THE WAR AGAINST INDULGENCE

A Symposium Launches A Counterattack Against Pro-Drug 'Harm Reduction' Programs

In early May, Marc Emery, the president of the B.C. Marijuana Party, bought
full-page newspaper advertisements to announce his intention to run for the
mayoralty of Vancouver. The one-day media blitz, estimated to have cost him
$25,000, centred on Mr. Emery's contention that the use of marijuana should
be decriminalized. But in coincidental interviews with reporters, the drug
libertarian went much further. He said, for example, that a Marijuana Party
administration would order city hall to set up a program to deliver free
heroin and cocaine to addicts.

Mr. Emery will not likely win the mayoralty this coming fall; after all, he
finished fourth in the 1996 election after counting only 1,125 votes. It
may be, however, that the wealthy marijuana-seed merchandiser has already
accomplished what he set out to do: push the boundaries of the
"harm-reduction" debate in Vancouver. Indeed, his "free delivery" idea is a
logical extension of harm-reduction policies already embraced by most civic
leaders, social workers and the daily press in the city.

On the other hand, a highly motivated group of community activists, for
whom harm reduction is anathema, has now begun to mobilize. Frustrated and
angry at the harm-reduction wave inundating the city, the concerned
citizens held an international symposium in Vancouver over the first three
days of May to press their case that the best response to drug use is
anti-drug education, tough laws, vigorous enforcement and rehabilitation.
Typically, however, the pro-harm-reduction mainstream media either treated
their conference with hostility or consigned coverage of it to back pages.

Harm-reduction advocates believe it is useless, even counter-productive, to
fight drug use. Tough laws and hard-nosed police officers only marginalize
addicts, they say. That, in turn, results in unsafe needle use (which can
spread hepatitis and AIDS) and a witches' brew of other unhealthy
activities, all of which lead to an early grave. Far better, say the
advocates, that government accommodate the addicts with street-level health
services, needle-exchange programs and, most controversially,
safe-injection sites at which addicts can be monitored and assisted by
medical personnel.

On May 2, Vancouver city council voted unanimously to take part in a
proposed national harm-reduction pilot program, which would include
safe-injection sites, likely in the city's drug-plagued skid row, otherwise
known as the downtown eastside. Although Health Canada has yet to approve
the project--and although the Criminal Code of Canada still outlaws even
simple possession of cocaine and heroin--drugs are now consumed with
impunity on the eastside.

Earlier, Mayor Philip Owen announced his support for a "four-pillars"
approach: prevention, treatment, enforcement and harm reduction.
Vancouver's Dr. Peter Centre for people with HIV and AIDS has also embraced
harm reduction; the centre confirmed in mid-April that its nurses "observe"
drug addicts injecting themselves with cocaine and heroin--with the aim of
teaching them about proper usage of needles. Similarly, a church in the
downtown eastside constructed a model safe-injection site in April, to show
the public how such a facility would look.

The use of the drug methadone, a heroin replacement, is already widely
accepted as a harm-reduction measure. But harm reductionists do not want to
stop there. In a story that foreshadowed Mr. Emery's public-relations
blitz, the Vancouver Province reported in late April that the Canadian
Institutes of Health Research in Ottawa would soon approve a $6-million
program to prescribe heroin to 80 hard-core Vancouver addicts. A spokesman
for the body confirms an announcement is expected soon. The plan has the
backing of two top Vancouver medical researchers, doctors Michael
O'Shaughnessy and Martin Schechter, and provincial medical health officer
Dr. Perry Kendall.

The problem with the four-pillars approach, reply organizers of the
International Drug Education and Awareness Symposium (IDEAS), is that there
is precious little prevention being carried out, even less treatment, and
virtually no enforcement. In fact, one IDEAS participant told the
conference that a typical Canadian police officer lays only one
drug-related charge a year. And with only a single "pillar" actually in
place, that being harm reduction, the consequences could be devastating to
society.

The symposium's prime organizer and spokeswoman was Lynda Bentall who,
along with her philanthropist husband Robert, a wealthy property developer,
runs an innovative rehabilitation and education program for street kids,
the Ailanthus Achievement Centre for Inner-City Youth. In that capacity,
Mrs. Bentall has seen first-hand the devastation that drug use can bring,
and believes the last thing the children of Canada need is a policy that
"normalizes" and thus encourages drug use.

"Something we all have in common, I hope, is a concern for our nation,"
Mrs. Bentall said of those attending the symposium. "A concern that illicit
drugs are damaging our families, our businesses, our way of life and
possibly the future of our country. Maybe today is an important day in
Canada's history."

It was certainly a controversial one, as harm-reduction advocates rallied
for several hours in front of the conference site, denouncing the
proceedings inside as murderous. Dean Wilson, president of a group called
the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users (VANDU), unleashed a not-so-veiled
threat when he told the cheering crowd that Mrs. Bentall should be aware
that "civil disobedience is the poor man's atomic bomb." Later, Mr. Wilson
and other activists walked through downtown Vancouver, affixing
pro-safe-injection-site posters to lampposts.

In an earlier interview, Mr. Wilson said the symposium was "ridiculous"
because it did not invite drug-use proponents to make addresses. "I think
it's just a rich woman who wants to somehow further her views by spending
her money." Mrs. Bentall responded by wondering whether groups such as
VANDU are pawns of organized crime. "Oh, I don't know [for sure]," she
says. "All I know is that VANDU gets money from our government...and then
they are given free rein in our city. They have been known to damage
property, they threaten, they use coercion, they use fear, and nothing
happens to them."

Symposium supporter Toby Hinton, a Vancouver police officer who has long
worked the downtown eastside, says some elements of harm reduction can be
beneficial, as long as harm reduction does not predominate in the fight
against drugs. "We're looking at taking a bit of a different tack, and
focusing on prevention and treatment," he says, "because I think that harm
reduction and the discussion of it as a pseudo-science, if you will, has
hijacked some of the other good work and undermined our efforts in trying
to clean up and deal with the problems."

On its own, harm reduction is "lowering the bar" and making drug use more
acceptable, the officer says. "Giving the drug addict everything he wants
for his habit--when my definition of a drug addict is a very self-indulgent
person--is the wrong route to go," he states. "I think that all you'll hear
[from addicts] is 'more, more, more, more, more.'"

He concludes, "Instead of trying to make people comfortable in the toilet
bowl, give them a hand to try to get them out of the toilet bowl, and help
them get into recovery and fixed up and on their way to a healthy life."

This Time, Sweden Got It Right

THE experience of easy-going European countries with tolerant drugs laws is
often advanced by Canadian harm-reduction proponents as evidence to support
their call for this country to adopt a laissez-faire approach to drugs.
However, facts made public at the IDEAS conference paint another picture of
the European experience.

Swiss physician Ernst Aeschbach said the "drug-friendly environment"
adopted by his country's government has backfired. "There has been a
general increase of prevalence of all kinds of drugs," he said. "The
increase in drug-related deaths shows a close relation to the existence of
open drug scenes in Zurich." As harm-reduction measures facilitated drug
consumption, drug addicts were deprived of their motivation to quit. "This
was a violation of basic principles of addiction treatment," Dr. Aeschbach
charged. Other speakers said the same facts apply to the Netherlands.

The government of Sweden, on the other hand, has adopted a successful
zero-tolerance approach to drugs. Anti-drug laws that carry stiff penalties
are enforced by the police and judiciary. The country considers no drug to
be "soft." The result, according to a paper presented at the symposium, is
that Sweden has "an unusually small proportion of heroin abusers."

It is the sort of approach that David Griffin, executive officer of the
Canadian Police Association, would like to see implemented in Canada. He
told the symposium that current Canadian anti-drug practices are
inadequate. "Perceived tolerance by community leaders is sending
conflicting and confusing messages to our young people," he charged.
"Accurate information educating parents and young people about the harms
associated with drug use is critical to prevention."

Mr. Griffin also said Canada is not "losing the war on drugs" (as so often
contended by harm-reduction advocates) because, in fact, there is no war on
drugs in this country. "Our policies lack coordination and consistency and
focus disproportionate attention on the hard-core drug user." He called on
governments to develop a national strategy, backed by role models and
community leaders, to fight drug use, cut demand and supply, and provide
treatment and rehabilitation. "We should be focused on demand reduction,"
he stated, "not harm reduction."