ALTERNATIVE PATH NEEDED FOR DRUG USERS

With any luck, a special drug treatment court in Edmonton that sends
people to treatment instead of jail will become standard practice in
all of this province's major cities.

Instead of throwing non-violent offenders -- often young persons --
into a jail environment, they get help with their drug dependence,
provided they abstain from drug use and the often lesser crimes they
commit to pay for their next high.

We don't have such a court in Red Deer. But this city could use one,
especially since the use of hard street drugs -- including crystal
meth and cocaine -- is common, and often tied to people in court.

In Red Deer, people are regularly charged with crimes such as
breaking into cars and homes, shoplifting or stealing items to hawk
for money to buy drugs.

If one of every two people involved in these types of activities were
able to get help, via drug court, and stay way from the drug scene,
there would be a lot less crime in this city. There would be fewer
wasted lives and less demand for illegal drugs. There would be less
damage to the public purse.

Parking lots would become safer. Those who are vulnerable to drug
pushers -- such as school-aged kids -- would be safer. And we would
be less likely to read stories like the one in Monday's Advocate
about a child who started smoking pot when he was eight years old. He
got access to the drugs via his older brother, who bought them
through friends at school.

The eight-year-old got into heavier drugs as he got older, including
crystal meth and mushrooms, and drank gasoline.

If that isn't tragic, I don't know what is.

A 2000 discussion paper prepared by AADAC for the Canadian Centre on
Substance Abuse looked at U.S. drug courts. The paper stated: "Drug
courts generate cost savings, at least in the short term, from
reductions in jail time and prison use, court and other justice
system costs, and reduced criminality.

"Drug courts have facilitated co-operation and partnerships between
the criminal justice system, substance abuse treatment professionals,
and other social service providers."

The first drug treatment court in the U.S. was established in 1989.
Whether we are talking the U.S. or Canada, a large number of
prisoners commit crimes related to drugs (including alcohol), or
under their influence.

In the U.S., there are now hundreds of such courts, and in every state.

Toronto and Vancouver had Canada's first drug courts about eight
years ago. Edmonton and several other cities in Canada now have pilot
project drug treatment courts, funded with federal dollars.

Close monitoring of the offender is involved. Random, frequent drug
testing, substance abuse treatment and social services support are
part of the package.

Calgary is working at getting funding for a drug court. Red Deer,
Alberta's third largest city, would put one to good use, too.

Generally, drug offences fall under federal jurisdiction. But drug
treatment courts can't happen with just federal involvement.

Without treatment beds, drug courts can't work. If these courts are
to become common, the province will have to provide enough treatment beds.

If drug courts don't make sense to the tough-love proponents, they
should consider this from the discussion paper: In 2000, the
estimated cost per offender in the Toronto drug court program was
$4,500, compared with almost $47,000 per offender annually for incarceration.

Alberta has been showing signs of taking its drug problem seriously.
More can be done.

It would be progressive -- economically and socially -- for the
province to embrace a drug treatment court system, push for more
federal funding, and commit more to its role.