SULLIVAN'S FREE-DRUG IDEA DRAWS FIRE FROM FAMILIAR FOE

Vancouver's Sam Sullivan is in Ottawa this week to meet with Stephen
Harper, making him the first mayor of a major Canadian city to get an
audience with the new Prime Minister.

While there are many items on Mr. Sullivan's agenda, one issue the
Vancouver mayor says he won't be raising during his meeting tomorrow
with Mr. Harper is his latest idea for cleaning up the troubled
Downtown Eastside -- providing free drugs to addicts.

Probably not an idea the Conservative Prime Minister would warmly
embrace anyway.

Mr. Sullivan floated the "free drugs" trial balloon in a published
interview last Friday. In it, he talked about implementing a drug
maintenance program that would see addicts supplied with free heroin
and cocaine.

In theory, this would rid the neighbourhood's troubled streets of the
bad heroin and cocaine that kills people, or at the very least sends
them to hospital. Mr. Sullivan initially suggested that such a
program would be funded by an anonymous individual who has apparently
contacted his office offering a half-million dollars for an
innovative harm-reduction program.

But the mayor later admitted he had only heard about the would-be
donor from a third party.

It wasn't difficult to find people who quickly criticized the mayor's
musings. Liberal Senator Larry Campbell, a former mayor of Vancouver,
a coroner and a leading advocate of drug reform in Canada, called Mr.
Sullivan's idea simplistic.

That the good senator would dismiss Mr. Sullivan's idea was not
surprising given the mutual disdain the two men have for one another.
When Mr. Campbell was Mr. Sullivan's predecessor as mayor, the two
were on opposite sides of the ideological fence. So had the same
thoughts on the drug issue come from someone who wasn't an adversary,
Mr. Campbell almost assuredly would not have been so dismissive.

Mr. Campbell, remember, has publicly called for the decriminalization
of marijuana. He is also on the side of an emerging view in the
health-care community that says it's time to legalize and regularize
mind-altering drugs, including heroin and cocaine.

So, the head-shaking tone the senator took toward Mr. Sullivan's idea
likely had more to do with his personal feelings about the mayor, and
about politics.

Let's not forget that Mr. Campbell supported the man who ran against
Mr. Sullivan for the mayor's chair, Jim Green.

There is no doubt that Mr. Sullivan's idea, as unformulated and
ridiculously vague as it is, has support. The Health Officers of
Council of British Columbia recently released a report calling for
the decriminalization of all drugs.

The doctors argue that by gaining control over the pharmacological
makeup, or the purity, of the drugs, there would be fewer deaths from
overdoses as well as diseases such as AIDS. It should be noted that
the council consists of some of the top minds in the area of
addiction research.

And these minds have concluded that prohibition, throwing addicts in
jail, is a social policy that has seen its day.

Dependence, they say, is not a problem that should be dealt with by
the criminal justice system.

In a weekend interview, Mr. Sullivan did not elaborate on his drug
comments. He did reiterate that future policy in this area would only
come after much discussion with experts and community groups who
would have most of the say into how such a drug-maintenance program might work.

The problem with Mr. Sullivan's public ruminations on the subject is
the lack of any real substance behind them. Sure, it's wonderful to
say, as he did, that he wants to protect female drug users in the
Downtown Eastside, many of whom prostitute themselves to earn money
to feed their addictions. I mean, who doesn't want to help these women?

But making drugs like heroin and cocaine available to addicts is
something the people of Vancouver might want to have a say in. Among
other things, citizens might be worried about the migration of
addicts from across the country looking for the free daily buzz they
can get in Vancouver.

Instead of helping to clean up the Downtown Eastside, a free-drug
offer might lead to more chaos and problems.

Would there be a limit on the amount of free drugs an addict could
get? If so, what happens when the limit is reached? Doesn't the
addict just go back out on the street and get the illicit drugs that
were used before? And if you're going to hand addicts free drugs,
what about alcoholics? Would they get access to free booze?

I don't say that to be flip. The mayor's comments prompt a million
questions. Which is why he might have been better off keeping quiet
on the issue until he had a more clearly thought-out plan to discuss.
In fact, the whole area is likely not his call anyway.

Wouldn't the provincial and federal governments have something to say
about the offer of free drugs in Vancouver?

Maybe the Prime Minister would like to talk about this matter after all.

Mr. Sullivan's Non-Partisan Association party can't be too thrilled
about its leader's back-of-a-napkin policy announcement on such an
important and controversial subject. I know there are party members
who are furious that Mr. Sullivan raised such a contentious issue in
such an off-hand way.

The mayor said he's willing to risk his political career to bring in
the kind of program he's envisaging. Well, he may have done that already.