WAR ON DRUGS A LOSER

Reports that the Harper government is preparing to announce changes
to Canada's outdated 20-year-old national strategy on illicit drug
use should be reason for optimism.

Instead, there are signs -- such as the Conservative distaste for
safe-injection sites that are a key component of the "harm-reduction
strategy" -- that Ottawa is tilting toward a more aggressive,
U.S.-style war on drugs. If that is the case, it would be an
unfortunate mistake with predictable and very disappointing outcomes.

While Washington from time to time trumpets bravely that it has
scored a victory in the war on drugs, by all empirical measures it
has been an abject failure.

Consider the record south of the border:

- - Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent. This year alone in
the U.S., federal and state government have spent nearly $20.5
billion directly on counter-drug measures.

- - There are nearly two million Americans in prison, about one-third
of whom are locked up on charges for possession or low-level
trafficking, costing tens of billions of dollars.

- - Despite nearly 30 years of focused domestic and international
measures, however, drugs are more available than they have ever been,
largely because it is such a wildly profitable criminal industry.
Virtually anyone who wants to buy drugs can, and it's easier than ever.

But what are the alternatives? This is a reasonable question. Just
because the state can't beat the drug cartels doesn't mean it should join them.

One of the driving forces behind the U.S. war on drugs, especially
under the Republican party, is Christianity. The religious right has
placed "saving" people from the scourge of drugs as an important
American value and tantamount to saving souls. It is one reason that
successive administrations have continued to throw increasing
resources at a fruitless war. The message, in essence, that the small
number of those rescued from the grip of drugs justifies the billions
used in the war.

Perpetuating the war also appeals to the military and law enforcement
communities. They see it as another almost limitless source of funds
to buy new equipment and recruit personnel. If the U.S. were to move
toward a more permissive stance on illicit drug use, spending in this
area would diminish, as would the number of military personnel,
police officers and prison guards. In the U.S., prison and court
costs alone for people jailed on drug charges -- mostly users and
foot soldiers of organized crime, not the kingpins -- mean that our
neighbours to the south pay out about $10 billion a year.

While the U.S. remains adamant about using the military and police to
clamp down on drugs, some states, and many other countries, have
spent far less and shown remarkable results by investing in education
and diversion. Research has shown repeatedly that having young people
involved in supervised after-school sports programs is the best way
to keep kids and drugs apart. And, if one hasn't become a regular
drug user by the age of 19, the chances of ever becoming an addict
are vastly lower.

Harm-reduction measures, and especially the safe-injection sites,
have also been shown to be successful.

A study released this week showed a 30-per-cent increase in the
number of people seeking to enter detox and recovery programs.
Safe-injection sites have also "probably helped" reduce the overall
number of injection drug users, according to another report by the
B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS.

Yet federal Health Minister Clement remains noncommital whether
funding well be extended beyond this year. "It is lack of political
will, not lack of data, that is keeping these life-saving public
health services out of the hands of our drug-dependent citizens,"
said Dr. Steffanie Strathdee, a former B.C.-based researcher now at
the University of California's School of Medicine in San Diego. "It
is time for politicians who oppose (supervised injection sites) on
the grounds that more research is needed to be honest with their constituents,"

If the Harper government believes that throwing more money into law
enforcement and drug interdiction is the right model, it should do so
only after explaining how it expects to succeed when all other
similar efforts have shown no benefit and, in many cases, have
resulted in considerable harm.

It should also not do so at the expense of those measures, including
safe-injection sites that have been shown to work.