DRUG WAR ABOUT DAMAGE CONTROL

Public policy experts are often at odds with governments on how best
to handle complex social issues and it was no different yesterday at
a national addictions conference in Edmonton.

There is no evidence that tough enforcement of drug laws either
reduces the availability or increases the price of illicit drugs. Yet
the U.S. has consistently maintained its hardline stance on drugs
over the years and the Harper Conservatives just announced that
Canada, too, will impose stricter sanctions for certain drug crimes.

The Tories, for instance, plan to bring in a two-year minimum
sentence for running a pot grow-op of 500 plants or more.

The keynote speaker at yesterday's conference, however, stirred the
pot by adding his voice to a growing list of drug-policy reformers
who propose that we just legalize pot.

Marijuana should be legalized for personal use and free distribution,
Mark Kleiman told delegates at the 2007 conference of the Canadian
Centre on Substance Abuse.

"Not everybody has a green thumb, so you could get your pot from your
friend," Kleiman, a professor of public policy at UCLA, said in a
later interview. "Do I think people would sell it? Of course they'd
sell it and I couldn't care less. I don't want the billboards."

The goal of drug policy should be to limit the damage from drugs --
such as disease, accidents, crime and social functioning -- not to
wage "cultural warfare" on drug users, Kleiman said.

TARGETS

To that end, he offered several other prescriptions. Drug sentencing
should be based on the behaviour of the drug dealer, not the
particular drug or amount being sold. The most dangerous and violent
dealers are the ones police need to target, he said.

"You want the (additional sentence) for having a gun to be
sufficiently large compared to the original sentence that a drug
dealer will consider not having a gun because he wants to avoid that
sentence," he said.

"You want to create competitive disadvantage for the most obnoxious
dealing styles. And, unfortunately, routine drug law enforcement
creates competitive advantage for the most obnoxious dealing styles."

In the U.S., for example, the minimum sentences for selling small
amounts of drugs are already so lengthy that another few years tacked
on for the use of a weapon has no impact on a dealer's conduct, he said.

Tougher sentences for the most violent dealers won't shrink the
volume of illicit drugs on the streets, but they will at least reduce
the amount of damage done, Kleiman said.

"Most of the users are going to find a way to get their drug. But you
can save the neighbourhood from the side effects of dealing."

He also proposes routine random testing of drug offenders on
probation and parole and a two-day stint in jail every time they test
positive. "Anybody who's trained a puppy understands these
principles," he said. "That will dramatically reduce the amount of
drugs they use."

Alcohol may be legal, but 20% of the beds in acute care hospitals are
filled by patients with a booze-related disorder of some kind, Kleiman added.

He recommends a multi-pronged approach to encouraging people to drink
responsibly. He'd scrap the drinking age, prohibit anyone under 21
from driving with any alcohol in their system and raise booze taxes.

As well, doctors should be screening patients for alcohol and drug
use and giving them advice if needed, he added.

Agree or not with Kleiman's stance, you have to admit that drug
policy experts are, at least, realists. Politicians are usually the
blinkered ideologues.