NEW ATTITUDE ON DRUGS IS BREWING

It's not often that gang warfare makes its way into the legislature
as the main topic of debate, but that's exactly what happened this
month as the Lower Mainland seemed to morph into something out of The
Untouchables.

Gangland shootings have dominated headlines and newscasts, and
politicians on both sides of the house found themselves grappling
with an issue usually far from their bailiwick.

There was a lot of talk about amalgamating police forces in the Lower
Mainland into a cohesive regional force, the need for tougher
sentences for gang members and frustration about immigration polices
that allow some convicted gang leaders to avoid deportation.

But one issue wasn't raised: whether or not the legalization of drugs
might at least be considered a viable option in the face of apparent
unstoppable growth of organized crime and gang activity in this province.

Neither the B.C. Liberals nor the New Democrats want to go down that
road, and prefer to yell at each other about which party is tougher
on criminals.

The police, and Solicitor General John Les, initially tried to
downplay the violence as nothing more than an unfortunate statistical
spike in such behaviour. After a few days their attitude seemed to
change, culminating in a showy news conference featuring all kinds of
officers trooping into the same room to show they have a united front
against the bad guys.

But does anyone actually believe the police are winning this war? Law
enforcement authorities themselves have acknowledged that organized
crime and illegal gangs are increasing - not decreasing - their
presence in communities.

Drug trafficking is the economic backbone of those organizations.
There are enormous profits to be had in the procurement and sale of
illegal substances, and the primary reason for those profits is the
fact they are illegal in the first place.

The recent spate of gang shootings invoked more than one comment that
the Lower Mainland was becoming like Chicago of the 1920s.

The comparison is apt in an important way - back then, the illegal
substance fuelling the criminal empires of people like Al Capone was alcohol.

When Prohibition was repealed, the gang wars died down. When the
illegality of alcohol was gone, so too was the profit margin for the gangs.

And now one has to wonder whether the war on drugs is doing more harm
than actual use of those drugs. Can the police really point to huge
success stories in their relentless clash with drug kingpins and low-lifes?

More importantly, who should control the use and distribution of
drugs - criminal organizations or the government?

These are not idle questions. In fact, key people in both health and
law enforcement circles are advocating a radical new attitude towards drugs.

In the U.S., a group of current and ex-police officers have created
an organization called Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. That
organization, to which many ex-narcotic officers belong, makes
credible arguments about how the current approach to illegal drugs is
an abysmal failure.

And the controlled use of drugs has crept onto the public health
scene in recent years. The safe injection site in Vancouver is an
example of the tacit acknowledgement there is a role for the state
when it comes to the control and use of certain drugs.

Some public health advocates say we should go even further and
actually medically prescribe the drugs to addicts, many of who are so
desperate they will routinely break the law to finance their habit.
Giving them secure access to something they need presumably would
greatly reduce their criminal activity.

The amalgamation of police forces may indeed help combat organized
crime. But then again, it may prove to be no more effective than what
is being done now. However, eliminating the profit margin from the
gangs' core economic activity - drug trafficking - may do a heck of a
lot more than shuffling the police bureaucracy.

- - Keith Baldrey is chief political reporter for Global B.C.