WHAT REALLY IS WRONG WITH TRYING TO KEEP A LID ON DRUG USE IN CANADA?

The Harper government's new anti-drug policy has yet to be officially
announced, but already it is being savaged by those adamantly opposed
to Conservative thinking on the subject.

As with plenty of other topics -- climate change springs to mind --
the debate tends to be dominated by over-ardent advocates on either
side of a great divide.

The opinions of the many in the middle -- the voices of thousands of
"ordinary" families -- are rarely sought and given precious little
attention.

But these are precisely the people who will be most affected by
whatever policies are chosen to deal with the growing problem of drug
addiction.

There are an estimated 5,000 addicts in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside
- -- a tragically high number for sure, but trifling compared to those
potentially at risk.

Stephen Harper is intent on directing the bulk of the government's
resources toward preventing the spread of addiction and cracking down
on the parasites who fuel the drug trade.

That puts him at odds with the addictions industry, whose
preoccupation is with "harm reduction" -- which embraces the notion of
catering to drug users' needs in order to limit the collateral damage
they inflict on society, such as HIV/AIDS transmission, crime and
general public disorder.

Harm reduction is the rationale behind Vancouver's Insite, where
addicts inject illegal drugs under "expert" supervision. Proponents of
Insite are enraged that

Harper wants it shut down, and cite positive references in academic
journals to support their claim that lives are being saved.

The difference in emphasis is stark: The government doesn't buy the
logic of using taxpayers' money to facilitate the continuing
consumption of illegal substances.

The Tories would rather spend it to crack down on grow-ops and
dealers, provide better treatment facilities and fund a much-needed
drug-prevention program.

Cynics will scoff that the "war on drugs" has been fought and lost
already.

But what war? Only yesterday it seems, under a Liberal government, we
were hell-bent on decriminalizing marijuana, having persuaded
ourselves, and presumably our kids, of its harmlessness.

Look, I'm not saying a couple of tokes are going to drive you to ruin.
But we've all heard horror stories from parents whose children's lives
have been devastated by crystal meth. And terrible addictions to
cocaine and heroin stretch across all demographics and all ages.

There is a powerful case for tolerance toward those who become
addicted. But there is an equally strong case for creating and
sustaining a community mindset that refuses to accept drugs as an
unavoidable hazard of life.

To many people, the ubiquitous cries for legalization, regulation and
taxation of drugs have the ring of doom.

The number of people currently addicted to drugs is a tiny fraction of
the total population. What's wrong with a strategy intended to keep it
that way?