I can't think of a city more in need of a Rudolf Giuliani than Vancouver. Jim Green has far too much baggage in this town, and we've seen enough acrimony and bad blood in our civic politics. Harm Reduction is nothing more than a cost-saving ideology without the other three pillars. What happened to enforcement, prevention and treatment? Why do Larry Campbell and Jim Green keep insisting our drug problem isn't a big deal, when even Japan is now citing us as their country's #2 source of methamphetamine?

I will be voting for him.

Rudolf Giuliani? You mean the guy who moved the 'problem' to Queens? The same guy who's contract and money dealings resulted in faulty emergency responder radios which made communication in the towers impossible?

I will give him (and admire him for it) that he really stepped up to the plate in a wonderful way, the day of and days after the attack.

I don't agree with 'harm reduction' with the exception of treatment and in the obvious ways of mitigating ill effects. I do agree drug addiction is a health issue. It's so obvious. Actually, I think it should be legalized which would immediately cause a massive drop in crime and treated entirely as a medical, issue. And/or any non-violent crimes committed because of drugs should go to a 'drug rehab' 'prison' for 1 to 2 years. But, not a punitive prison, rather a secure abstinence model treatment program complete with skill training, life-skills, counselling and 12 step etc. It wouldn't cost any more and lives would be saved.

redrivergirl
It is impossible to make even a maximum security prison drug and weapons free, I don’t see a drug rehab site as been “clean” My wife is from Malaysia, there they will throw the addicts into a rehab program and the dealers get long prison sentences, caning or death. She estimates that the rehab program has a 12-15% success rate. My wife was amazed that people would show up stoned to a court hearing and no one cared, in Malaysia the judge would automatically send them to rehab. Here the Justice system is one of the main reasons why nothing happens. Most property crime now goes unreported as does much of the physical violence on the streets. The police management and politicians don’t want to have accurate numbers because they would be seen as at fault. On top of this the reduction in services for mental health patients does not help.

However I don’t see our system here working as the steps to make it work would be challenged in court over “human rights” issues.

I think it would work, but only if the emphasis is on secure rehab, not prison, which would mean not having the prison culture there. By healthy nurturing meals, relaxation classes, life-skills supportive environment combined with the peer support of residents who have a more sobriety and hooking addicts up with 12 step outsiders, employers etc it could be done. It wouldn't work for everyone, but don't forget, it is only for non-violent addicts. They are ill in my opinion and need to have enough positive caring (not naive and stupid caring) energy to help them regain mental health.

'Together We Can' is a good example of a treatment structure that works. They address sexual abuse issues with the men as well as other addictions in a way that appears to really work. The last year of the two could be one where the addict has outside passes etc to hook them up with a support system and hopefully a supportive work place.

It would require a cultural shift to implement. But, it can be done. And, it would end up being cheaper in the long run. Also, if drugs are also legalized, but with a public culture that drug addicts are ill, I think it would eliminate a large amount of human suffering and crime. Addicts are in psychic pain. Terrible pain that hurts them as much as terrible physical pain. IMO

Treatment methods can be debated, but that's only one aspect of the problem. The user is only one player in the drug game (and the losing one at that). Let's face it: Vancouver has an organized crime problem. I see the same dealers almost every day in my neighbourhood (the West End), and the same lookouts sitting on the Blends/Starbucks patios. It's the same routine with the club-dealers: it's the same faces year in & year out. I see a higher turnover rate in my office, for pete's sake. Where's the enforcement? What happened to prevention? Why do the police pick up some people, but not those people who almost seem to be "designated" for a particular turf? That nasty game is becoming just a little too transparent in this town.

Nightbloom is right, there is no point in treating addicts if you aren’t trying to crack down hard on those selling the stuff. I would like to see rehab for addicts and the death penalty for someone caught selling making or supplying hard drugs for the 2nd offence, with a few other caveats. This would make hard drugs unprofitable.

Legalizing would make it unprofitable and thus eliminate it. I think that is why the US won't legalize it. I think powerful interests make money from it.

Redrivergirl, I don't follow that reasoning at all. It's an idealistic viewpoint I encounter a lot in Vancouver, but the equation just doesn't make sense.

In some segments of Vancouver, we've been living with a form of de facto legalization for quite some time (i.e. virtual non-enforcement of discreet drug use & trafficking). Demand just keeps going up, increasing the returns for the supply-side, and making the initiation of young non-users into drug usage that much easier.

One such enforcement bubble is the city's gay male community. Ten years ago hard drugs like meth were present but fairly marginal in the community. Then City Hall decided it would be a good idea to licence an afterhours rave venue ('non-alcohol cabaret') smack in the middle of the downtown gay community (without obtaining amendments to liquor licensing legislation to make standard law enforcement procedures applicable). It grew out of the 'Let's-legalize-raves-to-protect-our-kids' misconception of the mid-nineties (and the efforts of city planner and part-time raver Michael Gordon). It's basically a designer safe injection site with great music and zero supervision or accountability. Toss in the usual variables, and today we have a huge swathe of the gay male community that hands its paycheques over to organized crime every weekend so that it can chemically lobotomize itself in a city-licensed meth-den. Any gay man under 35 who wants to actually 'belong' in his community has to participate.

So under a non-enforcement regime (de facto legalization), hard-core drug use has become prevalent, meth-induced psychosis and associated sociopathy is noticeably evident, and HIV infection rates are reaching new highs. There's no substitute for enforcement and prevention.
[I]

I agree with redrivergirl. Legalize all street drugs as we have alcohol and tobacco. Give it a legal age limit and sell it at the pharmacy or liquor stores. There are too many government officials and security agents involved in the crime rings selling illegal drugs and that is why it's hard to get support for legalizing it. You cannot stop crime by throwing all these people in jails or hanging the pushers. The more laws you make to put a minority of the population in jails or think that they will keep the majority safer the more you put the rest of us in a policed state. Think about what you want and the consequences of getting it.

'4Cryinoutlound' - you want to see crystal meth for sale at London Drugs along with breath mints and Immodium tablets.....Hmmm, and I thought the bums hanging around the liquor stores were getting out of hand - man, I guess I ain't seen nothin' yet. What you're saying isn't even credible.

Legalization or non-enforcement does not achieve the benefits its proponents claim, especially in the context of the cheap, easily manufactured and highly destructive drugs that are now available. As I indicated above, this failure is illustrated by the example of Vancouver's gay community, which has been living in a non-enforcement bubble for several years now. It's been highly lucrative for a few and extremely destructive for a great many.

Non-enforcement has none of the benefits of legalization.

I made a few suggestions that would have to accompany it, such as a cultural shift where the addict was viewed as ill and not glamorous in any way. Also, if it were available by prescription, but without a problem for the addict, one would eliminate part of the addict 'culture' of 'scoring dope' etc. This also would drastically reduce prostitution. And, some ugly exploitation. Property crime and street activity would also be dramatically reduced. Make it as matter of fact as possible. A mental health issue and nothing more. This would eliminate the need for injection sites as well. The addict could get needles no questions asked with their prescription. Take all the 'fun' and all the desperation out of it totally.

Would some of it wind up on the street? Probably, just like a bottle of booze after hours. Not a big deal for society to deal with.

redrivergirl, you've enumerated all the standard idealistic arguments in favour of legalization, but I've already provided some fairly concrete examples of the effects of de facto legalization on a specific segment of Vancouver (i.e. the exploitation by municipal governments of the liquor licensing loophole to create lucrative enforcement-free venues and events within their jurisdictions which cater to upwardly mobile gay men). It has only created an "addict culture" (your term) where previously there was none. Given recent headlines, this is a very powerful example of the harm which such false tolerance is inflicting. This is where you want to take mainstream society?

You've made a list of assertions without examples or proof. That doesn't necessarily make you wrong, but you're not convicing me. You suggest an immanent "cultural shift" as though we can take that for granted - But how would such a mass "cultural shift" be achieved in the scope of one or two municipal terms of government, I wonder? Legalization hasn't reduced prostitution or addiction culture in other jurisdictions - why do you believe Vancouver would be any different?

We've now wondered far from "The Four Pillars" if we're discussing legalization and open access to hard drugs at the local Shoppers Drugmart. Jamie Lee Hamilton is correct when she says that the implementation of the "Four Pillars Strategy" needs to be revisited with a genuinely balanced emphasis on all of its components - Enforcement, Prevention, Treatment...as well as Harm Reduction.

If you notice (I know it's difficult with many posts and on line) in my previous posts I say I don't agree with harm reduction with the exception of mitigating obvious harm and treatment. I am not a proponent of harm reduction via the 4 pillars. I think it is enabling. But, it is better to view the addict as ill, than as less than human.

Gov't has a lot of power to shift cultural perspective by taking that stance on addiction and by promoting via health promotion and education the idea of addict as a very ill person. It's not that difficult to change imo.

Non-enforcement as I say above is not de facto legalization. It does nothing to eliminate the problem of crime and the necessity for people to prostitute themselves for drug money. Full legalization does.

I don't think there is a place that has full legalization in this way, which is fully clinical, non political, non-emotive, do you? There very well may be. It may be I havent' heard of one.

I doubt it will ever happen though. Too many interests making money from it. And, the US doesn't want us to do so. But, their way uses a lot of resources and isn't working either.

Cheers.

If there is a place, it's probably in Scandanavia.

It would have to be everywhere in Canada to work as well.

Geroge Chow was fairly extensively involved with Cowie, Chiavario and Herbert in the founding ot VCA Team as well. I suspect that his opinion of safe injection sites has a great deal with the way the wind is blowing - that group certainly supported them.

I think darcy.mcgee is way off the mark.
By her reasoning, George Chow would be the founder of the Fedreal Liberal Party. Afterall, the Liberal Party not only supports but also is paying for the injection sites.

Huh?

Luke, maybe you should call your father - your comment doesn't make much sense.

George supported VCATeam through the election, and gave serious consideration to running as a candidate. He was at initial founding meetings. That the media at the time didn't report his name doesn't mean much - George's name didn't (and doesn't) have a lot of name recognition.

I doubt George founded the Federal Liberal Party - he'd have to be pretty old.

I agree that addicts need to be treated as human beings and a form of victim. However we can not afford to treat all of the addicts properly, so you must take steps to eliminate the creation of new addicts, so you can maintain the level of care. Legalizing hard drugs will not work and no one would sell them as they would be exposing themselves to a major legal liability. Look at the attempts to sue the tobacco and food industry. Do you think a major pharmaceutical wants to be selling Meth?
The cost of some these street drugs is not terribly high, in fact the legal variety will likely be more expensive, so the addicts will still be faced with the problem of paying for their drugs and will still resort to crime to get the money. Only if you are willing to give the drugs freely can you break that cycle. Are we prepared as a society to give away drugs that cause serious harm to the body and live with the consequences? I personally think that most citizens of this country would have a problem with that approach. The reason people accepted the 4 pillars approach was that it was supposed to help the addicts while trying to reduce the supply and access.

I suspect that most of the drugs pass through a fairly small community of dealers and suppliers, you won’t be overflowing prisons. Plus if the government got serious and played hardball, you would find that less people would be interested in dealing. Right now the justice system and jail is the least of their worries and are far more scared of the competition than the authorities.

My dad introduced me to a heroin halfway house when I was 8, I plan to do the same with my daughter. We need to show kids in elementary school the hard cold facts of hard drug use. A few nightmares would be a good thing. Maybe make all kids caught with drugs for the first time do a stint in a detox centre helping addicts come down. That might help rid drugs of the “cool factor”

Nightbloom I am depressed to hear your description of the social pressures on your gay people, they are already vulnerable due to social pressures of crossing over and the drive to be accepted by your new peer group is a powerful thing. It does not bode well for the future.

Colin, re liability issues, it is the same for tobacco and alcohol.

I agree with you about showing your child the effects of drug use. That's great.

You can smoke or drink in very small amounts with little effect on your social behaviour, but that is quite difficult to do with Meth, perhaps with diluted heroin (the 7% solution, Dr Watson?)

The often cited comparison of hard drugs with tobacco and alcohol (or coffee & aspirin, for that matter) is not just misleading - it's blind relativism. A double-expresso can't be equated with a point of meth (as an acquaintance of mine who had begun using once tried to rationalize to me). I know that's not what you're saying, redrivergirl, but that's where users and dealers often take that argument. I recognize that tobacco & alcohol abuse cause their own set of problems.

Clear & solid distinctions are so important on this issue - Making these distictions and drawing these lines is important for everyone from policy-makers to kids thinking of experimenting. The quantum difference in liabilities can't be fudged here.

Colin, I appreciate your recognition of the spiralling problem in the gay male community. It's affecting a lot of people right now.

Colin, do you know how many 'coping' people are prescription drug addicts right now as we speak? They are addicted to codeine, anti-anxieties etc and NEED their prescription. They don't have to go downtown to 'score' it and thus aren't a social problem. Specific street drug popularity waxes and wanes. Today it's meth. There are versions of meth right now available by prescription, including Ritilan for adults. In spite of what the drug companies say about it, I remember well when it wasn't prescribed to people over 13 for that reason.

All the elements of what I suggest would have to happen for it to work. Prevention, cultural shift, treatment etc would have to happen at the same time. It isn't impossible. What we're doing now isn't working. Either is the punitive model of the US. Unless one owns stock in a private prison company, everyone loses.

But, again, it won't happen because interests don't want it to.

Valid point, but presciption drug addiction is a whole other can of worms, and municipal governments have absolutely no jurisdiction over that. This is about Vancouver's drug policy and how it is/isn't effective.

You're absolutely right that pill-pushing doctors are a big problem, as are invented illnesses, but that has more to do with the growing inability of the professions to self-regulate (and not just doctors) than it does with government policies on controlled substances, let alone law enforcement practices.

From a policy perspective, I don't believe the two problems can be lumped together, however similar the actual addiction issues may be.

=But, again, it won't happen because interests don't want it to.=[I]

I meant to add that I agree wholeheartedly with your statement, which summarises the contrived ineffectiveness of this city's anti-drug efforts.

Drug-users are being emiserated by an array of interests that have everything to gain by perpetuating the problem. It's about free-floating money there for the taking - lots of it.

Great discussion - Cheers -

I recall a number of years ago listening to the explanation offered by a Scottish (?) politico: that while is was true that the government if effect became the pusher (anyone who could show through a blood test that he was an addict of certain drugs was given them free) the program had stopped the organized crime rings of drug distribution, since anyone becoming an addict was not only no longer forced to support him/herself by crime or prostitution (and thus given a chance of having some sort of a life while battling with addiction), but was not dependent on the criminal elements at all, who immediately lost their customers and income. (safe injection centres were included)

Whatever we think of addiction, does it deserve a death penalty?

It is a thorny problem. And, very sad for individuals and families.

If legalization could proceed at a civic level it would pass in a second, as Vancouver feels the brunt of drug abuse and criminal distribution. Its a federal issue unfortuneately.

Like Red River girl, I believe we need legalization and regulation of a number of controlled substances. Prohibition in this country and others have resulted in a proliferation of organized distribution, and Vancouver is a glaring example of it. At the street level are generally kids, or immigrants, as well as other addicts, who are victims in societies biggest pyramid scam. For them, many of the four pillars fail as long as they are taken advantage of them.

I wouldn't advocate scrapping any of the pillars, as its a good plan but limited because of the crime associated with current laws. Obviously, increasing treatment, prevention, and harm reduction are good things, and enforcement is necessitated by drug abuse combined with poverty. However, we know from current experience that criminalization, chips away at it. When you see drug dealers everywhere, and addicts permitted to fuel their addiction by mass marketing, you know that your policies aren't strong enough. Even crackdowns have failed, as you see similar rates in other many American cities with stronger laws. And decriminalizing, is just giving up, without changing the circumstances on the ground

Legalization would shift access to the drugs and change who profits from them. While baby steps are needed, doing so would reduce crime. If you think about the levels of property crime in this province, a strong majority of them are caused because addicts can hock your laptop to their middleman in order for a bag, or a few lines. The problems are far ranging. Even when we treat people, we see people getting dragged back into an unhealthy lifestyle, because they are friends with the local dealer. As soon as people cash their welfare cheques at money marts, they hardly have to walk half a block before they are deprived of. Its a huge distribution network, where unsafe work conditions, and people are enslaving themselves to underground elements. By looking at legalization, you will be able to regulate the trade, apply zoning rules and price manipulation to better serve prevention and harm reduction. Perhaps forcing addicts to buy off people who aren't high as **** will expose them to better opportunities. Its almost reverse psychology in a way, by turning the tables on those who get involved because it falls outside of the realm of society. Regulating content and even dosage size would at least bring some measure of safety,and better access to treatment could come out of it.

However, in the meantime, I think treatment is the only pillar that vitally needs some additional funding. I'm not sure if any of the candidates have made a commitment to increasing funding for rehab clinics to help those who have lost control of their own lives.

Man, wasn't this story about Chinese demographics and voting trends?

I have rather thought that progressive parties in BC should appeal to the regionalization movements in China to get Chinese heritage votes. That is, by supporting treaty making in BC, you also support regionalization and self-determination in Guangdong, Heilongjiang, Taiwan etc...

Now that Guangdong has an oil supply from Canada via Li Ka Shing and his ownership of Husky Oil, maybe Guangdong can soon reassert its autonomy again like it did in 1911. At that time, it relied upon money from Vancouver to buy the arms for the Chinese Revolution. This next one though will probably go the way Soviet Union break up went.

Great post, dangrice.com.

Isn't the real danger of society-wide legalization as it has been presented on this thread the following:

(1) that government will be assuming an active role in the long-term deterioration of drug users, irrespective of the short-term benefits.

(2) that it will transform the healthcare sector into a massive and unaffordable daycare for an ever-increasing number of drug addicts, while obliging big government to become the #1 supplier of oppiates-for-the-masses.

(3) that for a growing segment of the working population it would effectively overthrow the financial-incentive/reward system upon which our modern society is based.

Aren't these the main reasons why *government* as such can't go down that path?

asher
The problem is that Ottawa thinks the Chinese are one big group and the Communist party leadership works hard to promote that image. China dangles the economic bait in front of countries to distract or threaten, while working away on it’s own agenda. Which is on longer terms than our politicians are capable of thinking. I think internal strife is going to be a huge issue in about 10 years and the only way they will be able to control it is through the brutal massacring of any dissenters and having a regional conflict.

To the others, I doubt very much that legalizing hard drugs is going to reduce crime. Treat the addicts, nail the dealers to the wall. Our present system ignore or jail the addicts and ignore the dealers. That is why things aren’t working. Scotland has a huge drug problem, they are trying to go the “drug court” idea, we will see how it works.

The way our prisons work is part of the problem, to much time on their hands and to much access. A good model would be the modern military prison (Our military prison gets a very low return rate) You give them basic essentials, a full day of work, no tv, no gyms, what privileges there are must be earned. The more they respond in a positive manner the more they get.
I have met and talked to people that actually prefer to be in our prisons, in fact the drunks in one small town I lived in would try to go to prison during the winter, rather than living through the winter on their own.

If such a system is good enough for our soldiers, then it is good enough for the rest of us.

I think like prescription addicts legalizing, (not decriminalizing) will actually result in the long term personal improvement for the drug user, because their money will be able to go for housing and food, their time on other things than the endless 'scoring' of dope and the culture around that. Also, some of the negative politics around the downtown east side will disappear with no foe to fight against.

Actually, it will most likely result in fewer costs to the health care system, because the most expenive drs visit is the one in the ER. It is this one which an addict is most likely to make. Presumably, people won't be as vulnerable to AIDS if they are not prostituting and doing so while high. If their needles are available with the prescription and treatment/counselling readily available I really believe their health would improve and their lives stabilize enough to regain some mental stability as well, perhaps even enough to wish to stop doing drugs. I think the drug companies would love to get in on it actually! lol

Yes, the gov't would become the number one supplier of drugs to treat/manage/control great psychic pain. Just like morphine for great physical pain. Just like it does now for anti-anxieties, some depressents, now shown to have addictive qualities and codine.

Does the reward system provide incentive for a parapalegic to get up from his wheel chair and walk? We can agree that would not be possible, right? Mental illness is a real illness. There is a lot of stigma and disbelief about that though. I believe drug addiction is a mental health issue.

And, finally, is our reward system really working sytemically for modern day society, in any event? Is it the best one we could have in society?

Cheers.

ignore formatting and spelling and typo errors. geesh.

Oh, and it really isn't a problem that the gov't become the supplier if it IS seen as a health issue and not a moral issue. This is the crux of the problem we are having trying to provide an answer to this problem in society. If we see addiction as a moral issue, then it becomes a problem that the gov't is providing those drugs.

Nightbloom, I'm not in favour of turning drugs into a welfare benefit, and I think few can argue that recreational or sensory alteration can be considered a right that can be provided by society. Similar to liquor, I think narcotics must be regulated by the government but not supplied by them. They already are a business, run by the private sector, but because of prohibition, this is a criminal organization with no controls or regulations that basically relies on slave (to addiction) labour.

I don't think legalization has anything to do with government run methodone clinics, and while treatment should exist, it really does no good subsidizing addictions. But legalization allows businesses to sell them, while the government has control over pricing and the selling environments. What this serves as a much better means of dealing with a problem than traditional deterrants. Rather than the profits going to some shady individual in a west end penthouse, the government is able to reinvest that into education. It welcomes addiction as a part of our society, something that can be treated and controlled. It is also easier, as I mentioned earlier, to crack down on theft, as you are limiting the areas in which stolen goods can be used as a commodity. For many, the fear of losing a business license and a revenue stream is more of deterrent than the the threat of legal action.

Assuming that we do legalize the drugs, can we compete with the street price?

What are the current price?

A legal manufacture will need to pay taxes, wages, benefits, insurance, rent and distribution costs and I shudder to think: advertising

Still worshipping at the altar of the 'free' (not) market. sigh.

Colin - my thoughts exactly. The proposition is unworkable, whether you attempt it through the private sector or government.

Hi Colin,

If an illegal business can be run in small backroom operations, involve 5 or 6 levels of middlement, and still turn a rediculous profit, I'm sure a legit business could be run. Also, the cost to produce any pharmaceutical drug or crop is very low, (the only major cost is the initial research) so I'm sure competition is not a large problem.

However, its not a matter of straightup competition, but disuading others from operating outside of the box.

While many would break the law, if there exist no way to work within the law, there are many fewer who would risk punishment for something that can be done just as easily. Take liquor for existance, while moonshine still exists for much less than commercial liquor, it is is really not a profitable venture, and very difficult to establish a distribution network.

But the pricing items is also a way in which we can shift drug abuse. One of the big problems with the current meth problems, is that meth, while one of the most harmful, is by far the cheapest. If this was a regulated operation, it would provide us with the means of using sin taxes to inflate the pricing to shift people away from it. Or to selectively limit access to certain drugs. One of the biggest problems currently, is that the same dealers currently will slang anything, and segment their market with various drugs that appeal to various levels of income to maximize their profitability. There is no way to control quality, or to engage in harm reduction when you have no control over the network.

Also, any legalization attempts would need to be supplimented by strong legislation regarding smuggling, or for selling to children, or for carrying out illegal activities or tax evasion.

As for red river girls lament of the free market, that which is not deemed to be universal, (early education, essential healthcare, perhaps certain utilities, infrastructure, car insurance), should be left out of the hands of the government.

To use a crude analogy, calls for legalization are like the entreaties of a gangrenous man who can’t bear to part with his arm, and so would risk the infection of his entire body rather than lose it.

The perfect example of this principle applied collectively in society is once again provided by the gay male community. I don’t mean to harp on this, but we’re a bellweather community that has been a harbinger of so many societal trends.

When the HIV-AIDS crisis struck, there were two choices before us:

(1) There was the hard road of bathhouse closures, crackdowns on irresponsible behaviour, policing of anonymous sex venues and ‘cruising’ areas, identification & tracking of individuals who knowingly spread the virus, etc. Some even called for discreet tagging of carriers and some form of quarantine. The premise of these propositions was that emphasis should be placed on protecting those who were not infected. Harsh measures, no doubt about it.

(2) There was the ‘progressive’ option, which placed a care-giving emphasis on those already infected. Carriers of the disease were not to be ‘stigmatized’ by anti-AIDS efforts that called attention to the disfiguring effects of the disease and of the medications used to treat it. Risky, irresponsible and suicidal sex behaviours were to be treated in a ‘non-judgmental’ manner which did not ‘pathologize’ the practitioner. Deliberate infection by carriers of non-carriers was at first denied and then hushed. The key ethic behind this approach was that we were all to become HIV-positive on a conceptual level in solidarity with those who actually were. Remember the ‘Canada-Has-AIDS’ campaign. Very humanitarian.

As you know, the second option prevailed. It’s been a monumental failure.

We’re now seeing the very same elements come forward with regard to the current meth crisis in the community. Hard drug use is not to be ‘pathologized’, drug use is to be discussed in a ‘non-judgmental’ euphemistic fashion that avoids all the hard issues, accessibility to drugs via non-enforcement in the bars & afterhours clubs in to defended & maintained, lest users turn to the streets for their drugs. Hard drug use is to be treated as a manageable lifestyle choice rather than a social pathology. Hard drug use is relativized alongside all the commonplace vices out there. The ethic behind this can be summed up as: ‘Who are we the judge; We’re all drug users after all (is that Tylenol in your cabinet, is that caffeine in your cup)’. The policy emphasis is on the users at the expense of the non-using population.

So we’re making the very same mistakes all over again. As a society, we can’t mainstream hard drugs and drug-culture just to save those who fall through. We’re only going to proliferate the very social pathologies that we’re trying to eliminate.

Nightbloom, I'm not sure we ever took a "progressive" attitude on aids until it was too late. What we did was turn our backs on a community and ignore it until it had spread out of control. It wasn't until straight heros began to be infected and blood transfusion problems sprung up did it become something to worry about outside marginalized groups. The spread of aids has never been attributed soley to bathhouses or lack of enforcement, it was due to the failure to embrace condoms and protection, and the underground atmosphere of many gay environments.

And still we have, moralists pushing the message of don't be gay or don't have sex, instead of use protection. And for your information, Canada isn't the only place with AIDS problems, it is a worldwide epidemic which is still ongoing due to attempts to ignore or moralize intercourse. One of the worst offenders in this debate is the Catholic Church, who has fought against contrceptives and teaching safe sex, because "premarital sex" is bad. This is the predominant problem in subsaharan africa, where the aids rate is still soaring. While the archbishops have a huge influence in many african nation, there choice to take a hardline approach has resulted in rates that blow progressive Canadian rates out of the water. The only place where we have anything comparable is in places like the downtown eastside, where intravenous transmission is still very high, and made worst by our outlawing of prostitution that has prevented us from enforcing testing methods for the rate.

In fact by failing to save those who fall through, we just ignore the problems until the floor rots out.

"the U.S. government recklessly negligent for tying its AIDS assistance money to Uganda to a condition that the country's public-health authorities de-emphasize condoms in their AIDS education programs."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051022.wxcover22/BNStory/International/?pageRequested=2

That's just incorrect.

We're talking policy, not popular attitudes here - and governments did indeed take the 'progressive' path very early on (and I mean well in advance of the discovery of the 'drug cocktails' (a.k.a. chemotherapy) in the mid-nineties).

From the outset of the epidemic, activism and policy *within* the gay community was centred principally on the infected, not upon the non-infected population and how to keep them that way (condom campaigns in Africa are tangential here - incidentally, Roman Catholic organizations comprise some of the leading providers of condoms and sex education in Africa, irrespective of Vatican dogma, so we can put that myth to bed right here).

My key point is that arguments in favour of legalization (or harm reduction without the other three pillars, for that matter) place the user at the centre of policy. This is misguided. Protecting and cultivating the non-using population must be the #1 priority, and government policy should be carefully ordered towards this goal. The necessity of this policy emphasis is illustrated (in my opinion) by the ongoing HIV-AIDS crisis in the gay community, and the burgeoning drug problem which shows every indication of following in its footsteps.

I'll agree with you, that by focussing too much on the user is a distraction, as the user is a biproduct of circumstances and networks.

When you look at any epidemic (social or disease), you need to focus not just on the cure, but on minimizing transmission, and minimizing effect. So what is the vaccine? A containment policy can easily backfire, the dikes can be breached, the birds can migrate, and all of a sudden, the problems will become expodentially worse.

I'll provide another analogy, as I work in the technology sector. The new way of protecting networks is throttling technology. Network administrators have realized that even with antivirus software, and firewalls, there is always a chance for a virus to perpetuate itself before the definitions and identifying cues have been logged, as soon as they breach it, they can spread like wildfire. Throttling, keeps an eye on data, and looks for irregular trends, and will shut ports and data down when any aspects shows a breach, if an irregular spike in data usage comes, or any other signs become apparent.

Now you can only do this if you have absolute control of the network, you cannot just throw out a policy (don't open e-mails from unknown sectors, bring inside media in, etc. etc..) if you don't have the means on monitoring or reacting to it.

By trying to criminalize drugs or by pushing abstinence or no bathhouses in the case of aids, you are pushing the problem outside of our control. And then next thing you know, drugs move to the suburbs, and before anyone realizes it, we get outbreaks there, or in small towns. Aids or another disease springs up someplace new.

And thats often the problem, you can claim something is the "progressive" approach, or the "moral" approach, but really the only thing of importance is what is practical. And in terms of the four pillars, harm reduction is really focussing on slowing the spread of infectious diseases via safe injection sites, (which, while not an end all, is partially successful in strict terms of the rate of infection) as unfortuneately other means of harm reduction are out of the city's control.

I appreciate what your saying, although I have sincere doubts that government (or the legitimate private sector) can truly wrest contol of the drug trade from organized crime to accomplish its ends. It's a system that can never be hermetically sealed & rendered airtight. Even so, government would have to become something it was never intended to be. And Colin described some of the pitfalls of allowing the legitimate private sector to get in on the action.

I agree that Harm Reduction is a legitimate last-ditch effort to save the most desperate and craven cases. It's a form of 'battlefield triage' that was never intended to be applied to the general population - those who may or may not be considering experimenting, but may be receptive to reasons for doing so.

Harm Reduction is now being presented as a blanket, catch-all and stand-alone solution. There's no enforcement, no prevention, and only the wealthy can actually afford the genuinely effective treatment programs.

To illustrate this point: We had a recent kerfuffle in the gay community when an HIV-&-Drug counselling agency for gay kids (YouthCo) publicly applied the Harm Reduction principle to the broader community, and actually ended up providing a blanket rationale for hard drug experimentation by presenting it as something that can be managed and toyed with. They weren't making any distinction between the non-users and the above-mentioned desperate cases. Meth and other hard-core drugs were no big deal and anyone who had a problem with it was just being 'hysterical'. Gay kids already have enough reasons for getting into hard-core drugs without being handed cheap rationalizations for doing so, along with a victim ideology which facilitates it.

I believe City Hall's misrepresentaton of Harm Reduction ideology and misapplicaiton of the Four Pillars is largely responsible for these misconceptions and irresponsible messaging.

That's really the only problem(s) I have with Hard Reduction itself - (1) that it is destructive in the absence of the complimentary principles (enforcement, prevention, treatment) - And (2) It is being misapplied as a general presciption for society-wide drug usage rather than as a last-ditch effort the save those at the most hopeless end of the spectrum.

Cheers! I totally understand the problems with kids. There is a thin line between experimentation and wrecking you life. I knew a number of friends who ended up choosing the later, but most luckily, were able to pull their lives back together, and they were lucky to have excellent family support structures to do so. I know others who still are working towards those ends, or who have been drawn back in at later points. And these were from middle class suburbian families, who could afford to fly them to send them to out of province rehab clinics, or to provide at least a balance structure to which to turn.

I can only imagine the challenges facing those living in poverty or overly marginalized environments, where the only people they have to turn to are in just as bad shape as them, or where those who should be their support structures have ostracised them. Really, its those younger years where people are most vulnerable, where youngsters search for friends can lead them astray, and where the rest of their lives are in the balance.

Look at the problem of cigarette and booze smuggling. The problem with legalizing something and trying to artificially control the price is that you only have a small margin to play with before the illegal’s gain a price advantage and your customers go there. As most of your customers are already used to buying illegally, the moral implications won’t be there and also consider the “black market” in home reno’s. People will avoid legal means in order to save money. One my sisters works for a large oil company here, she says: Canadians will cross the street to save .002 cents a litre, they don’t have customer loyalty.

Frankly I can’t see legally made drugs competing with illegally made stuff unless you have strong enforcement and penalties against the makers and dealers. Then you come to the justice issues of sending someone to jail or pay large fines for something that others do legally. The courts would not hand down large fines or jail time in that case and you have lost your deterrence.