|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 3:01 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/08/28/colby-cosh-mexico-and-argentina-decriminalize-drugs-washington-shrugs.aspx
| Quote: |
Late last week, the Mexican government, trying explicitly not to call too much attention to what it was doing, decriminalized the possession of very small amounts of illicit drugs. Not just marijuana, which is subject to a possession limit of five grams, but the whole kaboodle: cocaine, methamphetamine, LSD, even heroin. In general the U. S. media treated this as a counter-intuitive move made in the midst of a full-scale war between drug cartels and the Mexican state. But it is precisely the bloodiness of that war that has Mexico moving away from ideological prohibitionism.
The idea is to cut into demand by treating addicts as potential treatment clients rather than criminals, to fight corruption among the police by taking away one of their major tools for shaking down the poor and marginalized, and to concentrate resources on organized crime. This is, of course, a form of centralized social planning just as much as total prohibition is. Even a borderline-anarchist libertarian (like me) might well question whether it will accomplish the criteria of social peace and harm reduction by which it will be judged; Cato Institute fellow and Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron, for one, worries that decriminalization will get the blame if intensified supply-side enforcement leads to more violence.
But the Portuguese model on which the Mexican reform is based, which saw the adoption of Europe's most liberal drug laws in 2001, has been successful in all the ways that most of us would consider important, particularly in reducing the spread of HIV and exposure to drugs amongst teenagers. One feels that what's needed above all else right now, when it comes to drugs, is a little openness and sincerity. The single worst effect of criminalizing drug possession is to make it harder for everyone to talk about drugs. It has created a world (although things have changed a lot in the last 20 years) where most everyone has taken a bong hit at one time or another, but no one wants to admit it, whether it's to their kids or to co-workers or in the newspaper.
And that, in turn, has made it harder to make the core argument that it is none of the state's business what you put in your body. (Doing so inevitably comes off as sounding like a coded apology for past indiscretions.) But in some places it is being made anyway. On Tuesday the Supreme Court of Argentina reversed the conviction of a 19-year-old caught with two grams of pot and decriminalized the possession of drugs for personal consumption. The Kirchner government anticipated the ruling and says it is content to abide by it; meanwhile, other Latin states, including Brazil, are talking about following suit. Crucial to the logic of the court's decision was an article in the Argentine constitution that states, "The private actions of men which in no way offend public order or morality, nor injure a third party, are only reserved to God and are exempted from the authority of judges."
It's a sentiment one might have expected to hear coming from the U. S. A., at one time. President Obama has been a disappointment to the harm-reduction crowd when it comes to domestic drug reform, but the rapid pace of change in the Latin world shows that the State Department is no longer imposing its will there. Whether it's because Washington has more urgent priorities like saving the American economy from reverting to the Stone Age, or just because the Bush administration's cadre of drug warriors is gone, American satellites seem to find themselves free to go their own way, perhaps only for a brief moment.
Canadians who have argued that the adoption of a harm-reduction approach here would jeopardize our trade relationship with the United States can therefore pipe down for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, we greet the occasion with a law-and-order he-man Conservative government in place -- one which, whatever its virtues when it comes to crimes that have victims, is full of people like Peter van Loan, Rob Nicholson and Tony Clement, and plenty of others who are about as likely to give birth to a muskox on the steps of Parliament as they are to support rational drug policy. From that standpoint, our timing sorta stinks. |
It does.
Canada should worry not about any repercussions from the United States to a liberalized drug policy. The US doesn't have much economic clout over us anymore. Their consumer is dead in the water and the macro tends are nothing less than scary. They need our oil. Legalize away. Empty the jails and replace them with rehab centers. It is time for a change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| . The US doesn't have much economic clout over us anymore. . |
The U.S still accounts for over 3/4ths of our imports. We are not going to find another trading partner as convenient or obliging. Even if we did it takes a lot of time to shift trade patterns...particulary when these trade patterns are part of a trade agreement.
I know you want what you wrote to be true...but it just isn't nor will it be for quite some time if ever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The size of trade between the two is very large, and disproportionately large for Canada. But I referenced American clout or leverage over Canadian policy. They can't use a decline in trade as a means to manipulate the Canucks on small issues like drug policy because they are already in serious trouble. Best to use this period of crisis where America is distracted to push for some things it might not like. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| The size of trade between the two is very large, and disproportionately large for Canada. But I referenced American clout or leverage over Canadian policy. They can't use a decline in trade as a means to manipulate the Canucks on small issues like drug policy because they are already in serious trouble. Best to use this period of crisis where America is distracted to push for some things it might not like. |
But what happens when America comes out of serious trouble? I doubt they're going to forget Canada taking advantage of their problems to pass a distasteful law. Good neighbors don't kick each other in the teeth (which is how it could be seen) when one is down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| I doubt they're going to forget Canada taking advantage of their problems to pass a distasteful law. |
It's actually incredibly likely that they would more or less forget it. Our politicans have a real short attention span for anything that isn't feeding them campaign funds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
