LET'S SEND DRUG ADDICTS TO ISOLATED WORK CAMPS

I prosecuted a lot of drug dealers in Vancouver during my career.
Those at the wholesale level were not usually addicts. At the retail
level of drug dealing, many were addicts, peddling drugs to anyone,
including kids, to obtain money to fuel their addiction.

Of course, the addicts engaged in many other crimes to get money for
more drugs. They mugged old ladies, broke into homes and cars, stole
from stores and family, broke their parole and probation terms, abused
the welfare system, prostituted themselves, and generally led a
degenerate, lawless life.

In one case I argued before the B.C. Court of Appeal, I presented
several authoritative studies which showed an indisputable correlation
between criminal activity and drug addiction. I have, as a result of
my prosecution career, never seen addicts as victims. I see them as
victimizers, who make victims of their families and children, and
their friends, as well as the general public, all for the sake of the
next fix.

When it comes to sentencing drug addicts for their crimes, the
addiction is often presented by defence counsel as a mitigating
factor. I don't see it that way.

An addict chooses to be an addict. Sure, some of them have had a rough
or even tragic life, some not, but escaping into drug addiction is the
action of an amoral fool.

When it comes to sentencing those who are convicted of a crime, I have
always been pragmatic. The sentence should be one which first of all
does the best job of protecting the public. Consideration for the
criminal is secondary.

During the 1970s, the late unlamented Trudeau government reversed
these priorities. Pierre Trudeau's solicitor general, Jean-Paul Goyer,
said to Parliament in 1971: "We have decided from now on to stress the
rehabilitation of individuals rather than the protection of society."

Since then, the increase of crime has conclusively demonstrated the
failure of this policy, and the endangerment of the public which resulted.

Despite that, many cling to the concept of rehabilitation because it
seems more humane and uplifting - even if it fails most of the time
and the public suffers.

That brings me to the safe house shooting gallery called Insite, and
the handing out of free crack pipes. Those with good intentions think
they are helping drug addicts to be healthy. In fact they are paving a
freeway to hell for the addicts, and endangering the public as a
result of the crimes those addicts will commit to get more drugs.

Should we just allow addicts to use dirty needles or crack pipes and
die in the gutter? No, we aren't that indifferent in this country.

We need to do something effective to rid them of the addiction, and
protect the public from drug-related crime so long as they are
addicted. That means addicts should be segregated from society until
they are no longer addicted. Put them in jail for long terms? No, that
is expensive, and it is too easy to get drugs in our jails.

I suggest isolated work camps, where drug addicts will go cold turkey
or are weaned off drugs in a medically supervised way. They will be
taught a work ethic, by doing work of a meaningful type, such as
farming or manufacturing. They will be required to pass a basic
education course, and a technical course to make them employable,
before they are released. They will remain in the camp until they have
become drug free, physically and psychologically, and have passed the
work and education tests.

Some, of course, would never qualify for release. They would, however,
have room and board, and free medical care at taxpayer expense for
their lifetime even though most will never have contributed a dime in
taxes. That's better than continuing to be a criminal and an addict
even if you do have a clean needle or crack pipe.

I can already hear words like "gulag" and "concentration camp" being
hurled about by those who want to help stray animals and broken
people. Just remember, though, that stray animals are put into animal
shelters. They are locked into those shelters until they can be
released into a new environment.

Think of the addict camp as a shelter, but one with the ability to
make a drug addict into a drug-free person with some reasonable
prospect of a productive life. The alternative is a life of crime, and
the destruction of the addict and all those close to him. Which is
better?