HARPER'S DRUG-WAR FLASHBACK

The Conservative Leader's New Ideas For Fighting Drugs Are In Fact
Very Old, And Still Badly Flawed

'Our values are under attack," Stephen Harper declared Saturday 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,"
Mr. Harper fumed, but a Conservative government would wage war.

To be precise, it appears from newspaper accounts that Mr. 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, Mr.
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 Mr. 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 the fact that Mr. Harper
chose to announce it in Vancouver -- a city whose 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, Mr. Harper's talk of
defending social values -- is very, very old. It was old in the era
of Ronald Reagan and Miami Vice and prime minister Brian Mulroney
warning that a "drug epidemic" was upon us. It was old in the era of
Richard 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. It was even
said they used opium to lure innocent white women into their filthy,
yellow lairs.

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 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 Stephen 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.