Editorial

TO DECRIMINALIZE THE USE OF DRUGS, PART 3 OF A SERIES

It seems like a no-brainer. Invest a dollar in treating drug addiction, a
persuasive letter-writer argued in Saturday's Globe and Mail, and $6 will
be saved in other costs to society. Others have calculated the net gain to
be greater still.

So why are we still arguing? Most of those who consume illegal drugs don't
need medical help. For the minority who do, why not treat their problem as
a health issue rather than a criminal one? Why not end the criminal
prosecution of those who buy and take drugs -- of all kinds -- and
concentrate on pursuing the merchants who supply those drugs?

Part of the reluctance to embrace that position is rooted in the view that
drug-taking is not just dangerous but morally wrong. Is it? Plenty would
say no, contending that if you wish to ingest a substance, including a
substance that will do you harm, that's between you and yourself. Many
cigarette smokers and alcohol drinkers would agree.

A better argument against decriminalizing drugs is that doing so would
encourage their use. There is no dodging this one. The extent to which
so-called soft drugs lead to the use of hard drugs -- the "gateway"
argument -- remains highly debatable. But if it were possible for a person
to purchase drugs, hard or soft, without fear of being arrested and charged
(that penalty would be reserved for the seller), there seems small doubt
that in the short term drug use might rise.

But by how much? Look to the Netherlands, where drugs of all types have
been readily available for many years, and where arrests for small-scale
possession are rare. In theory, that tolerance should have produced a
nation of junkies. In practice, while Dutch cannabis consumption is
slightly higher than in some other parts of Europe, heroin use is extremely
low, particularly among young people. Why? Detailed, truthful drug
education programs in schools offer one explanation. Perhaps, in this
instance, familiarity really does breed a level of contempt.

Those programs reflect the entrenched philosophy of "harm reduction,"
increasingly visible not just in the Netherlands but elsewhere in Europe,
most notably in Switzerland and parts of Germany. Harm reduction goes far
beyond simply substituting medical treatment for a spell behind bars. It
also acknowledges that drug addicts need housing, counselling, job training
and much else, all of which cost money.

In Canada, too, the collective view on drugs seems to be slowly shifting.
Health Minister Allan Rock garnered worldwide headlines earlier this month
when he paid a visit to the federal government's unique marijuana-growing
operation in Flin Flon, Man., which will supply marijuana to the terminally
ill and others suffering from constant excruciating pain.

Other initiatives also offer the basis for a better drug strategy.
Needle-exchange programs are in place in many Canadian cities, to the
considerable benefit of some of the country's 50,000 to 100,000 drug
injectors. So too, though less widely available, are methadone programs.
Health Canada is pondering the creation of injection rooms for heroin
addicts in Toronto and Vancouver, much along the lines of several
successful European programs.

Such tolerance meets with stiff resistance. Ontario Health Minister Tony
Clement, for one, has voiced dismay at the heroin program, saying such a
move may promote drug use. In Vancouver, a drug-diversion court program
similar to a Toronto prototype that began operating two years ago with
federal funds has been in limbo for months. The special treatment centre to
which hard-core drug users would be sent, in lieu of jail, has been unable
to find a building. Not in our back yard, many city residents have said.

So imagine the uproar if Ottawa decided to go further, much further, and
announce that simple drug possession would henceforth no longer be a crime.
Imagine if it announced that a network of new, publicly funded
drug-treatment centres was to be set up, along with support services and
compelling, relevant drug-prevention programs in schools. People would ask:
What guarantees would that offer? And the answer would be: none. Data from
every country in the world show that the long-term success rate in treating
drug addicts is, at best, mixed.

So why bother? Because, we would argue, such a landscape would be a marked
improvement on the status quo, which manages simultaneously to (a) eat up
significant amounts of police and court resources, (b) brand all drug users
as criminals and (c) discourage those with a drug problem from identifying
themselves to authorities. In British Columbia, where at least 242
individuals succumbed to fatal overdoses last year, chief provincial health
officer Perry Kendall points out one singularly regrettable result of drugs
being illegal. When an overdose occurs in a drug house, there is a marked
reluctance to call 911. To do so would draw police attention, so no cry for
help goes out.

What is heard regularly is the call for better crime prevention. Since at
least half of all crime is related to either drugs or alcohol, a major step
toward reducing crime would be to focus on its causes rather than its
symptoms, through radically stepped-up treatment programs.

In the short term, such a move would be expensive and politically
difficult. In the long term, it might be the best investment we could make.