Editorial

1. Canada’s Scandalous Breach Of International Obligations
The United Nations drug-control board has recently repeated its request to Ottawa to abide by the 1961 treaty and the 1988 UN anti-drug trafficking convention to which Canada is a signatory by disallowing trade in drug equipment (distribution of “safe” crack kits in Vancouver Island, Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg, Halifax, Gatineau, Montreal and Guelph) and banning the Vancouver “safe” injection site known as “Insite”. The 1961 treaty obliges the signatories to pass laws ensuring drugs are used for medical or scientific purposes only. The Conservative government through its National Anti-Drug strategy has toughened drug laws, but it extended exemption of the Vancouver “Insite” from federal drug laws to June 30, 2008.

2. The Deceptive, Fallacious & Politically Correct Arguments
The usual arguments advanced by politicians such as Vancouver mayor Sam and federal Liberal senator Campbell, libertine columnists Mulgrew and McKnight and the like are that the U.S. inspired drug policy is not working and it wastes money and lives as it neither reduces the trafficking of drugs nor makes our streets safer, that it stresses already crowded prisons, thereby facilitating the spread of diseases such as HIV and hepatitis. Also that trafficker celebrity Marc Emery should be hailed as a hero and not a criminal, because pot is not really harmful, and Emery has guts to challenge the laws by openly trafficking of pot seeds for profit persistently, that pot should be decriminalized, or better still legalized which would generate tax revenue. According to three big months, this nanny — state kind of approach to reduce harm and to take care of addicts is the way to go. They also glorify the success of the so-called harm-reduction facility (“Insite”) as the “safe” injection site which has been in existence for 5 years.

3. Canada’s Notoriety
For starters, according to the article written by Mr. Tony Clement, the federal Minister of Health, the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime reports that in the industrialized world, Canada has the dubious honour of having the highest proportion of marijuana users at 16.8% among those between 15 and 64 years of age; 18% of youth are daily cannabis users. Ecstasy seizures amounted to 180,000 tablets in 2002, but in 2006, the figure came to three million. Youth committing drug offences quadrupled from under 4,000 to over 17,000 in 15 years.

4. The Stark Reality Of The Consequence of Soft Love
With the above background, one should examine the alleged success of the Vancouver “Insite” in terms of reducing overdose death, outreaching, lessening the spread of diseases and facilitation of entering into detox. Drug Prevention Network of Canada (“PNC”) reported in May 2007, that the number of overdose deaths in Vancouver and the Downtown Eastside since the setting up of the “Insite” (till May 2007 — about 3 years) has shown no reduction. As a matter of fact, in the first six months of 2007, there were 36 overdose deaths as compared with 26 in the same period of the previous year. When it comes to the reduction of spread of diseases, only one in 10 HIV negative addicts uses “Insite” for injections. MRSA (Multiple-resistant Staphylococcus Aereus) is spreading rapidly among “Insite” addicts in Vancouver Downtown Eastside (250% from 2000 to 2006). What about the much-touted crime reduction through “Insite”? Organized crime gangs continue to fuel drug trafficking unabated. Drug related gun violence continues to grow. These happen because drug addicts bring their own drugs to the shooting club (“Insite”) and this deadly addiction costs anywhere from $300.00 to more than $400.00 a day. Robbery and property crimes are the revenue-sources of such often fatal and costly habits. The fantasy-contaminated advocates of shooting galleries and legalization of pot, often point to the outreaching influence resulting from visiting the “Insite”. A study authored by Colin Mangham, director of research with PNC, reported that only 2.3 percent of addicts using the shooting club contacted a nurse or counselor. Leading psychiatrist Dr. Bill Mac Ewan has this to say about the problem, “… we now say if you are going to be treated, you have to want to get treated. If not, you are left to your own devices… They don’t have the freedom of choice.” There are misconceptions about addiction disorder. According to Dr. Douglas Coleman, a Vancouver doctor specializing in addiction treatment, poverty is not the cause of such chemical dependence. It is addiction disorder and the compulsive use of drugs (including alcohol) that cause poverty. The setting up of “Insite” suggests that addicts suffering from an illness of compulsory behaviour can now control or cut back, or otherwise use the drug in a safer manner. This fails to recognize the fundamental contradiction inherent in such a suggestion. Dr. Coleman further says, “Recommendations of “controlled use” serve only to cause further emotional, physical, psychological and spiritual damage, and may be ultimately fatal. …Compulsory treatment is effective in producing sustained recovery…. Sustained recovery in more than 90% of those coerced into treatment, and closely monitored for periods of up to five years puts a lie to claims that treatment doesn’t work. Such sustained recovery delights the addicts and their friends and family”. A solid case in point is the story of Darlene Rowley aged 43 (Vancouver Sun’s columnist Lori Culbert’s story). She was an addict on and off for many years. Her childhood was scarred by physical and substance abuse. She ended up in foster care with a grade 7 education. When she came to Vancouver from Toronto, she got hooked on drugs. She lost custody of her daughter and worked as a prostitute to support the drug habit of herself and her new boyfriend. With acute bipolar disorder and drug-addiction, she was at the bottom of her shabby life when she succeeded in getting into Salvation Army’s Harbour Light detox centre after waiting for three days. It is often the case that addicts cannot wait that long without changing their minds. Action needs to be taken as soon as addicts decide they want help. There are about 7,000 addicts in the Downtown Eastside, but the provincial government only funds 18 residential detox beds for women, 41 for men and 22 for youth. From 2005 to 2007, 5,100 addicts received treatment at Harbour Light detox. 33 percent of the 3,500 male addicts went back to drugs, compared with 64% of the 1,600 female addicts relapsing. The suggestion for this difference may lie in the fact that it is more difficult for females leaving detox to get into a recovery/treatment centre. There is the problem of stabilization beds in short supply and not covered by B.C. medical services plan. Stabilization beds are places where addicts can stay between detox and treatment which may last for several weeks. Rowley was ordered into detox by the courts, not for the first time. If she fails again, she has to go back to jail. Rowley’s case shows without any doubt that serious enforcement of the laws by the courts and adequate treatment strategy and funding are vital in the battle against drugs.

5. The Correct Approach (tough love)
Our federal Conservative government’s recent anti-drug strategy is the correct first step in fighting this war. However, without the conscientious effort on the part of the courts in sternly coercing addicts who are brought before them for breaking the laws, to choose either deterrent jail time or adequate treatment, no amount of laws or law enforcement or treatment could effectively solve this huge problem. Contrary to some what people think, that due to the Charter of Rights & Freedoms, addicts cannot be coerced into treatment, section1 of the Charter allows “such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. It all depends on the interpretation of our often politically correct judges. If they are genuinely for the wellbeing of addicts and our society, they could easily coerce addicts into treatment. It is also reasonably clear that many addicts are afflicted with mental illness and are homeless. The solution lies not in catering to their every whim and desire as some politically correct judges, politicians and media people advocate. The solution lies in adequate treatment, coerced if necessary, and serious enforcement of the laws. Increased stress on the criminal justice and health systems is no reason not to enforce the laws for the general good of society and the addicts. All crimes increase stress on the criminal system (and may affect the health system as well). The reason for the existence of the criminal system is to deal with criminals justly but sternly with deterrent and rehabilitative consequences. The health system is set up to solve health problems. The biggest problem facing us is the reluctance to deal with drug-addiction as both a criminal and a health problem. 50 percent of the reported crimes in British Columbia are committed by 10 percent of offenders. These repeat hand-core law-breakers can be dealt with effectively, regardless whether some of them are addicts and with mental illness, through community courts. These courts were established in the last century in the United States. Qualified offenders with drug-addiction and/or psychiatric disorders are channelled for proper help such as mental health workers and welfare officials. They have proven to work. B.C. government’s recent launching of a “prolific offender pilot project” in five communities, points to a right direction provided political correctness is not going to be a part of the project and/or process. It will integrate police, correction, Crown counsel, health and psychiatric services, the Ministry of Children and Family Development, the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance and B.C. Housing. This multi-agency approach is meant to lead offenders through various channels for help. In other words, they are in need of a readily available guiding hand of the agency once they are in the system. No doubt this response will achieve some success if not over-done. Political correctness, if allowed to play a hand in the system, will pretty soon cause it to degenerate into a costly. unsustainable and spoiling behemoth with little success in achieving its goal.

6. Prince Of Pot Or A Blackguard?
As far as pot is concerned, the specious contentions that it should be decriminalized or legalized do not hold up to scrutiny. A single marijuana joint is equal to 20 cigarettes. We are all aware of the harm from smoking cigarettes. The fact that cigarettes are legal lends no credence to adding to the list of legalized harmful products, unless we have a death wish and unlimited health resources. It was also argued that there are as many as one or two million casual tokers in Canada, therefore, we should not jeopardize their good-citizen-status by holding them responsible for breaking the laws. If such a ridiculous argument is given even minimal credence, namely number justifies decriminalization/legalization of crimes, then impaired drivers, robbers, thieves, pedophiles should be immune from our criminal laws as soon as their numbers increase to a similar level. It was contended that Marc Emery (the self-styled prince of pot) should be immune from criminal prosecution both in Canada and the United States because he had defiantly and stubbornly broken the laws with effrontery in both Canada and the United States, because Canadian (both federal and provincial) government had failed to  prosecute him for a long period of time, because his crimes have no victims (really?), and because the demand for observance of the criminal laws (both Canadian and American for selling of cannabis seeds and money laundering) came from a foreign government (in accordance with a treaty). Furthermore, for the above reasons and more, Marc Emery should not be extradited to the United States to face criminal charges for his mail-order cannabis seed sale to the U.S. or be punished at all, because extradition would mean a diminution of our sovereignty and local punishment would mean a travesty of justice in view  of the de facto legalization of the sale of cannabis seeds in Canada. As one letter to the National Post (Jan. 28, 08) states, “Marc Emery is not a martyr. His case is not about protecting our independence and it is not a travesty of justice. What Emery has done is to make a very good living and a deliberate political statement. He knows it is illegal to mail or otherwise transport cannabis seeds to the U.S. in violation of U.S. laws. The U.S. is not prosecuting him for selling cannabis seeds to Canadians in Canada…. Just like Canadians would ask the U.S. to extradite an American who knowingly sold prohibited armaments… to Canadians in Canada, even if they aren’t banned in the U.S…. whatever your position on the legalization of cannabis, we can’t protect someone who courts martyrdom by flouting the laws of another country”.

7. Conclusion
Another letter-writer in the same column (National Post) states, “The only real war on drugs is in Singapore, Sweden and a few other places, and it has been totally successful. The drug anarchy in the Downtown Eastside proves there’s no war going on; no one dares hurt the feelings of addicts and dealers. We don’t do tough love, we give candies to a sugar-addicted diabetic, hoping he’ll kick the addiction voluntarily. That’s why we dare not copy Sweden, but choose the non-solution Insite as a solution. If China had not cracked down on opium in the past, there would now be thousands of opium dens and Insites like fast-food franchises — and hundreds of Downtown Eastsides over there. Legalization? Criminals say. Bring it on (please); it would make our jobs so much easier”. It has been so well-said that we couldn’t have said it better. Those who shamelessly and heartlessly advocate spoiling of addicts through decriminalizing or legalizing drugs, sugar-treating addicts through shooting galleries and distributing paraphernalia, abandoning addicts to destroy themselves through revolving-door judges and politically correct politicians and media, will surely enjoy the harvest from their sowing of such destructive seeds. In conclusion, tough love and coerced treatments are the only panacea for drug-addicts. CASJAFVA has launched a petition campaign urging the federal government not to further extend the exemption granted to the Vancouver “Insite” (not beyond June 30, 2008) and pleading with all three levels of government to take de-tox and treatment aspects seriously with adequate financial resources for such purposes.

 
(Apart from those expressed in the Editorial, the views expressed in this issue do not necessarily reflect or coincide with those of CASJAFVA)