Pubdate: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 Source: Edmonton Sun (CN AB) Copyright: 2005, Canoe Limited Partnership. Contact: http://www.canoe.com/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/135 Author: Mindelle Jacobs Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?199 (Mandatory Minimum Sentencing) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?241 (Methamphetamine - Canada) NEED METH MINIMUMS Don't hold your breath waiting for tough sentences now that Ottawa has increased the maximum penalty for meth production and trafficking to life in prison. No one has ever received 10 years in jail for a drug crime - the old maximum - never mind life behind bars. Conditional sentences are all the rage these days, thanks to the Liberals, who implemented sentencing changes a decade ago. House arrest may be appropriate for some criminals but should we allow drug producers and traffickers to loll around at home instead of doing hard time? The Liberals could easily have made serious drug offenders ineligible for conditional sentences but they didn't. As a result, less than half of drug traffickers go to jail. And they typically only spend a few months behind bars anyway. The fines are also piddling. Given this sentencing pattern, increasing the penalties for meth producers and traffickers to life in prison will accomplish absolutely nothing. Drug pushers are the scum of the earth and, unless they're addicts, they should be subject to mandatory minimum sentences. How about five years for a first offence? People selling drugs to feed their addictions should be compelled to take drug treatment. However, Justice Minister Irwin Cotler said Thursday that he opposes mandatory minimum sentences. He says they don't serve as a deterrent. I think a five-or 10-year sentence might deter your run-of-the-mill criminal from getting into drug trafficking. At least you'd get some traffickers off the streets for a few years. Combine mandatory minimum sentences with substantially more money for prevention programs and drug treatment and we could actually make a dent in the drug war. "They have to go with mandatory minimum sentencing if they really want to resolve the problem," says Tony Cannavino, president of the Canadian Professional Police Association. "We all know that judges will never give those high sentences," he says. Let's face it: Canada is pretty soft on drug producers and traffickers. We're so enamoured with the concept of rehabilitation that we cringe at the notion of punishment. It bears repeating that addicts who sell drugs need help. Traffickers who peddle death and destruction deserve a long time in jail. The Liberal approach is like "fighting cancer with Band-Aids," Conservative justice critic Vic Toews said the other day. "What is needed are minimum prison sentences for criminals who are profiting by destroying the lives of Canadians." On the other end of the spectrum is Ottawa lawyer Eugene Oscapella, who believes we should end the prohibition of illicit drugs. "Prove to me that law enforcement works," says Oscapella, president of the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy. Drug pushers are simply "opportunistic capitalists" who are serving the market the government created by prohibiting drugs, he says. "Most of these so-called epidemics are self-limiting because people find out it's a bad drug and word on the street gets around," says Oscapella. Pointing to the reduction in tobacco consumption, he says drug use can be reduced as well through regulatory policies and public education. He says 95% of the money Ottawa spends on its drug strategy is related to law enforcement, the courts and correctional services. "That leaves five per cent for measures that might work," says Oscapella. The end of drug prohibition? Oh, perhaps in the 22nd century, after we've tried everything else. - --- MAP posted-by: Larry Seguin