PLAGUE OF BREAK-INS RE-IGNITES DRUG DEBATE

Victims' Views Range From Legalizing Drugs To Bringing Back The Death Penalty

It is hard to accurately assess just how much damage property crime is
causing in the Lower Mainland.

The dollar values are easy enough to dig out from insurance claims.

But it goes far beyond that as I discovered when my home was broken
into recently and the jewelry stolen was of greater sentimental than
cash value.

The costs include a fear factor, that chill when you go home at night,
open the door and wonder whether maybe once again someone has smashed
their way in.

Since writing about my break-in, I've had many calls and e-mails from
people recounting their own losses, their own fears of recurrence. But
mostly, I've heard anger.

There's is no excuse for so many of us being robbed each year --
whether it's our cars or our homes being broken into, our possessions
rifled and our valuables stolen.

What we need is a concerted effort to end this, to attack the problem
at all levels and make sure that we make our voices heard.

Let's start with the criminals.

It's no surprise that British Columbia has the highest incidence of
illegal drug use and one of the highest property crime rates in Canada.

More than a year after the supervised injection site for intravenous
drug users opened in Vancouver as part of the much-vaunted "four
pillars" plan, the drug problem isn't better. It may even be worse.

Although establishing contact with addicts with a view to connecting
them to counselling and detox was one of the primary reasons that
people supported a safe injection site, it turns out that most addicts
don't bother with it. They get in, shoot up, maybe get some nursing
care, and leave.

The evaluation of the site's first year indicated that fewer than one
per cent of the 15,000 or so visits to the site each month results in
a visit to a counsellor. In six months of operation, only 262
referrals were made to counselling services and only 78 to detox programs.

It's worth remembering that the 14,300 or so injections that take
place there each month represent somewhere between $143,000 and
$858,000 worth of illegal drugs depending on whether addicts are
shooting 1/10th of a gram or a quarter each time. The money for the
drugs likely came from thefts.

And the drugs used at the site are just a minuscule portion of the
total. The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse estimates there are
15,000 injection drug users in Vancouver, shooting up anywhere from
two to four times a day at about $10 for 1/10th of a gram.

In a September report, Donald MacPherson, coordinator of the city's
drug policy program wrote that:

- - The number of homeless people on the street with mental health and
addiction issues has increased over the past few years.

- - A significant market for crystal methamphetamine has developed in
the downtown core.

- - Youth treatment services lag behind the demand.

- - There are a significant number of addicts smoking crack cocaine who
are not getting any treatment.

Clearly, we're not even close to dealing with the drug
problem.

What to do, of course, is the tough question with readers suggesting
everything from legalizing all drugs to bringing back the death penalty.

The solution, no doubt lies somewhere closer to the
middle.

Which brings us to enforcement -- another of the four
pillars.

MacPherson and a group of University of B.C. researchers have
concluded that the crackdown on dealers on the Downtown Eastside just
moved them to other neighbourhoods -- neighbourhoods like mine where
there are fewer police officers.

While the police responded within 40 minutes of my 911 call, from all
of the e-mails and phone calls I received it's pretty clear that that
was exceptional service.

The norm seems to be police taking hours and even days to show up if
they come at all. Most times, it seems the only contact robbery
victims have with police is over the phone when they're told that
there's slim hope of ever recovering the lost items or catching the
thieves.

The advice police give victims is that we should barricade our homes
and "harden our security."

We're told to install expensive security systems with expensive
monthly fees.

We're told to put bars on windows, cameras in condo entranceways,
prison-yard lights and locked gates on garbage bins, and to remove
shrubs that might be attractive hiding spots for criminals.

We're being told collectively to spend millions of dollars, lining the
pockets of private "security professionals." Wouldn't we be better
spending it on police -- a public security force with the power to
arrest -- rather than on security guards?

Many people complained about the courts, lawmakers and judges who
aren't tough enough on sentencing, who have turned the courtroom door
into a revolving door.

Some recommended the California three-strikes' law that puts petty
thieves in jail for extended periods if they have three convictions.
Others suggested thieves be forced to make financial restitution in
addition to doing jail time. Still another suggested penal camp/rehab
centres in remote parts of the province.

But even if we threw all those thieves in jail, would it solve the
problem? Probably not, because criminals who go to jail usually come
out still addicted, and some who weren't addicted before get hooked in
jail. Why else would some people be making a case to have free needle
exchange programs in jail?

Of course, all these enforcement problems inevitably lead to the
suggestion of legalizing some or all drugs.

While the notion is appealing to our libertarian nature, there is no
firm evidence that it would stop the cycle of addiction and crime.

That's especially so since the new drug of choice, particularly for
young kids, isn't heroin, cocaine, marijuana or even ecstasy, it's
crystal methamphetamines.

Cheap, with a prolonged high, it is highly addictive,
psychosis-inducing and results in permanent brain damage.

Not only does no one know how to treat the addiction, experts aren't
even sure how long it takes to detox a meth addict.

It may be too soon to throw out the four pillars approach, but the
public definitely is ready to re-ignite the public debate about how to
keep all of us safer.