U.S. SAYS JUMP, WE SAY HOW HIGH?

Canada's Justice Minister, Anne Mclellan, Lets Washington Dictate
Canadian Drug Policy

Any Canadian who has ever wondered just who is in charge of this
country's policy on illegal drugs got a clear answer from Justice
Minister Anne McLellan last week: The government of the United States is
in charge, that's who.

Naturally, Ms. McLellan didn't say this in so many words: that much
honesty would be awkward. But for those familiar with the international
War on Drugs, events last week allow no other interpretation.

On the surface, here's what happened: The International Narcotics
Control Board, a 13-member United Nations body set up to monitor
compliance with international treaties banning drugs, issued its 2000
report. The report, while lauding Canadian police for various drug
busts, criticized Canada for not doing enough to enforce the ban on
production of drugs such as ecstasy. It was even more pointed in
criticizing Canada's failure to crush the flourishing marijuana trade.
The fault for that, the INCB claimed, lies not with diligent police but
liberal judges who give marijuana growers and sellers "too-lenient"
sentences. The INCB singled out British Columbia as a sort of
Holland-on-the-Pacific, a province awash in pot thanks to liberal
judges.

In contrast to its critical words for Canada, the INCB was unstinting in
its praise of American drug policies. (Curiously, the report didn't
mention the half-million people in American jails for drug offences, or
the record number of drug-related deaths, or the fact that on American
streets drugs are cheaper, purer and more available than ever.)

The Canadian government, having been accused of shirking its soldierly
duties in the War on Drugs, snapped to attention. "It's clear that we
can do more and we must do more," Anne McLellan said. "We're going to
put more resources toward that. Certainly we as a government are seized
with the issue."

Ms. McLellan's response -- yes sir, how high shall I jump? -- may look
innocent enough to a casual observer. An international body charged with
overseeing laws that Canada signed said we're not living up to our
obligations, and the Canadian government responded by promising to do
better. That looks co-operative and reasonable.

That image is shattered, however, when one realizes that the INCB is
little more than the mouthpiece of the American government.

That the INCB is something of a toady to Washington D.C. -- faithfully
enforcing the severe American interpretations of international drug laws
- -- is something international experts emphasized to me while I did
research for a series of articles about drugs last year.

The INCB is little more than the mouthpiece of the American government.

One such expert was a former UN official who held very senior posts in
drug policy for many years. American drug officials, this person
insisted, were zealots who used the INCB -- and many other pressure
tactics -- to ensure other countries toed the American line on the drug
war. The former official insisted on anonymity for fear American
officials could sabotage this person's career.

Of course, these accusations might be dismissed as intramural griping --
were it not for the fact that the INCB has in the past been seen
behaving like a wing of the U.S. State Department.

As I related in my series last fall, Australia in 1996 considered trying
a small-scale "heroin-maintenance" trial -- in which heroin addicts
would be given clean heroin to see if this would stabilize their lives
enough to help them ultimately kick their habit. The U.S. government is
adamantly opposed to any such notion and it dispatched a high-level
official from the State Department to talk with an Australian committee
examining the idea. The U.S. official noted that Australia had an
opium-growing industry in the poor state of Tasmania, an industry
licensed by the UN. He also noted, as recalled later by a participant in
the meeting, that if the UN "were to decide that Australia were not a
reliable country, that of course that industry could be at risk." And
who is it that could make the decision to yank the Australian opium
licence? The INCB.

Nonetheless, that Australian committee, and every other body of health
officials and law enforcers that examined the issue, recommended the
trial go ahead. But the opium industry was spooked and, together with
the Tasmanian government, lobbied the prime minister to reject the
trial. He did.

More recently, Australia has worked on the idea of a "safe-injection
site" for heroin addicts. The INCB, as always, interpreted the
international treaties in the manner favoured by the U.S. government and
concluded this would be in violation of the treaties. The INCB
threatened Australia with the loss of its opium licence. It was the same
old threat, but this time it was made publicly --something the INCB can
do thanks to its aura of international impartiality.

Canada has its own reason to question the relationship between the U.S.
government and the INCB. A year ago, the U.S. State Department issued
its annual report on the drug situation around the world. In its
assessment of Canada, the State Department eerily foreshadowed the INCB
report of last week. While the State Department praised Canadian police,
it attacked Canadian judges for handing out what it considered soft
sentences. It also criticized police funding as inadequate and presented
the Holland-on-the-Pacific picture of British Columbia (The report also
misspelled the province as "British Colombia," which was either a clever
jibe or, more likely, an indication of the author's knowledge about this
country.)

For a meddling superpower, this blunt, public criticism isn't especially
constructive ...

For a meddling superpower, this sort of blunt, public criticism isn't
especially constructive since the U.S. is, well, a meddling superpower.
And that rankles. Robert Metzger, chief judge of the B.C. provincial
courts, was so incensed he publicly chided the Americans. "They don't
seem to have a handle on their own problems," he told The Vancouver Sun.
"I don't see why they should be criticizing us for ours." The federal
government conspicuously said nothing.

But what the U.S. government cannot do without causing offence, the INCB
can. Thus, the sorry spectacle last week. The INCB simply repeated
American criticisms of Canada while lauding American policies. But the
INCB attacks, far from offending Canadians, produced Anne McLellan's
immediate promise to polish Canada's boots and get marching in the War
on Drugs.

Why the federal government reacted so differently to the State
Department and INCB criticisms is no mystery. For the Canadian
government to be seen acting in thoughtless obedience to American
diktats on drug policy would insult Canadian democracy, belittle
Canadian sovereignty and tick off a lot of Canadian voters who cling to
the idealistic notion that Canadian policies should be decided in
Canada. But the government's thoughtless obedience to the INCB's diktats
is, to all appearances, a happy demonstration of international
co-operation. That the orders in both cases are the same, and ultimately
come from the same people in Washington D.C., is mere trivia: This is
politics, my fellow Canadians, and in politics appearance is everything.

For Canadians who expect homegrown rationality in their public policy,
this confirmation that drug policy is being drafted in Washington D.C.
was depressing enough. But further events last week made the
government's display of spinelessness all the more wretched.

First, a committee of the European Parliament adopted a report on drug
use that came to a blunt conclusion: "Legal sanctions against drug
possession and use appear to have no effect whatsoever." The report
recommends European nations press ahead in the direction many have
already taken -- treating drug use as a matter for health professionals,
not police officers. That means making the use and possession of small
amounts of drugs de facto legal while concentrating resources on health
and social programs to reduce the harms of drug abuse.

And what might that do to rates of drug use? The answer to that was
answered in part by another event last week. At a conference in
Stockholm, the World Health Organization released a major international
survey of teenagers' drug use that found 41 per cent of American teens
had used marijuana or hashish, compared to just 16 per cent of European
teens. Sixteen per cent of American teens had used amphetamines and 10
per cent had used LSD -- compared to 6 per cent of European teens that
had used any illegal drug aside from marijuana. It was just the latest
evidence that the United States, after all its vast spending and
punitive drug laws, has the highest rate of teen drug use in the world.

Thus, last week not only saw a Canadian minister cravenly take marching
orders from Washington D.C. It also saw further proof that the orders
coming from the American capital are both useless and destructive. For
Canadians who still hope their government may one day abandon dogma and
craft a drug policy based on reason and evidence, it was an ugly week
indeed.