Stewart has said it best. Thanks to Tom Sandborn for bringing this story to the rest of us. What is happening to our world. Good wishes, all.

If you think this is bad wait til the new npa gang gets going. There'll be enough back-alley beatings to go around for every poor person left in Vanouver. Watch for brutal sweeps thru Stanley park.
If these people can't be routed into low-paying jobs to serve the elite then they should be ground up into fertilizer for gardens in shawnessy and point grey.
Thank god for the west side!!

oh yeah, great. another totally balanced anti police propoganda piece by the highly credible Pivot Legal Society. I wonder how many unecessary details like what drugs were found were left out for brevity. I'll wait to hear VPD's side, thanks.

Good article and only by shedding a light on the dark side of the VPD, and assistants, will they ever begin to clean up their act.

In the end, it will likely take a death, sadly, before enough of the public are prepared to stand against the brutal tactics.

Today (Dec. 1)someone writing in Toronto Star is advocating the legalization of drugs as the basic means of eliminating street violence. Not more police.

Ian Mulgrew's book, Bud Inc., inside Canada's marijuana industry also advocates legalization of all drugs to prevent gangs competing violently with other gangs for the rich cash trade.

Mulgrew paints a vivid picture of the police being torn two ways: knowing that there are Amsterdam-like pot cafes quietly doing business in Vancouver ... while having, at times, to descend upon them to make arrests. Mulgrew claims that the police have better things to do.

Both these authors see legalization as a way of preventing violence; but also as a means of regulating the industry (25,000 known grow-ops in B.C.) and of taxing the $7Billion a year trade so that the economy, not criminals, is enriched.

Well ... it seems to make sense insofar as the herb marijuana is concerned.

But what I can't visualize is what kind of society it would be if all the rest of the witch's brew of hard drugs became freely available over the counter.

Anybody care to add to this, please?

BC Mary, I think they would be available by prescription only. Actually, they were legal years ago. Laudium (Tennesse Williams mother was an addict as were many, many people - it was given as a headache treatment) Frued used cocaine regularily and until the fifties was the ingrediate of coke the cola.

I am for legalizing, (not decriminalizing which does nothing to remedy the problem) but really making it very clinical and thus destroying the whole sub-culture of drug abuse. Making it a very non-exciting health issue takes a lot of allure away from illicit drug use. At the same time having treatment and prevention programs for those who feel they are able to get off and to educate children to the actual real dangers of drug addiction.

We would save money and lives, but I'm afraid it will not happen because there is too much money being made by organized crime on drugs and prostitution.

Our greatest problem in dealing with drug use in Canada is our proximity to the nutcake regime south of us.

Whatever we do here will be too much or too little and, no matter what, Canada will continue to spend far too much in police resources acting as a handmaidens for US police agencies.

Forget the border problems. They will never disappear, at least until the Americans realize there are two sides to a border and one side isn't any more happy about guns coming north than they are about illegal dope imports.

Yes, legalize pot. It's impact is far less dangerous than booze, which continues to enjoy the positive spin of multi-million dollar ad budgets simply because it is a legal product.

Thousands are killed annually by it, health budgets get wiped out by its impact, yet it remains a growth industry in places like BC where the profiteers have recently been encouraged to flood the market place as the government attempts to eliminate one of the few healthy apects of the industry, the BC Liquor Store.

I too have great problems with some of the other "harder" drugs, but can accept that some could be made available through prescriptions.

Back to the article for a line or two: I think we can expect far more of this type of heavy handedness from police and (sadly) from firefighters with the return of the NPA.

How do you keep the focus off the backroom deals in city hall?

Simple, focus "LAW & ORDER" in the downtown eastside, which appears to be a much simpler story line to grasp than the wheeling and dealing of developers and their friends who, coincidently, contribute much advertizing revenue to mainstreeam media.

BC Mary:

I'm not a drug user [a bottle of beer or glass of wine every week or so]: LEGALIZE!

Take the criminal element out of this business and hand distribution over to the LCB. Production could go to the small business sector (so long as they can keep corporate interests out of it).

With the npa yahoos in control, I'm sure we'll be seeing a lot more VPD "crackdown" operations. Sad. I guess you are guilty until proven innocent in certain poor Vancouver neighbourhoods.

I'm on side with all of you guys. Drug wars polarize everyone.

Drug prohibition creates a network of dealers and users, that makes the problem much worst. Other effects are the growth of gun violence when such dealers interests collide. These organizations in turn utilize the users for their profit margins, who proceed to vandalize the city and pilfer homes and businesses. Other underground production labs create a huge safety risk, as they produce their bathtub windfalls.

Federal action is needed, and hopefully this comes to light.

One thing though, jesterjogger. why do you think these things will get worst under Sam?

The police are now attacking on Sam Sullivan by trying to pin him with trying to keep a junky from prostitution, by giving her a few bucks to satisfy her addiction. Its a real joke, and I hope the NPA fullfills their promise to set up an independent oversight committee for the city cops. For heavens sakes, does that mean any of us who have thrown an addict a buck are liable of some imaginary offense. (Accessory to a possesion misdemeanor? Is that even in the criminal code)

dangrice, last time I looked there were no misdemeanors' in our criminal code.

Had our premier been charged with drunk driving in BC rather than in Hawaii (where there are misdemeanors) he would have faced criminal trial and perhaps even jail.

Thank you for allowing me to clarify that point.

dangrice says:

Drug prohibition creates a network of dealers and users, that makes the problem much worst. Other effects are the growth of gun violence when such dealers interests collide.

Interestingly, issues of social liberalism, such as allowing people the freedom to ingest or inject whatever substances they desire, are those rare issues where the views of the Fraser Institute and the views of many who consider themselves "left of center" coincide.

The Fraser Institute, following the tenets of Milton Friedman and other hard-line free enterprisers, must absolutely cringe at the social conservatism of Harper and his crew. Such nonsense is as much anathema to free enterprisers as it is to social liberals.

It's a funny world.

B.C. Mary writes "I'm not a drug use, a bottle of beer or glass of wine every week or so".
If you take all the liquid out of alcohol, you have a white powder drug known as Ethyl Alcohol.
It is definetly a drug, because it is legal its makeup and effects on the individual and society is somewhat diminished.
Many people like B.C. Mary can use it responsibly and many more run into problems with it.
As for what it would be like if drugs were legal, we can only look at past attempts.
From 1914-23 in the U.S. Heroin was legal with a prescription, likewise in Sweden from 65 -67, as well as many other instances and evertime they had to stop the initiative as there was a big abuse of the process and addiction rate soared.
If you look at history, back in 1858 the Chinese government legalized Opium due to pressure from the British government and the history books say an estimetaed half the population of China became addicted. The Chinese governemnt reversed the decision and rates of addiction plummeted. The Columbian government decriminalized possesion of 1 gram of cocaine in 1994 and the government is trying now to repeal the law as addiction rates have soared there as well.
Most of the folks on this board are lefties and I can tell you drug legalization will only serve the big drug corporations, the same ones that laready distribute Methadone and Cocaine for the medical profession. They are wringing their hands waiting for a multi billion dollar yaerly windfall of cash. Most of you don't want Walmart but you don't care if the drug companies get rich off peoples misery.
You could say better them than the drug lords but at least if its illegal, as history shows, it will keep the rates of addiction per capita down.
As for no more drug dealers, our government produced marijuana and those eligible to buy it said it was crap and bought from dealers instead, how do we know the crack and heroin will be of good enough quality to satisfy the addicts, not to mention crystal meth which is made out of such terrible things I couldn't envision a government okaying the production of it.

Hi, Mary. Yeah, they should all be legalized, not withstanding Barryjo's wrong-headedness on this issue, eh. He really sounds like a cop who's been harrassing drug addicts all of his career and can't deal with the possibility that it was all for nothing. The big winners in the war on drugs are the police, (job security, eh) the drug gangs, terrorists who need the cash, lawyers etc etc etc. Why is this so hard to grasp, anyway? I say, "Destroy organized crime--legalize drugs."

barryjo says

You are 100% historically correct. But that's only 1/2 of the equation. Since it's illegal to make, sell, buy and ingest most drugs, society has immediately turned makers, sellers, buyers, and takers into criminals.

Criminals live in an underworld. Criminals are driven to nasty and brutish behaviors in order continue their activities.

So, call me selfish; I'd rather see an increase in addiction for a decrease in crime. My house and car have been broken into several times (WAAAYYY too many times) and the evidence points to drug users, driven to steal to meet the exorbitant price demands of the criminal pushers.

I hate to think what the break-ins to my house and car alone have cost society -- police time, my time, insurance payments, increases in insurance premiums, trauma to my kids, etc etc. Now multiply that by the thousands (hundreds of thousands perhaps?) of times these crimes are commited every year.

Tell me, which is a greater cost to society: a few more addicted persons (buying quality inspected drugs from the LCB) or thousands of victims of petty crimes and violent assaults?

Yes, I'm selfish! I'll take some more addicts!

And furthermore--I've discovered that there is just about always a single issue around which all of our human problems revolve. Here's the issue regarding illegal drugs. Re. heroin: How many people use heroin NOW. How many people will be using it if it becomes legal. May I suggest a non-scientific method of surveying: Phone up your friends and ask them if they're going to start injecting heroin when it becomes legal. I tried this once and, having ran out of friends fairly quickly, (okey VERY quickly) I had to start asking strangers. I couldn't find a single person who would admit to sitting around fantasizing about the day that heroin would become legal so they could go line up at London Drugs for their twice-daily injections. Mary, trust me, this whole issue is more about the deficit in the human neural network than it is about illegal drugs. Most of us have made a huge "a priori" leap in faith about the illegality of drugs. Actually, there never was a good reason for criminalizing drug users. Fact is, a tiny percentage of Canadians are interested in using heroin or even crack cocaine. We should criminalize these people if they want to get stupid and cause harm to others because of their addiction. Otherwise, I seriously believe that our government owes addicts reparation money for all the suffering our laws have caused them. Do we harrass and imprison diabetics for shooting up insulin? It's the same thing. Heroin, for instance, is just the world's best and safest analgesic. I know you're guffawing by now but it is deemed to be "evil" because stupid people, unknowingly, employ a different standard to judge it than they would say, non-steroidal anti-inflamatory drugs, like naprosen or voltaren. Fact is, HEROIN HAS NO KNOWN SIDE EFFECTS. Nothing! Nada. (except, of course, easily treated constipation) It will kill you, of course, if used in an overdose, but then, so will air, injected into a vein. This is known as an embolism. The second issue regarding heroin is: just how addictive is it, anyway? Well, it's not even close to as addictive as nicotine. In fact, it's actually not very addictive at all. It is well known, for instance, that heroin is not addictive if used soley for the treatment of physical pain. Here's the proof: Millions of people are addicted to nicotine who have no social, pschological, mental or cultural reasons for remaining addicted. I'm bumping up against the tyee's character limit, so I'd better sign off, but really, lets all not be stupid, eh. The entire Mayan civilization was destroyed by cultural and religious stupidity, eh. (The priests just ran out of the ability to convince the people that they should show up at his whim to have their heart's ripped out as a sacrifice to their gods.) One of the big jokes about heroin is that after the age of about fifty heroin users find that it doesn't work anymore. So eventually everyone stops using it, anyway. And Barryjo, get real, eh. You're better than this!

Truman Green says

Your entire thesis sounds VERY plausible to me; certainly more than anything Barryjo has put forward.

Until such time as the drug users cause harm to others, their use of drugs is victimless. Why do we criminalize people for crimes that have no victims?

Truman you state "I hate to think what breakins in my house and car have cost".
Any saving from property crime will have to go to increased taxes to pay for the government to supply the drugs and the associated services that goes with that.
Harm reduction came from Europe where you have access to timely healthcare and surgical procedures and here we sit waiting unnecessarily for healthcare and surgey and you guys would be willing to legalize drugs which would exact a heavy toll on money that is earmarked for the healthcare system.
Grub says drug users use of drugs is victimless, I have to disagree. Every drug addict has a mother a father, aunts and uncles, brothers and sisters and they are all victimized in various ways. Not to mention the addicts that have children who are also victims.
Truman, I suggest you go use heroin for a month and then tell me it isn't very addictive at all.
But you are right Truman about those that are not addicts now becoming addicts if it were legalized. In all my case studies from different countries it was the youth that were affected the most, once a drug like alcohol is legal and socially accepted it normalizes its use and addiction rates go up, thats a fact, and it is mostly impressionable youth that are the most affected.
I don't say not to legalize it, I simply state all the cases from the past and present I have found suggest it isn't a positive thing for society. My own personal opinion is that legalization wouldn't be a good thing but society will dictate whether it becomes legal or not. And based on all the effort by the pharmaceutical giants lobbying government and sponsoring harm reduction conferences it will happen eventually. The only thing that will keep it from happening in Canada any time soon is our governments fear of big brother down south.

barryjo says:

So be it.

Even if the "costs" even out (which I doubt), I'm happy to pay those costs. To me, paying the costs -- through taxation -- associated with increased addiction is preferable to the trauma (to me and my family) associated with the costs of paying through homes and cars being broken in to.

Right now, the criminalization of drugs costs society trauma and money. I'm sorry, but I don't want to be directly involved in the mess that is drug addiction. I'll pay the taxes, but I'm not keen on being the victim in some addict's life drama. Take drugs if you must, but please leave me out of the equation.

If I may respond to Barryjo,'s "Truman I suggest you use heroin for a month and then tell me it isn't very addictive at all." Well Barryjo, I'm not saying heroin isn't addictive if used as a psychogenic analgesic. I'm saying it isn't addictive at all if used as an analgesic (pain-killer) for physical pain. You may refer to Dr. Barry Beyerstein, brain specialist at SFU for his opinion on this. I heard him say exactly that on the Fanny Show on Shaw 4. The point I'm making about the psychogenic addiction of heroin is that the people who are chronically addicted are using heroin to kill the emotional trauma which first caused them to seek this kind of medication. All chronic heroin users were experiencing acute psychological trauma before they became addicted. What they are actually addicted to is the RELIEF they experience from using heroin--not the drug itself. Certainly there are withdrawal symptoms from sudden abstinence from heroin, but these are not so difficult to withstand as most people believe. Nicotine is far more addictive because, as I have said, nicotine addicts remain addicted in spite of the fact that they are not forced into the kind of social alienation--poverty and desperation--that heroin addicts usually find themselves by virtue of the cost and criminality of using their required medication. I was a nicotine addict for 30 years until I had to quit because I was experiencing precursor serious side effects. During my entire tenure as a nicotine addict I was not socially ostracized or threatened with imprisonment. Neither did I find myself sleeping behind a dumpster in an alley off Carrol Street. And yet it took me ten years of serious, desperate attempts to quit before I was finally successful about seven years ago. Heroin addicts are on a circular treadmill. It isn't the singular addictive nature of their drug of choice that keeps them addicted, but rather a combination of the life trauma that led them to heroin combined with the degradation and marginalization they experience while trying to survive unnecessary poverty and the constant harrassment of drug dealers and police enforcement--not to mention the Gene Chavulo brand of tough love most of them have experienced from their own families. Barryjo, do a bit of due diligence on any of your heroin-addicted acquaintences. Listen to the stories of familial abuse--sexual, emotional and physical. Hear their stories of failure in school, mental illnes, (often undiagnosed schizophrenia and bi-polar illness). Many of them have been tossed out on the street for merely being of an popular sexual orientation. They're just people trying to live with a lot of pain. To criminalize such people is itself a criminal act, and personally, I'd like to see the police who harrass them punished for gross moral and intellectual failure. I still maintain, judging from your sensitivity on this issue, that you are capable of rising above all of the specious and insipid arguments you employ to celebrate the status quo.

oops, typo alert. "popular sexual orientation should read, "unpopular sexual orientation."

My research is based on hundereds of interviews with addicts, in recovery and still using. As well, I was addicted to heroin for just over twenty seven years, I actually did sleep behind a dumpster on Abbott street for awhile.
What you say is true, it isn't the drug, it is the effect on the person who takes the drug.
A side effect from all drugs is a false sense of well being and for anyone who has low self esteem and self worth the effect of the drug is almost magical, they finally feel equal to others and essentially part of the human race.
After a while the drug doesn't give you that magical feeling when you use it but the experience that the addict got in the beginning from the dope was so positive and powerful they keep using, tryiing to get that feeling again. I call it the lie, the drugs give us everything we need to feel good in the beginning and then over time it reduces ones life to the lowest form doing things we never imagined we would do to get that feeling again.
It should seem that it would be easy to just quit but the drugs are just the most obvious symptom of a much larger problem, which is a life skill deficency. Addiction is a disease of the feelings and one uses to feel better when the world feels challenging and hard to deal with.
All of my employees are recovering chronic, low bottom addicts and the ones that don't make it and relapse don't relapse because they initially wanted to get high. Stress in some area of their lives became so great they started to use again.
What most often happens is they feel they are well enough to stop being proactive in their recovery and they backslide and they don't even realize it. The lose sight of the fact that all they have is a daily reprieve froma life threatening illness and that the reprieve is contingent upon doing a few things in their lives to keep them safe.
Thanks for the post, I know we differ on some things but wouldn't life be boring if everyone agreed on everything.

A note to allan; We do in fact have a sort of misdemeanor in our legal arsenal, I believe. We just call it something else. Instead of 'Felonies' and 'misdemeanors' we have summary offences and indictable offences.

The story once again points to an unhealthy and untrustworthy 'us against the people' culture among Vancouver city police. As long as they feel like this, no-one without power is safe in their hands.

I certainly don't condone violence against citizens by police but I can't help wonder if its just as much "us against them" by police or "us against them by those who aren't law abiding citizens".
Why is it that I never have a problem with the police, they never bother me. I could care less if they knocked on my door and wanted to come in, I have nothing to hide.
But there was time when I was addicted, living in rooming houses and sometimes homeless when we were consatantly at each other, I saw them as the enemy.
I changed, they remain the same so was it there preception of " us against them" or my preception of " me against them" that caused all my negative interactions with them?
Just try to imagine what the country would be like without a police force. Most are okay, but some are really rotten apples, one thing for sure, I wouldn't want their job dealing with the likes of who I used to be.

Thanks for the clarification Bailey, but I think you will find there is a difference between the (US-style), misdemeanors and our summary offense crimes, in that the later still brings a criminal conviction.

Had our premier faced a summary conviction for his drunken driving he would have a criminal record and, likely would no longer be premier.

Of course, I am not a legal beagle so if you rely on my expertice here you do it at your own risk and you might earn a short quick lesson in the differences that you didn't really need.

allan, I stand corrected. Thank you.

barryjo, perhaps you used to view the police as your enemy because they were your enemy. You haven't refuted my point, which is that the police have no business discriminating against whole classes of people like this.

If anything, the poor or the damaged should be safer in the hands of the police than I, or you as you are now, because they are in no position to protect their own rights, and so require that protection from the authorities.

It really is their job ideally, to protect people's rights, I think.

Barryjo: It was another commentor (not I) who spoke of being able to drink wine and beer. It so happens I cannot tolerate alcohol. Wish I could, but it just gives me a huge instant headache.

I'm very sorry about your past problems and I hope life is good for you now. It seems to me that you're very courageous to speak of your experiences so openly. Best wishes.

That is a very perceptive point, Truman...I hadn't really thought about addiction in that way...about being addicted to the relief itself. It really is an interesting and powerful idea that defuses the demonizing of the drug and places the focus on addressing and relieving the psychological trauma.

Though I know you were specifically talking about heroin, this idea of the addiction to relief itself says some interesting things especially when transposed to the addictions of society as a whole... even to our whole consumer addiction to the buying of "things" etc.

B.C. Mary
I can relate to not tolerating alcohol, I seem to be allergic to it, I break out in handcuffs eevry time I drink.
Sometimes I wish I could drink like most people, they seem to have a fairly good time, I just can't seem to put the brakes on once I start.

bailey,
You are right the police shouildn't discriminate against whole classes of people, it is not cool.
When I lived on the skids an overwhelming majority of those living their were breaking the law to support their habit, much like I was.
Most of us hated the police because they interfered with our lifestyle and what we were doing to get by. They were and are preceived to be the enemy of many living in the DTES and they treat the police like they are, with disrespect and contempt.
Funny thing though I know hundreds of addicts who once lived down there and are now clean and most don't treat the police with that same disrespect and contempt.
They realize it is a tough job working down there.
It still doesn't excuse the way some members of the VPD treat the people down there though. There are good and bad hopefully thew bad will somehow get weeded out of the mix.

Gonnna start at the end cause thats where the message is.

Somebodies ox hasta get gored!

the legalisation of now illicit drugs will constitute a cash Liposuction from the legal system as well as that of those who profit by that illegality.

"Well, that is that," says Baba Fats, sitting back down on his stone,
Facing another thousand years of talking to God alone.
"It seems, Lord", says Fats, "it's always the same, old men or bright-eyed youth,
It's always easier to sell them some shit than it is to give them the truth."

Now for the rest of Shell Silverstien's poem

There once was a boy named Gimmesome Roy. He was nothing like me or you.
'Cause laying back and getting high was all he cared to do.
As a kid, he sat in the cellar, sniffing airplane glue.
And then he smoked bananas -- which was then the thing to do.
He tried aspirin in Coca-Cola, breathed helium on the sly,
And his life was just one endless search to find that perfect high.
But grass just made him want to lay back and eat chocolate-chip pizza all night,
And the great things he wrote while he was stoned looked like shit in the morning light.
And speed just made him rap all day, reds just laid him back,
And Cocaine Rose was sweet to his nose, but the price nearly broke his back.
He tried PCP and THC, but they didn't quite do the trick,
And poppers nearly blew his heart and mushrooms made him sick.
Acid made him see the light, but he couldn't remember it long.
And hashish was just a little too weak, and smack was a lot too strong,
And Quaaludes made him stumble, and booze just made him cry,
Till he heard of a cat named Baba Fats who knew of the perfect high.

Now, Baba Fats was a hermit cat who lived up in Nepal,
High on a craggy mountaintop, up a sheer and icy wall.
"But hell," says Roy, "I'm a healthy boy, and I'll crawl or climb or fly,
But I'll find that guru who'll give me the clue as to what's the perfect high."
So out and off goes Gimmesome Roy to the land that knows no time,
Up a trail no man could conquer to a cliff no man could climb.
For fourteen years he tries that cliff, then back down again he slides
Then sits -- and cries -- and climbs again, pursuing the perfect high.
He's grinding his teeth, he's coughing blood, he's aching and shaking and weak,
As starving and sore and bleeding and tore, he reaches the mountain peak.
And his eyes blink red like a snow-blind wolf, and he snarls the snarl of a rat,
As there in perfect repose and wearing no clothes -- sits the godlike Baba Fats.

cont

"What's happening, Fats?" says Roy with joy, "I've come to state my biz.
I hear you're hip to the perfect trip. Please tell me what it is.
For you can see," says Roy to he, "that I'm about to die,
So for my last ride, Fats, how can I achieve the perfect high?"
"Well, dog my cats!" says Baba Fats. "here's one more burnt-out soul,
Who's looking for some alchemist to turn his trip to gold.
But you won't find it in no dealer's stash, or on no druggist's shelf.
Son, if you would seek the perfect high -- find it in yourself."

"Why, you jive motherfucker!" screamed Gimmesome Roy, "I've climbed through rain and sleet,
I've lost three fingers off my hands and four toes off my feet!
I've braved the lair of the polar bear and tasted the maggot's kiss.
Now, you tell me the high is in myself. What kind of shit is this?
My ears 'fore they froze off," says Roy, "had heard all kind of crap,
But I didn't climb for fourteen years to listen to that sophomore rap.
And I didn't crawl up here to hear that the high is on the natch,
So you tell me where the real stuff is or I'll kill your guru ass!"

"Ok, OK," says Baba Fats, "you're forcing it out of me.
There is a land beyond the sun that's known as Zaboli.
A wretched land of stone and sand where snakes and buzzards scream,
And in this devil's garden blooms the mystic Tzu-Tzu tree.
And every ten years it blooms one flower as white as the Key West sky,
And he who eats of the Tzu-Tzu flower will know the perfect high.
For the rush comes on like a tidal wave and it hits like the blazing sun.
And the high, it lasts a lifetime and the down don't ever come.
But the Zaboli land is ruled by a giant who stands twelve cubits high.
With eyes of red in his hundred heads, he waits for the passers-by.
And you must slay the red-eyed giant, and swim the River of Slime,
Where the mucous beasts, they wait to feast on those who journey by.
And if you survive the giant and the beasts and swim that slimy sea,
There's a blood-drinking witch who sharpens her teeth as she guards that Tzu-Tzu tree."
"To hell with your witches and giants," laughs Roy. "To hell with the beasts of the sea.
As long as the Tzu-Tzu flower blooms, some hope still blooms for me."
And with tears of joy in his snow-blind eye, Roy hands the guru a five,
Then back down the icy mountain he crawls, pursuing that perfect high.

"Well, that is that," says Baba Fats, sitting back down on his stone,
Facing another thousand years of talking to God alone.
"It seems, Lord", says Fats, "it's always the same, old men or bright-eyed youth,
It's always easier to sell them some shit than it is to give them the truth."

Posted without comment:

Conservative leader Stephen Harper whipped up supporters in Victoria Saturday announcing sweeping reforms including his latest pledge to crack down on drug crimes -- possibly shutting down a safe-injection site in Victoria before it's built.

BC Mary, statistics show that the safe injection site on the DTES doesn't save lives so they could put that money into prevention for children youth startegies.
Since the SIS was put in downtown the rates of OD deaths in the DTES has went up while the provincial average went down.
I've talked to a lot of using addicts and recovering addicts in Switzerland and other countries and they say its all smoke and mirrors, they've just created a junkie industry to provide services in exchange for governement dollars.

As anyone with knowledge of the downtown eastside addiction problem understands, the number of overdoses is most strongly correlated to the kind and strength of heroin being peddled on the street. During a weekend during which three people died of heroin overdose, Anne Drennan, Vancouve Police spokesperson advised, "....heroin users to shoot at the Insite safe-injection facility in the l00-block East Hastings if possible so they can get medical help." In general the number of drug overdoses has declined dramatically since the l990's. In l996, for instance, 322 BCers overdosed on illicit drugs; in 2003 there were 178. In 2005 64 people died in the city from illegal drugs, 14 more than in 2004. Barryjo and Randy White use these recent figures to denigrate the safe injection site, but the story is not quite so simple as they would have us believe. The numbers in this comment were gleaned from a August 23 Van. Province article by Matthew Ramsey.

Hey Diogenes, we're not talking about goofballs who think they're going to get closer to god or write better rock tunes or inherit some hairychristian enlightenment here by using drugs, eh. Parables are good, but what do YOU think?

Truman Green points out:

Further making the case for legalization.

Legal drugs would need to pass food, drug, health, and safety regulations. When was the last time you heard of someone going blind drinking gin bought from the LCB?

I rest my case.

Truman and Grub, you are both looking at that problem from the proper end, in my estimation.

People are not dying because they can now inject safer drugs, using safer equipment than have ever been available to addicts.

Frankly, I can't believe the number of drug deaths has increased in the area unless some profiteer is still providing bad drugs.

Again, a case of the reality not quite fitting in with the urban myths efforts of those who oppose the SIS concept.

Grub, I don't know if straight "legalization" is the answer, but certainly regulation and harm reduction efforts, including SIS help to keep a handle on the issue.

You're right on the gin from the LC, though. It would seem a great many people don't even understand why limits were placed on who could produce and market booze.

The current efforts by some of the same people, who shit on the SIS concept, to open up the booze market through privatization, suggests they haven't got the smarts to be even embarrassed by the contradiction.

allan says:

I, too, am obviously a product of years and years of indoctrination about the evils of drugs (which I firmly believe to be true) and how legalization somehow constitutes "advocating" drug use. The latter point I do not believe to be true.

My only question is: how does one get the criminal element out of the whole equation unless everything involved with drug use becomes legal.

Intuitively, I want to agree with you when you say "regulation". However, exactly what are we regulating? And how?

What part of the drug culture, in your conceptualization, remains illegal? And if illegal, how does one keep the criminal element from monopolizing that part?

Truman,
I resepect your opinion and enjoy your writing overall, but you are wrong on this issue.
World wide, overdose deaths from heroin peaked in the early 90's due to a glut of cheap heroin on the market. And it didn't matter if the country had a safe injection site or not the rates went up and that alone should be an indicator. Your stats are correct, you fail to mention, however, that the reason the rates went worlwide is because the cheap powerful heroin that was on the market in the early ninties subsided and prices stablized.
There was some particularily strong heroin on the market a few months back, the addicts on the DTES were made aware of it in hopes they would use the safe injection site and guess what... overdose deaths shot up... more than ten in a couple of weeks. Drive down the alley behind the site when it is OPEN and you will see addicts shooting up and needles everywhere.
I think it's time we stopped playing God, most of these addicts have had access to treatment and choosen drugs. They have choices but chose to live a risky life-style.
Funny you mention Ann Drennan from the VPD, its kind of ironic because her and I were the guest speakers at the last Picasso cafe graduation. The program helped street entrenched kids learn life skills and job skills and it was shut down because of a lack of government funding. Probably needed the money for needle exchanges and safe injection sites.

The Vancouver Police were the last group to endorse the injection site concept and the first to oppose any progressive alteration of the status quo. Ann Drennan's advising of addicts to use the site is a telling developement. I used to spend time down there and even now I sometimes take the skytrain to have a look at current conditions, so I still have a pretty good idea of what is going on. The needle injection site is a good start but what we really need is an entirely new paradigm of viewing drug addiction. Diehard proponents of the status quo, like yourself, who are quite commonly involved in the situation as methodone pharmacists, drug counsellors, police, lawyers, prison guards, drug-addict employers, etc. are the cause of all the mayhem, not the sick people they pretend to help. A sensitive and sensible new era is coming, unless our federal election brings in a conservative government. As BC Mary writes, Stephen Harper seems set to Americanize our criminalization of drug addicts. The United States has five percent of the world's population and 25 percent of the imprisoned population. Most of these people are in prison for drug offences. The black community is vastly over-represented. I suddenly forget the exact figure but a huge percentage of young black men in America are either in jail for drug offences, currently waiting trial or on parole. Incidently, will you please supply your full name in order to be be more worth of BC Mary's praise that you are, "very courageous to speak of your experiences so openly." In all due respect, B.C. Mary. (I love most of your comments) Barryjo can not be praised for disclosure while using an incomplete or phony name.

Like I would take the time to lie about my experiences. Why would bother.
I have spent a heck of a lot of time and money over the last thirteen years to help anyone that needs it to get out of the sewer of addiction and it just angers me that you guys have all been brainwashed with the civil liberatarian harm reduction b.s.
I thought Tyee was a board of varying peoples opinions but it seems unless you are a civil libertarian or union member and want to legalize everything, you are wrong on every issue here.
I think I'm wasting my time here, good luck and have a great Christmas.

barryjo:

YIKES! Barryjo, can you please tell me what is wrong with the notion of civil libeties?!

I'll admit to being a "civil libertarian". However, on the ssue of what I see as primarily "victimless crimes", I'm very much a social libertarian.

[PS: No need to respond to my comment about "victimless crimes", as I've heard -- and fully appreciate -- all the arguments about the stresses and troubles these activities put the families of the addicts through. However, I see the equation thus: either the addict and his/her family go through hell or the rest of society goes through a hell of break-ins and assaults. Since the rest of society is further removed from the drug culture, I think we should do society the courtesy of keeping the activities of drug addicts closer to their home.]

"keeping the activities of addicts closer to their homes". They live virtually everywhere so the sctivity will still be around.
Drug use is only the most obvious symptom of addiction. Its core is total self centerdness and you can give the addict all the dope in the world but that doesn't mean they will become nice, caring, law abiding citizens as a result of it. I'm just saying all the money that would go to providing legal free dope won't make much difference at all. Even if there wasn't still a black market for drugs, and there will be, it wouldn't change much in the grand scheme of things.
Addicts can change if they have the desire, why is it so important to give them drugs if they don't want to change. Civil liberties are a good thing but there has to be a line somwhere and where do we draw it. There has to be rules of conduct and laws in a civil society, if you legalize drugs which ones, do we start to make crystal meth. What about pornography, kiddie porn and pedeophelia? We are putting ourselves on a slippery slope where does the slide stop?
I can sort of see your point of view but whatever happened to living life with morals and values and being proud of living right and encouraging others too.

barryjo, drop the slippery slope stuff, you're beginning to sound like that guy in the '60s musical who sang of "Trouble with a capital T right here in Rivercity."

He thought a couple of pool tables were going to bring "ruination" to the town's youth.

Why are you so insistant that addicts must change? Is your name god?

I think it's quite laudable "encouraging others" to live right, but it's quite scary when the encouragement becomes a demand based on what you think, regardless of their rights, wants or anything.

Frankly, I can't see how you can help anyone with that attitude. You sound like a complete and utter control freak.

allan,
I would rather try to help people out of their misery because I don't think they really want to be there, than to simply cave in and say "well they are going to do this stuff any ways so its okay we'll support them in their quest to reduce their lives to misery snd suffering."
Thats a lazy defeatist attitude and it sounds like that is about where your life is. A control freak I am not, well actually I work on that from time to time, but I really care about people living in pain unnecessarily and want to help where I can.
I doubt the same is true for you. You sound like a crusty old fart that isn't grateful for much life has to offer and helping others isn't big on your agenda.
I will sign off on this board now, as this whole process affects my life negatively, and leave it to you guys that want to change the world in your own convaluted ways.
Good luck, goodbye and God bless you.

One last comment, just watched the news this morning about a homeless fellow who died even though there were repeated calls for help from people on the DTES.
It was tragic and one of the addicts down there stated 'when are they going to stop all these dumb a##d heroin projects and stuff and come up with some real solutions.
My answer, never as long as you have the allans etc. that want to try and dictate what will work for these sick people and they don't have a clue. Keep up the good work and as we get closer toward legalization with free heroin and methadone and safe injection sites etc. the problem will just get worse.

Just received a report out of the UK. They pioneered needle exchanges in 1985, have them in pharmacies and mobile etc.,they seem to be evrywhere there, and the twenty year report says HIV is till out of control there for intravenous drug users. The report states in 2004 there were more new cases of HIV than in the last five years.
If this stuff isn't working why not spend the money on prevention for our youth?

As the first person to comment, may I have the last? The comments above are mainly about drug use, yet the article was about hotel doors kicked in by the police for no reason. No drugs were found. Can't you have your drug discussions under a different story?

barryjo predicts:

WRONG!

We have legalized booze and I don't see much of a black market for alcohol. One of the reasons is because the booze is sold at a price that is affordable (barely?) for those who wish to ingest.

Note that the black market in tobacco only rears its head when the price (through taxation, usually) reaches some "unbearable" point. Crooks are businessmen; they know when the black market is profitable and when it's not.

stewart objects:

Hmmm... the article says, in the first paragraph, "...kicking in doors and holding them in a vacant lot holding pen outdoors for half a day without finding any evidence of the suspected meth lab that inspired the raid."

So, was the article about doors being kicked in, or about drugs? It seems to me, had there been no suspicion of drugs, there wouldn't have been a raid and no doors would have been kicked in. Further, were we, as a society, not so hung up on drug use, we wouldn't have police looking to find drugs and kicking at doors, in executing their searches.

It seems the discussion of drugs and drug policy is VERY relevant to this article.

stewart, if I may say, I don't really get your comment about the illegality of drugs not being a suitable topic for this thread. You are free to bring it back more directly to the topic as you see fit. A few of us have very strong opinions on this subject and we chose to air them here. Don't worry, the site manager will be closing us down in due course. Until then you are free to ignore us and chose a topic which interests you. May I refer you to grub's last comment.

Legalizing drugs will not eliminate street violence; a very small amount of street "violence" occurs as a result of police actions.

Legalizing drugs will simply unclutter a court system that exerts a great deal of time and money prosecuting what many characterize as "minor possession charges."

I'm torn on whether or not this is a viable strategy, and whether it's the a good one. I sympathize with the fact that the current "war on drugs" for lack of a less dramatic name - isn't really working, but not sure that legalizing drugs makes sense (even if only "soft" drugs such as Marijuana are involved.)

But then I don't touch the stuff, so I can't claim any experiences at all - positive, or negative.

I don't know where free heroin comes from when you talk about legalizing drugs. Alcohol is legal but they don't give it for free to hard core alcoholics. When all drugs are legalized, they will be produced by regulated producers, samples will be checked for safetly and quality, not cut with whatever happens to be under the kitchen sink. They will be sold by regulated distributors, with taxes collected and any age limits enforced, not by street thugs. They will be purchased by respectable law abiding citizens, not low life trash who don't deserve any rights because they 'choose' to be losers.

All around everyone benefits - except for organized crime, and jackboot power-tripping 'bad apple' cops/prison guards/border patrol, and the lawyers and judges and politicians who keep them busy.

Sure some people will rob you so they can go and get a bottle or liquor, but thats a proper crime and still will be even if drugs are legalized. And police will have that much more time to spend on proper crimes, protecting people instead of persecuting people.

mikev:

Too right!

milkev,
Dispensing methadone and heroin is here now, addiction is considered a disease and if drugs are legalized the amndate will be to supply drugs to addicts for free so they don't rip you off, or at least thats the way it works in theory.
Millions and millions are spent every year supplying free drugs already and drug aren't legal yetr. In Fcat, they got a federal government exemption from criminal prosecution so they could dispense heroin for free downtown. Type in NAOMI project in your search engine and read all about it.
Right or wrong, its going to cost taxpayers a bundle, thats for sure.

And while you're trying to figure out how to insult and trivialize the Naomi project, Barryjo, you should google: "Feature: Conference to Plot Drug War Exit Strategy gets undersay in Seattle"

I've already looked at it, and its kind of sad.
I don't believe that drugs will be legalized any time soon. They are struggling to get pot decriminalized so I don't think you'll be able to buy crystal meth in a pharmacy any time in the near future.
Truman, from all your research can you give me some exaples throughout civilized history where society legalized drugs and it turned out good. I can only find negative results.
I am interested because they always say we should look to the past to predict the future.
Maybe you've found something I've missed.

Truman,
By the way I didn't insult the NAOMI project. I don't think it will do much, even the addicts on TV Sunday after the homeless fellow was found dead on Hastings said " when are they going to stop these dumb a##d projects and put some money into something that works for the homeless.
As for the stop the war on drugs thing, I've been following it for years, Ethan Nadelman is the front man for George Soros, a definite stock market heavy and then some. This guy once shorted the pound in England and made a one day killing (moneywise)doin it. Soros as you know, a billionaire and he wants to be in on the ground floor of drug legalization and once again he will make a killing with all his drug company holdings.
Its all about money, and the kicker is they are slipping it in under the banner of compassion and a lot of folks are falling for it.

Yeah, just about every jurisdiction that decriminalized them, but you always seem to agree with the naysayers, of which there are, of course, many--comprised mostly of those who benefit from the status quo, of course. I think you should read some John Stuard Mill on personal freedom and society's attempts to balance it with personal responsibility not to do harm to others. Get with the program. Just about everyone except you and Stephen Harper are trying to figure out how to back out of this insane war on drugs which does nothing but brutalize sick people, employ about 40% more police than would otherwise be needed, supply money for terrorists worldwide, destroy whole neighbourhoods, supply the fodder and rationale for Indo Canadian, Asian, Russian and domestic thugs and gangsters and decimate the neural cavities of involvement-corrupted commentors.

Truman Gren advises:

Good advice for many of the muddled thinkers on this topic as well as the one on prostitution. The notion of freedom and civil liberties appears lost to many commenting on this thread.

It seems that, at some point, the religious right and the PC-left meet in their desire to quash liberty.

Truman,
You can do better than that, give me some examples of where legalization worked, I can give you many where they tried it and it didn't.
As for decriminalization, in Alsaka in 1975 they decriminalized marijuana, in 1992 they recriminalized it because they noted the incidence of youth starting to smoke pot doubled the national average.
Leaglization would work if we din't have to consider the addictive nature of drug use.
In Sweden in the sixties (65-67)they legalized heroin prescriptions for addicts only to have to reverse it when the process lead to overwhelming abuse. Actually they did the same in the U.S. heroin was legal with a prescription from 1914-23 but once again it didn't turn out the way they thought it would.
I know all the civil libertarians want almost everything legalized and it should be a free and open society. No basis for the ideology just personal freedom of choice. The reality is with or without a war on drugs addiction will be around, to bet that legal drugs will be a better scenario than illegal drugs with no basis for the assertion is dangerous at best.
They will be legal one day for sure the publicly traded drug companies are sinking millions into promoting it through lobbying of politicians and sponsoring harmreduction conferences. I just hope I'm long gone before that happens. Ya I know, you hope I'll be long gone too.

You sure sound a lot like John Turvey. Is that your real name. Come on. I told you my name. What's yours? Why are you hiding like this?

I'm mostly focused on legalizing pot, that's a simple first step with huge benefits. Legalizing the derivatives of poppy seeds and coca leaves doesn't exactly make me comfortable, but I don't think the situation for a heroin abuser today can really get much worse so I'll err on the side of freedom. Why treat one plant different from any other? It would be hypocritical of me to advocate the end of marijuana prohibition while discriminating against other drugs, just like the guy swilling a beer at the pub while whining about those damned hippie potheads is a hypocrite.

What aree you going on about with the drug companies? I don't see them owning all the breweries or hops and barley fields, why would they all of a sudden start farming cannabis and mushrooms and poppies and opium? As for chemicals, they already sell amphetamines, if they're allowed to sell LSD too then I say yeehaw! Will it be some kind of whole new paradigm when it's not just Viagra and Ritalin and Prozac that they're pushing? I don't think so. They already have a huge catalogue of questionable substances to offer, adding a few more shouldn't hurt.

I don't think any intoxicant should be free of charge. I don't see them handing out bottles of Jack Daniels to hard core alcoholics, and I don't think they should be giving free heroin to anyone either. I think you should be able to buy it though. And I think you should be able to buy it with the mark-up/taxes going to support treatment for problem users instead of going to keep thugs armed and dangerous. And I think you should have safe and regulated places to partake.

If a guy stumbles into the liquor store falling down drunk and grabs a 60 pounder of whiskey off the shelf and goes up to the till and slurs "howmuchthen?", in most cases he'll be removed from the premises and the authorities will be notified and he'll be dealt with appropriately. It's not something that's easy to do on a regular basis. Drug dealers aren't nearly as discriminating. They won't tell you that you've had too much or that maybe you should get some help, or if you seem like you might be a danger to others they sure as hell aren't going to bother calling the cops. Problem drinkers have trouble getting a fix and are dealt with. Nobody cares about a problem drug user, the people they deal with do nothing to try to help them. I think that's why there is a higher percentage of problem heroin users than there is of problem alcohol users - society is structured to keep (currently illegal) drug addicts in the gutter. And that's a serious shame. If the situation were normalized I think a person could choose to use heroin or opium and still be productive - take a look at some of our most famous writers and musicians and artists.

Hope you read Mikev's comment, Barryjo. I'm not saying heroin should be free, either. Just that a person shouldn't go to jail for using it and that the criminals should be discouraged from reaping rooms full of unaccounted-for cash money because of the ridiculously inflated price of the stuff.

Yeah, as Mikev says, at least the guy grabbing the bottle of Jack Daniels can be reasonably sure it's a regulated supply of whisky inside. Under this dumb war on drugs addicts are playing Russian roulette every time they shoot up--depending on how badly the criminals want to unload their current batch of crap--or whether it's twice as powerful and therefore far more deadly as last month's shipment. Also as Mikev says heroin addicts don't have to end up sleeping behind a dumpster. How about that Robert Downey Jr., for instance. Have you seen his film about the life of Charlie Chaplin? He's gotta be one of Hollywood's finest actors.

Truman,
I appreciate your opinion and passion on this subject. We have both been closely affected by addiction in different ways.
I don't know if I'm right, based studying the history of harm reduction and legalization I believe I am. And you have your beliefs based on what you know to be true. Does it mean I'm right or you're right, of course not.
It sure is nice to be able to live in a society where we can disagree without serious repercussions.
Stay passionate, I'm sure we'll dialouge again

P.S. As for Robert Downey Jr. he was cloose to losing everthing, jails etc. and he managed to turn it around, it could have gone either way, good on him. I don't think he benefitted too much from it.

P.S.S. No I'm not John Turvey, he is battling a terminal disease and isn't in very good health from what I hear. I'm just another addict trying to get through life without drugs, my name isn't important.

And thank you too, Barryjo. All the best, eh.

Why do I feel like crying ... that's so good, the way you guys worked your way through this godawful topic and ended with a blessing.

I've learned a lot from what each of you said, and finished up with the feeling I knew you.

Looks to me like all you turkeys are missing the whole point of the above article. I think the story was how the residents and building were mistreated
by the police and fire depts....and found no meth lab
but will not repair property they damages! DUHHH...

Aw, netters, you've gone and spoiled such a beautiful ending. Lemme explain. It's about drugs, crime, and police having to check things out. The police wouldn't have been there at all, if drugs were decriminalized. Got it? Duhhh?

Netscaper makes a very good point. Perhaps Barryjo will enlighten us on his read of that.

Is it that a sophisticated criminal gang was working out of a druggie hotel making crystal meth (or whatever poison), that got a jp to authorize a search warrant?

Must have been. The crafty bunch escaped with their product, machines and their underwear only seconds after police started kicking doors in.

Give me a break.

If nothing is found but the place gets renovated, then I think city hall ought to pay the bill and compensate anyone who is out of pocket or living accomodation.

City hall should also demand it's rep on the police board raise proper hell over police abuses.

Sadly instead, I suspect Vancouverites will be treated to an increasing volume of this type of "law enforcement practice" over the next three long years.

Thanks for that, Mary. I was really starting to feel that I could sense why Barryjo was saying what he did. But now to allan and netscaper--to you from failing hands we throw the torch. Be yours to hold it high.

and now for something completely different,
a perspective to get over it

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/powersof10/index.html

Diogenes, how did you know I was looking to brush up on my exponential notation. Honest!

Maybe the Meth lab was just a cover for Gordo's new mayor to help with cleaning up the area before the olympics.