Harper Answers Prohibition Question on YouTube

Thousands of YouTube.com viewers posted their questions, and voted upon them, in anticipation of watching Canada’s Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, answer them last night on the popular video sharing site. But the popularity of one question far exceeded the rest. Here’s the question:

A majority of Canadians, when polled, say they believe alcohol should be illegal, just like marijuana. Why don’t you start a war on alcohol and focus on non-violent criminals?

Here is Harper’s answer:

Well, it’s a good question. I’m not sure I’ve seen this particular poll. There are different polls on this subject that show different things, but you know, I have two young children, I guess they’re now…Ben and Rachel are now getting pretty close to 14 and 11, but maybe they’re not that young, but they are at the age where, you know, they will increasingly come into contact with alcohol use, and I guess as a parent, you know, this is the thing I most want to see for my kids and everyone else’s children.

You know, I understand that people oppose the use of alcohol, but that said, I don’t think…I think I’ve been very fortunate to drink alcohol recreationally, and I don’t meet many people who’ve led an alcoholic life who regret it. Met a lot of people who haven’t, who’ve regretted it. So this is something that we want to encourage obviously for our children, for everybody’s children.

Now, I also want people to understand what we’re really talking about here when we’re talking about the alcohol trade. You know, when people say focus on non-violent crimes such as the drinking of alcohol, and yeah, you know, there’s lots of pastimes a lot less violent than, you know, that related to casual alcohol consumption, you know, with its wife beatings, bar room brawls, drunk driving fatalities et cetera. But when people are buying from the liquor trade, they are buying from their neighbour. They are not buying from international cartels that are involved in unimaginable violence and intimidation and social disaster and catastrophe all across the world. All across the world. You know, and I just wish people would understand that, and not just on alcohol. Even when people buy, you know, a legal carton of cigarettes and they pay tax, that they really understand the kind of quite legal and well-regulated businesses that they are supporting, and the good they do.

Now, you know, I know some people say if you just prohibited it, you know, you’d stop getting the tax money and all would be well. But I think that rests on the assumption that somehow alcohol is bad because it’s legal. It’s not that. The reason alcohol is legal is because it’s good. And even if it was prohibited, I can predict with a lot of confidence that it would remain a respectable business run by respectable people. Because the very nature of the dependency it creates, the damage it does, the social upheaval and catastrophe it creates, particularly in first world countries…I mean, you look now, you look at North America, some of the countries to the south of us, and the good the alcohol trade is doing, not just to people’s lives as alcohol users. Look at the violence it’s creating in neighbourhoods, the destruction of social systems, of families, of governmental institutions, the resulting increases to police force budgets. All of it, good, respectable stuff.

I mean, these are great, benevolent organizations, and while I know people, you know, have different views, I must admit myself sometimes I’m delighted by how much governments have been able to facilitate the alcohol trade internationally. But we should not fool ourselves into thinking that if we somehow started trying to prohibit it, it would suddenly turn into a mean, unwholesome industry. It will never be that. And I think we all need to understand that, and we all need to make sure our kids understand, not just that our kids…hopefully not just understand the good alcohol can do to them, but they understand as well the cool social disaster they are contributing to if they, through use of their money, fund organizations that produce and deliver alcohol. So drink up! Cheers Canada.

Well okay, that was not exactly the question put to him, and his answer was marginally different from that set out above (see below for the actual question and his actual response, which is no less idiotic or intellectually dishonest than the one above).

Alcohol is not legal because it is good, and marijuana is not illegal because it is bad (in fact, in case the PM had not noticed: marijuana is recognized, used, and prescribed by physicians as a legal medicine in Canada and in several U.S. states). The Prime Minister was either being dishonest about why recreational cannabis is illegal – too dishonest to govern – or he is unable to reason well enough to govern. Alcohol is not prohibited for the simple reason that: the purpose of government is to defend your freedom of choice, not to restrict it; to ensure that nobody takes your life, restricts your liberty or obtains any of your property without your consent. Its job is to protect you from those who would force/coerce you into drinking it, or who would use force/coercion to stop you from drinking it. Its job is not to engage in such force/coercion itself: that’s the job of an armed, violent, criminal gang.

In short: we, the voters, are adults, not children, and the Prime Minister and Queen are not our parents. They are our servants; our security guards. And just as you are free to drink gasoline (there’s no law against it), or sniff glue until you are brain dead (there’s no law against that either, as should be obvious if you have a look at the results of most elections), or eat so much sugar that you destroy your pancreas and become diabetic; and just as you are free to drink crystal clean water, or sniff roses, or eat balanced meals that prolong your life; it is morally right and politically right that you should be free – for the exact same reason – to grow, sell, gift, and consume cannabis…or not to do so. It’s your body, it’s your life, it’s your money, and – so long as your decision does not involve taking another individual’s life, liberty or property without his/her consent – it’s your choice.

Here is the actual question and Harper’s actual response (click here to see the video):

Question:

A majority of Canadians, when polled, say they believe marijuana should be legal for adults, just like alcohol. Why don’t you end the war on drugs and focus on violent criminals?

Here is what he actually said in response to the question…please, do compare the following answer with the one above re alcohol:

Well, it’s a good question. I’m not sure I’ve seen this particular poll. There are different polls on this subject that show different things, but you know, I have two young children, I guess they’re now…Ben and Rachel are now getting pretty close to 14 and 11, but maybe they’re not that young, but they are at the age where, you know, they will increasingly come into contact with drug use, and I guess as a parent, you know, this is the last thing I want to see for my kids or anyone else’s children.

You know, I understand that people defend the use of drugs, but that said, I don’t think…I think I’ve been very fortunate to live a drug-free life, and I don’t meet many people who’ve led a drug-free life who regret it. Met a lot of people who haven’t, who’ve regretted it. So this is something that we want to encourage obviously for our children, for everybody’s children.

Now, I also want people to understand what we’re really talking about here when we’re talking about the drug trade. You know, when people say focus on violent crime instead of drugs, and yeah, you know, there’s lots of crimes a lot worse than, you know, casual use of marijuana. But when people are buying from the drug trade, they are not buying from their neighbour. They are buying from international cartels that are involved in unimaginable violence and intimidation and social disaster and catastrophe all across the world. All across the world. You know, and I just wish people would understand that, and not just on drugs. Even when people buy, you know, an illegal carton of cigarettes and they avoid tax, that they really understand the kind of criminal networks that they are supporting, and the damage they do.

Now, you know, I know some people say if you just legalized it, you know, you’d get the money and all would be well. But I think that rests on the assumption that somehow drugs are bad because they’re illegal. The reason drugs…it’s not that. The reason drugs are illegal is because they are bad. And even if these things were legalized, I can predict with a lot of confidence that these would never be respectable businesses run by respectable people. Because the very nature of the dependency they create, the damage they create, the social upheaval and catastrophe they create, particularly in third world countries…I mean, you look now, you look at Latin America, some of the countries to the south of us, and the damage the drug trade is doing, not just to people’s lives as drug users. Look at the violence it’s creating in neighbourhoods, the destruction of social systems, of families, of governmental institutions, the corruption of police forces.

I mean, these are terrible, terrible organizations, and while I know people, you know, have different views, I must admit myself sometimes I’m frustrated by how little impact governments have been able to have on the drug trade internationally. But we should not fool ourselves into thinking that if we somehow stopped trying to deal with it, it would suddenly turn into a nice, wholesome industry. It will never be that. And I think we all need to understand that, and we all need to make sure our kids understand, not just that our kids…hopefully not just understand the damage drugs can do to them, but they understand as well the wider social disaster they are contributing to if they, through use of their money, fund organizations that produce and deliver elicit narcotics.

---

Addendum

It has been reported that Liberal opposition leader Michael Ignatieff this week told students in St. Johns, Newfoundland that “legalizing marijuana would create problems in dealings with the U.S. because the drug would remain illegal there” (note: that’s the reporter being quoted, not Ignatieff himself).

So, on at least that one issue, Ignatieff is at least being honest with people about why Canada continues to prohibit cannabis: it remains prohibited because those elected to defend our sovereignty – political party leaders in Ottawa – lack the gonadal fortitude to do something that the U.S.A. would not like. In short: they are in dereliction of duty with respect to defending Canada’s sovereignty. At that point, one must ask oneself:

“Well, if our elected officials in Canada are just rubber stamping U.S. demands, who needs them? Why not just be a 51st state and be done with it? Why give either of Harper or Ignatieff a salary for being nothing but secretaries to the U.S. government?”

(Not that I’m in favour of such a thing).