'TOUGH' DRUG BILL ALL ABOUT POLITICS

After 35 years of experience with mandatory minimum sentences for
drug crimes, Americans are beginning to abandon this discredited
approach. Yet Stephen Harper's Conservative government now wants to
saddle Canadians with these expensive and ineffective laws.

Now before a Commons committee, Bill C-15 would impose a two-year
mandatory minimum for dealing drugs like cocaine and methamphetamines
in places where young people congregate. It would also impose a
six-month jail sentence for growing even a single marijuana plant for
the purposes of trafficking, which could include giving a joint to a friend.

These minimum sentences may sound reasonable to most Canadians.
Indeed, federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson told the Commons
committee last month that the bill targets "serious drug traffickers,
the people who are basically out to destroy our society."

But the committee also heard ample evidence that the mandatory
minimums would have the effect of filling our prisons with petty drug
felons (many of them addicts themselves), creating an even greater
backlog in our overwhelmed court system and wasting taxpayer dollars
that could be used far more effectively in the battle against drug addiction.

In 1973, Americans were told tougher narcotics laws would help put
away drug kingpins. Instead, they found themselves paying billions of
dollars to house an astronomical increase in non-violent, petty
dealers and drug addicts. Now, New York, California, Florida,
Michigan (which spends more on prisons than on higher education) and
others are busy extricating themselves from these laws and returning
sentencing discretion to judges.

When questioned by New Democratic MP Libby Davies at the committee,
Nicholson refused to provide two vital pieces of information: What
evidence is there that this law will reduce crime? How much will it cost?

Canadians ought to be given these answers. Instead, Nicholson told
the committee: "We are absolutely convinced in our consultation with
Canadians that this is welcomed." In other words, the government did
a poll on the bill. As Davies rightly noted, "this bill is not about
crime; it is about politics."

Of course, in a minority Parliament, the opposition parties could
kill this initiative. But while the New Democrats and the Bloc
Quebecois have voiced strong opposition to Bill C-15, the Liberals
have indicated they will support it when it comes back to the Commons
for third reading.

Why? Not because they think it is sound policy; they acknowledge in
private that it is not. Rather, the Liberals do not want to give the
Conservatives an opening to accuse them of being "soft" on crime.

This is craven politics at its worst.

Mandatory minimums for drug offences have been proven, over the
course of 35 years in the United States, to be an utter failure in
reducing crime. Implementing them here makes no sense. Canadians who
are concerned about safety in their communities need smart policies
that will actually make a difference, not tough posturing that won't.