THE CASE FOR GIVING HARD-CORE ADDICTS THEIR DRUGS

The "tough-punishment" crowd came to mind when I read last week that
the Victoria police had caught three people smoking crack cocaine.

They were parked in the police department lot.

The police station is a distinctive -- and attractive -- building. And
the parking lot almost always has some marked police cars in it.

The trio -- two men and a women -- weren't confused about where they
were. They were bringing something to a friend who had been locked up
in cells. But they still decided to do drugs in the parking lot before
venturing into the police station. An officer noticed the car was full
of smoke and knocked on the window. They rolled it down to talk to
him, he smelled drugs and the men were charged with cocaine possession
and driving while impaired.

First, the case shows how frustrating police work must be some days.
Instead of fighting crime, officers are social workers and counsellors
for the troubled, the kind of people who smoke cocaine in the police
station parking lot and are surprised to be arrested.

Second, it reveals the laughable flaw in the argument that tougher
sentences will make any real difference.

People who smoke drugs outside a police station don't think about
whether they will get a conditional sentence or jail time. They don't
assess consequences. If they did, the probably wouldn't be drug
addicts. (So, teach your children about choices, consequences and
reasonable risk.)

They are likely the people smashing their way into your car in a
parkade or stealing your bicycle. Tougher sentences are not going to
make them change their ways.

That should be the objective. It would be great if, in a moment of
clarity, they realized that stealing was wrong and decided never to do
it again because it must hurt the victims.

But really, it's OK if they just stop.

That's not the approach we take, though. Prescribing an effective
heroin substitute for a long-term addict who just can't or won't quit
makes practical sense. He or she is healthier, safer, less likely to
go to jail, more likely to be living an orderly life -- and to enter
treatment.

And less likely to be committing property crimes every day to get drug
money.

The NAOMI project reported last month on a thee-year trial in Montreal
and Vancouver that tested the effect of prescribing both heroin and a
heroin substitute for confirmed addicts. (Participants had to have
been through treatment unsuccessfully twice; the mean age was 40 and
they were pretty much considered impossible to treat.)

By any rational measure, prescription heroin and heroin substitutes
made sense. After a year in the program, almost 90 per cent of those
prescribed heroin or Dilaudid -- the chemical substitute -- had
entered treatment or weren't using heroin illicitly. Only 54 per cent
of those on a methadone program succeeded in achieving the one-year
clean period.

Those who stayed on the program spent far less money on drugs of any
kind. The median monthly spending fell from $1,500 -- or $50 a day --
to $400. The number of participants who said they had committed crimes
was cut in half, from 70 per cent to 36 per cent.

And the study found no negative effects, for individuals or
communities. Other studies have shown similar results for programs
offering substitutes for crystal meth and cocaine.

No one is comfortable with the idea of people using drugs. But in
health terms, heroin does far less damage than alcohol or tobacco. The
problems are mostly related to the struggle to get and use drugs
illicitly, not the substances themselves.

It would be wrong to make drug use too easy for people for whom
treatment could likely be successful.

But that leaves several thousand addicts in B.C. who could be helped
through prescription drugs -- and several hundred thousand fewer
crimes each year in B.C. and far fewer customers for drug-supplying
gangs. How could this be a bad thing?

Footnote: The other remarkable failure is our efforts at prevention. Drug
education
programs have been out there for almost 40 years, but alcoholism and other
substance
issues have increased over most of that period. What we are doing doesn't
work, but we
seem unwilling to change.