Pubdate: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 Source: Vancouver Courier (CN BC) Copyright: 2005 Vancouver Courier Contact: http://www.vancourier.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/474 Author: Allen Garr Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/coke.htm (Cocaine) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/heroin.htm (Heroin) SULLIVAN DUCKS 'DRUG PROBLEM' Sam Sullivan has not had a good week. The way he handled what can only be referred to as his drug problem has done more damage than the actual problem itself. Sullivan's drug problem, as you have likely read here and elsewhere, involved two incidents. The first was when Sullivan gave money to a junkie so she could buy heroin and not have to turn tricks to feed her habit. The second was when he gave a crack cocaine addict money so the man could buy crack and smoke it in Sullivan's van while the city councillor was at the wheel. A few moments later, Sullivan gave him more money so he could buy more drugs so Sullivan could actually watch the deal go down. Both of these stories appeared in the Vancouver Sun. Sullivan was a willing source on the heroin story, which he knew would be played prominently. It appeared as the final front page piece in December 2000 as part of a series setting up the city's Four Pillar drug strategy. The crack story appeared as part of a Sullivan profile two weeks ago, prompted by his nomination as the NPA candidate for mayor. He confirmed the essential story after the reporter talked with the crack addict. While this was the first time the story appeared in print, it has been circulating around for some time. One senior city official told me Sullivan has been dining out on the story for the past couple of years. When questions were raised last week after people put the two incidents together, Sullivan seemed truly puzzled: "Why," he wondered on the Bill Good radio show, "is this an election issue now?" When Sullivan was paying for those drugs he was a relative nobody. At the time the heroin deal was going down, he was a fringe player in the NPA government of Philip Owen. Sullivan's colleagues considered him a bit of a flake and gave him no responsibilities beyond an alternate seat at the GVRD. And as we read in his profile, he was so despondent at being sidelined. During one term he said little and initiated nothing. In fact, it is difficult to find anything significant and lasting he initiated during his nine years as part of the NPA majority. Now, however, he is running for mayor. People want to know what he stands for. But, that said, does Sullivan admit to doing those deeds and take some pride in them, or does he try to duck? He tries to duck by portraying himself, not for the first time, as a victim. Poor Sam. First, he says, the criticism against him is an example of his opponent Jim Green running a "dirty campaign" against him. "American style politics," he called it. Green has certainly commented on the issue. But Sullivan, not Green, created the issue. If he finds himself wriggling on a hook, it is a hook he fashioned himself. This wasn't some deep dark secret that Green uncovered. All any of us had to do was read Sullivan's words in the paper. Sullivan also tried to excuse his acts by saying all this stuff happened over 10 years ago and long before the city started working on the Four Pillars approach. Times were different then and there was no hope on the horizon for addicts. That's not accurate. The reporter who wrote the heroin story was given the impression the incident took place a few months earlier, while Owen and city staff were crafting the city's drug policy. The crack buys took place well after the drug policy was in place. Cornered and caught. And to make matters worse the back room guys in his own party were obviously seeing Sullivan's attempts to lay the blame elsewhere as a losing strategy. He tried to extricate himself from a mess of his own making at the NPA fundraiser last week when he delivered an apology for his actions and any damage they may have caused to his party. So is he off the hook? You tell me. - --- MAP posted-by: Jo-D