Mr. Harper’s drug problem, at least the one we should be concerned about, is one based in his ideological ignorance. After decades of reports recommending the legalisation or decriminalization of marijuana, Harper has promised that he will scrap the proposed law to soften sentences for possession of marijuana. After years of watching the US war on drugs fail dismally, Harper has promised to adopt a mandatory sentencing regime very similar to the US system. The United States is the world’s largest per capita jailer of its own people and Harper seems poised to follow in their footsteps.
The Conservative platform on drugs is clear. According to Conservative Party website, “A Conservative government will:
* Impose mandatory minimum prison sentences of at least two years in prison for indictable offences such as trafficking, importing/exporting, or production of Schedule I drugs such as heroin, cocaine, or crystal meth. The mandatory prison sentences would also apply to the same offences involving more than 3 kilograms of marijuana or hashish (e.g., marijuana grow operations with more than 15 plants based on RCMP estimates of 200 grams per plant).7 * End conditional sentencing (house arrest) for all indictable drug offences. * Increase fines for drug traffickers or producers to reflect the street value of drugs, with escalating fines for repeat offences. * Prevent the decriminalization of marijuana. * Make precursor chemicals of crystal meth harder to get. For example, medications containing pseudoephedrine would have to be placed behind pharmacy counters. * Introduce a national drug strategy with particular emphasis on youth. This strategy will encompass all drugs, not just marijuana, in implementing a nationwide awareness campaign to dissuade young people from using drugs.”
Harper and his party also show little support for harm reduction programs. The future of Vancouver’s safe injection site, a success by most accounts, has been thrown into doubt by Harper’s December 3, 2005 campaign statement that, "We as a government will not use taxpayers' money to fund drug use. That is not the strategy we will pursue." Harper considers throwing people in prison, for what the vast majority of medical professionals consider an illness, to be a reasonable response to drug use in Canada. Instead of following the advice of the medical community and the progressive ideas of professionals working with drug addicts, Mr. Harper has chosen to follow the example of George Bush, an untreated alcohol and drug abuser with a history of making decisions based on faith instead of fact.
Given Mr. Harper’s penchant for jailing people for drug crimes, and his reluctance to help people who will otherwise turn to theft to fund their addictions, the question of how much this is going to cost us quickly arises. His strengthening of prohibitions will push the price of marijuana up, drawing even more people into the growing and selling of that drug, and hard drugs will also see a rise in street value, making the importation and sale of cocaine and heroin even more lucrative. Harper will, if he follows through on his campaign promises, increase policing, tie up our court system, and imprison more Canadians.
In the US, the model that Harper is undoubtedly following, mandatory sentences and increased policing have caused a massive increase in the number of people in jail. Canada’s jails are already over-crowded, so we would have to build more of them. Has Mr. Harper taken that into account in the costing of his platform? Given the right-wing doctrine of privatisation, does he intend to follow the US model of privately run prisons?
Stephen Harper has also promised to deport non-citizens who import or sell drugs. No word on whether he would also extradite Marc Emery to the US as soon as possible, but before the election Emery wrote, “On a personal note, I’d say that voting Conservative is a KILL MARC REFERENDUM for this election.
“It is a certainty that the Conservatives would extradite me to a lifetime imprisonment in the USA. Vic Toews, the likely Justice Minister in a Conservative government, is a nasty fundamentalist and represents the most severe regime possible for the cannabis community. As I have said, if I am extradited to the United States, Canadians will never see me alive again.” Obviously Emery feels that a Harper government would be even worse than a Martin government for him and other Canadians who find themselves threatened by regressive US drug laws.
Even more troubling is Mr. Harper’s lack of a proposed policy on the international drug trade. Will he be using the Canadian military to aid the United States in its war on drugs? Will our peacekeepers find themselves guarding oil pipelines in Colombia as part of that war? Will we be participating in the spraying of drug crops in South America? Will our foreign aid have conditions regarding drug laws? Will our Mounties be training paramilitaries with a history of murdering unionists and indigenous people? The Conservative Party has not said, but they do seem poised to follow all other aspects of Mr. Bush’s failed anti-drug campaign.
How does Mr. Harper feel about the newly elected Bolivian President and ex-coca farmer, Evo Morales? How about Morales’ newly appointed Minister of Social Defence, Felipe Caceres, also a former farmer of the cocaine-producing plant? Harper has made no statement about these recent developments, but we can assume that he won’t be pleased. Will he be joining in applying the pressure that the US will undoubtedly place on Morales? How will that affect trade? If the US decides to covertly wipe out Bolivian coca crops will Harper lend his support? Is Harper aware that coca is the base of many Andean Indian folk medicines as well as being a sacred plant in their culture? Does he feel than people in South America are somehow responsible for drug abuse in North America?
Similar questions exist for Afghanistan. Now that a US-led coalition is in charge of the country, Afghanistan has become the world’s largest supplier of heroin. It has become the basis of much of the Afghan economy. Would Harper endorse the draconian and ineffective measures of crop eradication that the Bush regime is prone to, or would he endorse the Senlis Council’s much more progressive attempt to license opium growers and introduce alternative crop strategies? Is anybody in the Conservative Party even aware that there is a shortage of morphine in the world and the detrimental effects that has on medical treatment in developing countries?
The problem with all of these questions is that Mr. Harper, his party, and his supporters seem not to have even considered them. The mention of drugs brings the usual knee-jerk response of “Lock them up.” That’s a response we’ve been trying since drugs were outlawed in the early part of the last century, and our drug problem has gotten worse instead of better. Our policies have caused crime and violence by producing both a profit motive and a lack of options for addicts. I don’t know about Mr. Harper, but when I’m trying to solve a problem and an attempted solution fails, I generally try a different solution.
That Mr. Harper’s drug problem is considered socially acceptable in the circles he runs in has no doubt allowed it to worsen. That the Canadian mainstream media has failed to take Harper to task for his addiction to a failed ideology indicates that Harper isn’t the only dope in Canada. Perhaps the Canadian people need to stage an intervention.
[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on February 1, 2006]Note: wrote, Minister of Social Defe... Andean Indian folk medi... Senlis Council’s
Paul Harris
Great points Rev. Blair!
---
Dave Ruston
What intrigues me is why the politicians/police/courts have so hate towards the people.
What is actually going on in their heads?Why not just leave people alone?
Thanks for the work you did, Rev !
---
Nothing in this World makes People so Afraid as the Influence of an Independant Minded Individual.
Attrib. Al Einstien
I may not agree with Stephen Harper on much, but I'm with him on this. With perhaps a couple of qualifications. Existing addicts should be provided with a safe place to get their fix - but be put on a withdrawal management regime. And we have to prevent new addicts from being generated.
As for the tactics used by the US war on drugs, I don't have enough information. I suspect that their "war on drugs" isn't sincere, because having an addicted population actually serves their purposes. But I can't prove it.
I'm not advocating for a sovereign Canada so that we can uphold "values" like liberal drug laws and gay marriage. These aren't Canadian values, they are values imported from the trashy American global permissive culture.
I am offended that this site prominently supports Marc Emery and his ilk.
I'd just like to add a small observation with respect to the question, 'Given the right-wing doctrine of privatisation, does he intend to follow the US model of privately run prisons?' In California the term 'prison-industrial complex' is already in use. To me this suggests that people see similarities between the profit driven growth of prisons and the profit driven persuit of war.
Harper and Bush are the same in that they have never been anywhere outside their own countries to speak of. They are the perfect extreme right-wing or authoritarin types needed to run our countries so that corporate USA/canada can have their way with the world.
I would approve of legalizing all drugs. Get them off the streets and behind counters where there is a legal age limit to using. Nothing we do will ever stop drug abuse so at least try and get the gangsters out of the picture. That may inadvertantly solve some of the gun crimes as well.
The Cons and especially Libertarians seem to want less government but more police, security forces, jails and the death penalty. They want to make people responsible for themselves yet take away any promise that they recover and do just that. Throw the scum behind bars for life or kill them outright.
I choose invest in their educations and support for their families not in more prisons.
---
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." Friedrich Nietzsche
<br />
— The Divine Symphony, by Inayat Khan<br />
<br />
— The Divine Symphony, by Inayat Khan<br />
Who wants to bet that they will also try cutting taxes for the already rich - ala trickle down theory? How about more tax breaks for already profitable corporations - on the premise they will pass that on to the consumer and/or employees? How about missile defense? How about more money for nuclear/gas power over green solutions? How about profitable public institutions turned over to the private sector to - "save money"?
Think of anything already tried and failed by Harris, Klein, Eves, Campbell, Bush, Blair, and Ronnie Raygun, and that is what they will most likely try to copy.
Something about failing twice or more on the same thing drives these people.
---
If there was ever a time for Canadians to become pushy - now is the time - for time is running out on this nation called Canada.
<br />
— The Divine Symphony, by Inayat Khan<br />
One isn't requiredtohave sympathy, only right knowledge<br />
and you are quite right it seves their purposes!<br />
<br />
<br />
I have an extensive reading list that does "Prove it"<br />
<br />
<br />
The following is not dealing (pun intended) with that partilar aspect of mind altering substances and well worth the read. In reality there is aonly a war on SOME drugs<br />
I have evidence <br />
Google Guns , drugs and the CIA<br />
or <br />
<a href="http://www.lycaeum.org/drugwar/DARKALLIANCE/">http://www.lycaeum.org/drugwar/DARKALLIANCE/</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://books.google.com/books?q=Mercury+news++%2B+Drugs&hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-49,GGLG:en&sa=N&tab=wp">http://books.google.com/books?q=Mercury+news++%2B+Drugs&hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-49,GGLG:en&sa=N&tab=wp</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.narconews.com/">http://www.narconews.com/</a><br />
<br />
I've corresponded with Michael<br />
<a href="http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cjs13.htm">http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cjs13.htm</a><br />
<a href="http://www.webcom.com/hrin/magazine/oct96/cia.html">http://www.webcom.com/hrin/magazine/oct96/cia.html</a><br />
<a href="http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cjs13.htm">http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cjs13.htm</a><br />
<a href="http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/index.html">http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/index.html</a><br />
<br />
Keeping Freedom in Mind<br />
<br />
The Center for Cognitive Liberty & Ethics (CCLE) is a network of scholars elaborating the law, policy and ethics of freedom of thought. Our mission is to develop social policies that will preserve and enhance freedom of thought into the 21st century. <br />
<br />
Growing knowledge in the neurosciences, enhanced by exponential advances in pharmacology and other neurotechnologies (technologies that make it possible to monitor and manipulate the brain’s electrochemistry) are rapidly moving brain research and clinical applications beyond the scope of purely medical use. The definitions of "medicine" and "mental health" are expanding from treatment and prevention, to improvement and enhancement.<br />
<br />
The CCLE is dedicated to protecting and advancing freedom of thought in the modern world of accelerating neurotechnologies. Our paramount concern is to foster the unlimited potential of the human mind and to protect freedom of thought.<br />
<br />
The CCLE supports technological advances, and believes that the application and regulation of new drugs and neurotechnologies are best channeled by a renewed allegiance to the fundamental right to freedom of thought. Our guiding principles are privacy, autonomy and choice:<br />
<br />
Privacy: What and how you think should be private unless you choose to share it. The use of technologies such as brain imaging and scanning must remain consensual and any information so revealed should remain confidential. The right to privacy must be found to encompass the inner domain of thought.<br />
<br />
Autonomy: Self-determination over one’s own cognition is central to free will. Decisions concerning whether or how to change a person’s thought processes must remain the province of the individual as opposed to government or industry.<br />
<br />
Choice: The capabilities of the human mind should not be limited. So long as people do not directly harm others, governments should not criminally prohibit cognitive enhancement or the experience of any mental state. <br />
No Simple Solutions<br />
The CCLE recognizes that these are extremely complex issues with no simple solutions. We see our contribution as helping to negotiate the intersection of law and science so that new neurotechnologies expand rather than reduce freedom of thought.<br />
<br />
What We Do<br />
<br />
Advocacy The CCLE supports social impact litigation that has the potential to broadly advance cognitive liberty. We have filed legal briefs on the topic of cognitive liberty in federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court.<br />
<br />
Analysis The CCLE monitors developments in neurotechnology, cognitive sciences and the law, to identify and offer guidance concerning those developments with a potential to significantly impact freedom of thought. We produce reports and professional testimony on complex freedom of thought issues currently facing policy makers, industry, and the general public. <br />
<br />
Education By raising awareness of emerging cognitive liberty issues, our outreach and education campaigns empower people to meaningfully participate in public discourse and the democratic process. We provide course content to universities and professional schools in order to accelerate scholarly discussion of cognitive liberty across a wide range of disciplines. <br />
<br />
<br />
CURRENT ISSUES <br />
Today, an increasing array of drugs and other neurotechnologies are quite literally changing how we think about rights of the mind. We believe that these technologies will change freedom of thought as much as the printing press and the Internet have changed freedom of speech. <br />
At the Center for Cognitive Liberty & Ethics, we believe that harnessing the opportunities afforded by these technologies, while avoiding the pitfalls, will be the challenge of our age. Below you'll find an array of topics that raise various ethical and legal concerns in relation to cognitive liberty. <br />
<br />
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
<br />
COGNITIVE LIBERTY ISSUES<br />
<br />
Pharmacotherapy (Neurocops)<br />
<br />
Freedom of Speech & Thought<br />
<br />
Judges Against the Drug War<br />
<br />
Brain Fingerprinting<br />
<br />
Salvia Divinorum Action Center<br />
<br />
Hypersonic Sound<br />
<br />
Memory Management<br />
<br />
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation <br />
<br />
Neuroethics & Neuropolicy<br />
<br />
Neuromarketing<br />
<br />
Neurotheology<br />
<br />
William James Project<br />
<br />
Ask Dr. Shulgin<br />
<br />
Control Technology<br />
<br />
Cognitive Liberty Curriculum<br />
<br />
Psychotropic Weapons<br />
<br />
Brain-Computer Interfacing (BCI)<br />
<br />
Internal Auditory Integrity<br />
<br />
Parental Choice & Coercive Officials (Ritalin)<br />
<br />
>> Site Map & Search<br />
<br />
<p>---<br>Nothing in this World makes People so Afraid as the Influence of an Independant Minded Individual.<br />
Attrib. Al Einstien