MAYBE WE CAN PUNISH THE PUSHERS

'If you are addicted to drugs, we'll help you, and if you sell drugs,
we'll punish you," Prime Minister Stephen Harper claimed recently in
launching his drug strategy. The statement and the plan were met with
a wave of derision from opposition parties, newspaper editorials and
columns, and much of the general public, judging from an influx of
letters to the editor.

There he goes again, they moaned, lamenting Harper's "ideological"
decision to emphasize law enforcement as part of a multi-pronged
strategy that includes treatment, education and prevention.

It seems Harper is being demonized for recognizing there are many
drug dealers out there who don't suffer the debilitating effects of
addiction, who are perpetuating the hugely profitable and pervasive
drug market, and that it needs to be addressed.

But where is the rational discourse about law enforcement as a
component of a comprehensive drug policy?

Before I am painted as a hard-right, ideological subscriber to the
"law and order" philosophy, let me say this: I write as a passionate
believer in harm reduction measures; in supervised injection sites,
heroin prescriptions, dispensing of alcohol, even free crack kits. All of it.

As a young journalism student I was deeply moved by researching a
story on the opening of Vancouver's Insite safe injection site.
Simply put, I consider myself "progressive" on drug policy.

But "law" seems to have become a dirty word in our national
discussion on drugs, and it shouldn't be. It's a vital piece of a
greater plan that encompasses all players in the sad world of the
drug trade. This includes addicts -- who need all the support,
compassion, health and social supports we can offer -- and dealers,
particularly high-level suppliers who drive the market, reap the
profits, and especially those who, detached from drug addiction and
operating from a business-like perspective, prey on the
vulnerabilities of those who are addicted because it's easy.

I have seen this firsthand, in the face of a drug dealer I once met
years ago. He was a friend of an acquaintance; a tall, well-built,
clean-cut, 20-year-old from a well-to-do Kanata family. He was a
reasonably intelligent man who enjoyed sports and music; he was a
health nut and young father. He also happened to be a crack dealer.

I spoke to him once, horrified but curious to learn why he would
engage in this gruesome trade. He didn't smoke cigarettes or drink
alcohol, and he certainly wouldn't consider ingesting the poison he
was dispensing to his poor, addicted customers. The conversation
painted a chilling portrait of a lack of soul.

He despised the addicts he supplied, speaking of them with utter
disgust and disdain. He saw himself as a businessman, making money
because it was easy. And it was profitable; he wore top-of-the-line
clothing and had money to burn. I never saw or heard of him again,
but I'm still haunted by his image.

We can't attribute the entire scope of our drug problem to people
like him, but we also can't deny they exist; a group of people who
have discovered the warped economic principle of the trade: sell
drugs but don't use them. Recognizing these "bad" guys -- in an
even-handed, responsible way -- seems to me one part of a policy that
is not ideologically based at either end of the spectrum. Isn't that
what we're aspiring to?

I'm by no means saying Harper has the right answers -- he has a long
way to go, especially when it comes to recognizing harm reduction as
not only the logical, but humane policy. But as we work to help
addicts, it's just as important to recognize the drug market is
currently a criminal enterprise, and take aim at those perpetrating
it; those whose addiction to the proceeds of trafficking can't be
cured with a harm-reduction strategy. Surely we can distinguish them
from the crack-addicted middlemen who deal to support their habits.

Does this mean implementing tougher laws, but working to stipulate
they don't have the unintended, sweeping consequence of punishing
addicts who need help? Maybe. Does this mean outright legalization of
drugs? Maybe. I'm open to all of these ideas. Let's just talk about it.

The most vehement critics appear to condemn any plan or role for law
enforcement (or some variation) in drug policy without offering
alternatives, or at least acknowledging there are people at the heart
of this who need to be dealt with in a different way. Do they think
the "bad guys" will magically disappear as we focus solely on helping
addicts? It's hard to tell; no one's talking about it.

We need to put aside our instinctual fears about any type of law
enforcement propelling us to a U.S.-style war on drugs. There has to
be a rational way to approach enforcement, in full conjunction with
harm reduction.

We may not like all of what Stephen Harper is offering, but isn't it
time to talk about what role we think the law should play?