Herald Column: Time to Rethink Our Drug Laws

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at recent comments from BC's chief medical officer about the drug ecstasy specifically and our drug laws generally:

Given the recent spate of deaths in Calgary linked to tainted ecstasy, there’s a surprising dearth of voices here calling for smarter drug policy.
Instead, what we continue to hear from politicians and police is the same old circle of empty logic: ecstasy is bad because it’s illegal and it’s illegal because it’s bad. It’s a position which, among other things, is immune to evidence about harm and more specifically, harm reduction.
There’s clearly a difference between pure MDMA, the chemical typically known as ecstasy, and the drug sold on the streets billed as ecstasy, which can contain little or no MDMA. The overdose deaths in Calgary and elsewhere in Alberta have been linked to the chemical PMMA.
Rather than the law addressing these problems, it’s increasingly clear that the law is exacerbating them.
With no one in a position of power in Alberta willing to point all of this out, we must instead look for insight to our neighbours to the west.
B.C.’s chief medical officer last week sparked controversy by pointing out some rather self-evident truths about the drug ecstasy. The reaction to Dr. Perry Kendall’s remarks suggests we have a long way to go in rethinking drug policy in this country.
Kendall noted that the perceived dangers of MDMA are overblown, and that the real dangers are posed by the various chemicals being added by those selling the drug on the streets. He also noted that in its pure form and in small doses, MDMA is actually relatively safe.
Kendall seemed to stop short of an outright call for legalization, but pointed out that the risks of MDMA could be mitigated if the drug were legalized and regulated.
It’s hard to see what’s controversial about any of this, except for the fact that it goes against the prohibitionist mentality which remains so pervasive in this country.
Kendall would certainly seem to have the evidence on his side.
A study published last year in the journal Addiction found that the use of MDMA did not impair cognitive function. A 2007 study in the journal Psychopharmacology found much the same thing. Researchers studied the impact of low doses of MDMA and found no significant effect on memory or attention.
Perhaps of more significance is how MDMA compares to other drugs. Not all drugs are illegal, of course. Alcohol and tobacco (nicotine) are both legal despite the addictive nature of these drugs and the risks involved in consumption.
A 2010 study published in the medical journal The Lancet studied 20 different drugs and ranked them based on a combined score of harm to the user and harm to society. Alcohol ranked No. 1. MDMA was ranked 17th.
Additionally, a 2004 study published in the journal Addiction found that MDMA has a better safety ratio than alcohol.
Yet, under our laws, it’s perfectly legal (and incredibly dangerous) to get wasted on a bottle of rum. Yet it’s illegal (and apparently not all that dangerous) to ingest a small amount of MDMA.
So when a spokesman for the Calgary Police Service declares that: “I’m not sure there’s such thing as safe MDMA,” he is offering a position which is clearly at odds with the available evidence and is illustrative of the hypocrisy inherent in our drug laws.
There is also the potential MDMA appears to have in treating, among other conditions, post-traumatic stress disorder. It’s certainly the case, too, that our laws, and the attitudes which create and sustain them, are complicating those lines of research.
None of this is to endorse or encourage the use of MDMA. That’s certainly not Kendall’s intent.
Rather, it’s the need to recognize what prohibition has wrought. As Kendall observes: I don’t think (prohibition) keeps drugs out of the hands of vulnerable people, and I don’t think it does much to reduce harmful use, and I think it has other harmful effects, like putting billions of dollars into the hands of criminal enterprises.”
He’s absolutely right. That’s the reality of what our drug laws have created, and given the resistance to a serious rethink, it’s going to be the prevailing status quo for the foreseeable future.

Anti-Gay Islamic Scholar Shouldn't be Welcome in Calgary

My Calgary Herald column from last week looks at the invitation extended to the controversial Dr. Bilal Philips from the Muslim Council of Calgary:

Alison Redford has already made history as Alberta’s first female premier, and later this week, she will make history once again.
On Saturday, Redford will become the first Alberta premier to appear at the Edmonton Gay Pride Parade. She is set to make the opening statements at the celebration directly following the parade.
Colleen Sutherland, co-chair of the Edmonton Pride Festival Society, describes Redford’s appearance as “quite significant.”
With regard to anti-gay comments by Wildrose Party candidate Allan Hunsperger, which surfaced during the recent provincial election, Sutherland says Redford’s appearance takes a stand against such sentiments.
Hunsperger, of course, wrote on his website about homosexuals spending eternity in a “lake of fire.”
Clearly, such views were highly disturbing to a great many Albertans, and no doubt badly damaged the prospects of the Wildrose Party.
As ugly as Hunsperger’s comments were, later this month a Calgary audience will hear from a man who believes homosexuality is worthy of the most severe of penalties: execution.
Dr. Bilal Philips is a Jamaican-born, Canadian-raised convert to Islam who now resides in Qatar. He is billed as a leading Islamic scholar, and is read and watched by Muslims around the world.
Philips is the main speaker at an event organized by the Muslim Council of Calgary called The Power of Unity Conference, which is billed as a “celebration of Islam in a Multi-Cultural Canada.”
For as much as eternal damnation for gays seems to be the extent of Hunsperger’s views, for Philips, that’s the least of it.
Philips describes homosexuality as “evil and dangerous,” and believes that AIDS represents divine punishment for gays.
But Philips is not content to leave the punishment of gays to the afterlife. He is firmly of the belief that the Qur’an mandates the death penalty for practising homosexuals (not lesbians, mind you — their punishment is “only” lashes).
It’s a belief that got Philips expelled from Germany last year, but the folks at the Muslim Council of Calgary have no such qualms.
This is no fringe organization, either. The council describes itself as the “main umbrella” and the “official representatives” of Sunni Muslims in Calgary.
That’s not to suggest that the council speaks for every single Muslim in the city; quite the opposite, I’m sure.
That was clear last September when Calgary’s first Muslim mayor, Naheed Nenshi, became the first mayor to lead the city’s annual gay pride parade.
No one for a moment would suggest that Nenshi is in anyway sympathetic to the views of Philips, so should he be expected to condemn Philips’ appearance in Calgary? I think it would send a strong message.
Keep in mind, though, that the mayor saw fit to speak out about Hunsperger’s views.
And what about the premier herself — the very same premier who will be taking a strong stand against homophobia this weekend?
Last year, when Philips spoke at a conference in Toronto, politicians of all stripes condemned his beliefs. In fact, the gay rights group EGALE and a Toronto MPP both filed complaints with police.
I wouldn’t advocate involving the police; Philips should have the right to be an Islamic extremist and a virulent bigot. However, I would hope to see a powerful condemnation of not only his views, but his very presence in our city.
By basing his views in religion, Philips — and those who embrace him as a figure of authority — sends the message that Muslims are intrinsically and fundamentally opposed to even tolerance for homosexuals, never mind equality.
It’s also worth noting that Philips is not the only speaker at this event who should concern us. Also on the agenda is Dr. Hatem Alhaj, who was recently dismissed from his job at the Mayo Clinic over his controversial support for female genital mutilation.
British MP George Galloway, a notorious apologist for the Syrian and Iranian regimes — as well as terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah — is slated to speak, too.
How tragically ironic that an event billed as a celebration of unity and multiculturalism would so brazenly demean and desecrate those very concepts.

Let's Not Follow Toronto's Lead on Plastic Bags

Following Toronto city council's rushed and ill-conceived ban on plastic bags, one Calgary Alderman is suggesting we go down the same path:

Ald. Gian-Carlo Carra said the bags “don’t have a place in the future of the planet and civilized society.”
“Let’s embrace the inevitability of the future and get rid of those things,” Carra said.

That's quite a statement, but it doesn't really offer anything useful. If we "get rid of these things", what will we use instead? Paper bags are actually worse for the environment in many ways, and reusable bags have their own problems.  
Moreover, it's unclear whether banning plastic bags will have any measureable impact on landfill use. Plastic bags typically make up less than one per cent of what ends up in landfills. so banning plastic bags is going to have a very small impact either way. In fact, in San Francisco, the percentage of plastic bags in the trash actually increased following that city's ban.
Plastic bags are, of course, recyclable (Toronto's recycling program includes plastic bags - although, Toronto's recycling program has other issues to deal with). Additionally, many people re-use the plastic bags they receive from retailers - as garbage bags or picking up after their dogs, for example. So if stores aren't giving out the plastic bags any more, people will just have to purchase plastic bags themselves.
Banning plastic bags might satisfy the inate desire many politicians have to "do something" about a perceived problem, but this is one "problem" we don't need the government to solve.