WAR ON DRUGS NEEDS NEW STRATEGY

Canada is losing the "war on drugs" and unless the government changes
its strategy, the casualties of illegal drug use will continue to climb.

There's unlikely a community in this country that isn't struggling to
come to terms with illegal drug use, addiction and its consequences.
The answer, according to the federal government, is a heavy-handed
approach involving more law enforcement and tougher penalties.

A report, published this week in the HIV/AIDS Policy and Law Review,
backs up what the government was told by Auditor-General Sheila
Fraser five years ago -- that the country's strategy focuses far too
heavily on supply reduction and does little to reduce demand.

The new study explores how the government allocates funds and the
strategy's effectiveness in reducing drug use and the harm done by
illegal drugs. Of the $245 million spent, 73 per cent goes to law
enforcement. Only 14 per cent is spent on addictions treatment, seven
per cent on research and three per cent for awareness and prevention
initiatives.

This "get tough" approach has not worked in the United States and
will not work here. It's a philosophy that panders to public
sentiment that seeks to punish those struggling with addiction,
rather than reduce the harm done by it. But in Prime Minister Stephen
Harper's plan for a national drug strategy, released during his
election campaign, no reference was made to prevention and there's no
sign he'll change his mind. In fact, Health Minister Tony Clement
told the Globe and Mail this week that any new strategy will focus
even more heavily on law enforcement because opinion polls say that's
what voters want.

The report suggests the economic costs of the current approach should
be enough to raise red flags among Conservative party supporters, who
worry about the spiralling costs of health care. In Vancouver, the
costs of treating HIV infections among needle users is estimated at
more than $215 million each year -- almost as much as the government
spends on its strategy across the country.

And yet the federal government refuses to give strong support for
that city's safe injection site.

Putting addicts who commit crimes to feed their habits in jail does
nothing but get them off the street for a short time and into our
already-crowded prisons.

And police crackdowns in our inner cities might temporarily drive
away the crime and prostitution that often accompanies drug
trafficking, but it will only expose vulnerable youth in outlying
areas to the unscrupulous dealers in search of a "safer" marketplace.

Drugs, illegal or otherwise, have become an integral part of the way
we live and the way we see the world.

The major difference between tobacco, alcohol, antidepressants and
marijuana, crystal meth and heroin is that three are street drugs and
three are not. But the potential for addiction is present in all of
them. The demonization of drugs and drug users does nothing to
promote understanding the complex dynamic of addictions or their
place in our society.

If political tough talk worked, the war on drugs would have been won
long ago. As long as there is demand for illicit drugs, dealers will
find a way to sell them. The only way to reduce demand is through
prevention and treatment.

Good politics doesn't always translate into good policy. And when the
policy can be proven to do more harm than good, it's time for voters
to take a long hard look at why governments persist in a course of
action detrimental to the public's health.