SNIFF LAW DANGEROUS

It seems a hallmark of governments grappling with seemingly intractable
problems that they reach for desperate and offensive measures.

And so it is that Manitoba's NDP administration has introduced a bill that
would give public health officers and police excessive power, and justices
of the peace arbitrary reach, in a bid to reduce the supply of sniff to
addicts. Beyond the potential for abuse, the proposed law would seem to
have little practical effect as it could not possibly cut an addict off
from the ubiquitous and vast array of inhalants to abuse.

Health Minister Dave Chomiak believes that amending the Public Health Act
to give health officers and police the ability to seize glue, adhesives,
cements, cleaning solvents, thinners, dyes, mineral spirits, kerosene,
gasoline, nail polish remover, disinfectants or any other "intoxicating
substance" is a good step towards cutting off the supply of inhalants.

No doubt, in future years that list will grow exponentially because the
potential sources of chemicals that can alter a person's mood and affect
their brain is not completely described.

Addicts are nothing if not resourceful.

So it would be a lie to describe this bill as one that intends to do
addicts a service; it is a bill that intends merely to target vendors -- be
they retail outlets, gas bars or those who sell aerosol cans from the
trunks of cars for small change to the vulnerable stumbling blindly on the
streets. Nothing is offered to addicts; the bill allows its agents to enter
premises and seize items described above when they have reasonable grounds
to believe they are to be sold for sniff.

But in asking a justice of the peace to uphold the seizure of these items,
the bill would allow the trampling of due process as it states "the justice
is not bound by the rules of law respecting evidence applicable to judicial
proceedings." Police are forced to rely on more than hearsay evidence in
building a case for prosecution. This bill, however, could see retailers
defending themselves against cases that included anonymous residents'
complaints about sniffers regularly leaving a store with brown paper bags.
The box of solvents by the cash register is little more than circumstantial
evidence, but only in a court of law that follows well-prescribed rules.

Upon a finding by a justice that a retailer's goods ought to be seized, the
province can then yank the vendor's sales tax certificate or licence, which
means he or she could not sell goods or services.

Shutting down someone's business is an attack on their livelihood. Surely
that ought to require stronger protections against abuse than this act affords.

While it seems natural justice to target those who prey upon people's
weaknesses, dispensing with a fundamental right to due process is too much
to sacrifice. This is made all the more offensive by the fact it would do
little to remedy solvent abuse, a societal ill driven by factors far beyond
the easy availability of cheap intoxicants.