FLYING IN THE FACE OF FACTS, GOVERNMENTS CLING TO FUTILE DRUG STRATEGIES

With all the controversy about Vancouver's supervised injection
facility, one could easily be lulled into thinking that we've all but
abandoned enforcing Canada's drug laws, that we've chosen to
emphasize harm reduction at the expense of prevention, treatment and
enforcement.

The truth, however, is quite the opposite, as a new study by
researchers at the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS proves.
Enforcement receives the bulk of funds aimed at countering illicit
drug use, and this isn't just under the Conservative government's
so-called tough-on-crime approach.

Indeed, the study looks at Canada's Drug Strategy, which was
announced with much hoopla in 2003 by the so-called soft-on-crime
former Liberal government.

Despite the fact that the strategy's explicit aim is to reduce the
"harms associated with problematic substance use," and despite that
fact that it explicitly refers to the same four pillars with which
Vancouverites have become exceptionally familiar, and despite the
fact that the auditor-general of Canada and the Senate special
committee on illegal drugs both released reports condemning the
government's over-emphasis on enforcement, that one pillar remains a
clear favourite of the government.

According to the study, in the 2004-2005 fiscal year, the feds spent
fully 73 per cent ($271 million) of drug strategy funds on
enforcement. In contrast, only 14 per cent ($51 million) went to
treatment, and prevention and harm reduction programs received a
paltry 2.6 per cent ($10 million) each.

This emphasis on enforcement continues despite mounting scientific
evidence that it exacerbates the harms associated with illicit drug
use -- and thereby works against the purpose of the drug strategy --
because users are less likely to take safety precautions if they fear
getting caught by police.

Further, there is substantial evidence that enforcement does little
to reduce drug use: The study's authors note that in 1994, 28.5 per
cent of Canadians reported having used illicit drugs, while by 2004,
after 10 years of heavy enforcement, that figure had increased to 45 per cent.

Even worse, a large part of the limited funds directed at prevention
go to programs that don't work, such as the RCMP-run DARE (drug abuse
resistance education) program, which scientific studies have
repeatedly shown fails to prevent or delay drug use. The study's
authors rightly question why the feds continue to dump large amounts
of money into prevention programs that are proven failures, while
holding beneficial harm reduction programs like the supervised
injection facility up to an impossible standard of proof.

Worse still, while the drug strategy promised that it would provide
"measurable indicators of its performance," and "report every two
years to Parliament" on its progress, the study notes that no reports
or evaluations of the strategy have been made available. No one
apparently knows how -- or if -- the strategy is working, and news of
this comes more than five years after the auditor-general criticized
the federal government for having no information as to the efficacy
of its strategy.

Despite this disastrous record under the Liberals, the Conservatives
appear prepared to do much worse. Already having refused to extend
the supervised injection facility for another 31/2 years, despite the
recommendations of scientists who studied the site and bureaucrats at
Health Canada, the Conservatives continue to talk of introducing a
tough new enforcement-based drug strategy.

And just as the science didn't sway the Conservatives on the
injection site, this latest science seems unlikely to persuade them
to reconsider their drug strategy. Erik Waddell, spokesman for Health
Minister Tony Clement, in defending the Conservatives' approach, said
that "every poll" shows Canadians want more enforcement.

This isn't true, of course, as evidenced by a recent poll that found
two-thirds of Canadians favour treating drug addiction as a medical
problem, with a focus on prevention and treatment rather than
enforcement. But Waddell's words reveal the extent to which
Conservatives will ignore science in favour of what they think Canadians want.

This simply isn't good enough. Ottawa owes it to Canada, and to
Canadians, to develop an evidence-based drug strategy, one that is
informed by the best science, not the worst ideology.