War on Drugs, The

• Viewpoints
• Get help in the Social Sciences Group

War on Drugs, The | Introduction

In 2001 an Ontario, Canada, court of appeals issued a ruling that stunned Canadians and Americans alike. The court ruled that Terry Parker, an epileptic, had the right to possess and smoke marijuana to ease the symptoms caused by his disease. The court ordered Canada’s Parliament to rewrite its drug laws within twelve months to permit the use of marijuana. The following year, the Canadian government issued its Medical Marijuana Access Regulations (MMAR), which permitted doctors to issue certificates authorizing their patients’ use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

Two Canadian judges found problems with Canada’s drug laws even after the MMAR guidelines were released, however. In January 2003, a judge in Windsor, Ontario, ruled that Canada now had essentially no laws prohibiting the possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use since Parliament had not rewritten Canada’s marijuana laws concerning recreational drug use as directed by the court of appeals. A week later, a superior court judge ruled that the regulations concerning medical marijuana were unconstitutional because the government did not provide a source for patients to get the drug. Ontario superior court justice Sidney Lederman wrote,

It’s not fair to allow people to smoke medicinal marijuana, then force them to get the drug from the corner drug dealer, which is what the scheme effectively does. Laws which put seriously ill, vulnerable people in a position where they have to deal with the criminal underworld to obtain medicine they have been authorized to take violate the constitutional right to security of the person.

In response to these two rulings, Health Canada implemented an application process for patients to grow their own supply of marijuana. In addition, the Cannabis Reform Bill was introduced into the House of Commons in May 2003. Under the proposed bill, possession of small amounts of marijuana would be decriminalized, with the penalty equivalent to a traffic ticket. Possession of more than thirty grams of marijuana and trafficking in or production of the drug would remain illegal, punishable by fines and incarceration. Parliament is expected to vote on the bill in the fall of 2003.

The Bush administration is sharply critical of Canada’s efforts to decriminalize marijuana. John Walters, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), fears that Canada’s liberalized drug laws will lead to that country becoming a major supplier of America’s marijuana, which will undermine U.S. efforts to clamp down on illegal drug use. He contends that the United States already has a problem with marijuana being smuggled into the United States from Canada. He argues, “Right now we’re being inundated with high-potency marijuana. When it’s more available, when there’s less social pressure not to use it, you get more use and in this case with these substances it produces more dependence.” Walters warns that decriminalizing marijuana will lead to increased drug abuse, and he asserts that marijuana “is the single biggest drug of addiction that we have to provide treatment resources for. It’s 60 percent of the problem. It’s twice as important as cocaine. Americans don’t appreciate this enough and I fear Canadians don’t either.”

Furthermore, Walters warns that decriminalizing marijuana in Canada could lead to various problems at the border. If marijuana is made more readily available in Canada, he reasons, there will be more attempts to smuggle the drug across the border into the United States. In consequence, he asserts, U.S. Customs officials will have to step up inspections at U.S.-Canadian border crossings, resulting in longer waits to enter the country. After hearing that a parliamentary committee recommended decriminalizing marijuana, Walters told reporters,

It’s not my job to judge Canadian policy. But it is my job to protect Americans from dangerous threats, and right now Canada is a dangerous staging area for some of the most potent and dangerous marijuana at a time when marijuana is the single biggest source of dependency-production in the United States. That’s a problem. We have to make security at the border tougher because this is a dangerous threat to our young people and it makes the problem of patrolling the border more difficult.

Another problem is that as the United States increases border inspections to prevent drug smuggling, export shipments will likely be held up at the border, which will have a negative impact on trade and Canada’s economy.

Most Canadians and U.S. supporters of relaxed drug laws scoff at claims that a liberalization of Canada’s drug laws will result in increased drug activity in the United States and border problems. They point out that twelve U.S. states have drug laws that are as liberal as Canada’s proposed marijuana law and neighboring states do not report increased drug use or border problems.

Keith Martin, a member of Parliament, argues that the American government should follow Canada’s lead and soften its laws against drug use. He asserts that America’s harsh drug laws do not reduce drug use. “The United States has the highest use of marijuana in the world with the most punitive drug laws,” he points out. “That should tell them something. We know the status quo is a failure. The war on drugs has been a failure.”

Martin and others believe that current Canadian laws that call for stiff jail sentences for possessing small amounts of marijuana for personal use are too draconian for such minor offenses. These harsh drug laws ruin the lives of thousands of young Canadians who are otherwise law-abiding citizens, they assert. Each year, about twenty thousand Canadians are prosecuted on marijuana possession charges. Under the proposed decriminalization law, most of those possession charges would be replaced with a fine equivalent to seventy-five U.S. dollars. Allan Rock, Canada’s former health minister, asks, “Why clog the criminal courts with kids fourteen or fifteen who might have been experimenting with a single stick of marijuana and who could face a lifelong disadvantage with a criminal record? Isn’t there a better way?” They contend that the resources of the criminal justice system should be focused on prosecuting more serious crimes.

Moreover, Canadians and drug war opponents argue that Canadian marijuana is not a major source of marijuana imported into the United States. U.S. customs records show that in 2002, slightly more than twenty thousand pounds of marijuana were seized at checkpoints along the U.S.-Canada border. In contrast, customs officials seized more than 1.2 million pounds of marijuana along the U.S.-Mexico border. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police estimate that the total amount of marijuana produced in Canada is about eight hundred tons. A 2003 report by the National Drug Intelligence Center states that the total supply of marijuana in the United States is between ten thousand and twenty-four thousand tons. Dan Gardner, a reporter for the Edmonton Journal, concludes, “Assuming Canada’s annual pot crop really is 800 tons, it would make little difference to the U.S. supply even if every bud, leaf, and stem of Canadian pot were smuggled south.”

The controversy over Canada’s proposal to decriminalize marijuana illustrates the main arguments over the war on drugs. On the one hand are supporters of the drug war who contend that harsh drug laws are necessary to protect citizens from the dangers of drug abuse. On the other hand, opponents of the drug war claim that harsh drug laws are inhumane and the consequences of the laws outweigh any benefits they might provide. These arguments are among the issues debated in The War on Drugs: Opposing Viewpoints, which contains the following chapters: Is the War on Drugs Succeeding? Is There a Link Between the War on Drugs and Terrorism? Which Policies Are Working in the War on Drugs? Should Illegal Drugs Be Legalized? The authors in this anthology present a wide range of opinions on the many controversies surrounding the war on drugs.

Navigate

1. Introduction
2. Chapter 1: Is the War on Drugs Succeeding?
   1. Chapter 1 Preface
   2. The War on Drugs Is Succeeding
   3. The War on Drugs Has Failed
   4. The War on Drugs Has Reduced the Demand for Illegal Drugs
   5. The Demand for Illegal Drugs Remains Strong
   6. The War on Drugs Has Made Law Enforcement More Effective
   7. The War on Drugs Has Corrupted Law Enforcement
   8. The War on Drugs Promotes Racism
   9. The War on Drugs Does Not Promote Racism
   10. Chapter 1 Periodical Bibliography
3. Chapter 2: Is There a Link Between the War on Drugs and Terrorism?
   1. Chapter 2 Preface
   2. Illegal Drug Use Supports Terrorism
   3. The War on Drugs Supports Terrorism
   4. The War on Terror Must Be Fought in Conjunction with the War on Drugs
   5. The War on Drugs Distracts from the War on Terror
   6. Chapter 2 Periodical Bibliography
4. Chapter 3: Which Policies Are Working in the War on Drugs?
   1. Chapter 3 Preface
   2. Mandatory Minimum Sentences Are an Effective Strategy in the War on Drugs
   3. Mandatory Minimum Sentences Are Unfair
   4. The Drug Abuse Resistance Education Program Reduces Drug Use
   5. The Drug Abuse Resistance Education Program Is Ineffective
   6. Drug Courts Are a Promising Solution to the Drug Problem
   7. Drug Courts Have Not Reduced the Drug Problem
   8. Chapter 3 Periodical Bibliography
5. Chapter 4: Should Illegal Drugs Be Legalized?
   1. Chapter 4 Preface
   2. Illegal Drugs Should Be Legalized
   3. Illegal Drugs Should Not Be Legalized
   4. The Distinction Between Legal and Illegal Drugs Is Arbitrary
   5. Heroin Should Be Legalized
   6. Legalizing Heroin Will Harm the Poor
   7. Marijuana Should Be Legalized
   8. Legalizing Marijuana Would Harm Society
   9. Marijuana Should Be Legalized for Medical Use
   10. Marijuana Should Not Be Legalized for Medical Use
   11. Chapter 4 Periodical Bibliography
6. For Further Discussion
7. Organizations to Contact
8. Bibliography
9. Copyright

Tell a friend about War on Drugs, The at eNotes.