Pubdate: Tue, 27 Nov 2007
Source: Edmonton Sun (CN AB)
Copyright: 2007 Canoe Limited Partnership.
Contact:  http://www.edmontonsun.com
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/135
Author: Mindelle Jacobs
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Mark+Kleiman  (Mark Kleiman)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mjcn.htm (Cannabis - Canada)

DRUG WAR ABOUT DAMAGE CONTROL

Public policy experts are often at odds with governments on how best 
to handle complex social issues and it was no different yesterday at 
a national addictions conference in Edmonton.

There is no evidence that tough enforcement of drug laws either 
reduces the availability or increases the price of illicit drugs. Yet 
the U.S. has consistently maintained its hardline stance on drugs 
over the years and the Harper Conservatives just announced that 
Canada, too, will impose stricter sanctions for certain drug crimes.

The Tories, for instance, plan to bring in a two-year minimum 
sentence for running a pot grow-op of 500 plants or more.

The keynote speaker at yesterday's conference, however, stirred the 
pot by adding his voice to a growing list of drug-policy reformers 
who propose that we just legalize pot.

Marijuana should be legalized for personal use and free distribution, 
Mark Kleiman told delegates at the 2007 conference of the Canadian 
Centre on Substance Abuse.

"Not everybody has a green thumb, so you could get your pot from your 
friend," Kleiman, a professor of public policy at UCLA, said in a 
later interview. "Do I think people would sell it? Of course they'd 
sell it and I couldn't care less. I don't want the billboards."

The goal of drug policy should be to limit the damage from drugs -- 
such as disease, accidents, crime and social functioning -- not to 
wage "cultural warfare" on drug users, Kleiman said.

TARGETS

To that end, he offered several other prescriptions. Drug sentencing 
should be based on the behaviour of the drug dealer, not the 
particular drug or amount being sold. The most dangerous and violent 
dealers are the ones police need to target, he said.

"You want the (additional sentence) for having a gun to be 
sufficiently large compared to the original sentence that a drug 
dealer will consider not having a gun because he wants to avoid that 
sentence," he said.

"You want to create competitive disadvantage for the most obnoxious 
dealing styles. And, unfortunately, routine drug law enforcement 
creates competitive advantage for the most obnoxious dealing styles."

In the U.S., for example, the minimum sentences for selling small 
amounts of drugs are already so lengthy that another few years tacked 
on for the use of a weapon has no impact on a dealer's conduct, he said.

Tougher sentences for the most violent dealers won't shrink the 
volume of illicit drugs on the streets, but they will at least reduce 
the amount of damage done, Kleiman said.

"Most of the users are going to find a way to get their drug. But you 
can save the neighbourhood from the side effects of dealing."

He also proposes routine random testing of drug offenders on 
probation and parole and a two-day stint in jail every time they test 
positive. "Anybody who's trained a puppy understands these 
principles," he said. "That will dramatically reduce the amount of 
drugs they use."

Alcohol may be legal, but 20% of the beds in acute care hospitals are 
filled by patients with a booze-related disorder of some kind, Kleiman added.

He recommends a multi-pronged approach to encouraging people to drink 
responsibly. He'd scrap the drinking age, prohibit anyone under 21 
from driving with any alcohol in their system and raise booze taxes.

As well, doctors should be screening patients for alcohol and drug 
use and giving them advice if needed, he added.

Agree or not with Kleiman's stance, you have to admit that drug 
policy experts are, at least, realists. Politicians are usually the 
blinkered ideologues.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom