"Legalizing heroin is not a solution"

LAST week's foray into the discussion of the public supply of heroin to
addicts certainly generated a lot of reaction from both sides of the
question.

I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised. The last time I discussed addicts
in a column resulted in what was probably the next highest amount of
correspondence from readers, again from both sides of the debate.

Vancouver Police Constable Mark Tonner mentioned drug addicts and the
problems they cause in a column for the Province and it resulted in a
placardwaving protest in front of police headquarters. Obviously feelings
run deep on the issue.

There were certainly letters from the deeply committed "legalize drugs"
crowd, who took exception to my argument that MP Libby Davies was wrong
with her suggestion that heroin addicts should be provided with their daily
dose of this insidious drug at taxpayer expense. Equally, there were some
very thoughtful as well as some very angry letters.

Whatever the position taken by people, there is one thing that is clear:
this is a very complex issue and there are no easy solutions.

Last week I asked some questions that pose significant difficulties to some
very real aspects of drug addiction and whether the government should
control the supply of heroin, as suggested by Davies.

Not the least of which concerned teenage addicts. For the life of me, I
just can't figure out how the legalization proponents are going to address
that issue. Can they possibly conceive of administering heroin to a
14yearold (or younger) junkie? Yet, if they don't, the addicts will still
find what they want.

One of the letter writers, Kelly Conlon from Hamilton, Ontario, wrote:
"... your correspondent Leo Knight seems to have worked himself into quite
a lather over the issue. Perhaps when he has a chance to calm down, he
should take the time to apply a little common sense to the drug problem; to
wit, if drugs are made available to addicts, property crime rates will fall
and the drug pushers will be out of business.

"That's exactly what happened when the Swiss government set up a heroin
trial (program) in that country. He can deny reality all he wishes, but the
fact is property crime went down among the cohorts in the Swiss heroin
trial."

Apart from the fact I don't lather up for anything except my daily shave,
as my photo at left will attest, I have a problem with the argument
presented by Conlon.

There is absolutely no question property crime rates are directly tied to
the number of drug addicts in any city. In Vancouver, we have the dubious
distinction of being the highest in the country. But, as long as the black
market persists and it will no matter how legally available the drug is
the property crime problem will also exist.

Conlon cites the Swiss experiment as clear evidence supporting
legalization. But let's take a look at that.

Switzerland initially tried to have a "drug decriminalized" area which
became known as "Needle Park." Essentially it was an open air shooting
gallery which soon became a virtual war zone with all manner of related
problems including vicious robberies and murders.

That didn't work, Plan B.

The Swiss government then took just over a thousand of the addicted
population of 30,000 and began providing them with heroin and related
therapy and treatment.

Out of the thousand, 70 managed to get themselves off the drug and began
leading more productive lives. The remaining group are still addicted.

There were no teenagers in the test group.

Last month they released their first report saying property crimes had
decreased and this was the reason. First off, property crimes decreased in
every area of Canada except B.C. and I'm pretty sure we didn't provide
heroin to our addicts.

Secondly, the figures provided by the Swiss are preliminary results and are
pure guesswork by starting off with an assumptive figure of how many of all
property crimes were committed by 100% of the addicts then calculating the
percentage committed by the program group based on the first assumption. I
fail to see how this can possibly be conclusive.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying there isn't some merit to the Swiss
experiment. But it is only an experiment. Nor do I say the status quo is
working either. Clearly that is not the case.

I am saying this is a very complex issue that does not need kneejerk
solutions. Even various police officers I have spoken to on this matter are
divided. The bottom line is we have a serious problem here with the rapid
rise in HIV infections and the collateral cost to society from having so
many addicts.

We need to have a serious look at the problem. Calls for immediate
legalization are not the answer.

The North Shore News believes strongly in freedom of speech and the
right of all sides in a debate to be heard. The columnists published in the
News present differing points of view, but those views are not necessarily
those of the newspaper itself.