HARPER'S LAW-AND-ORDER DRUG TALK THE SAME FAILED APPROACH

It's hard to take seriously any politician who calls for mandatory
minimum sentences.

That's what Stephen Harper did on his first campaign stop in B.C.,
casting himself as the non-nonsense sheriff from an old Western.

It's time get tough on crime, especially drugs, said Harper. No
conditional sentences, an end to harm reduction efforts like safe
injection sites and mandatory minimum sentences for people who sell
heroin, cocaine and crystal meth.

Mandatory minimum sentences are popular with politicians who can't
figure out what else to do, in spite of two problems - they don't
work, and they guarantee injustices.

In an earlier life I stood in a Red Deer church and watched a young
mother and her three small children make their way to their usual pew
without the dad who was there every Sunday. He was in a federal penitentiary.

The family business had been on the brink of collapse, and he was
desperate, depressed and terrified. To get enough money to keep going
for one more week he took an unloaded rifle and robbed a local bank
branch, a stunningly stupid plan. He got about $2,000, was stopped by
the police within five minutes, surrendered and admitted everything.

The sentencing guidelines then demanded a five-year minimum sentence
for robbery with a weapon. So off he went to prison.

He had done a crime, and a serious one. The bank tellers were
terrified, and despite the unloaded weapon something very bad could
have happened.

But a five-year prison term made no sense.

Sentencing serves three purposes - to deter others who might offend,
rehabilitate the criminal and express society's anger.

This sentence wasn't going to deter similar offenders; the essence of
the crime was its lack of judgment and foresight. A five-year term
wasn't needed to ensure rehabilitation, just some counselling. And
most people reacted with compassion, not anger.

All that was really achieved by the strict sentencing rule was to
wreck a family, leave three children without a father for a couple of
years and send someone off for an expensive, destructive jail stay.

I have little doubt that without the minimum requirement, the court
would have imposed house arrest or a brief jail stay.

Harper's proposed two-year minimum sentences for people arrested for
drug trafficking would create the same injustices. A long sentence
for a hapless addict for making a delivery or for people growing a
dozen marijuana plants is not going to reduce crime.

Despite the promised minimum sentences, it's not even really going to happen.

There isn't space in jails, for starters. B.C.'s prison costs are
already expected to be $4 million over budget this year because of an
increased number of inmates.

In fact mandatory minimum sentences often result in reduced
penalties. Criminal Code penalties for impaired driving have become
increasingly tough. The practical result has been that more people
have fought the charges, and police and prosecutors can't handle the
workload. Today only one-in-six drinking drivers caught by B.C.
police is actually charged with a Criminal Code offence. The rest
receive 24-hour roadside suspensions and are sent on their way.

Expect the same approach to small-time drug traffickers if Harper gets his way.

Harper's drug strategy is based on two basic fallacies - that drugs
can be dealt with by attacking the supply side, and that addiction is
a moral issue.

"Our values are under attack," he said in Vancouver.

From Prohibition to today attacks on the supply side have failed.
When enough people desperately want a product, others will profit by
providing it.

The solution lies in reducing demand, through education, accessible
treatment and and an attack on the issues - like poverty and mental
illness - that drive addiction.

In the meantime, safe injection sites, methadone and even prescribed
drugs help stabilize the problem and reduce the crime that comes when
addicts scramble each day to stay alive.

Harper's drug plan is just more of the same tired, failed exercises.

Footnote: Crime is likely to continue to be an issue, because of
high-profile killings in Toronto and a perception that
addiction-driven property crime is a growing problem in many
communities. But the fact remains that the rate for both violent
crimes and homicides are lower today than they were a decade ago,
according to StatsCan.