Pubdate: Mon, 27 Nov 2000
Source: Vancouver Sun (CN BC)
Copyright: The Vancouver Sun 2000
Contact:  200 Granville Street, Ste.#1, Vancouver BC V6C 3N3
Fax: (604) 605-2323
Website: http://www.vancouversun.com/
Author: Gabriel Yiu
Bookmark: For the series Searching for solutions - Fix on the Downtown 
Eastside and related items
http://www.mapinc.org/thefix.htm

THE GOAL SHOULD BE TO GET ADDICTS TO KICK THE HABIT

Two pieces of news caught my attention lately. Both items originated
south of the border, but have great resonance for us here in Vancouver
where we remain in the middle of a drug crisis.

The New York Times recently conducted a survey on the effect of the
death penalty in the last 20 years. It shows that 10 of the 12 states
without capital punishment have homicide rates below the national
average, while half the states with the death penalty have homicide
rates above. In a state-by-state analysis, The Times found homicide
rate in states with the death penalty were 48 per cent to 101 per cent
higher than in states without the death penalty.

The analysis showed that the demographic profile of states with the
death penalty is not far different from that of states without it. It
also found homicide rates had risen and fallen along roughly
symmetrical paths in the states with and without the death penalty.

Second, according to The Los Angeles Times, a quiet but real
revolution has occurred in California.

Until a new law takes effect next July, California is one of the
leading tough-on-crime states, with stiffened penalties for drug
criminals, expanded death penalty, $5 billion US worth of funds for
new prison construction, and pioneer "three strikes" sentencing. (The
Canadian Alliance election platform adopted the concept with an
upgraded "two strikes" sentencing.)

Drug possession in California is a criminal offence. Currently, nearly
one in three of the state's 162,000 prisoners are serving time for a
crime related to drugs.

Proposition 36, a referendum which won in the American election with
61 per cent of the votes, puts California at the forefront of a
national movement to reform drug laws. Rather than jailing drug users,
the new law will channel users into treatment programs.

After decades of tough-on-crime measures and locking people up for
drugs, the public has begun to realize that the policies are not
working.  They have also rethought the notion that addicts are
criminals. Instead of pouring massive amounts of money into building
and maintaining prisons, voters prefer money to be spent on treatment
programs.

Today, Californians see drug abuse as a disease which can be treated
effectively. Voters realize that sending drug users to prison will
only make matters worse, because their families will be devastated as
well as suffering financial loss, and their prison-mates will mostly
be drug dealers and criminals. The system will only drive them to
become career criminals.

The news says this to me: A solution based on punishment instead of
treatment is not necessarily the most effective and appropriate way to
tackle a complicated social problem.

After Canada abolished the death penalty, there are still voices
asking for its reinstatement, even though the national figures for
homicide have declined. It is clear from the U.S. that the death
penalty does not appear to have a definite effect on serious crimes.

Drugs are addictive and hazardous to health. To use severe punishment
to stop such immoral behaviour might seem like a logical way of
dealing with the issue, but the U.S. experience shows that focussing
on incarceration leads to complete failure.

The California reform model might well influence the way Vancouver
treats its drug epidemic, but it is still a far cry from the European
model which is close to what Mayor Philip Owen announced last week.

Still, it is hard to change people's beliefs. Many people find it very
difficult to accept the idea of providing safe injection sites and
supplying free heroin to drug users.

Even from a medical point of view, since drugs are viewed as a form of
disease, the obvious goal is for a patient to kick his habit.

Why does the government propose to tolerate people who have no
intention of getting rid of their addiction and instead supply to them
with the care and services accorded a patient? And why is drug
treatment not mandatory?

These are key questions in citizens' minds, and when the civic
government explains its controversial position, they should address
every one. A pamphlet in English, Chinese and Punjabi would be a good
start. Why doesn't the city communicate directly with the public,
instead of relying on media coverage of the proposal?

Meanwhile, people who genuinely believe the drug problem will only be
solved through increased policing and more jail time should at least
consider the city's proposal before jumping onto the bandwagon of
knee-jerk rebuttal. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake