letterstoeditor@hfxnews.southam.ca

By Nancy Radcliffe

(Ed. note: This is probably the sort of argument that will ultimately bring the end of prohibition. Frankly, I do not like utilitarian arguments, but doing the right thing for the wrong reason is better than doing the wrong thing for any reason. A failed policy is inherently immoral.)

LEGALIZE DRUGS, ALL OF THEM

It’s The Only Way We’re Going To Win The War

As I listened to the witness describe how the stabbing victim staggered from the store, I glanced down at the sidewalk and discovered I was standing on droplets of his blood. When I looked up again, my eyes met the pained expression of the victim’s teenage son. His father - Dartmouth shopkeeper Albert Nasrallah - was murdered just minutes before.

It was shortly after 3 p.m. on June 9, 1997. Myles Layton Smith, 26, was arrested the next day, shortly after police discovered the body of his girlfriend, 27-year-old Deanna Clayton. The self-described "chronic crack-cocaine user," will face two second-degree murder and two robbery charges this fall.

Nasrallah’s murder was my first up-close look at violent, drug-related crime. The memory was prompted by a recent letter to The Daily News from Layton Dean, who wants to see marijuana legalized.

Those who say alcohol is OK, but marijuana is not, haven’t had the privilege of knowing an alcoholic. And if you argue two wrongs don’t make a right, then you’re saying alcohol is wrong. Why then isn’t it outlawed? Because prohibition creates uncontrollable criminal activity. It’s better to control the substance, and put the money in the public coffers, than to fight an unwinnable battle.

Applying the same philosophy to cannabis may be logical and less hypocritical, but it won’t do much to eliminate violent drug-related crimes, because these come from more addictive substances like crack cocaine.

Although Dean’s letter planted the seed for this column, I’d like to take his concept one huge leap forward - let’s legalize all drugs. Marijuana could be available in liquor stores, while hard drugs could be obtained through clinics.

The former becomes a money-maker like beer, wine and liquor, while the latter would require some public funding.

Would we resent handing over money to the dregs of society so they can feed their repugnant habit? Darned right we would. But let’s not be naive: we’re already paying with our lives, our belongings and our taxes.

Taking control of drugs would be a rather unpleasant task, with a mountain of logistical problems, but it would be a far sight cheaper than the current Band Aid solution - policing, prosecuting and imprisoning.

It would also strike a lethal blow to the drug industry’s most vital organ - money. And more importantly, fewer reporters and police would have to look into the grief-stricken eyes of the wives and children of the victims.