By Arthur Weinreb
Thursday, May 31, 2007
The Conservative government or the "New Government" as they like to refer to themselves is poised to implement a new drug strategy. Last September, Health Minister Tony Clement refused to extend Vancouver's Safe Injection Site (SIS) for a further three years, instead granting a year's extension. It now appears that the government will cease the pilot program.
The purpose of the SIS is harm reduction. By giving intravenous drug users a safe place to inject their drugs as well as clean needles, the theory goes that drug overdoses will be decreased as will the spread of HIV/AIDS other communicable diseases.
There is conflicting evidence as to whether or not drug deaths are reduced by the presence of this site. It is difficult to know how many of those who frequent the SIS would now be dead if left to their own devices. And there is some evidence that the creation of the SIS that gives the impression that the government from the police on up condone drug use which in turn encourages more drug use. But let's assume for the moment that the government's wink-wink, nod-nod at this illegal activity does indeed prevent some disease and death. It does not necessarily follow that the function of government is to prevent every possible preventable death or disease that befalls its citizens. If it was, speed limits on highways would be reduced to 5 km/hr and speeders would be given penitentiary terms that would at least keep them off the roads for awhile.
What is needed in any law is constancy; difficult at the best of times when guilt and innocence is determined by fallible humans and judges have a range in which to impose sentences. It's really not any different than baseball where different umpires have different strike zones. The players can adjust to these differences as long as each umpire is consistent and doesn't have different strike zones for different teams or different innings. It is simply unfair and confusing that intravenous drug use appears to be condoned in certain areas while subject to criminal sanction including jail in other areas of the country. It is hard to believe that an activity is illegal when the government not only tolerates it and looks the other way but actively aids and abets it for some presumed higher purpose. For this reason alone, the site must close.
Perhaps the best example of sending inconsistent messages occurred during the tenure of the last Liberal government when they proposed to "decriminalize" marijuana which is vastly different than legalizing it. To propose non-criminal penalties for possession of small amounts while contemplating higher sentences for selling and cultivating marijuana was totally inconsistent. People don't grow or manufacture drugs or sell them because it's fun; they do it because there is a demand for these substances. Despite higher penalties, the decriminalization of possessing small amounts would lead to a greater demand which in turn would lead to more production. It's basic economics. The lax attitude towards possession and the constant talk of decriminalization led to a proliferation of grow-ops that are much more dangerous than smoking marijuana is. Besides the usual theft of electricity, grow-ops that are found in built up residential areas or apartments are fire hazards that pose a danger not only to themselves but to those around them. And mould is often found in these premises that pose a danger not only to the growers and their associates but to the children that are often found residing there. When this type of mould is found in public buildings, a huge uproar emanates from many of the same people who tend to look the other way at marijuana grow-ops.
Either marijuana is bad and should remain illegal or it is acceptable and should be made legal, not simply decriminalized. Legalizing marijuana would allow the government to control its sale and distribution in the same way that alcohol is and would remove the profit motive from the criminal element where violence is often associated with the cultivation and sale of the drug. Taking the mushy middle of the road approach is simply inconsistent and does more harm than good.
The same can be said of taking such drugs as heroin or cocaine. Either it should be legal or illegal. Sending mixed messages by retaining harsh criminal sanctions while providing some privileged users with a safe place to commit their crimes makes no sense.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement