Your View

After spending 28years with the Vancouver Police, and seeing that almost all violent crimes, from homicides to threatenings, and from riots to sex crimes were caused by abuse of alcohol I am appalled that we are still having this discussion on drug policy.
The present laws only make serious criminals very rich at very little risk to themselves, and create the rash of property crimes by addicts who have no other way to finance their addictions.
Gun crimes are up, owing to territorial disputes over the distribution rights of the various gangs. Legalization would eliminate the vast profits and with the lost revenue,many of the gangs would cease to exist, much as occurred at the end of alcohol prohibition.
Drug laws were bought in to attempt to eliminate the one to two percent of the population who were unable to function due to their addictions. The addiction rate today is unchanged, after eighty years of enforcement.
Most of those opposed to a change of laws have no knowledge of the history of drugs and the vast ammount of research, all of which show that their catastrophic vision of events, if these substances were legalized, is simply wrong and hopelessly naive.
The real anomoly must be that some Politicians who have sat on commitees, which have concluded that our present policies are wrong and unsupportable continue to spout their nonsense knowing it to be untrue, only because they believe their constituents want to hear it and it will help their re-election prospects
I am a member of L.E.A.P [law enforcement against prohibition,drug.]Take a look at the facts on our website and draw your own conclusions.

Dear Peggy and anyone else with issue of regulation and CONTROL of every drug:

I have to thank those who have responded so far including Officer Cheryl and want to make one final statement as my health won't allow much more these days due to LACK of cannabis.

(I am once again taking 32 pills and two thousand mg of morphine a day because of prohibition! This has been my regime for the past fifteen years before finding cannabis...)

For those not aware, I battle chronic progressive multiple sclerosis and a horrible pain in my face twenty four hours a day called tic douloureux that I have suffered from for over a decade. I think I know suffering. I also must say I don't think I need to lose someone I love to know the difference.

Doctor's have given me every narcotic available for relief of my excruciating pain, including heroin AND cocaine and nothing works better than cannabis.

Maybe you Peggy, should be a little more compassionate to what is happening to our children, our social smokers and those who are ill with prohibition today and then you might be more receptive to a new answer to this age old problem.

I'll leave you with one quick exsert from an incredible study circa 1980 called "The Facts About Drug Abuse" from the Drug Abuse Council in the United States:

In it's final report, the council's Board of Directors offered a set of observations considered central to the process of reaching consistent, coherent and responsible approaches to drug use and misuse.

"Psychoactive substances have been available through out recorded history and will remain so. To try to eliminate them completely
is unrealistic."

These studies are available all over the internet.

Please feel free to pass them on...

Sincerely,

Alison Myrden
Leading Female Speaker in Canada for LEAP -
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
www.leap.cc

To those talking about marijuana, I see nothing in this article that even address it.

Further more I don't include it in the illicit drug category as it is not physically addictive and it no more harmful than tobacco and alcohol. If you don't believe me do your own research. Mine, and ones done at McGill University have proven the above.

And for those who are worry about legalizing marijuana, wake up, it practically is legal, and extremely easy to get. Legalizing it is not going to increase it's use, because everyone who want it can get it now anyway.

I think what the article is taking about is the use of Crystal Meth, Heroine, Cocaine, and other pharmaceutical drugs that are extremely addictive and on the rise (especially among young people).

I have particularly noticed the increase in the use of cocaine. In this aspect the government is not doing a good job.

I do think that things like needle exchanges are needed for simply combatting HIV/AIDS, and allowing a safe space for health workers to do some outreach and maybe help start the process of helping someone become clean.

I don't know what the government can or should to curb the spread of crystal meth use, and other drugs all I know is that whatever they're doing now isn't working too well.

Of course it is not working.
Every culture in the world has had its own drug of choice, from alcohol to pot to opium.some sort of escapism has been needed or wanted throughout history. Just because someone says its bad is not going to stop anyone.

Ipersonally have tried many illicit drugs and discarded them in due time. Now i like to smoke a joint in the evening after all my chores are done. My children are grown, educated and employed and the take the same approach to this.

What this war on drugs does is build a huge lack of trust in all of those who support the drug war. The police are our enemies and not to be trusted in any way. Lawyers and politicians only gain disdain an disrespect because of the total stupidity of these anti drug views.

I think the cops like the drug laws because they get to spend hours flying around in helicpters on sunny afternoons or perhaps cruising on the water. I'm sure thats way more interesting than trying to find thieves, rapists and murderers.

Legalization would immediately end all crimimal involvement in drug because any idiot can produce there own with little effort.

Re: Wow, it's almost hard to believe that some people think that what they're writing has logic to it. ...Rapes keep happening all the time, let's make them legal, but we'll have them governmentally organized so that it's safe for both people, providing condoms and doing health tests beforehand. Ingenius!

BJ,

You need to heed your own words.

Comparing the legalizing and regulating of drugs to rape is not logical

Prohibition is harmful to society.

You need to watch the LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) Promo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LayaGk0TMDc

http://www.leap.cc/Multimedia/LEAPpromo.php

Re: BJ, your usage of comparative cases is not in line with good principles of logic or rhetoric. I come from many years of experience with the street life and have lost some dear friends there: I speak from experience of both worlds: educated and the down-trodden.

There have been countless examples of bad laws in the past that needed to be challenged, i.e. the pass system against First Nations peoples, the criminal act for a lawyer to represent an 'Indian,' denying Aboriginal people the right to vote until the 1960s, outlawing the purchase of lands by Indians from the Dominion Lands Acts from the 19th century, until recently an adult could have sex with a 14 year old child, to accept complacency in law and society would have been to accept that none of these laws should have been changed.

To settle with a bad law is not in the interest of a free and progressive society.

As a law professor once said to me, "sometimes, one has to do what is right and the let the law catch up."

Truly, the criminalization of marijuana is one of those issues where bad law must be confronted since it was led by someone that had racist tendencies, failed logic and an uninformed parliament. Canada can not allow the US and the conservative agenda of the Harper minority to stand in the way of the best interests of society as a whole.

One further note in reference to stereotyping users as lazy; one may recall that two relatively well known leaders in North America have admitted to using soft drugs: Pierre E. Trudeau and Bill Clinton: I am not sure how lazy they were.

It is High Time to change this ridiculous and archaic legislation in Canada.

George Bush admitted he was using cocaine for years, even while his father was president, I would guess that he represents a good argument for keeping cocaine illegal or does he represent how bad people turn out while using drugs?

Hats off to Malmo Lavine for his efforts thus far in the fight to make the law right in Canada.

Alcohol turns people into a-holes. Have another drink BJ.
Cannibis makes people calm, increases senses and allows one to become introspective. It is the anti-ahole!

Laws should not be based on morality. Morality is personal perception based on a moment in time. At one time in history moral laws persecuted people for pornography, homosexuality or segregation by race.

Are you prepared for a brave new world where morality is a personal decision and laws are soley based on specific actions that negatively affect others.

What one does to their own body in the privacy of their own home harms no one and you or anyone else has no business to impose your own moral values on me or anyone else.

There is a WAR on drugs? Really? What War?

There may be policies and actions in place, but a WAR ON DRUGS? A badly regulated industry is perhaps a better descriptor.

Wow, it's almost hard to believe that some people think that what they're writing has logic to it. Hmm, despite a law being in place, people keep breaking that law, so we should get rid of that law altogether since it's not working.

That's a brilliant idea. Let's just apply that to all laws! Rapes keep happening all the time, let's make them legal, but we'll have them governmentally organized so that it's safe for both people, providing condoms and doing health tests beforehand. Ingenius!

OR!! How about we keep a drug that basically turns people into A-holes illegal, since it makes them almost completely lazy, unproductive, and uncaring towards those around them; thereby hurting the lives of those that care about them as well. This drug is sick, and if we advocate it it only shows how sick our society has become.

And one other thing: Somebody below said we shouldn't make something illegal just because we think it's immoral. But that's what ALL of our laws are based on! The only problem is that now we want to admit less and less that things are immoral because it means we shouldn't be doing them.

The laws that originally outlawed the use of marijuana were spearheaded by one Emily Murphy of Edmonton.

At the time, she used racial arguments and stigmitized users as out of control people. There was no scientific evidence what so ever to support these positions. In fact, it is becoming more clear that the useage of alcohol and tabacco are far more harmful than occassional use of marijuana.

The old boys club wants to keep a lid on this and ignore the Senate report on decrimiliazation which seems to have sugested that this must be done in the interests of society as a whole.

They need to start to look at the multi-billion dollar industry that exists after developing decrimilization policies for the softer drugs and use the remaining money to help additcs kick the habit.

Spending money on police and jails is not an answer for this issue. No amount of money or penal threats will stop contries from producing drugs. As a society the users need to be helped not imprisoned for addictions, which on the face of it would seem to be a Charter violation in of itself. Busting marijuana grow opps or small dealers is pointless and unessarily risks the lives of good police officers.

It is sad that such a stigma is attached to relatively harmless soft drugs. No doubt there are people in society that can not handle them, but there are even more that can not handle alcohol, yet that is still legal.

The comparisson of violent and accidental deaths cause by alcohol are staggering compared to marijuana. There are miilions of current or past users in Canada from every profession and political office in the country. Why the hypocrisy?

I am a law enforcement officer in Southwestern Ontario and absolutely agree with the findings in the study and with the comments made by Alison Myrden.

Prohibition has caused more damage than illicit drugs themselves. It serves no purpose to put drug users in jail, their situation only worsens.

I have investigated sexual assaults and homicides that had inadequate funding. How many more studies do we need to get the message through?

As taxpayers, we should be outraged that our money is continually thrown away towards law enforcement. The system is broke. Lets fix it. Lets adopt the harm reduction model immediately.

Cheryl MacLellan

One further concern I wanted to raise on this issue.

People think that legalization (or at least decriminalization) would hurt criminal organizations that rely on drugs for a lot of their money. I doubt this for a few reasons.

1. I doubt that you could convince the gov't to sell the product to minors. If unable to make as much money selling to adults, criminals could just try harder to sell to kids instead with the added bonuses of less social stigma attached to it, and so perhaps a more willing target market. Contrary to what some people suggest, fear of breaking the law DOES stop or limit the actions of many kids.

2. Unless the governemnt just gives the drugs away (which would be madness in its own right...think of the Shiela Copps flag debacle except where everyone in the world has an interest and for profit), criminals can always undercut the prices and capture the market anyway. Look at prostitution. You can pretty much legally get a prostitute in any decent-sized city in Canada.

And yet illegal street-prostitution is a thriving industry despite the risk of violence and disease and the law. You can legally get cigarettes almost everywhere, and yet there is a thriving industry in black-market cigarettes.

3. Because some drugs are so hazardous, I doubt the gov't would ever be willing to decriminalize them. Marijuana is one thing. Cocaine/crack, heroin, and ecstasy are popular but pretty harmful.

For anyone who doubts the reality of the drug problem and the people it affects I suggest a trip down to the poverty stricken areas of your city...where the addicts are.

Take a look at the prostitutes,junkies,people living on the streets,the higher incidence of all forms of crime,abuse and abandonment these people suffer as a result of the insistance of dealers and pushers whose lifestyles increase in opulence with every addict (be it physical or psychological) admitted into the "flock" of users and abusers.

It is not really so much the restrained use of the middle and upper classes but the destruction of people at this lower level where those violations are most obvious and those being violated least attended to.

Does anyone deny that people such as alleged mass murderer and serial killer Robert Picton are more easily able to operate in this shadow world where people are merely commodities to be used,abused and exploited then discarded ?

While a great many of those writing to this forum may cite this and that statistic and belief from an informed and logical point of view I doubt that there are many here speaking from that street addict point of view since their lives are wrapped up in merely surviving while the rest of you debate the merits/problems.

Get off your high horses and do something worthwhile.Help those people.See the problems first hand in the eyes of 11 and twelve year old "hookers" out there...then take a look at how many of them reach maturity while having to resort to the drug lifestyle to numb and contain their self disgust at a society whose valuation of hedonistic pleasure includes the victimization of the poor.

Look, I'm sure if you have read this you are already concerned with drug users in general. However let me remind you this it is not the drug that addicts the user, its the user that addicts him/herself.

Now to get to the hot topic.

In this "day and age" legalizing all drugs seems really far fetched and irresponsible right? Well I would have to agree and disagree with that. First, I think any reasonable person is going to agree that there are WAY WAY too many people in prison for drug related offenses.

I believe its our duty to prevent the oncoming surge of traffic the prisons will be receiving as much as we can... for the sake of HUMANITY for gods(mispelled GOOD's) sake.

Now. What does that mean? It means LESS harsh sentences first of all for people that are merely users. I propose all drug sentences for mere possession be slashed in half.

Next, DECRIMINALIZE any drug that grows from the ground (IE: Marijuana, Mushshrooms, and Poppies). No rhetoric be needed just logic thanks!

It wasn't until the late 19th century that plants growing from the ground became outlawed and banned. Without any common principles backing behind it or even a logical understanding of whats going on. "It's not a war on drugs, its a war on humans." And its true. People will continue to use no matter what laws are what and we need to embrace this fully.

I beg you all not to be victims of the "system" and agree to the harshness and illogical behavior in which the USA has conducted its anti-drug affairs.

P.S.

The USA goverment GROWS and SELLS its own MARIJUANA. Nicknamed G13. Goes for about $25 dollars a gram on the streets.

Peace n Pot

Someone above wrote a very good point.

The drug war is a failure... we need to set an example and take a Canadian approach to drug use.

We can & should be setting an example to the rest of the world, the war on drugs is lost. Time to look at it for what it really is, a HEALTH ISSUE.

From personal experience, when I was young everone was told that cannibis was such a harmful and addictive drug and that it would kill brain cells. And of course there was the constant threat of jail and destroying any future that we might have in society.

Kids want to know what the effects are, they don't want to just be threatened with jail. Of course most kids want to know more and they experiment.

After trying cannibis and seeing the effects first hand it was clear that all of the police propaganda was nothing but a pack of lies. The gateway effect propaganda about cannibis is also ridiculous since tobacco, alcohol and chewing gum could also be considered gateway substances based on the same statistical criteria.

Perhaps the realization of the truth about cannibis has more of a gateway effect towards more addictive substances.

I have stopped using cannibis on many occaisions with ease, it is not difficult to quit even after extended periods. It certainly didn't kill brain cells, my education, IQ and current occupation certainly show that.

I know of professors, teachers, accountants, etc. who continue to use it on an occaisonal basis. Pierre Burton is a classic example of a great Canadian that enjoyed cannibis.

I found that Nicotine is a horribly addictive subsance, far more than cannibis. I find that coffee and chocolate would be much harder to quit than cannibis.

Stop the persecution of innocent harmless people based on perceptions of morality. Focus police effort on violent criminals that commit crimes against others and not just their own bodies.

We need a health based approach to all drug and addiction problems, not a threat based approach.

I say legalize, tax and regulate it, same as alcohol and cigarettes.

Often the drugs are laced with poisons and impurities making them even more unhealthy. With government regulation we can avoid some of this.

Street gangs and much of organized crime makes most of their money this way. Remove their product, minimize their influence and use the proceeds on prevention and fix our streets!

God Bless

The only reason I beleive, that Canada even has a "war on drugs" is the US whines too much about drugs, especially marijuana.

How many of our laws were changed, or made, because of US pressure? And they will continue to be.

It is no surprise to me when law enforcement tells us we need more enforcement, most car salesmen will also try and sell you a car.

Every comprehensive study to ever come out on the issue of Cannabis has found that the prohibition causes more harm to individuals and to society as a whole than the plant ever could.

We don't have to look back as the Ledain Commission report, take a look the Canadian Senate's report on the non-medicinal use of drugs' from 2002 which claims among other things, that alcohol is far more harmful and addictive drug than Cannabis. It also recomends that Cannabis be legal for use by citizen's over 16 years of age. This report was written after considering all of the relevant information and up to date scientific data.

Unlike our police forces and crown and defence attornies, prison guards, and pharmaceutical companies, these Senators have no financial stake in whether the prohibition of Cannabis continues, or is replaced by a more modern drug policy based on science and not on the whims of any religion or political group.

Cannabis has been illegal for less than 100 years. Cannabis has been used as medicine for thousands of years, a medicine that grows freely out of the earth. It was made illegal based on the fears and misconceptions of the time.

A hundred years and billions we have spent fighting against a battle against plant based drugs so that synthetic drug makers can have a monopoly on healing. Its time to restore the people's natural right to plant based medicine. If a government in a free country is going to lock a human up over what they choose to ingest, the onus should be on them to prove that ingestion of said substance poses a pretty large threat?

Follow the money, prohibition is beneficial to some interested parties , but not to society as a whole.

Stop talking about increased highway deaths and deaths in general if we legalize drugs. If any of you knew how many innocent people die around the world because of the US-led war on drugs you might think twice about supporting a policy that is so spectacularly flawed.

I'm amazed you can all be so sure of your stance when it's clear you haven't even read the facts. What study did you read that said highway fatalities would increase x% as soon as we legalize drugs - there wasn't one was there?

I can show you lots of studies proving more children are doing harder drugs now than before we thought it would be a good idea to let gangsters control drug distribution and revenue generation.

Its not a War on Drugs, it is a war on our own citiizens. Of course cops are going to recomend more enforcement, wouldn't a car salesman recommend a new car?

It is ridiculous to take advice on drug policy from those with a vested monetary interest in the outcome. I pull my kids out of school whenever the "DARE" program is presented. Its an apt name considering they are practically "daring" the kids to try drugs.

When my kids want to know about drugs, they know they will get an honest answer from me to any question they ask. When I need outside help to explain about the dangers of a particular drug I would have them talk to a pharmacist, doctor, or forensic pathologist who has some educational background to back up what he says anyway not some glorified security guard.

Cannabis prohibition in particular is a total farce, was based on racist lies. Emily Murphy writing as Janey Canuck for Macleans demonized Cannabis as part of her crusade against the chinese. Many people know Emily Murphy helped women get the vote but how many know she was a member of the white supremicist group, the anti-chinese leaugue? And we put this racist on our 50 dollar bill?
disgraceful!
The father of American Cannabis prohibition, Harry Anslinger said "reefer makes darkies think they are as good as white men"

I don't think we should continue a policy that was founded on such rubbish.

There is no doubt that for the police the current strategy is the right strategy. After all they have a vested interest; it is there bread and butter. They have been fighting this problem since 1907 when Canada got its first narcotics control act and with no success.

In fact, Canada is today awash with illegal drugs, drug related crime is rampant, the social problems associated with drug abuse and addiction can be seen on many street corners in any city.

One would think that with the “results” of 100 years of enforcement and the untold millions if not billions spent by the police on enforcement that the common sense approach would be now to shift focus from enforcement to treatment, prevention and research. After all this is a social/medical problem, something enforcement is not designed to deal with.

I think a lot of people who so fiercely support the current criminal approach simply want to stand for whatever positions Harper and his conservatives defend. It is a shame that politics and Canada's so-called cordial relationhip with the US stand in the way of caring for human beings and saving lives. It seems to me clear that harm reduction works.

It is also a shame that the Liberals were too coward to do the right thing when they were in power.

Not having needle exchange in prisons, for example, where there are so much drugs and so much HIV, is absurd.

The "public health" message may resonate with the people of the therapeutic state but the model will fare little better than the drug war model did because drug taking is in fact a moral matter of personal health.

No transformation of the language can change that. The notion of "addiction" fall on receptive ears in cultures conditioned to believe in demonic possession. I believe in a more timeless concept called free will that excludes any notions of exculpation for personal responsibility,

There is no chemical formula that can give periodic table substances allurement, we ought to know by now that it is the forbidding of the fruit from which all the powers of allurement emanate.

The public health model of drug taking is charlatism writ large. When one scrathes the surface, all so-called drug treatment is soul doctoring. A moralist attempts to talk an individual into giving up his present morals and adopting moral more to the liking of the mainstream. In the history books, it was called forced religious conversion.

Why stop at our drug enforcement strategy?

I have noticed that on our highways there is at any time numerous people who exceed posted speed limits. Now, the government spends a lot of money researching what they believe should be a maximum allowable speed, creating the necessary signage, erecting said signs, and policing our highways to enforce these.

We even have traffic schools, and licensing agencies that are supposed to instill in us the belief that obeying traffic laws is the correct thing to do. All of this to what avail? Nada!

I hereby call on our governments to create a free-use system for our roadways. If people are going to ignore the laws, it is better to not have any!

I, for one, cannot wait to be able to travel down the 401 at 180kmph without fear of being ticketted. I always thought that traffic-lights were an incredible inconvenience -- surely we can all find a way to cross paths at Yonge and Bloor without these mind-control devices.

The problem with the drug laws is that a relatively harmless drug like marijuana is lumped in with harder refined drugs like cocaine and heroin. Once a kid crosses the legal "line" and tries marijuana its a lot less of a leap to try coke or any other more addictive and harmful drugs. God help them if their drug of choice is anything other than pot at that point. As far as impaired driving under the influence of drugs, as a former user, I can say the degree to which one is impaired is substantially less than with alcohol and/or prescription drugs.

Its simple - decriminalize - invest in socitey: not incarseration.

Why is it that people think that legalizing them will make them more available? They are already available! to every kid with the right amount of money.

The drugs are cheaper now and more plentiful then ever, wake up people! We now have gangs fighting over turf because they have more drugs than the market will handle so they fight over territory.

Some people need a history lesson, alcohol was illegal and was made legal not because it was found safe but because the law was not a remedy for control. By all facts alcohol should still be illegal if we look at how many deaths it causes!

In response to Peggy Grenville's comment that legalization would lead to increased drug use. Compare Holland to the United States. The US spends billions fighting the drug war and has the highest drug use, much higher than Holland, particulary among the young. The US has created a broken and dangerous society by ruining families with unneccesary jail sentences. Making criminals out of otherwise good citizens.

Schools should be places of learning, not lying.

DARE began in 1983 and has never been effective.

See: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03172r.pdf

Our young people need honest, science-based information about drugs in order to make wise decisions.

Scare tactics and misinformation can be dangerous.

Here are 2 recommended booklets for parents & teachers:

Safety First: http://www.safety1st.org/orderSF.html

Beyond Zero Tolerance: http://www.safety1st.org/orderBZT.html

Herb

www.efsdp.org

Threatening an alcoholic or drug addict with any form of punishment or warning that it may lead to their own demise is a waste of time and money. You cannot influence these people through fear.
The only solution is to legalize drugs and control it through government agencies. This provides money for the goernment and basicly cuts the feet from under the criminals and their illegal trade.
If these people have to go to a government store to purchase their drugs, it becomes more open to public view. It may not be the solution, but it cannot be worse than what is going on now.
Thank you,
Keir Bernard

Let's see, last time I checked 57 % of BC residents and 58% of Quebvec residents backed legalizing cannabis.

Over half the residents in BC admit smoking it. How can all this prohibition sensible? Only those either blissfully or willfully unaware of the facts can support the proven-wrong strategy of prohibition.

We were educated as youngsters - when the Nazis were on trial at Nurenberg, following orders was not an acceptable defence. Kids are drilled on that and we become adults we do not forget the first step in mass acceptance of tyranny is when you only follow orders.

After all, it was once illegal to say the Earth was not the center of the Universe.

I wish the media would stop calling it the war on drugs and just call it what it is - Prohibition. The war on drugs is just a pr-term meant to deflect well-justified criticism of prohibition.

The drug war is a foolish waste of time and resources. Reefer madness is irresponsible. Marijuana is a very safe alternative to alcohol and should be in some cases encouraged rather than dicouraged.

Broken families and bad upbringings are often the cause of hard drug use. Our police services and courts should be used for real criminals and with the money saved we could treat the unfortunate few that do wind up with drug abuse problems.

I have read several posts here saying that legalization of drugs would intensify the harm done by those drugs and increase thier use. I will specifically address one made by Peggy Grenville who states that she believes the legalization and regulation of drugs would lead to an increase in thier usage, an increase in traffic fatalities, and more children using drugs.

That thought process is entirely flawed. It would be true, I would imagine, IF illegal drugs were actually made more difficult to get by virtue of them being illegal. They are not, the drugs we are speaking of are only made illegal, with no limitation on thier availability by virtue of them being illegal.

How does this impact Peggy's statements? Everyone that has a desire to use drugs, of any sort, illegal or not, is already or will be using them when and if they choose regardless of thier legality. It is a personal choice to use drugs, some choose to use them others choose not to, and most of th time the drugs legality is not a determining factor in if a person will or will not use them.

If all drugs were made legal and regulated today, there would be no more and no less impared drivers, addicts, children using them than there were yesterday. Drug usage is status quo. Those that want to use them do, and those that dont, dont.

Oddly enough, the US went thru another period that directly relates to this. The prohibition of alcohol. It is a fact, plain and simple, that the usage of alcohol during prohibition neither increased nor decreased, but remained status quo regardless of the legalities.

I dont think anyone is saying that just because something is made legal everyone must participate in the use, merely that it should once again be made legal for people to make thier own choices.

Having been through the "D.A.R.E." program and also being old enough to have been part of Nancy Regan's "Just say No" campaign I can tell you safely, I enjoy drugs. Sure the scare tactics worked for a few years (permenently for some people who like to be afraid and do what they are told), until highschool when peer pressure worked it's magic.

It was then I realized how those drug programs lied, lied right to my face. Smoking pot didn't kill me, I didn't go crazy, didn't become a forgetful drooling idiot incapable of complex thought or emotions. What I did get was high. Why can't we just tell the truth to these kids? Is lying going to protect them from trying some drugs? No, and at least if we told them the truth they'd know what to expect realistically.

Having a cop come to the school and pretend to be all knowlegable about something that they are making it their "business" (and don't think it's not a business, there is a lot of money being tossed around for these programs) to keep away from people seems condradictory.

Send in someone that is a health professional coupled with an addict or something. If some sketchy heroin addict had come into my classroom and not lectured but discussed drugs, I may not have tried as many. By the way, I pay my taxes, volunteer, recycle, contribute to my neighborhood and have called in the law on a meth lab before. You'd be surprised just who is smoking drugs and who isn't. Wake up people and get over your reefer madness....

In addressing the issue of drug abuse we need to look beyond the policing/legal aspects and focus more attention on harm reduction.

There's a residential recovery program based in Rimini, Italy called Saint Patrigano that has won world acclaim for helping people break free of addiction and start leading rewarding and productive lives.

Recovering residents work at the communities business: breeding horses, training dogs, making cheese, wine, oils, cured meats, iron work etc...

There are no quick and easy answers... Saint Patrigano started in 1978 and not everyone makes it through, but many do onto become contributors to society.

Bob Macdonald
Vancouver, BC

In a public health crisis such as this, why do we blindly allow law enforcement personnel to provide education in schools, claiming expertise on health & social risks (& benefits) for those who use drugs or who may at some point consider using?

Why aren't public health nurses & other professional health & social experts with actual credibility doing this? Police lack credibility (thus, are not likely taken seriously) when they overstep their area of expertise in law enforcement.

Not that they don't have an important message but it should be limited to what they are experts in. In other words, they should stick with "if you do drugs (& get caught) you will go to jail" and discuss the harms associated with drug-related prosecution.

The rest should be left up to experts who can explain with credibility what 'your brain on drugs' really means.

Where are all the expert criminology research scientists who can provide credible scientific evidence of the effectiveness of law enforcement strategies to justify the enormous amount of tax dollars spent on these?

If the criminal justice experts took a lesson from the plethora of scrutinized published scientific research available & conducted their own rigorous scientific evaluations in their own area of expertise, at least everyone would be playing on the same ball field.

Conducting a debate on the basis of personal anecdotes & opinions simply leads to a game of 'he said, she said' & avoids dealing with the real issues.

We have been so caught up in prevention activities aimed at children for generations now but all we have to do is look around to see that people who use drugs are not going to disappear and that it is obvious tax-payers have not been getting an efficient return on their law enforcement investment.

Remember, people who use drugs are all someone's children too. If reducing drug use has been the goal, this is hardly evidence of success, but I welcome credible scientific evidence to the contrary.

So legalizing drugs is the answer?

Anybody care to offer insights as to how to legalize and regulate products that are already so widely produced and used illegally?

Products whose producers need not worry about quality control, federal or provincial guidelines with respect to health and safety or distribution to the public (yeah unlike cigarettes drug dealers need not ID customers to see if they are 19).

Oh here's the big incentive ... selling and slanging dope is tax free! Yes people these entreprenneurs need not apply for a GST number and since drugs are illegal most drug dealers don't bother reporting their World Wide Income to the Canada Revenue Agency!

These people live underground and conduct their business their way on their terms, nobody breathes down their necks and most of all, they get to keep ALL the proceeds of their product.

Now if we were to legalize drugs who would get into the market as a private sales person and try to compete for market share against said people? How would they break into the pot market for instance?

Even if they were to do well, you think it would last? What about the risks of home invasion and violence to the ordinarily law obiding entreprenneur who would decide to take the government up on a new law legalizing the sale of narcotics?

After all many drug dealers are regularly beaten, robbed or gunned down by the competition. This isn't like Tim Hortons competing against Star Bucks.

Even if the government were to sell drugs itself, why would those who already do so illegally give up their grow ops and lab products? Operations that are very lucrative to those illegal operators.

You'll STILL have to use police narcotics units to tear down the half of the narcotics trade that would not be operating under regulation.

So needless to say, the option to legalize and regulate all narcotics that are currently illegal needs to be thought through!

There are a lot of valid and not so valid comments posted here.

I for one am no angel and have been through the drug wringer long ago. I had the will-power and sense to straighten myself out. The one thing I did note about the use of drugs is this: people use them to fill voids.

The solution to the drug problem then would seem to be better support mechanisms in our day to day lives. Kids looking for thrills or who are depressed have a lot of options available to them.

Better support mechanisms will go a long way toward reducing the use of drugs as an outlet. This can not be or only strategy though. It must be combined with good education - from the toddler level all the way to our seniors.

Lets use our education system and the media more effectively. I see ads for smoking more frequently than ads for drugs awareness and education. Why is that? Drug law enforcement must also be a key component of the solution.

Let's get serious about our laws and punish those who disregard them appropriately. Child laws, in my opinion, do not apply to those kids who are underage and sell drugs to other kids. Meth can have you addicted after one use! And those that exploit children in the drug trade should receive life in prison without parol - period!

If you are a parent - don't lie to your children - in hopes of sparing them the ugly truth - educate them and keep lines of communication open with them. If you suspect they have been exposed or are involved - get in there and intervene - there are better options for your kids - but you must also be part of the solution if we want to reduce the drug problems we have.

I am an optimist - but also a realist. I know it would be hard to totally eliminate the drug trade and problems out there, but we can make it real hard for those that would cause harm to our kids, friends, and countrymen. Get involved! We live in Canada - not in New York - don't turn a blind eye!

The results of this latest study about the ineffectiveness of current drug enforcement practices is of no surprise to me.

As a daily surfer of Medpot.net, i see the negative effects of the war on drugs accross this country every day. What is surprising is some of the feedback from certain members of the public and their, "lock em up and throw away the key" attitude.

Does the study not show that that attitude is exspensive and counter productive? I wonder, would they cast away their own children so easily to a life behind bars because they are genetically predisposed to addiction or self destructive behaviour?

I used to love this country of ours, now i am just not so sure anymore and it saddens me almost to the point of tears.

We are at a crossroad in this country right now. We can choose the proper more difficult path, or we can continue throwing wheelbarrows full of money at the problem to no avail, for history has shown us time and time again that it will only serve to make matters worse for us, our children and our nation.

Alison,

Your suggestion as a retired enforcement officer is to make all drugs legal, and as difficult to get by our children as Cigarettes and Liquor?

Of course, what an excellent solution. Make it legal therefore you increase the usage which increased the availability of all street drugs and make it easier for a child to find some reckless 18 year old to purchase it for them.

Couple that with the steep increase in roadway deaths that will occur by a series of novice users drive home high because the federal government has "OKed" these drugs.

Perhaps if someone you loved was hurt, or even killed by a driver who was too stoned to keep his car in the right lane that you would be a little more harsh on your stance of loading up today's youth with "legal" drugs.

I think the D.A.R.E. program might be okay for very young children. I took it when I was in grade 11, and the entire class likened it to the movie reffer madness.

The office told us lie after lie, how marijuana can kill you after one puff, how marijuana is 10 times more addictive then cigarettes or smoking. We were told marijuana causes permanent brain damage after the first use, as well as stunting growth the first time you use it.

We were then given lies about jail time associated with marijuana use, we were told if you are found with one joint, you go to jail for 10 years.

We were told if you are ever caught selling marijuana you go to jail 30 years minimum, on the first offence.

I guess the officer meant well, but it was pretty funny.

I remember not too long ago being an elementary student learning "say no to drugs". The message was good, but the unknown, and the glamour associated with hard drugs was still not fully communicated to us.

I think that if the educators had shown us what the addicted homeless look like and live like, I would have taken the message a lot more seriously.

The only consequence I remember for drug use, was the criminal aspect, and not the societal and personal pain addition causes.

From my observations, most police see the results of failed drug policy on the streets every day, and know of the need for a new approach, but are afraid to speak out because of the regimented nature of the profession.

Thank goodness the medical profession doesn't have these restraints. Congratulations to the authors of this study.

Canadians don't want more Law Enforcement for illegal drugs, they want and need more Law Enforcement for break and enters, rapes and murders and felonies that harm someone.

Let's put this in perspective, drugs are strictly a health issue and not a criminal one. When will the Politicians and our Police work together to understand this and resolve this issue?

As a retired Law Enforcement Officer and Federal Medical Marijuana Exemptee in Canada I see the drug war from a different angle - reporting from the inside.

My solution?

Legalize and regulate ALL drugs so that the streets and our children are no longer in charge AND so that our sick and dying Canadians can have a legal, safe and affordable source of their medicine.

It makes perfect sense.

Sincerely,

Alison Myrden
Burlington, Ontario
Speaker for LEAP -
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
www.leap.cc

I have 2 kids who have been through the "DARE" program and I believe it to be a very useful tool in educating our children about the dangers of illicit drugs. If anything these inititives should be expanded.

I would like to comment on the efficacy of the DARE program in the fight against drugs. Two years ago, a class of Grade 5 students in this area had just completed its DARE course and was preparing for their graduation ceremony.

A student in that class knew that a substitute teacher would be in his class on a certain day and he planned, with the prior knowledge of at least some of his classmates, to bring some pot to school that day. He did, indeed, bring pot to school. You would think that, if the DARE program is as big a success as it is being trumpeted, that those Grade 5 students would have been outraged that someone would violate their school community by openly (to those students) bringing drugs to school.

Were those students outraged? Apparently they were not, since it took until nearly the end of the school day for three children, out of 20 students, to approach their substitute teacher to tell what was going on. Fortunately, the teacher took them seriously and school administration also acted to deal with the student who brought the drugs to school.

Unfortunately those reporting students were not then fully supported by their peers, who, if DARE really works, should have been fully behind them.

I really don't know what solution will work best.

Scaring kids may work for some, but for most I doubt it does anything.

Throwing people in jail typically nets the small fry and not the real movers and shakers. Replacements take over almost immediately.

Legalization to try to cut out the crime (both organized crime and the crime by the users to support their habits) likely won't be effective either. Criminals will just likely resort to either manipulating the legal supply chain or else sell harder and more addictive drugs that the gov't would never sell.

Addicts don't just commit crimes to support their habits. They often cannot hold jobs and so would steal for food, shelter, medication, etc.

Not spending money on enforcement could have a total higher cost in the end. Without enforcement, usage would undoubtedly increase with all of its attendant social costs (health care, benefits to those who are not working, rehab treatment).

I don't think there is a magic bullet for this. Like with so many other things, I think we need a combination of time and education to change attitudes, and even then there is no guarantee.

From what I've seen, the study did not seriously look at one of the other disgraces in Canada's justice system -- our sentencing laws.

Canada's sentencing laws are a well known and sad international joke. We coddle serious criminals, including the people who peddle drugs and poison to our kids and others.

How could policing be effective when the whole point of the exercise is to land somebody in a correctional system that sends mixed messages on the acceptability of drugs and drug activity, let them out in no time flat, and then start the cycle all over again?

Canada will have as large a drug problem as it's willing to pay for in soft sentencing laws.

Whats wrong with Canada's drug strategy!?

Let me tell you.......

My daughter came home from school one day
and said Dad why do we treat certain drugs differently than others??

For instance- she said- I know that if you use marijuana you go to jail but if you use and become addicted to far more harmful drugs like booze or opiate pain killers you get medical help and treatment instead of jail?? Why is that Dad??

You know I could'nt tell her why!

She also said the police officer in her classroom today went on for hours on how deadly and addictive and lethal pot is to us kids.
I stuck up my hand to say my dad uses it as medicine and the beatles used it to write songs and that it was'nt near as harmful as he was saying--the policeman said there is one in every crowd and totally ignored me from there on.........

That's whats wrong with our drug stategy in Canada!

It sounds to me like a narrow understanding of drug addiction/abuse is being look when assessing the effectiveness of current anti-drug programs.

In there narrowest sense, there are two types of people that should be targeted in anti-drug campaigns. The first are those considered to be living at or below the poverty line.

It is easy to fall into drug abuse at this level not only because it tends to lend another method of escapism, but because I believe that there is a larger social issue at hand. In essence it is easier to "fall" in society than to succeed. A large portion of people at or below poverty level suffer from a sort of defeatism and is subsequently followed by a tendancy towards taking the easier route.

The second group would be those above the poverty level where turning to drugs may or may not be a defeatism attitude but most likely more of a way to become socially acceptable within certain social groups. I believe the majority of anti-drug campaigns target the type two group.

The conundrum is that it is far easier to address the type two group with programs where as the type one group is a series of compounded issues that make up the core of our society.

Therefore without significant changes to a static social structure/view there is little chance to administer any effective programs. This is strictly an observation as sociology is not my professional area of expertise, however, as an educated and intelligent person, this is my educated opinion.

Having grown up with DARE, as many of us have, I was always struck with a profound disrespect for the officers presenting the program; not a personal disrespect mind you, as I'm sure they're good people with noble intentions, but because of their glaring lack of hard medical evidence.

They came in with stickers and rub-on tattoos for teenagers but without any answers to questions like; how do amphetamines effect my brain? Why is cocaine harmful? How detrimental is marijuana in comparison to alcohol? How many people use drugs and still function normally, is it even possible?

Having grown up and researched these things myself to my satisfaction, it seems simply inane and obtuse to a surreal level that the answers aren't there for these young adults.

And if there is no answer to a question? What possible excuse could we have not to know, and how arrogant is it to expect them to take our opinions as truth?

In my experience the DARE programme leads to little success. At the time when I went through it, nothing was achieved except for making it something of interest. That is not to say that it promoted interest, but the words and tactics used were less than convincing.

It boiled down to "don't use drugs or your life is over." Many of my classmates and I felt as though we were being spoken down to and were not talked to at the level that we were competent with. This made most of us resent the programme, countering most of its positive influence.

I was the valedictorian of the class for both the DARE programme as well as the primary class. I did go on to use drugs and learned for myself the negatives of its use.

I feel if students are approached in a manner that is not filled with scare tactics and condescension, more young people will use the knowledge they are given and not feel cheated by authority.

The official list of illegal drugs in Canada is based in myth. There are legal substances that are far more dangerous than some of the illegal ones, both in terms of health effects and societal impact. Nicotine, some perscription drugs and alcohol are examples.

The only reason marijuana is still illegal in Canada is because of our border with the United States. Very well, I propose a solution.

We legalize marijuana, but put strict controls on its posession, storage and use. Since we don't want US firearms crossing the same border, Parliament should pass legislation that mirrors American legislation for pistols. That is to say, whatever the most permissive state's rules for posession, storage and use of pistols should form our rules for marijuana.

Although I don't know for certain, I can speculate that Texas' regulations would be a good choice to model our legislation.

While I don't use the stuff myself, I would have no problem if casual marijuana smokers had to get a license, wait three days to buy their weed, carry it unconcealed and not be allowed to carry it into banks or government buildings.

The majority of Canadians are against US style prohibition, and twice the Canadian Senate has thoroughly investigated Marijuana prohibition both times ruling that " Prohibition of Marijuana is clearly more harmfull to society than the drug itself."

So the question is are we losing an unwinnable war but why are we fighting it, and what is wrong with our Democracy.

It is interesting that people who are not now,or ever have been a drug addict, somehow seem to know exactly what it would take to fix the problem? While their intentions are good,how could they possibly know what goes on in the mind of a druggie?

One thing I do know, from personnal experience, is you will NEVER cure a drug habit if the person is wandering around loose on the streets in the same old element (i.e... "come back on Monday and we will work on your drug habit again"....duh!)

You can't do it by replacing one kind of drug with another, with any degree of success.So what IS the solution?There is no perfect one.Lock them up in a totally drug free enviroment.Yes,it does seems bit inhumane,but it works!!

Couple that with some intensive counciling and supervision and you might have a hope...maybe.Most of these people have an addictive nature at best, and will replace one drug with another or even alcohol, if there is no dope around.

They would be the first ones to tell you that if we took the time to listen, instead of trying to ram a solution that will not work down their throats!

Legalize all drugs, tax & regulate them, provide education about drugs and media misrepresentation throughout the school system, and help (housing, sustenance and counseling) those poor souls who have become lost in the world of addiction.

The police have other more important things to attend to, crimes of politicians and bureaucrats for instance.
Also stop worrying about what the flippin' yanks think about it, they have no solution period.

Does anyone remember the LeDain commission circa 1975?he did an extensive study on the subject of marijuana decriminalization.

His conclusion was unequivical,don't wait, do it now and reduce the harm done by heavy-handed police/ justice zealots.

Gerard LeDain was no lightweight functionary but a well respected legalist.His report made for interesting reading and he also made the point of how organized crime could be dealt a blow by decriminalization.

We have laws regarding the production of home brewed beer and wine.with a few word changes the same laws would make perfect sense for the control of pot.the public is way ahead of the politicians on this question.

Lets review the status-quo
The drug industry creates violent criminals not because of the drugs but because of the profit. This is very clear from the lessons learned from alcohol prohibition.

The petty criminals and home growers are easy targets for police and they get plenty of overtime pay on stakeouts. Not to mention that ample money supply from the illegal drug industry is enough to influence police investigations.

Lets not be foolish in thinking that police are moral titans that cannot be bought. The extremely violent and organized criminals that control the drug trade are barely affected by police investigations and are rarely prosecuted.

Drug addicts have a serious lack of available services to get help. Organized crime often gets young women addicted to drugs and forces them into prostition. The societal stigma attached to drug use and the threat of prosecution and jail is also a barrier to anyone asking for help.

My comment is short: The war on drugs has never worked, will never work, and I think it is about time the government stops being in denial and LISTENS to what front line workers, harm reduction workers, and drug users have been saying for a long time.

This report only proves once again that there are other solutions besides the "get tough on crime" approach; why won't our government pay attention and open their minds to alternative suggestions?

After all, I'm sure there isn't a family in this country who somehow hasn't been affected by addiction. Isn't it about time we try a different approach?

It is symptomatic of the Conservative Party mindset to solve a problem by looking for someone to punish. The fact that any of us can get any drug we want within about a half hour in any city in this country is proof that prohibition doesn't work.

Prevention programs should be delivered by a combination of peers who've been addicted and medical personnel and they should focus on allowing youth to ask questions that address their own fears and concerns.

Either marijuana should be legalized and controlled or alcohol should be banned. The double standard is laughable and the hypocrisy does not go unnoticed by teens.

Safe injection sites should employ case-workers who have a MANAGEABLE workload so that they can create effective relationships with users with the goal of rehabilitating them by addressing the reasons they seek to escape their problems rather than just their addiction.

As long as law enforcement takes an American approach (i.e. everything has to be a "war"), addicts will remain desperate, dangerous and vulnerable to further ills like disease and prostitution.

The huge funding available to the RCMP for the so called drug war has taken away any real focus on other crimes and in particular serious white collar crimes that harm thousands of Canadians.

The drug war is a total failure and its basic premise should be re-examined. We sell nicotine and alcohol and caffeine to drug addicts. Not selling the rest of the major drugs openly does nothing but support employment of police officers, jail guards, part-time crown attornies appointed through patronage, and in the final analysis, critically injures our judicial system because this budget has to produce results and the temptation to get people in jail, whatever it takes, overwhelms every police force involved in the process.

The result is the same kind of harm that was seen during Prohibition at all levels of society. Every high school kid knows that the odds are about 50-50 that his or her doctor, lawyer, MP, MPP, judge, police officer's child, are using some form of illegal drug. The cynicism inherent in the system is why DARE fails and why the whole drug war has failed and will continue to fail.

In your article you mentioned the effectiveness of the DARE program. As I have been in the DARE program in different years at my school i felt that it may be somewhat effective for the younger kids in the program to hear an authoritative police figure telling them about the dangers of drugs, but by the time you get to high school it really doesnt work.

Part of the reason is because police have to play by the rules. Probably the best anti drug speaker I have listened to was an ex addict that wasnt so much saying DRUGS BAD (as obviously that would be a little hypocritical) but saying more that if she could change what she did she wouldnt have done them.

But she was also sort of saying if you do do this make sure you dont do that, stay away from this especially etc. It was more specific advice from someone who knew what they were talking about but had also become a responsible adult and was school endorsed.

I think part of the reason that young people have a problem listening to and believing the police officers in DARE is because they go into just as much depth explaining the dangers of alchohol as the dangers of heroine. Even a 10 year old knows they arent really on par.

What seems to be lacking is hard evidence to support the various positions. Let interested parties agree on how the various approaches could be acurately measured and then go with the one that works.

As with any problem, only by looking at it objectively can a satisfactory solution be found.

Just to comment on Tabitha's submission, the fear factor may have been appropriate for you but the entire "this is your brain on drugs" campaign is not effective overall.

Fear itself is a very weak motivator especially when kids/people see many examples of people using drugs of various sorts with no apparent ill effects. All that accomplishes is to make the viewer believe less in a campaign that seems to exaggerate and/or lie to them and create an overall sense that the powers that be are just out of touch and quite typically "parental" in their approach.

Teenagers are not stupid and like adults, many will take calculated risks based on their own realities. If this were not true then insider trading would have disappeared right along with drug use.

What we need to do is not make it so lucrative to supply these drugs.

There are so many grow-ops in Ontario the police can't keep up with them anymore. Why? Because you can pocket millions of dollars before you are ever caught, and when you do get caught the laws are so weak that you get maybe three months in jail (and you can keep all your money too!)

The laws need to toughen up on people who manufacture and traffic these drugs as well. So if you manufacture crystal meth in your garage, you lose all of your assets (and if it can be proven you gave money to other people to hide, they lose everything too), in addition to 20 years in jail, there will be less people doing it.

As it stands now, who wouldn't risk 3 months in jail if they gain millions of dollars growing dope, the risk to reward ratio is heavily in your favour.

The idea that increasing prosecution of drug users is the only way to curb drug use and reduce harm is ludicrous. This suggestion seems to me to be based largely on ideological grounds and scant evidence.

I'd like to take particular issue with the Conservative government's decision to not renew the three year criminal exemption for the Vancouver safe injection site. The government is awaiting "further evidence" on whether the site is working or not. This is in spite of the fact that Wood et al. have summarized the findings from the injection site in the Nov. 21, 2006 issue of the Canadian Medical Association Journal. (it can be viewed for free at http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/175/11/1399 )

This report shows an overwhelming decrease in HIV risk behaviours and a decrease in overdose deaths, to name only a few benefits. And perhaps most importantly, the study showed an increased willingness of users of the site to participate in drug rehab programs.

Instead of relying on sound, peer-reviewed, health-based literature like the above article, the government is awaiting a report from the RCMP.

In the medical community, when a study that is funded by a drug company advocates increased use of that drug, that study raises a lot of suspicion. I would also argue that a study from the RCMP which advocates increased policing and prosecution (instead of harm reduction) is equally suspicious.

Sometimes the most radical solution is the most obvious solution. Supply organic compounds such as coca, opium and cannabis to Canada's addicts for free from our pharmacies.

If you take the money out of the drug trade, the trade will disappear, but the money will stay in our communities. Drug dealers would disappear from our schools and street corners.

Addicts will spend their money on shelter and food. The crimes committed to provide money for drugs will disappear. The need for policing drug traffickers disappears.

Imagine access to drugs from a qualified pharmacist instead of the kid on the corner. Drug trends could be controlled. Who would want to buy meth-amphetamines from a biker when you can get coca for free from a pharmacist.

The change in working man hours in this country would be dramatic if tommorrow not one Canadian had to worry about where and how they were getting the next fix.

Organized crime uses the victims of addiction because they can be easily controlled thru the access to drugs. If we take this method of control back from the criminals, they lose a layer of insulation from law enforcement. We could be negotiating for crops with the farmers in Afghanistan instead of them providing the Taliban and terrorists with a source of income.

George Bush should be all over the idea of free, accessable pharmaceuticals. The war on drugs would end immediately and terrorist organizations would have to find a new source of income.

An equally radical addendum to the plan is to nationalize all pharmaceutical producers in the country so that all drugs were created by the people and for the people instead of a drug supply based on maximum proffitability.

I think that D.A.R.E. is a wonderful program. After I went through the program as a kid I was so afraid of the thought of drugs, there was no way I would entertain the thought of doing them. The progam did it's job in my books.

I am a Police Officer in downtown Toronto. I can tell you from experience, that our ancient and preachy (DARE) approach to educating and informing the youth about drugs is totally out of step with reality.

I hope things change sooner rather than later.

I agree that Canada's drug strategy fails. In 2005 we had a large drug bust here but the big suppliers were either not touched or got off on a technicality. Some street dealers were charged.

I work in the school system and I have seen some positive feedback from the kids about D.A.R.E., [the RCMP's Drug Abuse Resistance Education program.] I also think it helps to portray the RCMP in a friendlier,more personal role. They actually interact with the kids and are unformative.

We have a big drug problem here. I believe more emphasis should be put on cause and prevention. Social ills such as physical and sexual abuse, poverty, low self-esteem, lack of employment, high cost of sport programs for kids, etc. should be addressed.

As a former drug addict in all sorts of drugs which eventually found me addicted to cocaine intavenously for 12 years, I can attest to the failure if drug policy stragegy instituted by our government.

Not only does our governemnt and ngo's find themselves at the receiving end of vast amounts of money but those who are actually affected remain on the outside reminded of how wastful a society we are.

Drugs have always been a source of running away for the underpriveldged and a way of escape for the hard working person. it will be with us for ever.and for those who avoid the problem like our politicians and for those who rule by an iron hand like our police force, it will only serve to perpetuate a matter for policy makers to divert our resources in a way where money is simply keeping people working and making sure their budgets are not on the cutting table.

Why should government spend my tax dollars to fight drug smuggling. If you have kids teach them not to use drugs.
I call on our goverment to give us tax break rather than fighting Illegal drugs

Why would police officers be successful at convincing youngsters about the danger of drugs? Wouldn't a doctor or nurse be better equipped to do that? WOuldn't a teacher be better equipped? We know that people in the drug business and drug enforcement have a vested interest in keeping prohibition working. What would they do if drugs were legalized?

I can almost hear all those pro-drug advocacy groups using this as a rallying cry.

Is the system working? Not really no.
Does making drugs legal solve the issue.

Not in the least, coupled with the fact that states like Nevada have three times more DUI's with drugs then alcohol, a trend I can imagine would follow suit here, the long term health care cost on endorsing these users by legalizing there vice is ludicrous.

But what of Alcohol? Surely if that's legal then some soft drugs should be as well?

Of course, why not add another type of drunk driver out on our roads, by making it legal we will increase use by how many thousand percent?

It may not be the best route, but jail em and keep jailing them just keep them the hell away from my kids.

Anyone with half a brain knows the outcome of these "WOD" efforts before they even begin. It is time to come to terms with the fact that we are a drug taking society to the extreme (illegal and otherwise), grow up and focus on treating this from a health and social perspective instead of a criminal one.

No government has ever been able to prevent the smuggling, production and use of illegal substances excepting under draconian regimes and it is foolish to continue to throw huge amounts of money at this sort of strategy.

Simply put, if the desire is there the substances will be too. We must accept it and deal with education and treatment at the user end while eliminating or at least reducing the profits made available to dealers and organized crime through criminalization. If it was profitable for a truck full of bathtub gin to be smuggled during the 1920's imagine what profits are presently made on a truck full of drug X.

It is also worth noting that there are obvious differences in types of illegal drugs that warrant different approaches as well and Canadians are well aware of this. If we are able to get past the prohibition mentality favored by the United States then we might have a chance to actually build an effective policy. It is obvious either way though that the current approach is not working.