Occasionally I feel compelled to write to editorialists about their columns, and such a situation occurred recently. Paul Jackson of the Calgary Sun was bashing the federal Liberal government (an easy target), and doing just fine, right up until he started talking about the latest efforts to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana.

Apparently Prime Minister "Papa Jean" Chretien joked about maybe trying it himself once it was legal, over which the american Drug Czar predictably blew a gasket. Now, as stupid as antagonizing the Americans - Canada's largest trading partners - is, this is the one issue in the last ten years that the Liberals have gotten right. Well, not right, exactly, just less-wrong than before. But that's a story for another day.

There were two quotes in particular that prompted me to write. This was the first: "(The Americans) know from statistics, records and research the terrible harm and tragedies marijuana has wrought on their society. Marijuana isn't a safe drug -- repeated use causes severe psychological problems."

To which I replied:
Well sir, on this point you are off-base. No drug harms society: only the harmful actions of individual people harms society. The right to swing my fist ends at your nose; if I swing my fist and hit only myself, then I have done no harm to anyone but myself. And it is nobody's business but my own; it is certainly not the nanny-state's business.

Likewise, if I should take a drug (be it alcohol, marijuana, tobacco, caffeine, aspirin, whatever), then the only harm I cause is to myself.

Suppose for a moment that I take one of the above-mentioned drugs and cause "psychological damage" to myself. Whom have I harmed? Certainly not you nor anyone else.

If however, I should harm another person through the use of one of these drugs (say getting behind the wheel while drunk and causing an accident, or robbing someone to support some other drug addiction), then is the drug at fault? Is the drug responsible?

No. Only _I_ would be responsibile for such harmful actions. And it is for those harmful actions that I should be held liable.

The second quote: "Repeated use also leads its addicts to move on to even more dangerous drugs such as hashish, cocaine and heroin."

I replied:
What of it? Again, if I should take any of these drugs, the only harm I cause is to myself, and that is nobody's business but my own.

(Incidentally, hashish and marijuana are the same drug, tetrahydrocannabinol. Hashish is simply a more concentrated form of the drug.)

However, if I should harm another person, robbing or murdering them in my pursuit of those drugs, then I should be prosecuted for that robbery or murder.

If I should cause harm to another person in this way, then my "reasons" (excuses?) for committing the robbery or murder are irrelevant. The reasons would certainly not matter one whit to the victim of such actions.

What it boils down to is personal responsibility for one's own actions. As long as my actions harm nobody but myself, then my actions are nobody's business but my own.

By buying into the idea that a drug (rather than the person involved) is responsible for that person's actions, one abdicates personal responsibility for one's own actions. And, one excuses other's for their actions, as "the drugs made them do it".

As an example (with a much harsher drug than marijuana), let's look at Trevor Stang. Did crack cocaine bludgeon Tara McDonald to death? No, Trevor Stang did. Trevor Stang could smoke crack cocaine until he was (literally) blue in the face, and it would be nobody's business but his own. He would be harming nobody but himself. However, by killing Tara McDonald, he made it society's business.

I doubt Tara McDonald gave a damn what reasons Trevor Stang had for hitting her with a hammer. I doubt Tara's mother gives a damn what caused him to do it; his excuses are irrelevant. Only his actions counted.
----------------------------------------


Anyhow, Paul Jackson wrote me back, thanking me for reading his column and saying that I had a good point about personal responsibility, and that he was merely taking a jab at the Cretien government.

And of course I just couldn't keep my big mouth shut. So, I wrote this:



----------------------------------------

Hello Mr Jackson,

Thank you for taking time out of what must be a busy schedule to respond to my email.

I can appreciate the desire to take a swing at, and hit, the Chretien government at every opportunity. The topic is a ready source of editorial material, it directly affects the readers, and most importantly it sells newspapers and brings in advertisers.

My concern is not really about marijuana at all. My concern is the abdication of personal responsibility to the nanny-state.

This goes far beyond the issue of marijuana. I think it is the core problem which plagues this country.

Why do we have deductions for "employment insurance" from our paychecks? Because we have abdicated the responsibility to ourselves of saving for a rainy day to the federal government.

Why is the Canadian Health system in such a mess? Here, we have abdicated the responsibility to take care of our own health (and health insurance) to not one but two levels of government, federal and provincial.

How about this new trend in Canadian politics, lawmaking by the judiciary? Here, Parlaiment itself has abdicated the responsibility for writing laws, to another branch of the nanny state!

How about the scandals which have plauged each federal government (including, unfortunately, the Mulroney Tories) for the last 35 years, culminating in the current farce?

Cabinet Ministers used to be responsible for everything which occurred in their departments.

Now, with no accountability for one's own actions, anything goes: from wasting a billion dollars on a human-resources project that does not create one single private-sector job, to squandering millions of taxpayer dollars on dubious advertising contracts, to forcing one's appointees to authorize loans to the buyer of one's property.

What have been the consequences for Jane Stewart, Alfonso Gagliano, and Jean Chretien? Nothing, an ambassadorship, and nothing.

Why? Because nobody is held accountable for their own actions.

Why does the Canada Pension Plan exist? Because Canadians have abdicated the responsibility of planning for their own retirement to the Federal Government.

Why is it doomed to fail? Because it is a Ponzi scheme, which will collapse when half the baby-boomers have retired, in 2016.

The problem with this abdication of responsibility, is that there are _always_ consequences for one's own actions.

On the day the CPP goes bust, and seniors don't receive their pensions, those consequences will be dire. In the Liberal's shoes, I would want to know the personal information of every gun-owner in the country, too.

We have ignored this problem in Canada for far too long. I have only scratched the surface of the implications here.

Ed Minchau