Supply & Demand - DRUG POLICY - CLIMATE CHANGE

When setting about the task of developing government policy Supply and Demand plays a role. The law of "Supply and Demand" is in no way an economic theory; the affects of Supply and Demand are as profound and real as gravity. It is a simple reality that the more people value something, the more they will pay for it and if the supply of that valued item increases, the price falls. This was true in Soviet Russia, this was true before the first clay tablets were used as currency in Mesopotamia.

CLICK HERE FOR MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE

Supply and Demand dictate that the better police do their job with the war on drugs, the worse the problem gets. When the police constrain the supply of drugs, the price goes up, and people are often addicted to drugs so their demand for drugs is “inelastic”, they have to have them – so they pay more. As the product becomes more valuable, the greater lengths drug pushers will go to provide them, so violence grows. Further, as drugs become more valuable drug pushers look for new ways to get drugs to markets in the more difficult environment police have created for the drug pushers to operate – so now highly potent drugs that are easier to smuggle become required – now the Fentanyl crisis is born. This is just reality, a reality we have to accept – and then build a policy that addresses this reality. We have watched this reality be ignored and we have watched too many of our young people affected by the ravages of drug abuse.

Supply and Demand play a role in climate policy. The carbon tax as a deterrent to fossil fuel use fails to work. There are years of price sensitivity analysis from all the oil majors that support this statement. The reason, the demand for fossil fuels is inelastic – inelastic because there are presently no viable substitutes for fossil fuels, and there is nothing on the horizon to offer a viable alternative. This is supported by more or less consistent oil consumption over any given time frame, regardless of price fluctuation.

Supply and Demand play a role in supply management, a process whereby government regulation restricts the volume of a given commodity’s production to elevate price. This causes the affected products’ to increase in price and the consumer pays more.

CLICK HERE FOR NEW BC LIBERAL LEADER'S PLATFORM

Too often policymakers choose for political reasons to ignore this reality. Ignoring this reality in drug policy has resulted in an escalation in violence, an escalation in the amount and types of street drugs used and to a degree, the Fentanyl crisis. By ignoring the realities of Supply and Demand in climate policy a massive distortion in the public perception of the challenge has given rise to carbon policy that effects regional disadvantage, offers no value in a transition away from damaging carbon emissions, no avenue to developing the safe use of fossil fuels or no reduction in carbon emissions.  Ignoring this reality in food policy means a Canadian family pays an estimated $275 more per year for dairy products than they would otherwise, a single parent or the most affluent among us.  No amount of political spin will change these cold mechanics, they are as elemental as gravity or any other force of nature.

Oilsands Moratorium - NOW - Why

Carbon Tax V Cap & Trade

Drug Policy that works

Law, Legislation and Liberty Policy Creation – Correct Perspective - Morality

Law, Legislation and Liberty Policy Creation – Correct Perspective - Morality

If you begin the process of making policy with a skewed perspective, the policy will be skewed. If you begin policy making from the perspective of what should be, rather than what is, you will get a skewed policy. Religious morality is founded on the assertions of people in the context of their metaphysical contemplations rather than fact, whether they believe in God or Christ, Mahmoud, polytheist or some variation on a given theme. The challenge with the irrationality of religion being mixed with policy is that people are busy effecting control over the populous rather than managing societal outcomes.  Religious morality came into being to manage human interface in a beneficial manner, morality is in no way created to stop the behaviour, but rather to effect societal outcomes – as a person subjecting themselves to theocratic rigour one has the right to ignore outcome, one involved in the governance process must hold outcome as paramount.    

To assert religious belief as irrational is accurate, in that, the notion of faith absent tangible proof is irrational as a result of the assertion being unsubstantiated. This is, in no way an affirmation of atheism, but rather, a criticism of the misapplication of religious morality in governance which results in outcomes that contradict the basic premises of the Christian faith (in the Canadian context) and conflict with the enlightenment / secular ideals as they are want to find expression in a free and democratic society. There needs to be a detachment from religious belief in the policy creation process to ensure rational policy that meets the requirements of society at large.

As an aside, a comment on the Christian moral perspective. Metaphysical contemplation has inherent the reality that it must start where human knowledge ends, the Christian moral perspective evolves from the views and general understanding of people who, in many cases, lived in excess of 2000 thousand years ago. The assumption that order is preexisting, as opposed to realizing the universe is in a state of flux, assumes that all creatures and things were the product of a single Genesis and are fixed when the world indicates differently. Assuming a fixed point of origin provides a reference point, but creates a distortion in perception, as the “fixed point of origin” occurred in a state of flux. The beginning and the end are unknown and unknowable, and are the place of metaphysical contemplation; assumptions that distort this reality serve to confound thought, distort progress and generally limit humanity. The ardent adherence to orthodoxy ofttimes generates an immoral circumstance; one would think that in our modern society “orthodoxy” as it relates to any religion & government policy would have folded, it does linger, however, so we have to work to ensure that the negative outcomes generated by orthodoxy get remedied and the positive preserved.

Moral Relativism is a term normally murmured as a pejorative; I, on the other hand, see moral relativism as a philosophy that permits “traditional believes” to provide direction while allowing people’s conduct to evolve with advancements in knowledge and technology. When one permits the “reexamination” of moral tenets, an examination undertaken with the desired outcomes of the “founders” of a given m oral complex in mind – one can begin to expand the human endeavour and achieve the worthwhile “societal” outcomes we all desire. One is also permitted to examine an issue absent prejudice, to really examine an issue from a place of reason. Many of (y)our most vexing challenges – even in modern Canada – paths to a solution are blocked by the inappropriate adherence to “outmoded” moral perspectives. Rather than taking a public health perspective, a populist perspective or just the most efficient solution perspective, we are locked in a repeat of bad policy the attempts to adhere to a single moral perspective with outcomes that marginalize and effect grossly immoral outcomes on our most vulnerable.

If it is your goal, as it is mine, to have whole and well-adjusted family units – which is the underlying desire of much of the religion-based moral complex, then build a policy that addresses that goal – rather than directing resources to block “vice” for example. Prostitution will occur, it is contrary to the aforementioned goal, however, by directing resources to stop it you starve the governance energy to support a family or what some may term as the more “wholesome” aspects of life. It is necessary at times to “ignore” behaviour to address the root causes of the behaviour you're want to correct or redirect. The public health perspective on prostitution brings people in the “trade” into the ambit of health professionals, people who can offer a way to a different life should a different life be desired. In the process of “fighting” vice, we marginalize and alienate people drawn to the “trade”, oft times by unfortunate circumstances. There is a paradox that exists in developing policy – the ardent adherence to moral orthodoxy often leads to a damaging outcome. It is the ardent adherence to the institutionalized Christian moral perspective with respect to the altered state that has us “warring” against our own people in the realm of drug policy; even when it was our very drug policy that has imposed illness on a given individual.  

The correct basis in thought for good policy has firstly, the desire to find the best overall outcome founded on science and fact, and secondly, the willingness to expose policy execution to honest, rigorous post-application assessment. Only by establishing indicators, benchmarks and milestones based on a clear set of metrics can we ensure the policy is doing what it is intended to do.          

Morality is far too idiosyncratic for government to manage; morality belongs squarely in civil society. Any given person’s moral perspective evolves, most often absent conscious thought, from their family and their family’s religious practice or the absence of religious practice.  So you may disagree with a person’s actions, fear for their sole – so speak to that person; you may enlighten them to another perspective. I should emphasize that this commentary is in no way an attack on any given religious perspective. The challenge arises when institutional credibility rides on dogma challenged by substantiated fact and government authority is appropriated to further dogma. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, all we need for a reason to prevail is to accept another’s truth to be as valid as our own. It is critical, however, that government policy generates neutrality in the public square. A child should be the able to start down any street with a given moral perspective and level of awareness and emerge out the other end unchanged, save a parent’s chosen direction.      

Law, Legislation and Liberty - Free Heroine - Drug Policy

This was sent to the Conservative Party in response to a bulletin circulated via email. I felt compelled to respond to some comments. Progressive Conservatism or Compassionate Conservatism or Middle of the Road Liberalism really is Canada's Political home - we are, in the main, an educated and open-minded lot.  

RE: Conservative Party Emailed Update: September 21, 2013 – Free Heroine

Let me premise comments by saying that I have supported your government, and specifically Steven Harper’s leadership, for some time. My support is born of the conservative planks of accountability, prudent fiscal conduct and greater provincial control. Some inroads have been made on these fronts, but more is left to do. May I say that abolishing mandatory gun registration was a most welcome event in Canada?

I am concerned, however, that a government that holds accountability as a paramount concern, has failed to examine the effects of past drug policy or is simply choosing to ignore the facts in an effort to through red meat at the base. This sort of inflammatory rhetoric in no way serves to inform the rational discourse on the subject, it serves to support old biases.

I want to end up in a place where drugs are no longer ravaging youth’s health and science, as opposed to emotion and unsubstantiated dogma determine action. The conventional approach to criminalization and punishment started some hundred years ago with what amounted to the “war on drugs” approach, there are more varieties of drugs used and a greater volume of drugs used today than 100 years ago – and the challenge is growing. WE HAVE FAILED – IT IS TIME TO REGROUP AND REDIRECT.

With respect to your comments peculiar to free heroine; addiction is a disease – it may be a disease that is a product of poor choices, but a disease nonetheless. It costs an addict approximately $200 / day to support their addiction, most steal to support themselves, and stolen goods when fenced to the market capture about 10% of the face value of goods – this translates into a $2000 / day in crime! Worse, the addiction drives extreme behaviour, as people become more desperate they tend to become more violent. The judicial processes have a difficult time managing the volume and we end up with a “revolving door” court system, where breaking & entering in effect becomes a misdemeanour. When you examine these realities rationally and set aside the desire to punish, the benefit of the provision of heroin to addicts to society becomes clear; a benefit because fewer people are subjected to violence, addicts come into the ambit of caregivers, police & courts are free to focus on reducing violent crime and it is just cheaper.  

Switzerland and other jurisdictions have enjoyed success with these sorts of programs. When an addict is brought into treatment, you have a marginalized, jobless – often criminal – human being with heroin addiction.  As time progresses, you have a non-criminal, healthier human being with heroin addiction. Now less marginalized and healthier, and because heroin when properly administered leaves people highly functional, you now have someone able to contribute to society and pay for their own supervised treatment. Perhaps now, with all the other social challenges in hand, they are better able to work their way out of addiction. The old methadone treatment programs or the really old cold turkey treatments have extremely high failure rates and are in some cases punishing in their execution.

It is safe to assume, that addicts represent the lion’s share of the revenue stream for the peddlers of heroin. The totality of our present approach constrains the supply of heroin – constrained supply always translates into the increased price for the product. Heroin is the ideal product, with highly inelastic demand, the dealers know this; they know the value of a customer. In a circumstance where heroin has a very high value, the incentive to garner users is very high; our present modality of approach is failing to recognize this fundamental economic reality and our young people are paying the price. With the government, “treating” heroin users, the income stream dries up for the dealers and with it the desire to sell heroin and to mutilate the lives of, what are most often, vulnerable young people.

It is tempting when seeing the brutality visited on the affected, to respond with brutality, or at least with brute force; we have to begin to work smart, to use what we know about the economy and apply science to that task, and paradoxically, to set “morality” to the side to get a moral outcome.

From a political perspective, your government needs to remember Canada is in the majority a “progressive” nation, stray too far away from companionate conservatism and you do so at your pearl. More effort on accountability, more effort on fiscal responsibility, more effort on constraining the growth of government and more work on reducing the red tape that makes government the world’s biggest transaction cost.  No little girl ever dreamed of being a heroin addict prostitute, no little boy ever dreamed of being a heroin addict thief – they've arrived there by a combination of circumstance and poor direction, no one ever chooses to ruin the life of friends and family and their own – compassion is warranted here and a new path is needed. This is a humanitarian concern, partisanism has no place here, what works has a place here -  let people work to find solutions, make policy AND TRACK THE RESULTS, government needs to manage based on solid data as opposed to rhetoric.     

  

For more discourse on drug policy please see my blog – http://nthomson2.blogspot.ca