If you oppose marijuana legalization and regulation, you’re soft on crime

Liberal leader Justin Trudeau’s support of marijuana legalization and regulation made news this week, although it isn’t really new. He spoke about his position during the leadership race, but it made a bit of news again this week when he spoke about it in Kelowna during his well-received summer tour of British Columbia.

Here are his comments:

"I see my friend waving a sign about decriminalizing cannabis. I’ll take that as a question. I’m actually not in favour of decriminalizing cannabis – I’m in favour of legalizing it. Tax and regulate. It’s one of the only ways to keep it out of the hands of our kids because the current war on drugs, the current model isn’t working. We have to use evidence and science to make sure that we’re moving forward on that."

As the article notes, Trudeau’s position on marijuana has evolved over the last few years. As has the Liberal Party’s, from nearly passing decriminalization under the Chretien government to passing a pro-legalization policy at the party biennial in 2012. It’s a natural evolution, and one that many Canadians have taken.

While decriminalization at first seems like a good compromise position, on closer examination it’s not. By decriminalizing the purchase of small amounts but not legalizing production and sale, you’re still forcing (now) law-abiding citizens to purchase from dealers, with the money often going to support organized crime, and with no regulation or quality control of what they’re getting – a dangerous situation.

The logical position, which according to polling is now shared by most Canadians, is legalization. This allows for production to be commercialized, taxed, and most importantly regulated, with standards for production and strict controls on sale and distribution. A drug dealer as no issues with selling to a minor, but a private business will, when faced with stiff fines.

And here’s another benefit: legalization is tougher on crime. Marijuana is a major cash crop for organized crime in Canada; legalization will deal them a massive financial blow overnight. It will stop citizens from having to interact with criminal dealers who often sell other substances as well. Choke off organized crime profits, easier to keep it away from kids, quality control, tax revenue; legalization just makes sense.

The war on drugs has been a complete and utter failure. It’s not working. It’s time to do something different. Legalization of marijuana would deal a blow to real criminals; opposing it is just plain soft on crime.

UPDATE: As predictable as the sun rising in the East, the Conservatives are out with a release attacking Trudeau's position. And in an illustration of just how silly their own position is, here's one of the quotes they share * to support* their view that legalization is evil:

“…cannabis is a currency for organized crime.” –Fraser Macrae, former Assistant Commissioner of the RCMP

EXACTLY! Marijuana is currency for organized crime, from biker gangs such as the Hell's Angels to terror groups such as the Taliban. That's why we should legalize it! Legalize it, and organized crime loses their major cash crop overnight, as people will be able to purchase marijuana on the open market, from licensed, regulated legal sources.

The current, Conservative-supported criminalized status quo is pouring money into biker gangs and terror groups, and bringing otherwise law-abiding Canadians into contact with criminals.

Thank-you for helping to make our case, Conservative Research Group.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Stock and I make census of crime reporting

Stockwell Day says we can't rely on statistics showing a declining crime rate because those figures only measure reported crime. And Stock apparently has unreported figures that show unreported crime is rising (or maybe not):

Treasury Board President Stockwell Day says statistics showing crime in Canada is declining may not be accurate.

Day says the crime rate per 1,000 people has dropped, but adds that more people are not reporting crimes.

He says surveys suggest many people don't bother calling the police on some crimes.
The numbers are alarming, he says, although he did not elaborate.

Day says this is why the government plans to hike spending for new prisons.

What Stock failed to mention is that the reason we can't necessarily take those crime statistics at face value is because crime reporting is voluntary, which leads to an array of challenges that can skew the numbers. With the reporting pool self-selecting, some groups may be more likely to report criminal events: the middle-class, for example, or the the family of a murder victim. And those who live in high-crime neighbourhoods, or who are the victim of a minor crime such as j-walking, might not bother to report.

That's why tomorrow I'm told Stock will announce the Conservative Party's new "Get Tough on Unreported Crime" initiative, which will make crime reporting mandatory and threaten stiff fines and/or jail terms for failure to report crime.*

That's why they're really building all those prisons.

*No, not really.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Crime is down, but rhetoric continues to escalate

Statistics Canada reports today that crime is down across the country, with the exception of those pesky Prince Edward Islanders, where the Anne of Green Gables knockoff merchandise black market continues to expand. Potato theft is also rampant.

But really, declining crime rates aren’t really surprising to most people. Well, except perhaps to Stephen Harper. Those who have been paying attention, though, know that crime has been declining steadily for some time, well pre-dating the current government.

The statistics prevent a communications challenge for the Conservative. Or, rather, they would if the Conservatives were concerned about consistent messaging that actually, you know, makes sense and stuff.

The Conservatives could claim victory and take credit for the numbers, except:

a) Harper has already made his statistics, shmatistics position clear.

b) They consistently blame the Liberals for stalling and not passing their “tough on crime” legislation. Particularly those pesky Senators.

Never mind the fact we offered to fast-track the bulk of it, they always get it to the Senate late in session and expect it to be rubber-stamped, and they’ve killed their own bills many times, like when they called an early election (in violation of their own election law, ironically) or when they prorogued parliament in December to avoid defeat at the hands of the Rebel Alliance.
So if we’re stalling their legislation, how can it be reducing crime?

c) The decline in crime rates predates this government. That could more likely mean the previous Liberal “soft on crime” policies were actually working, that demographic or other factors could be responsible, or some combination of the two.

I’ll be interested to see how the Cons square the circle here. I’m guessing they stick to the fingers in year, stats are for losers, I listen to my gut approach.

To the opposition though, and particularly my Liberals, my plea is this: the facts are on our side.

So don’t take the path of least resistance on CPC crime legislation. Lets fight fictional gut rhetoric with actual facts.

If it’s good legislation, pass it. If it needs changes, move for amendments. Of course tough on crime polls well. But tough vs. soft is a false argument that we should reject. We’ve always advocated a balanced approach to crime: get tough on criminals AND address root causes that lead to crime. And we’ve gotten away from that lately, and that’s wrong.

We should be saying sure, get tough on crime, criminals suck (although mandatory minimums are stupid) but getting tough on crime is only half the answer. The Conservative approach is half-assed, and getting tough on crime along won’t achieve the desired impact. You need to address poverty, you need to invest in diversion programs, and you need to do harm reduction.

And you need to support programs like Insite, which won over a skeptical local community and has led to sharp reductions in property crime, for example, in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside.

That’s the case we should be making. As I said, we’ve got the facts on our side, that’s been reaffirmed again today.

So let’s start suiting-up for this one, please.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers