Pubdate: Wed, 22 Jun 2005
Source: Nipawin Journal, The (CN SN)
Copyright: 2005 The Nipawin Journal
Contact:  http://www.nipawinjournal.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/867
Author: Dan McGeady
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/meth.htm (Methamphetamine)

CHANGING THE LAW CANNOT CHANGE THE BEHAVIOUR

The Federal Government may finally get off its butt and change how 
Crystal Meth is viewed in the eyes of the law. Currently anyone 
caught trafficking in the highly addictive narcotic will receive a 
maximum sentence of ten-years, about twice the average lifespan of 
someone addicted to the drug. This means that after serving six - to 
- - eight years that dealer or manufacturer is back on the streets.

Our justice system likes to call itself a rehabilitation service. I 
would consider it more like Con-University. These dealers are not the 
kind who suddenly, hallelujah - see the light while serving time, 
they just bide that time learning how to cut their crystal death with 
more toxic substances.

Dealers know what they are selling. Meth producers know what poisons 
they are cooking up: pseudoephedrine (a cold remedy), red phosphorous 
and iodine, ammonia, paint thinner, ether, Drano and lithium from 
batteries. Not the kind of stuff most people would ever consider 
firing into their veins, snorting or smoking.

But thanks to two Conservative MPs, Randy Kamp and Dave Batters, the 
lid on "ice" may finally be clamped down.

The have submitted a motion to the Legislative Counsel at the House 
of Commons, asking that the law be changed so that crystal meth is 
reclassified as a more dangerous drug. No longer will it be 
considered a Schedule III drug, a less dangerous category.

"Moving meth from Schedule III to Schedule I would send a strong 
signal to the producers and distributors of this dangerous drug," said Kamp.

"It would increase the maximum penalties for producing and 
trafficking in crystal meth from 10 years to life imprisonment, 
putting it on par with other drugs like heroin and cocaine."

I don't think many Canadians, especially ones in communities where 
meth has affected loved ones, would argue against this change. 
Unfortunately changing the law doesn't solve the underlying problem 
of drug and alcohol addiction. Meth is the fad drug of "the now." 
Just like GHB and Ecstasy was in the 1990s, Coke and Heroin in the 
1970s and 1980s and Acid in the '60s.

Just making penalties stiffer will not keep dealers from finding 
willing buyers. The free-market economy will also ensure that there 
will always be someone willing to produce the vile product, no matter the cost.

Changing the law is a great first step to combating the evils of meth 
but it will never solve the problems of substance abuse in a community.

That can only come from the community itself.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth