ABSTRACT: Marie Andrée Bertrand was a member of the Drugs Commission of the Canadian Government for four years. She dissociated herself from the Commission because she did not agree with the conclusions reached. She has advocated the legalization of marijuana and the controlled distribution of heroin since 1973.

(The Party New, n.2, July 1991)

In 1973, I presented a minority report to the Canadian government calling for the legalization of marijuana and the controlled distribution of heroin. My reasons were the following:

1. Making possession of drugs a crime does not dissuade people from taking them;

2. Punishing "crimes" without a victim serves no purpose and involves legal proceedings that constitute a violation of human rights.

3.The negative effects of prohibition from a social, moral and economic point of view are considerable. States fritter away public funds and damage their reputations by enforcing it, which is a high price to pay for the negligible positive effects (if any) achieved by the law;

4.It is the function of criminal law to remind citizens of the most important values in our society. It is rendered less credible by the random inclusion in the same law of drugs whose harmful effects vary greatly and a wide range of offences. In fact, the drug laws in many countries severely punish criminal offences which are not really serious and inflict equally heavy sentences for the sale and possession of drugs whether the toxic effects are relatively low or extremely high. Besides this, the various countries use their right to safeguard the health of their citizens to justify the creation of laws banning certain drugs but, at the same time, receive considerable income from the sale of other harmful drugs, such as tobacco and alcohol;

5.Prohibition creates an ever-widening black market for drugs, and fosters the criminal activities deriving from it.

6.The crime of possession or use of drugs authorizes some ècountries to subject the guilty party to enforced treatment which is not only a further violation of human rights but, above all, demonstrates both the ignorance and hypocrisy of the country in question -- enforced treatment, in fact, has never succeeded in curing drug treatment.

All these arguments in favour of abolishing the present drug laws are still valid and have, in fact, been more than confirmed in recent years. If we take another look at these laws and their effects, we find that:

1.The drug laws have done nothing to convince people - except perhaps the odd individual - to stop taking drugs in the countries where they have been applied. On the contrary, the number of drug-users has increased and drug-trafficking has become highly sophisticated. The use of certain drugs popular in the 60s and 70s may have diminished, but this is because the drug-users themselves or public opinion - and not the laws - have made them unpopular by pointing out their harmful effects.

2. The law has, in fact, revealed itself as extremely prejudiced towards drug-users and drug-traffickers, first by punishing young people and non-conformist types in the 60s, then members of ethnic communities and, more recently, the poor, the unemployed and foreigners in a number of European countries.

3. The cost of enforcing the drug laws rises constantly, as they have necessitated the formation of special police departments and have overloaded the courts, drug assistance and rehabilitation centres.

4. The predicted epidemics have not, in fact, come about.

5.Banning drugs has, as we thought, increased sales on the black market and intensified international drug-trafficking. The police have lost the "war on drugs".è6.The enforced treatment and imprisonment of drug addicts has proved completely useless in ridding them of their habit.

Prohibition must be replaced by a system that will enable us to control the quality, supply and distribution of the banned drugs.

It is essential to pursue this objective with the transnational Radical Party, and this is why I have joined.