PUSHING OFF THE DRUG PUSHERS

We have to keep fighting against this traffic even if we're not sure we can
win

A new study by the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS raises serious
questions about the war on drugs. It seems a year-long crackdown by the
Vancouver police department on drug trafficking had virtually no beneficial
effect. There was no overall reduction in the number of addicts, no
reduction in drugs sold or consumed, no improvement in treatment rates and
no rise in prices.

All that changed was where people consumed their drugs. Basically, when the
heat came on in the east side of town, addicts and pushers moved to other
areas and resumed business. This may very well have made things worse rather
than better, since it brought pushers in contact with a new clientele, and
likely widened contacts with HIV-exposed addicts.

To be fair, the police insist they weren't trying to reduce consumption or
drive up price. They say their purpose was simply to force pushers off
streets in the Downtown Eastside and "restore a community that was in
crisis." They also take issue with some aspects of the study.

What's hard to dispute though, is the daunting scale of the problem. The
marijuana industry in our province is bigger than logging, mining, oil and
gas combined. It employs 100,000 workers, and boasts exports of over $4
billion, according to B.C.'s Organized Crime Agency.

Across the country, drug overdoses are the leading cause of death among
people aged 30-49. Close to 1,000 people die each year, about 200 of them in
B.C. And a third of all HIV infections and two-thirds of hepatitis C
infections are due to dirty needles.

Somewhere between half a million and a million Canadians have criminal
records related to illicit drugs, and huge law enforcement resources are
tied down pursuing traffickers. Organized crime is fuelled by drug profits,
and petty criminals pay for their habits by robbing homeowners.

Viewed in that context, moving a few pushers around is virtually an
admission of defeat. So why don't we admit that the war on drugs is lost,
and take a different approach?

Partly it's because we fear the consequences. However inadequate the current
approach has proven, surely more people would become addicted if drugs were
decriminalized? How can we even seem to equivocate on behaviour so
destructive?

Partly it's because we may have reached one of those points that democracies
don't handle very well. We've allowed our moral revulsion for drugs to prop
up a policy that isn't working.

Whether decriminalization would succeed is a good question. It would
certainly be a huge blow to organized crime. And it would free up
law-enforcement resources to deal with other pressing concerns.

But could we take over the responsibility of providing drugs to addicts
without becoming complicit in their habit? Would the kind of harm-reduction
approach we would employ reduce deaths and overdoses, or would it encourage
more to become hooked?

As it stands, we don't know the answer to these questions. We're still
trying to win a war that's gone on for decades. Like Vietnam for the
Americans, it's become more important for us to keep fighting, than to say
how we hope to win.