THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS

In the article "A policy that helps no one" [Sept. 20], the author
criticizes a new initiative launched by the Springboard program and
Toronto Police. The new "drug diversion" policy is aimed at placing
non-violent drug addicts in rehab rather than prison. In his article,
J.C Bolan alleges that the "wealthy dealer who poses as an addict"
will be the only beneficiary of the new "drug diversion" policy.

Although there are flaws in any "lesser-of-two-evils" argument, I feel
the need to point out that the a new narcotics regulation policy aimed
at getting addicts out of prison and into rehab is a step in the right
direction (i.e. away from mandatory minimum sentencing that can easily
result in non-violent first-time offenders being subjected to lengthy
prison sentences). Bolan's fears that the "drug-diversion" policy will
only benefit "wealthy dealers" ignores the practical realities of
drug-dealing as well as the real positive effect it could have on
those in need-the addicts.

According to Bolan, the "drug diversion" policy applies to criminals
caught committing a (non-violent) crime, who the authorities are
convinced have a drug problem. The "drug diversion" policy would come
into effect only if the criminal in question has narcotics in his
possession, in a small enough amount to exclude the possibly of an
intent to distribute (Bolan uses two grams of crack cocaine as his
example).

Bolan's assertion that "wealthy drug dealers" who pose as addicts can
use this policy as a "get-out-of-jail-free" card seems to ignore the
fact that "big-time dealers" will never be caught doing something
illegal with only two grams of crack cocaine.

Two grams of crack cocaine is at most a few hundred dollars.
Small-time dealers might get caught with two grams on them, but so
would many addicts (this is using crack cocaine as an example; with
cocaine the line between the amount of "yayo" a casual user/addict
will have in their possession and the amount a small time drug-dealer
will have becomes even finer).

Bolan's contention that the policy will become a legal shield for
"wealthy dealers" ignores the basic economics of narcotics sales; any
big-time dealer will not be caught committing a non-violent crime
(i.e. dealing) with only two grams on him, in fact most small-time
dealers will have more than two grams in their possession as well. The
people that the policy benefits will be non-violent recreational users
or addicts (I'm emphatically asserting that these two categories are
not the same) who won't be faced with the prospect of a criminal
record for being arrested on a two-bit possession charge.

Bolan does make a valid point when he asserts that the "drug
diversion" policy is flawed because it excludes addicts caught
committing a crime, while not in possession of any crack, from the
possibility of receiving rehab treatment.

It does, however, provide a way out of jail time and the damaging
effects that go with it. Once a petty criminal like an addict goes
behind bars, the chances that he will emerge to commit far more
serious crimes are enormous. In my mind, this outweighs the admittedly
negative impact of freeing a few dealers from jail.