Conservatives failed Drug policy
To date I have written little on the Ontario election as there doesn't seem to be any other major issues besides extending funding to religious schools, which is getting a lot of attention, so since I have already written on that, I really have not much else to say. However, the big news today was the federal Conservatives unveiled their anti-drug strategy. While the Tories on many issues have been willing to take more moderate positions to try and make themselves more acceptable to the generally liberal to centrist population, this was clearly an example of the party basing its decision on ideology above facts. It is one thing to take a right wing position because it works such as balanced budgets and tax cuts, but it is just plain stupid to adopt a policy based on ideology when all the facts show it won't work.
The War on Drugs has been tried in the United States and despite this, the US still has by far the highest crime rate of any industrialized country and drug use is amongst the highest in the developed world. In fact, the Netherlands, which has a very liberal attitude towards drugs, has a lower crime rate than the US and less problems with drug abuse. If anything we should be moving towards a Dutch style drug policy as opposed to a US one. I am not one of those who believes in opposing anything just because it is American, but if we do adopt policies the US uses, they should be ones that work, not ones that don't. In fact even many libertarian style conservatives have condemned the war on drugs and argued for a different approach.
I support the four pillar approach which does involve more policing and a crackdown on drug dealers and smugglers. However, I don't believe drug addicts should be sent to jail as drug addiction is a medical problem, not a criminal one, therefore treatment not punishment is the proper solution. Throwing addicts in jail will not solve the problem and only turn them into hardened criminals when released. We should instead put more money into detox and rehab centres to help get drug addicts off drugs so that they can once again become productive members of society, rather than locking them up and ensuring they continue to be a burden to society for the rest of their lives. I was initially opposed to the safe injection site since I worried it would lead to more crime, but I am always open to changing my view if the facts turn out differently than expected and in this case, I believe the safe injection site should stay open. It has reduced the cases of HIV/AIDS amongst addicts and has not led to higher crime rates in the area. This doesn't mean every city should have a safe injection site, however, this decision should be made locally and the federal government should only be responsible for ensuring it is permitted if the community wants it and funds its. It should be noted both mayor Sam Sullivan and premier Gordon Campbell support the safe injection site and both are right of centre philosophically so one doesn't have to be on the left to support this.
In terms of marijuana, I support full legalization and this is coming from someone who has never smoked marijuana and never plans to even if legalized. Just as prohibition in the 30s was a disaster, it has been shown that by legalizing dangerous substances but heavily controlling them, you have far fewer problems than when criminalizing them. Making marijuana illegal doesn't stop its use, it only leads to a thriving black market and organized crime, whereas if legalized it would be regulated and taxed. Like alcohol and tobacco, marijuana should only be sold at licenced dealers to those over 19 and should be taxed like alcohol and tobacco is. Also there should be strict penalties for unlicenced sales, selling to minors, and driving when under the influence of marijuana. I also think giving people who smoke marijuana criminal records is counter-productive. Smoking marijuana doesn't harm others and as a libertarian leaning liberal I don't believe governments should ban things that don't harm others. I know many people who have smoked marijuana and gone on to lead very successful careers as well as have friends who are both good people and productive members of society that have smoked marijuana. Having a criminal record for these people could make finding employment more difficult, which in the long-run means they will earn less and pay less in taxes in the future. Harper needs to accept the reality that regardless of what he thinks of marijuana, recreational use is here to stay. Finally I should note that the Netherlands where marijuana is tolerated has hardly suffered due to it. Its crime rate is in line with most other European countries, it has one of the lowest poverty rates in the world, a high standard of living, and one of the lowest unemployment rates in the EU. It may not have as high a GDP as the United States, but the gap between the rich and poor is far less. I myself felt far safer walking down a street at night in Amsterdam than I do in most American cities.
In summary, the Tory position has failed elsewhere and won't work here and therefore needs to be stopped. I urge the opposition parties to defeat or seriously amend any legislation on this issue. If it is done through an order in council, then bring forward a private member's bill on this topic, since if passed by parliament, then the government cannot follow through on its plans.
The War on Drugs has been tried in the United States and despite this, the US still has by far the highest crime rate of any industrialized country and drug use is amongst the highest in the developed world. In fact, the Netherlands, which has a very liberal attitude towards drugs, has a lower crime rate than the US and less problems with drug abuse. If anything we should be moving towards a Dutch style drug policy as opposed to a US one. I am not one of those who believes in opposing anything just because it is American, but if we do adopt policies the US uses, they should be ones that work, not ones that don't. In fact even many libertarian style conservatives have condemned the war on drugs and argued for a different approach.
I support the four pillar approach which does involve more policing and a crackdown on drug dealers and smugglers. However, I don't believe drug addicts should be sent to jail as drug addiction is a medical problem, not a criminal one, therefore treatment not punishment is the proper solution. Throwing addicts in jail will not solve the problem and only turn them into hardened criminals when released. We should instead put more money into detox and rehab centres to help get drug addicts off drugs so that they can once again become productive members of society, rather than locking them up and ensuring they continue to be a burden to society for the rest of their lives. I was initially opposed to the safe injection site since I worried it would lead to more crime, but I am always open to changing my view if the facts turn out differently than expected and in this case, I believe the safe injection site should stay open. It has reduced the cases of HIV/AIDS amongst addicts and has not led to higher crime rates in the area. This doesn't mean every city should have a safe injection site, however, this decision should be made locally and the federal government should only be responsible for ensuring it is permitted if the community wants it and funds its. It should be noted both mayor Sam Sullivan and premier Gordon Campbell support the safe injection site and both are right of centre philosophically so one doesn't have to be on the left to support this.
In terms of marijuana, I support full legalization and this is coming from someone who has never smoked marijuana and never plans to even if legalized. Just as prohibition in the 30s was a disaster, it has been shown that by legalizing dangerous substances but heavily controlling them, you have far fewer problems than when criminalizing them. Making marijuana illegal doesn't stop its use, it only leads to a thriving black market and organized crime, whereas if legalized it would be regulated and taxed. Like alcohol and tobacco, marijuana should only be sold at licenced dealers to those over 19 and should be taxed like alcohol and tobacco is. Also there should be strict penalties for unlicenced sales, selling to minors, and driving when under the influence of marijuana. I also think giving people who smoke marijuana criminal records is counter-productive. Smoking marijuana doesn't harm others and as a libertarian leaning liberal I don't believe governments should ban things that don't harm others. I know many people who have smoked marijuana and gone on to lead very successful careers as well as have friends who are both good people and productive members of society that have smoked marijuana. Having a criminal record for these people could make finding employment more difficult, which in the long-run means they will earn less and pay less in taxes in the future. Harper needs to accept the reality that regardless of what he thinks of marijuana, recreational use is here to stay. Finally I should note that the Netherlands where marijuana is tolerated has hardly suffered due to it. Its crime rate is in line with most other European countries, it has one of the lowest poverty rates in the world, a high standard of living, and one of the lowest unemployment rates in the EU. It may not have as high a GDP as the United States, but the gap between the rich and poor is far less. I myself felt far safer walking down a street at night in Amsterdam than I do in most American cities.
In summary, the Tory position has failed elsewhere and won't work here and therefore needs to be stopped. I urge the opposition parties to defeat or seriously amend any legislation on this issue. If it is done through an order in council, then bring forward a private member's bill on this topic, since if passed by parliament, then the government cannot follow through on its plans.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 5:40 PM
10 Comments:
Good post. Echoes many of the points I made
http://socialistgulag.blogspot.com/2007/10/stoned-on-stoopidity.html
The reason it seems there has been little discussion on the Ontario election is that there is little else separating the McGuinty Liberals from the Tory PC's. I think we will have an absolutely horrendous turnout as a result, something like 45%...
Good post. As for your point about opposing anything just because it's American...I like the idea of the constitutional separation of church and state in the US and that is thus unconstitutional to publicly support any religious schools. Canada should take a lesson from that. The Netherlands funds private religious schools and Muslims tend to attend segregated schools there. But when it comes to drug policy the Netherlands is a better example to follow than the US.
McGuire - I fully agree with your post and despite coming from different parties, I think we both come more from the libertarian wings of each party who believe in less government. Unfortunately it seems those views are a minority in both parties.
Anonymous - I think the turnout will be higher than 45%. It is true that the PCs aren't a lot different than the Liberals, but I think they also realize that if they go too far to the right, they will be able to compare to Tory to the Harris government and it seems whatever popularity Mike Harris had initially, that has largely evaporated.
King of Kensington - I fully agree and I would apply that to any country. In the case of the Netherlands, I don't think we should have taxes as high as them which are around 70% for the top income bracket, but on SSM, drug laws, and prostitution, I think we could learn a lot from them. I also happen to like a lot of the values the United States was founded on, but feel today their policies in many ways are the exact opposite of what the founding fathers intended. After all the founding fathers were also imposed to wars to build empires and meddling in other's affairs.
Yes as Gore Vidal has all too well pointed out, the US became an imperial power in the 20th century and betrayed the wishes of the founding fathers. They also opposed any sort of religious test for officeholders but to run for president today you pretty much have to demonstrate you're religious (and raise a ton of money and/or be personally very wealthy)
As for the PC's it looks like Tory is going to lose DVW and I have a feeling they may decide choosing a Toronto Red Tory as leader was a disaster and pick a Flaherty type as leader as opposed to someone like Elizabeth Whitmer.
McGuire - It was really only after World War II, the US became an imperial power. 100 years ago, if you travelled to Europe and wore an American flag on your backpack, you were loved. Today, some Americans now are even wearing Canadian pins since Americans are so disliked in Europe today.
As for Ontario, I think John Tory will lose the election too and now the possibility of winning a smaller share of the popular vote than Ernie Eves did is even a possibility. I am afraid they might choose a Flaherty type, but if they are interested in winning I would suggest they go for an Elizabeth Witmer type. In fact had they chosen her in 2003, they likely would have formed a much stronger opposition and possibly even won. Her riding Kitchener-Waterloo is solidly Liberal federally unlike all the other PC ridings, so that suggests to me she has a strong appeal amongst many swing voters.
Jim Flaherty would be probably hurt the party more than they realize. He angered the lower income Ontarioans from his time in office provincially, while the upper income Ontarioans who use to like him are now mad at him over the income trust issue.
What is the difference in the policy between Witmer and Tory though? They'll probably want to rebuild their base first (I know a LOT of conservative voters staying home), which is why someone like Tim Hudak or Frank Klees I think will get the leadership post next time, or perhaps even Randy Hillier if the base really pushes it (even if he is despised in Toronto). They have to decide whether to try to snag the rural Liberal-held seats (create a split) or keep pushing at the Toronto area voters.
Anonymous - I think the main problem is that Tory spent too much time pushing the religious schools issue. Had he not brought up that issue, I think he would have had a very good shot at winning the election. Tim Hudak and Frank Klees are too similiar to Mike Harris and I don't think there is a strong appetite in Ontario to return to the Harris years. Randy Hillier is way too right wing for Ontario. Considering how poorly Preston Manning and Stockwell Day did in Ontario, I think choosing him would only ensure the party is decimated.
When it comes to winning rural Liberal seats, I suspect that will come more through adopting socially conservative views as the federal Conservatives did (who have most of rural Ontario) but this would mean getting shut out of urban Ontario and you cannot win without winning some urban seats.
The Tories don't necessarily need someone who can win in the 416, but they need someone who can win in the 905 belt and the 905 is very different than ten years ago so running on a right wing platform won't work there anymore.
Finally, as much as their base is unhappy, there are far more centrists or centre-right voters than there are ideological right wingers so you win by being only slightly right of centre, not by being far to the right.
If Tory didn't bring up the religious schools issue I think the PC's could have been competitive in the following 416 ridings: Don Valley West, Etobicoke, Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Guildwood and Willowdale. They certainly could have taken many 905 seats as well. It's true some rural seats would exactly prefer more hard-line conservatives to Red Tories but about half the voters in Ontario are in the GTA.
My guess is rural ridings like Huron-Bruce and Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry will go Liberal this time even though they're held by the Conservatives federally.
As for leader, I'll throw out the name of Mark Beckles who is running in Brampton West (if he can win). He seems a pretty impressive Red Tory and there's someone who could make inroads in the GTA.
King of Kensington - Actually Huron-Bruce is currently Liberal held although it will probably go Conservative next time around considering Paul Steckle isn't running again and was one of the more right wing Liberals. Ridings such as Essex, Chatham-Kent-Essex, and Prince Edward-Hastings could also be included here.
I still think Tory will win some seats in the 905 belt such as Newmarket-Aurora and Mississauga South, but certainly not as many as he could of. And I should also add it is not just the GTA, there are several other urban ridings in London, Kitchener, and Ottawa which would vote for a moderate Tory leader, but not a hardliner. Lets remember federally, the Tories nearly swept Rural Ontario and even won a few urban and suburban seats yet still won fewer seats than the Liberals despite the fact the Liberals outside of Northern Ontario were largley confined to the urban and inner-suburban ridings, so that tell you, you cannot win Ontario solely by winning the rural ridings.
Post a Comment
<< Home