reason you should oppose this. People will smoke pot regardless of whether it's legal or not and at least by legalizing it, it's easier to regulate the content and who has access to it. Better to have the government as Canada's drug dealer because the government won't sell to minors or push buyers on to harder stuff (a safe assumption now that Andre Boisclair has left politics). And, it's probably better that the government be making billions off of this, rather than the criminals (although, given how money is spent in Ottawa, I guess this point is perfectly debatable). Those radical unelected pot heads in the Senate agree. So do a majority of Canadians, apparently (admittedly on a poll where the decriminalization option wasn't given). Going further, Foreign Policy had a good article on the world drug trade that pushes for legalizing pretty much everything.

So, rather than get into a huge debate on the benefits of marijuana legalization, I'm going to pose an open question. Given the jokes and ridicule it would generate, would this be a politically viable position for any of the major parties (or the NDP) to take as an election issue? Failing that, would it make sense for a party to push this forward once in the comfy confines of a majority government?