WAR ON GANGS UNWINNABLE

Other than the upbeat news of last week's arrests, reminiscent of
Dubya's "mission accomplished" sign on that aircraft carrier, it is
easy to hear the tone of powerlessness in the reactions of politicians
and police to our gang-and-gun crisis.

They have to appear to be doing something; they can't just admit they
are at a loss on how to deal with the issue.

Yet they clearly are at a loss, since this is the third go-round in
five years.

The situation was dire enough in October 2004 to warrant the creation
of the Integrated Gang Task Force, specifically "to address ongoing
gang violence."

In 2007, that task force having apparently not addressed much of
anything, the Violence Suppression Team was set up. Eighteen shootings
in February and five more in the first week of March suggest not a
whole lot was suppressed.

Now, we're going to fund two new gang task forces for Kelowna and
Prince George. Einstein's definition of insanity: Doing the same thing
over and over again expecting different results.

In announcing his $69-million, three-year plan, Premier Gordon
Campbell promised 168 more police and ten new prosecutors on top of
the new anti-gang teams. The new prosecutors "will be directed to
oppose bail and seek maximum penalties when guns are involved." Isn't
that what they do now?

He also announced the creation of yet another task force "to seize
illegal guns." Again, isn't that what our police have always been
instructed to do?

Finally, he promised to build new jails so that all those gang members
who will suddenly be arrested and charged -- something that has eluded
law enforcement over the past four years -- will have somewhere to lay
their heads. Try to resist the image of all those abandoned, empty
condos that nobody can afford anymore.

Next up was Justice Minister Rob Nicholson who expressed his
considerable outrage at the situation and announced that his
government would make every gang-related killing a matter of
first-degree murder.

He also promised a new crime of "drive-by shooting," carrying a
minimum penalty of four years in prison, and two "new" offences of
aggravated assault and assault with a weapon against police officers,
carrying maximum penalties of 14 and 10 years in prison.

Here's how those commitments look in the real world:

Since those killings are invariably "targeted," and therefore
premeditated, first-degree murder would inevitably be the charge --
the "new" crime is old.

The promise of a four-year minimum for drive-by or "other reckless"
shootings is a revival of a legislative proposal put forward in 2006,
to raise the minimum for gun crimes from one year to four. In other
words, it has nothing specifically to do with gangs and, in any event,
won't have any impact on the problem.

The third is a puzzler, and may have been included only because the
Justice Minister was making his announcement at Ottawa police
headquarters.

While it may happen (once every eclipse of the sun) that an assault on
a police officer is with a weapon or causes serious bodily harm, it is
once again inconceivable that the accused would be prosecuted for
anything less than those offences -- which already exist and which
carry the maximums the Minister promised.

The next day, Nicholson came to Vancouver to announce more steps in
his government's "strategy." Unfortunately, that strategy is identical
to the legislative proposal put forward by his government in November
2007: Mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes.

That bill died in committee, and for good reason. Ideology makes one
immune to any evidence that collides with it, but the indisputable
fact remains: in the United States, they've been there, they've done
that, and it has failed. The federal and many state penal systems that
adopted mandatory minimums are withdrawing from that approach.

In California, devotion to quick-fix measures like three-strikes laws
and widespread minimums have nearly bankrupted the government, while
having no perceptible effect on crime.

Nicholson is presumably aware of two recent studies (2002 and 2005)
within his own ministry that conclude that minimums are a costly and
ineffective policy.

Everyone recognizes that combating gang crime is extremely
problematic. Their airtight culture, their shifting alliances and --
most important -- the fear they spread, make gangs exceedingly
difficult to successfully investigate and prosecute.

Surveillance, infiltration and intelligence seem to be the keys -- and
those can be extremely delicate and costly. So this is not intended to
be a criticism of our political and police leaders for their failure
to deal with the problem.

But it is fair to criticize their waste of public funds, their
shameless scapegoating of the courts, and their failure to shed
ideology and start thinking and acting creatively.

Much of Campbell's $69 million will disappear into a black hole while
the public, legitimately anxious about the problem, is promised
quick-fix solutions that will fix little, let alone quickly.

Attorney General Wally Oppal insists that legalization and regulation
of drugs (especially cannabis), the only viable solution to the
problem, is a "non-starter" because of the potential reaction of our
neighbours to the south.

He and others who share that view should take note: The attitude in
the United States has begun to shift noticeably. Among many other
signs -- such as the unanimous resolution by the American Conference
of Mayors at their 2007 convention that the war on drugs is a disaster
and should be ended -- they might consider the ho-hum reaction to
Michael Phelps' bong adventure.

As demonstrated by the election of Barack Obama, our American cousins
can act rationally. And there can be no doubt that the new
administration will take a serious and pragmatic -- not ideological --
look at a policy that has cost the United States treasury more than a
trillion dollars since the "war" was declared.

Quite apart from its many other negative consequences, and the
complete absence of any positive ones, they simply can't afford it
anymore.

The polls show that over 65 per cent of Canadians favour the
decriminalization of pot. That attitude has been reflected in the
media across the country over the past couple of years. Locally, the
Vancouver Province, long an opponent of relaxing drug laws, recently
called for a discussion of the option of legalization, regulation and
taxation of drugs. Many other media outlets, including this newspaper,
have done the same.

Politicians like Campbell, Nicholson and Prime Minister Stephen Harper
are almost certain to find themselves behind the curve on this issue,
as will the police, following suit.

The public mood is changing and changing fast. It would save a lot of
grief -- and a lot of money -- if, just this once, our leaders
actually led.