Pubdate: Fri, 22 Sep 2000
Source: Ottawa Citizen (CN ON)
Copyright: 2000 The Ottawa Citizen
Contact:  1101 Baxter Rd.,Ottawa, Ontario, K2C 3M4
Fax: 613-596-8522
Website: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/
Author: David Kilgour

A BALANCED APPROACH TO DRUGS

'Simple Phrases' Won't Work, Writes Federal Cabinet Minister David Kilgour.

As Citizen writer Dan Gardner has pointed out in a recent series of articles, the problem of illegal drugs in Canada and elsewhere has worsened in recent years.

More than 800 Canadians died of drug overdoses in 1995 alone. While marijuana remains the illegal drug of choice, new varieties are far more potent than a generation ago.  Dangerous, powerful and addictive drugs, including cocaine, heroin and various chemicals, are claiming many victims and contributing to other crimes.

Does this mean we should abandon efforts to control the problem by legal means and adopt a more permissive attitude, as Gardner is suggesting? Is the present approach of balancing reduction of both supply and demand the right one, meaning instead that we need to redouble our efforts?

In my view, a course to permissiveness would be a serious mistake because legalization would, as James Q. Wilson pointed out on this page this week, increase drug abuse substantially.

In a study conducted by the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, the health, social and economic costs of alcohol and illicit drugs to Canadian society each year is estimated to be $8.9 billion (illicit drugs alone is $1.37 billion) attributable to direct losses in the workforce, administration costs, prevention and research, law enforcement and health care. The largest was lost productivity due to illness and premature death.

The overall rate of drug offences in Canada has increased since 1993, but the long-term trend generally has remained stable over the past 15 years. Rates of cocaine offences peaked in 1989, but have since dropped by about a third. The rate for heroin offences peaked in 1993, but has fallen by one quarter over the last four years.

Some commentators are calling for decriminalization or even legalization of "soft" drugs such as marijuana. The laws, we are told, are a greater problem than are the drugs. It is assumed, therefore, we need a complete about face.

Some changes to legislation may be necessary. I'm concerned about the impact of a criminal record on those convicted of minor offences who have later managed to stay drug free, although in such cases pardons are available.  A major shift towards permissiveness through legalization or decriminalization, however, would be a serious mistake. It would send the wrong signal to young Canadians, and to the other nations that we rely upon for combined action against drug trafficking.

As secretary of state for Latin America and an envoy in the Canadian-launched Hemispheric Foreign Ministers' Dialogue on Drugs, I've spoken frequently about this problem with officials in drug-producing and drug-shipping countries of the Americas, and seen the impact of substance abuse in these countries, including Colombia, Peru and Bolivia.

Increasingly, there is a realization that illicit drugs are a major problem for all of us. Our efforts to deal with the problem domestically are intricately tied to our participation in international initiatives. Canada remains a strong supporter of the United Nations and its drug-control efforts. We increased the resources we devote to the UN Drug Control Program last year. Canada was instrumental in the development of the Multilateral Evaluation Mechanism within the Inter-American Abuse Control Commission of the Organization of American States. This undertaking will allow each country to evaluate its performance in combatting drug trafficking and money laundering against criteria accepted by all member states.

Increased co-operation also means the delineation between "producer" and "consumer" countries is breaking down, as Latin American and Caribbean countries now experience serious consumption problems of their own, and as North American countries produce and export drugs and precursor chemicals.  Despite this blurring of boundaries, we in "the North" are continually reminded by our neighbours that drugs are a demand problem as much as a supply problem. Others cannot be expected to make sacrifices in the fight against supply if Canadians are not prepared to take the demand problem seriously.  Permissive laws would be interpreted by neighbours as a lack of resolve by Canadians to control consumption.

The signal sent to younger Canadians by greater permissiveness would also be counterproductive. Admittedly, the fear of arrest is not a serious deterrent for some, but it is a reminder that Canadians generally don't tolerate illegal drug abuse. Of greater influence in deterring drug use are social attitudes and concerns about health. It is important that drug use not be seen by young people as condoned by society, nor accepted as "safe." Legalization would do nothing to prevent under-age consumption of illicit drugs. At present, though tobacco regulations seek to prevent youths from getting and using tobacco, half a million Canadians under the age of 18 smoke cigarettes. Spreading the message that drugs are "not cool" requires a multi-pronged approach, including use of role models and health education -- and prohibition.

What of the argument that we should legalize or decriminalize marijuana while cracking down on "hard" drugs?

The distinction between so-called "soft" and "hard" drugs is an artificial one that distorts the debate about legalization. As Tim Quigley, former superintendent of the RCMP drug enforcement branch, notes: "All illicit drugs are truly destructive. We make no attempt to differentiate between so-called 'hard' and 'soft' drugs."

The potency of marijuana, Quigley adds, has increased dramatically. On average, marijuana is about seven times as powerful, and up to 25 times as powerful, as that consumed when today's parents were young.

Advocates of legalization and decriminalization argue that illicit drugs should be treated as a health problem rather than an enforcement issue. This wrongly suggests it is an "either-or" proposition. In fact, Canada's Drug Strategy calls for a balance between reducing the supply of drugs and the demand.  Prevention is considered the most cost-effective approach. There is also strong emphasis on treatment and rehabilitation.

Health and enforcement approaches are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, arrest is often the first step in getting a drug user into a treatment program. Police increasingly see themselves not simply as enforcers, but as problem solvers required to take a public-health and educational approach.

Canada has long been recognized as a leader in addressing substance abuse in a balanced fashion. This reflects our commitment to reducing both drug supply and demand.

Nonetheless, there are opportunities to improve on this model and in many respects that is where we need to move, from a balanced to an integrated approach -- one which works across all sectors and with all levels of government.

Drug use and addiction are complex problems that cannot be explained away with simple phrases such as legalize or decriminalize. They are all the more complicated because they raise both legal and moral issues. We have to look at developing specific responses rather than a one-size-fits-all silver bullet.

Does legalization truly help a heroin addict who wants to kick the habit? Or does access to immediate treatment, care and support better respond to his or her needs? Does a 19-year-old university student need a criminal record for possession of cannabis, or could that be better handled through a combined ticketing and education approach? More than 30 per cent of high school kids in Ontario indicated they tried marijuana in the past year. Should that be cause to legalize it, or to provide resources and tools for parents, educators and the kids to understand the impact this may have on their future?

Gardner's expose on drugs highlights the risks involved with one of approaches. I think we can all agree with that. He also refers a great deal to situations in the United States. In fact, Canada has for many years approached drugs from a somewhat different perspective. Our leadership in the area of multilateral co-operation, demand reduction and working together between health and enforcement are Canadian. It would be erroneous to suggest that we do as the Americans do. We do what we think is best for Canadians. The challenge is to provide a concerted investment in the addiction field that goes beyond a four-year political cycle.

We must, together, devise a strategy that addresses the needs of Canadians from the time of conception, with programs on fetal alcohol syndrome and help for addicted mothers, through to senior citizens who abuse pharmaceuticals.

We also need to tailor messages, programs and responses for those too young to have started using drugs, to those experimenting with them and for those addicted. We need to punish those who profit on the backs of our society.  Indeed, this requires a sophisticated level of inter-sectoral co-operation and partnership. Ultimately, we need to remove the stigma of being a drug addict. I don't believe legalization alone will do that.

The federal government is committed to addressing substance abuse and demonstrating leadership in bringing together the resources necessary to reduce this problem in a substantial way.

Edmonton MP David Kilgour is Canada's secretary of state for Latin America and Africa. As a lawyer he has both defended and prosecuted people charged with narcotic offences.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Terry Liittschwager