SIMPLISTIC SOLUTIONS TO ILLICIT DRUGS WON'T SOLVE THE PROBLEM

Jody Paterson focused on the illicit drugs issue in her column of Aug. 17,
and as is common in this issue that is fraught with a myriad of
complexities, the attitude expressed is simplistic, and the conclusion
(reform the drug laws) is off-target. History suggests that such an
approach would ultimately be a disservice to society as a whole.

The United Nations issued a bulletin warning that the experience of
countries "going soft" on illicit drugs has resulted in significant
increases in drug use in those same countries, with serious implications
for their neighbors. Within those countries, there has been a corresponding
increase in the stresses in their health care programs.

A report to the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police makes the point,
repeatedly, that just seven per cent of Canadians indicated using
marijuana, for example, within the 30-day window prior to being surveyed.
That statistic, when compared to the proportion of users/abusers in a
country such as Holland, where the drug laws are not enforced, strongly
suggests that police enforcement is not as ineffective as liberal media
types, pro-drugs spin doctors and the occasional pro-drugs provincial
health officer would have society believe.

Dealing with illicit drugs is no simple issue, and no singular approach has
proven to be effective in all instances.

Certainly modern day decision-making based on decades-old research such as
the LeDain Commission would in itself be criminal. While it took over a
half-century to figure out the harmful effects of tobacco, the perils of
marijuana are being revealed much more quickly, especially with the advent
of biological research now being conducted at the molecular level. Regular
marijuana users, even those smoking just one joint per week, are impaired
to some extent 24 hours a day.

Effectiveness is all instances does seem to rely upon a three-pronged
approach to illicit/illegal drugs: prevention, intervention, and
interdiction; in other words education, detoxification/counselling, and law
enforcement. The same goes for the legal drugs, if Jody insists on mixing
apples and oranges: legal drugs with illegal drugs.

In Canada, two of the three prongs have already been weakened. Lessening
the impact of enforcement simply means blunting the third prong, and then
Canada would join the ranks of those countries who went soft on drugs -
right in the midst of an economic climate that suggests Canadian
productivity is nowhere near where it needs to be in the context of the
global economy.

Reform the drug laws - go soft on drugs under the misnomers of "harm
reduction," "medicalized marijuana," "the only victim is the drugs user,"
or what have you - and we really will have a problem with our neighbor to
the south, our major trading partner. We will also attract "drugs tourism."
The current street problems in downtown Victoria will pale in comparison to
what the future may hold with reduced drug laws enforcement.

In an effort to be nice to seven per cent of the population, 100 per cent
of society stands to lose on many fronts, not the least of which is an
already over-stressed health care system. Business would be compelled to
conduct regular drug testing of their staff for insurance purposes. Soften
the stance on illegal drugs, and the cost of living goes up for everybody
while the quality of Canadian life drops. Illicit drugs are a societal
morality issue, perhaps. An economics issue, absolutely.

Ken Lane, of Victoria, is a founding member of Canadian Communities Against
Substance Abuse.