DRUG-WAR FLASHBACK: HARPER'S GET-TOUGH POLICY IS OLD, FLAWED

"Our values are under attack," Stephen Harper declared last weekend in
Vancouver. The enemies are drugs, he said, and a federal government
that has been far too soft in battling the scourge on the streets.
"Some people want to deal with the problem by simply surrendering,"
Harper fumed, but a Conservative government would wage war.

To be precise, it appears from newspaper accounts that Harper didn't
actually use the phrase "war on drugs." Too strong a whiff of Ronald
Reagan about it, presumably. But his policies are exactly in line with
those of the U.S. president who made the phrase famous, as well as the
other president, Richard Nixon, who coined it.

There would be no more talk of reforming the marijuana laws, Harper
promised, not even the Liberals' tepid plan for decriminalization.
Vancouver's safe-injection site would be closed because taxpayers'
money should "not be used to fund drug use." Presumably that would
also mean the end of the study of the medical prescription of heroin.
There would be a new, undefined "drug prevention strategy focused on
youth." But most importantly, a Conservative government would "get
tough" on dealers by introducing "mandatory minimum prison sentences
of at least two years" if they import, export, traffic or produce
heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine or large amounts of marijuana.

Why Harper chose to raise the profile of this issue, or why he framed
it in the social-conservative language of "values," are mysteries I
will leave to political pundits. Much more interesting to me is the
substance of the platform, and that Harper chose to announce it in
Vancouver -- where terrible drug problems have led to a national
debate about shifting the focus of drug policies from law enforcement
to public health.

All of this -- the policies, the setting, Harper's talk of defending
social values -- is very, very old. It was old in the era of Reagan
and Miami Vice and prime minister Brian Mulroney warning that a "drug
epidemic" was upon us. It was old in the era of Nixon and LSD and
Pierre Trudeau promising to decriminalize pot.

It is so old, one would be hard-pressed to find a living politician or
policy-maker who has any idea who started it, or why.

In fact, it started in Vancouver. It was the end of the 19th century
and the presence of the yellow race was growing in the city. Good
citizens -- white citizens -- were worried. Not only were the
newcomers of inferior stock, they worked cheap and took jobs from
white men. And they had strange habits. They smoked opium, for one,
rather than drinking beer and scotch as decent people do.

In 1908, fears of the "yellow peril" -- stoked by Mackenzie King and
Emily Murphy, two great Canadians with statues on Parliament Hill --
resulted in Canada being among the very first countries to introduce
drug prohibition.

It didn't work. Opium could still be had in Vancouver with little
effort.

The problem, politicians concluded, was that the laws weren't tough
enough. A string of new laws followed, expanding the number of
offences and imposing harsher punishments.

In 1922, a mandatory minimum prison sentence of six months was
introduced for selling drugs to minors. In 1923, the same mandatory
minimum was applied to anyone importing or exporting drugs.

The overwhelming majority of those convicted under the new laws were
Chinese, a satisfying result in the eyes of legislators.

In 1938, the six-month mandatory minimum was applied to the crime of
growing marijuana.

Drug offenders could also be ordered into hard labour. And for those
cases in which months or years on a chain gang breaking rocks wasn't
punishment enough, traffickers could be whipped.

But still the trade continued and dealers kept the streets
supplied.

Then, as now, Vancouver was the centre of the drug scene. In 1951, a
major panic about heroin in the city sparked a national debate about
drug policies. One side wanted tougher laws. "Light penalties and
comparatively small fines had really very little deterrent effect,"
said one MP, repeating a complaint that has been heard every few years
for almost a century.

This view was supported by the top U.S. drug official of the day, who
gave influential testimony at a crucial Senate hearing. There was a
direct correlation between punishments and drug use, he said. If
Canada had problems, it meant the punishments weren't tough enough.

Unfortunately, none of the senators thought to point out that the
United States had the toughest punishments and the worst rates of drug
use.

The other side in the 1950s debate was led by doctors and public
health officials. They wanted to change the paradigm and look at drugs
as a health issue. In particular, they wanted to try a program Britain
had used with great success for decades. The "British system"
permitted doctors to prescribe drugs to addicts unable to kick the
habit. British doctors had found that most addicts could easily be
stabilized at regular dosages and live quite normal and unremarkable
lives.

By satisfying addicts' demand for drugs, the British system had the
further benefit of drying up the black market. And without a black
market, far fewer new users started taking drugs in the first place --
a major reason the rate of addiction was so much lower in Britain than
in Canada or the United States.

It was cops versus doctors. The cops won. In 1954, a six-month
mandatory minimum sentence was applied to simple possession of drugs.
Whipping would also be available at judges' discretion.

And in 1961, new legislation added a mandatory minimum prison sentence
of seven years for importing or exporting drugs in any quantity.
Maximum sentences for other offences were raised to life in prison.

It should have been a death blow to drugs, but a curious thing
happened. Drug use didn't go down; it started to climb. And it kept on
climbing. Arrests and imprisonment soared but still drug use
multiplied. And the black market expanded to satisfy demand so
efficiently that drug prices started to fall.

A decade after the new law came into force, the nation had been
transformed. There was vastly more drug use and drugs could be found
in cities and towns where they had never been. The police were powerless.

The lesson was obvious: Punishment cannot control drugs.

Time passes and people forget, of course, particularly when forgetting
is politically convenient. But if Harper wants to do more than buy
votes with fairy tales -- if he is serious about crafting drug
policies that keep people alive and communities safe -- he might want
to read a little history.