EVIDENCE SHOWS HARPER'S JUSTICE POLICIES WOULD EXACERBATE DRUG PROBLEM

One has to wonder whether the Conservative Party of Canada actually
bases certain of its proposals on evidence, or whether Conservative
candidates simply say things they think the public wants to hear.

Conservative policy on illicit drugs is a case in point: Leader
Stephen Harper, who was in Burnaby on the weekend, said, "We have to
do something about the drug crisis in this country," and then
outlined a number of policies aimed at countering the problem. The
trouble, however, is that there's absolutely no evidence that
Harper's proposed policies will do anything of the sort.

After making the patently false assertion that no political party
except the Conservatives cares about "a peaceful, orderly, safe
society," Harper said a Conservative government "would impose
mandatory minimum sentences of at least two years for trafficking,
selling or importing hard drugs like heroin, cocaine or crystal
methamphetamine."

Such comments will certainly resonate with crime-weary voters, many
of whom believe the courts have been entirely too soft on criminals.
Yet the evidence suggests that mandatory minimum sentences will do
nothing to solve Canada's crime and drug problems, and might well
make the problems worse.

Evidence from both Canada and the United States confirms that
mandatory minimums fail to deter crime. In fact, a 2001 study
commissioned by Justice Canada found absolutely no correlation
between the crime rate and the severity of sentences. To be sure,
there are reasons to keep certain people in jail, but it's clear that
minimum sentences have no deterrent or preventive effect.

There is also abundant evidence that judges and juries are less
likely to convict people who face minimum sentences. Indeed, a study
of section 85 of the Criminal Code, which imposes a mandatory minimum
of one year in jail for using a firearm to commit an offence, found
that fully two-thirds of charges were withdrawn.

Minimum sentences also increase both the number and length of trials,
because people are much less likely to plead guilty if they know they
are facing certain jail time. This markedly increases the burden on,
and costs of, the criminal justice system.

Finally, it's not even clear if mandatory minimums lead to increased
sentences, since judges tend to treat the minimum as a maximum --
that is, they rarely impose more jail time than that required by the
minimum sentence.

Harper's proposal could therefore lead to a more expensive and
unwieldy criminal justice system, where fewer drug dealers are
convicted and those who are spend no more time in jail than those
convicted under the current regime.

Undeterred by the illogic of his first proposal, Harper continued,
saying that a Conservative government would not decriminalize
marijuana, as the Liberals have proposed. Although acknowledging that
this would lead to more kids being saddled with criminal records,
Harper maintained that "we have to send a message" that drug use is
unacceptable.

Again, this statement no doubt sounds good to people who are
concerned about drugs and crime, yet it reveals an almost
breathtaking ignorance of Canada's efforts to deter drug use through
the criminal law.

After all, we have been using the criminal law to send exactly that
message for more than 80 years. And we've recently been sending that
message more frequently: A Vancouver city council report recently
noted that "The cannabis offence rate has risen almost 80 per cent
between 1992 and 2002, mostly due to the increased number of
possession offences."

And what have we gained by sending this message? As marijuana charges
increased, so too did usage rates: According to the 2004 Canadian
Addiction Survey, more than 44 per cent of Canadians report having
tried pot, a whopping increase from the 28.7 per cent that reported
trying the drug a decade ago. Further, the Canadian Centre on
Substance Abuse reports that 51 per cent of British Columbians have
used marijuana.

These numbers are also much higher than those of many countries with
lax laws, such as the Netherlands. It's clear, then, that the
harshness of the law and the chances of getting caught simply don't
deter use. The law is similarly impotent when it comes to the drug
supply, as most Canadians report that it's easy to obtain marijuana.

Consequently, there's no reason to believe that Harper's proposals
will do anything about the drug crisis in this country. To be sure,
they sound good, but on closer inspection, there's not one iota of
evidence that they are sound policy proposals. On the contrary, the
available evidence suggests that such proposals, if implemented,
would merely make a bad situation worse.