Friday, October 5, 2007

Reefer Madness, Stephen Harper Style

Pay for it yourself is one of the tenets of my philosophy, and so I am not a supporter of free drugs for addicts at "safe-injection" sites paid for with taxpayer loot. But neither do I appreciate the Federal Conservative government's plan to spend $64 million over the next two years to treat and enforce "unspecified" drug crimes.

Two-thirds of that money will go to prevention and treatment programs and the rest will be used to beef up enforcement, including the introduction of new mandatory minimum sentences for an unspecified slate of drug crimes.

The Conservatives say they will create an awareness campaign targeted at young people and their parents, fund new treatment services and launch a national youth intervention program to divert young drug users into assessment and treatment programs instead of detention.

On the enforcement side, they plan to direct resources at identifying and closing down grow-ops, pay for more enforcement measures at the border and ramp up the RCMP's Proceeds of Crime Program.
Quite simply put, it's none of the government's business whether a peace (law?) abiding individual consumes transfats, smokes some weed, smokes a pack of cigarettes in a night or drinks some wine, so long as they are minding their own business at their own expense. But of course, the government is in the business of minding your business for you, and accordingly, it's ultimately not up to you how your time and money is spent. Your earnings are the proceeds of tomorrow's enforcement crew.

Lorne Gunter points to other flaws in the Tory proposal:
There is every indication that the Tories' plan will lead to an obsession with arresting individual users, and rely too heavily on persuading addicts to kick their habit. In other words, it will focus on winning the war on drugs by attacking the demand side. Reduce the number of users, the theory goes, and the drug kingpins, smugglers and pushers will have no one to sell to. The drug trade will become unprofitable and they will quit it.

Such an approach is destined to fail.

[..] While U.S. drug enforcement efforts initially concentrated on large-scale producers and dealers, police forces soon found it easier to generate impressive arrest statistics by rounding up casual users and individual addicts, which has done little to curb demand or quell violence.
cp: The Broom


Ian Scott said...

Well, it is a fairly typical "conservative" policy. Is anyone really surprised?

It's one of the reasons why it surprises me from time to time to come across so called "libertarians" that vote for conservative parties based upon illusions that they are more open to "free markets."

Indeed, nothing could be further from the truth.

Hey - does the Freedom Party have any official stance or policy with regard to Provincial (government) granted corporate licensing?

Or are they just as confused about free markets and government issued corporate licenses as the so called "right wingers" and "conservatives" are?

Yes, out of curiousity, do the Freedom Party have any official policy on eliminating Provincial Corporate grants, which recognize corporations as entities and bestow more "positive rights" on such entitities than any individual can hope for as far as recognition of "negative rights?"

Mike? If you're reading this? Maybe you'd know?

If they truly believe in "free markets" including elimination of regulation of individuals, I'd think they'd have a policy that includes elimination of Provincial Corporations.

Regardless of McKeevor's odd and weird statements about invading other nations, does he have official views on Provincially mandated "authority" including the elimination of positive right and inequal corporations?

Principle and all that. You know?

Isn't McKeevor a lawyer? Has he accepted forced and legislated membership into the Upper Canada Law Society?

Or. is it "ok" at times.. to you know.. modify your principles?

But yeah - ain't those conservatives a bunch of dicks with regard to this drug policy they are pushing?

Almost makes some libertarians, I bet, wish they never actually "participated" and voted for them just for the sake of trying to get rid of some other idiots and assholes that would have had other policies, different only in degree.

Ian Scott said...

Oh, a clarification.. when I wrote "Provincial Corporate grants," I was not referring to government granted money - rather, the idea that a government had some power to recognize and "grant" a corporate license.

gm said...

"Provincial Corporate grants" that is a fringe issue. Tilting at windmills. The reform of 60% of the provincial budget is the priority not down the road policy.

Lisa said...


You are free to comment here as you please, but I don't understand why you keep bringing up the Freedom Party in posts completely unrelated to the subject.

Ian Scott said...

Merely to point out that in regard to issues of consentual behaviour, all political stripes differ only degree, Lisa.

Although this post focuses on a "Tory" policy in regard to drugs, what it amounts to ultimately is the State regulating consentual behaviour in some form or other. The NDP - The Liberals, The Ontario PC's - Christian Heritage.. and yes, even The Freedom Party will in some form or other, regulate consentual behaviour.

It's just not the nature of the Tories, but the nature of government in general.

The promotional stuff for McKeevor here on the side column of the blog motivated me to point that out especially reading this in the post:

"But of course, the government is in the business of minding your business for you, and accordingly, it's ultimately not up to you how your time and money is spent."

- which I think is very true and of course am in 100 percent agreement with you.

Anonymous said...

Harper couldn't have come up with a more stupid, fascist, government-growing policy. But it is quite rational. Now that he worships power more than freedom and personal responsibility, it is absolutely vital that he cultivate an entitlement group of his own. Liberals and NDP cultivate the drug addicts and the touchy-feely crowd of drug promoters such as the people who who want to give drugs, paraphernalia and safe-houses to addicts. Harper's new friends are the cops, prison guards, etc. who go around smashing down drug-dealers' doors. The worst thing of all is that Canadians will get both idiotic, fascist/socialist nightmares. The city governments and at least 1/2 of the provincial governments will be leftie, pro-proverty and pro-addict loons. The feds, no matter who is in charge, will tend to the side of buying votes in the police/military complex. And of course the feds will help stoke the fire by giving billions in transfer payments to the provinces and cities so that they can promote drug use, graffiti, etc. and ruin their cities - otherwise no one would clamour for the services of the law-and-order cowboys.

It's the perfect tag-team approach to stealing the money and freedom of every peaceful, law abiding citizen and transfering money and power to the lazy, crooked and violent.

Ian Scott said...


"Now that he worships power more than freedom and personal responsibility, it is absolutely vital that he cultivate an entitlement group of his own."

Agreed. 100%.

And Lisa wrote,

"But of course, the government is in the business of minding your business for you, and accordingly, it's ultimately not up to you how your time and money is spent."

Agreed. 100%.

I'm an anarchist. All political parties, being the very basis of political power, find ways to worship power and cultivate entitlement.

It doesn't matter how much "freedom" they promise - they will need to cultivate entitlement in order to remain in power in our democracy.

And when you have one politician who claims to be on the side of individuality, but then goes on to make comments about invading other nations, you get the idea just how much his principles actually are, in regard to individual freedom.

Going to war against others that just for the sake of changing their system requires power over individuals that you have been elected by in order to have resources available to even attempt to affect that change in other political jurisdictions through the use of force.

It might even require a draft in order to "win."

And drafts are... not consentual.