QUIT TALKING ABOUT THE 'WAR ON DRUGS'

Keith Baldrey's column, "Take ideology out of decisions" (In My
Opinion, Burnaby NOW, May 7), is fairly representative of the
anti-abolitionist viewpoint concerning illicit drugs.

I don't pretend to have the answer(s) to Metro Vancouver's rampant
drug problem, but I am tiring of the facile anti-abolitionist slogan,
'The war on drugs isn't working.'

The phrase 'war on drugs' was coined years ago by an American
administration determined to tackle growing illegal drug use through
stepped-up law enforcement. While there's no denying Canada's
longstanding prohibition of the same substances banned in the U.S.,
comparing the American 'war on drugs' to drug enforcement in Canada
is laughable.

Just a couple of weeks ago, as many as a thousand potheads gathered
on the front lawn of the Vancouver Art Gallery for their annual,
communal toke-up. And as has been the case for many years, police
didn't give them so much as a dirty look (a sensible policy, in my opinion).

In Canada, those caught with small amounts of marijuana on them for
what is obviously personal use are rarely, if ever, charged and
prosecuted. In addition, I'm not aware of anything like Canada's
medicinal marijuana program south of the border.

B.C. courts have meted out such harsh sentences to the criminal gangs
growing the potent bud (primarily for export) that their grow
operations are now estimated to number some 20,000. Unfortunately, a
significant portion of the value of this multibillion-dollar crop
ends up back in B.C. in the form of cocaine and handguns. In
less-enlightened Washington State, where the legal consequences of a
serious drug conviction are much more severe than they are here, the
number of grow-ops is considerably smaller. Gee, I wonder why.

As for harder drugs, police in B.C. often don't bother charging
addicts with simple possession because our revolving-door justice
system doesn't even keep them in custody long enough for detox,
making the exercise a futile waste of money and resources.

Some war.

Incidentally, could anyone who has followed SFU criminologist and
media darling Neil Boyd's career have doubted what his conclusions
about the downtown supervised injection facility (Insite) would be?

I can't help but wonder whether the significant sum being expended on
Insite wouldn't be better spent on additional drug rehabilitation
spaces so more addicts can get off drugs altogether. Wouldn't that be
the best 'harm reduction' measure of all?