THIS IS YOUR GOVERNMENT ON DRUGS

Be Very Skeptical When Politicians Talk About Illegal Drugs

It's a rare event when a senior federal minister says anything about
illegal drugs, so I suppose I should be grateful for justice minister Anne
McLellan's letter (March 9) taking issue with a column I wrote on the
subject. But I'm afraid I can't leave it at that, because Ms. McLellan's
cynical letter, and other such statements by federal officials, are
misleading the public about Canada's drug policies.

The government's spin strategy goes like this: Most Canadians think the
American approach to drugs consists exclusively of a law-enforcement "War
on Drugs." Being Canadians, they don't much like the punitive, militaristic
nature of this. Therefore, the government reasons, it must portray Canada's
drug strategy as a more moderate, homegrown approach. And so, on the rare
occasions when the government feels compelled to discuss illegal drugs, it
emphasizes that Canada, unlike the United States, takes "a balanced
approach." This is said to involve efforts to reduce both demand and
supply: On the demand side, there is education, prevention, treatment and
other medical interventions; on the supply side, there is law enforcement.

Ms. McLellan's letter came straight from this template. So did the article
written by David Kilgour, secretary of state for Latin America, in response
to a series about illegal drugs that I wrote last September. According to
Mr. Kilgour, my series exposed the flaws in the American approach, but it
wasn't relevant to Canada since "for many years" this country has
"balanced" its efforts between demand and supply reduction.

Canadians unfamiliar with international drug policy can be forgiven if
their hearts swell with pride reading about this country's apparently
unique, "balanced" drug policy. But those of us who know something about
drug policy beyond our borders are left with a different reaction: anger
and disgust.

First, what Ms. McLellan and her colleagues never mention is that the
"balanced approach" to drugs isn't a Canadian creation. In fact, the United
Nations World Drug Report 2000 has a section headed "A Balanced Approach."
Why? Because the "balanced approach" was a key part of the policy statement
drafted at a 1998 UN summit on drugs, and signed by 185 countries.

Do not, however, let this suggest the "balanced approach" is new and
innovative. Schemes to reduce drug supply have been around since Lindbergh
flew the Atlantic, while programs on the demand side have existed in many
countries for 30 years. The "balanced approach" has been kicking around
since the days when Richard Nixon was bombing Cambodia.

Which raises the second gross misrepresentation in the government's spin
about drugs. American drug policy is not focussed exclusively on law
enforcement. In fact, official American drug policy is -- wait for it -- "a
balanced approach" between demand and supply. And that has been American
policy since the aforementioned Nixon first invented it.

The similarities of American and Canadian drug policies are illustrated by
the fact that virtually every sentence in Ms. McLellan's letter could
easily have been written by the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy
(ONDCP), better known as the "drug czar's office." Consider:

 Ms. McLellan: "Canada's drug policy is based on a balanced approach
between demand reduction (prevention, treatment and harm reduction) and
supply reduction (law enforcement). The long-term goal of Canada's drug
strategy is to reduce the physical, psychological and economic harm caused
to our society by substance abuse."

 ONDCP 2000 report: "We are confident that a balanced strategy that relies
on prevention, treatment, law enforcement, supply reduction, and
international co-ordination can dramatically reduce the prevalence and
social consequences of drug abuse."

 Ms. McLellan: The government will "enhance prevention initiatives,
treatment, rehabilitation, and research as well as increase our law
enforcement efforts and co-operation with our international partners."

 ONDCP: The American strategy "focuses on prevention, treatment, research,
law enforcement, protection of our borders, drug supply reduction, and
international co-operation."

Even when Ms. McLellan's letter distances Canada from the "U.S.
government's war on drugs," it falls in line with American policy: In its
2000 report, the ONDCP specifically repudiates the term "war on drugs."

Ms. McLellan might protest that American rhetoric isn't matched by American
deeds. And it is true that, on average, drug crimes are punished with much
greater severity in the United States than they are in Canada. But do the
Americans follow the "balanced approach" by matching their hyper-energetic
law enforcement with equivalent efforts on the demand-reduction side?

Much is often made of the fact that American anti-drug spending gives
roughly two-thirds to law enforcement and only one-third to the demand
side. But programs don't cost "relative" dollars. What matters is absolute
spending.

And on this score, the Americans can say they are indeed following a
"balanced approach." After an initial drop under Ronald Reagan, American
demand-side spending has risen rapidly since 1986, right along with
ballooning supply-side spending. The U.S. government is paying out almost
$20 billion US a year on the two sides, up from $1 billion in 1980. In
absolute terms, the U.S. is spending immense sums on both the supply and
demand sides -- which is pretty much the "balanced approach" recipe.

It may well be that Canada puts a larger proportion of its resources into
the demand side than does the United States -- although this is far from
clear, since the Canadian government has never produced a full cost
accounting of how much Canada spends to enforce the drug laws. But even if
this were certain, it would merely be a nuance. It would not indicate a
fundamental distinction between the countries' policies.

Perhaps worse than Ms. McLellan's attempt to claim that the "balanced
approach" sets Canadian policy apart was her proud reference to the
government's plans to set up drug courts (in which drug-addicted
individuals charged with minor crimes could avoid imprisonment if they
accept mandatory drug treatment).

What the minister neglected to mention in her letter is that drug courts
are as American as SWAT teams and crack cocaine. They were invented in the
United States about a decade ago; one of the pioneers in their development
was Janet Reno, Bill Clinton's former attorney general. There are now
thousands of drug courts operating across the U.S., thanks largely to the
enthusiastic support of the American government.

Regardless of whether one supports the idea of drug courts, their
introduction to Canada is surely a demonstration of the enormous influence
the U.S. has on Canadian drug policy. To mention drug courts in the context
of a letter purporting to distinguish Canadian policy from that in the U.S.
is simply Orwellian.

Recently, I received an e-mail from a reader who, while agreeing generally
with my position on drug policy, didn't like the "tone" of my column
accusing Ms. McLellan and her government of toeing the American line on
drugs. I would imagine this column will not have assuaged that reader.

I'm afraid that no other tone is possible. Drug policy is not some esoteric
topic about which one can debate dispassionately after dinner. It is about
human lives: Bad drug policies kill people. Yet our federal government says
as little about the issue as possible, and when forced to talk, it
cynically misleads the public about the reality of our drug policies.

To that, the only reasonable reaction is anger and disgust.

Yesterday, the Citizen was named a finalist for the Michener Award for Dan
Gardner's series "Losing the War on Drugs," published last fall. The
Michener Award is presented annually by Canada's governor-general to a news
organization for outstanding public service in journalism.