REPORT BY PREMIER'S TASK FORCE ON CRYSTAL METH MISSES THE POINT

I had never much considered the problem of crystal meth until I moved
in to an apartment just a few blocks away from Edmonton's Greyhound
station. I had experienced meth highs in other people, and I knew it
wasn't the type of addiction you'd want to cuddle or nurture.

This perception was entrenched when I had to coerce a meth-addled
traveller out of her rage by spending the night in her room,
indulging deeply depressive thoughts until the sun came up. Earlier
that evening, she'd exploded out of her hotel window, sending shards
of glass through the sky. Two of my friends were sent to the hospital.

It was not a pretty sight.

But, again, I hadn't fully realized how pervasive an issue it had
become in Alberta until I moved downtown. Now, every night, I'm
treated to a chorus of manic screaming and moaning, and when I peek
through my blinds, I see young people my age scratching their flesh to ribbons.

Having recognized the need to address this nightmare--which is as
much if not more a problem in rural Alberta than it is in the
cities--the provincial government created a task force to investigate
the culture of crystal meth and to make appropriate policy
recommendations regarding its prevention, treatment and legal status.

Their report, which was summarized in a news release issued on Sep
19, is controversial both in terms of its findings and its
recommendations. For example, Recommendation 21 states that "Alberta
Human Resources and Employment should require all Alberta employers,
through their workplace safety policies, to adopt a drug and alcohol
policy that fosters drug-free Alberta workplaces and worksites.

They should also encourage employers to support drug education and
prevention programs and employee self-referral programs for
addictions treatment."

This recommendation is particularly salient within the context of
Alberta, as the task force discovered that during this current period
of economic prosperity, when recruitment has become an increasingly
cumbersome task, workplace management often refuses to see drug use
as a priority issue.

Employers are now quick to turn a blind eye to drug users, as they
have a vested interest in retaining qualified employees.

The rationale behind Recommendation 21 is that employers should pay
more attention to their employees' habits, all in the interest of
improved staff productivity. Evidently, however, staff retention is
perceived as being more important that staff productivity, and it
will be a very difficult challenge to convince workplace management otherwise.

Even more controversial is Recommendation 61, which states that, "The
Government of Canada should enact and/or amend legislation that
places a reverse onus on the accused, requiring them to prove that
the possession of precursors [household chemicals used to produce
meth] was for a purpose other than meth production." Justification
for this recommendation comes from the United States and Australia,
both of which already follow policies of reverse onus in cases
dealing with meth.

The problem here is twofold.

First, precursor chemicals are extremely common and include products
such as cold medications, drain cleaner and paint thinner.

The fact that the presence of such household items could instantly
and legitimately incriminate the accused is arguably questionable.
Second, reverse onus is an extremely unfamiliar idea to the average
Canadian. In essence, it states that an individual accused of meth
production would be considered guilty until proven innocent.

Is this form of law something we as Canadians should be comfortable with?

Finally, Recommendation 71 suggests that, "The Government of Canada
should rescind its policy of requiring Aboriginal people to return to
their home reserve for treatment services.

This would allow Aboriginal people to choose treatment where they
want it while still receiving federal government financial support."
This recommendation is special insofar as what it points out about
the status quo: non-reserve Canadians are free to receive
rehabilitation services wherever they want, whereas reserve
Aboriginals are forced, often at a great inconvenience, to return to
their own reserves. One should be shocked to read this fact, as it
smacks of humiliating apartheid.

In addition, the task force points out that, "There are no
[conventional] detox or treatment facilities located on Aboriginal
reserves and limited detox capacity outside of the major two centres
[of Edmonton and Calgary]." Once again, the question must be asked:
is this a situation we as Canadians should be comfortable with?

At the end of the task force's report, it becomes very clear that any
initiative to tackle the problem of crystal meth--and of drugs in
general--must be collaborative. Our attention is drawn to the success
of Hinton's local Family and Community Support Services Agency, which
was responsible for the construction of a firm, meth-fighting nexus
between law enforcement, AADAC and the municipality. Crystal meth use
is pervasive, and it has become a community affair. We must take note
of the users who stand outside of our windows in the early hours of
the morning, and we must recognize them as our neighbours. We must
realize that this is a very public scourge that should offend our
pride as Canadians, and we should see that we each play a part in its
perpetuation--through the prosperity most of us enjoy, through the
laws we choose to uphold and through our conscious and shameful
decision to collectively ignore.