How
Will We Crack the Ice and
Smack the Chronic, Sugar
and Coke? The Control of
Illicit Drugs in Canada
By David
Kilgour, M.P. Edmonton Southeast
Published in Canadian Social
Studies, Winter 1997, Vol.
31, No. 2
In 1992,
six days after the Chinese
police arrested dozens of
her accomplices, Ms. Lee Chau-ping, the most infamous
female drug trafficker in
the world, moved to Canada.
She had promised Immigration
Canada officials that she
was going to open a new
fast-food franchise in northern
Saskatchewan, and by the
time she moved here she
had already sunk several
thousand dollars into the
first restaurant. The Chinese
police knew Ms. Lee had
escaped to Canada. When
the Chinese Ministry of
Public Securities requested
that the "Ice Queen"
be detained, the RCMP responded
by starting its own investigation.
In China, Ms. Lee had successfully
founded and managed several
factories where she produced
a special crystalline form
of speed referred to as
"Ice." Shortly
after entering Canada she
moved to Vancouver, where
she lived and worked until
she escaped during the course
of the RCMP's proceeds-of-crime
investigation. Is the story
of Ms. Lee indicative of
Canada's inability to prevent
the transportation and sale
of illicit drugs in Canada?
In 1992,
the United Nations Human
Development Report named
Canada as the industrialized
country with the highest
number of illegal drug crimes
per capita. In 1994, the
RCMP claimed that courier
services and the postal
service in Canada were increasingly
being used to import illegal
drugs into Canada. Canada
is arguably vulnerable:
its expansive geography,
endless, uninhabited coastlines,
relatively small population,
and its long border shared
with the United States make
it an ideal intermediary
port between international
drug sources and the drug
market of the United States.
Between 1990 and 1991 the
number of seizures of heroin
destined for the U.S. doubled.
Also, Canada provides a
hospitable environment for
money laundering. SportSelect,
the professional sports
lottery, was recently exposed
as a possible source of
money laundering in this
country.
Six years
ago The New York Times
described Canada as "one
of the world's leading havens
for concealing illegal narcotics
profits." However,
besides increasingly supporting
the growing drug market
of the U.S. and providing
a haven for money laundering,
Canada is supporting a rapidly
increasing drug market within
its own borders.
Heroin
as a Case Example
According
to a March 26, 1995 article
from The Edmonton Journal,
"heroin is creating
a horrific epidemic in Vancouver."
Of particular concern is
the increase in heroin use.
Heroin is the most dangerous
and powerful illicit drug
in Canada. In 1993, the
RCMP estimated that there
were between 25,000 and
35,000 heroin addicts in
the metropolitan areas of
Toronto, Vancouver, and
Montreal. Two years later
a Globe and Mail article
stated that there had been
an extraordinary increase
in the number of heroin
users in Metropolitan Toronto
since 1993. Police claimed
that the number of seizures
of heroin in Toronto doubled
and the amount seized quadrupled
from 1992 to 1995.
On August
5, 1995, Patricia Marbeck
and her husband snorted
three bags of heroin. They
had two children, a golden
retriever, and, in the eyes
of society and many of their
friends and neighbours,
a healthy and normal lifestyle.
It is not just the "druggies"
or rock stars who are using
heroin today, but lawyers,
bankers, stockbrokers, young
urban professionals, university,
and college students, computer
programmers, screen writers,
and accountants. Some of
them are addicts and some
claim they just get
high in social settings
or at parties on the weekend.
Nonetheless, they are supporting
the drug markets of Canada.
In fact, a recent study
of 5,000 people by researchers
at Sheffield University
in Britain found that high-income
earners from the middle
and upper classes have become
the largest users of illegal
drugs in Britain. And worldwide
the drug dealers themselves
are now businessmen, not
addicts.
Policy
Options
In 1987,
Canada introduced its "National
Drug Strategy -- Action
on Drug Abuse." It
was a five-year program
with a budget of 210 million
dollars, 70 percent of which
was allotted for demand-side
reduction and the balance
to supply-side reduction.
The strategy was renewed
for another five years in
1992 with a budget of 270
million dollars. The demand
side reduction allotment
was reduced to 60 percent
with the supply-side increased
to 40 percent. The United
States, which is known for
supply-side actions like
spraying the fields of drug
crops in developing countries,
spends 60 percent of funding
for its "War on Drugs"
on supply-side reduction,
the opposite of Canada.
Ed Hoey,
a Staff Inspector from Toronto
who supervises the city's
major anti-drug squads,
estimates that "at
least 85 percent, perhaps
higher," of break-and-enter
offences and robberies are
drug-motivated. According
to a study released by the
Fraser Institute in 1996,
Canada has a high rate of
property crime compared
to other countries. Therefore,
the concern for reducing
drug related crimes is valid;
however, in other countries
attempts to legalize drugs
have proven disastrous.
In Spain, during the mid-80s,
drug laws were softened,
only to be strengthened
in full force after Spain
experienced a steep increase
in drug abuse and became
a major transshipment destination.
Also, when Switzerland legalized
drugs in 1987 there was
a 30 percent increase in
crime in major cities. Legalization
is definitely not the answer.
Demand-Side
Reduction
Furthermore,
in the words of Chuck Doucette,
the RCMP's British Columbia
provincial drug-awareness
coordinator, "We can
only scratch the surface
of the [heroin] supply."
The highly organized drug
cartels of Asia and South
America are almost impossible
to touch.
Rehabilitation
programs can be an extremely
important and successful
source of prevention programs.
Harvest House, located just
outside of Ottawa, is a
rehabilitation centre where
successfully recovering
addicts take part in extensive
fund-raising and prevention
programs. These men and
women who were once on the
streets are now telling
high school students what
drugs did to their lives.
Harvest House receives only
half of its funding from
the government; it fund-raises
the rest. It is definitely
a worthwhile investment,
considering Canadians save
money by not paying for
these criminals to be jailed
(in 1990 the cost of housing,
feeding, and rehabilitating
a Canadian convict cost
$40,000 a year), while receiving
the societal benefits of
recovered drug addicts and
a successful drug-prevention
program. In addition, many
of the recovered addicts
of Harvest House begin a
college education during
their recovery program and
eventually become addiction counsellors.
In other
words, the small amount
of money that the Canadian
government contributes towards
this rehabilitation program
ends up paying for itself
in the benefits that result.
If these men and women were
in jail instead of a rehabilitation centre, they would resort
to drug use immediately
after being released, as
the men from Harvest House
will tell you they did.
Fred Christopher,
who just recently successfully
completed Harvest House's
one-year program, had been
incarcerated for 13 months,
only to be arrested 15 days
after his release. Now he
is employed by Harvest House
to raise funds and to speak
to students about drugs.
Christopher says he would
have been dead before he
was 40 if it were not for
Harvest House. Moreover,
he says that his 13 months
in jail only taught him
how to steal better.
Supply-Side
Reduction
Demand-side
reduction alone will not
solve Canada's drug problem.
Education in schools and
rehabilitation programs
are important, but what
about the stockbrokers,
PhD students, professionals
-- the middle or upper-class
drug users and future addicts?
In addition to prevention
through demand side reduction,
the source of the problem
must be restricted. This
does not necessarily mean
confiscating large shipments
of drugs, for this will
only increase the street
price and encourage more
drug dealing in Canada.
Rather, drug production
and drug trafficking must
be stopped.
Sentencing
for drug trafficking and
lab operation in Canada
is not severe enough. Tougher
American legislation and
zero tolerance seems to
be influencing lab operators,
who now choose Canada as
a safe haven for purchasing
precursor chemicals and
for producing finished products.
Canadian legislation is
not strong enough. Drug
traffickers consider short
jail terms as just part
of the business, and traffickers
from other countries seek
business in Canada because
of the leniency of the system.
However, Canada cannot afford
merely to imprison an increasing
number of traffickers. We
must threaten the upper
echelons of the dealer networks
with more severe sentences
while increasing rehabilitation
programs for ordinary drug
users.
Conclusion
Probably
every Canadian can name
someone they know who is
supporting, or was at one
time supporting, the drug
market. Social scientists
have observed that legal
measures are not as powerful
in deterring drug consumption
as social pressure and the
fear of health consequences.
Social disapproval, positive
role models, and effective
use of the communications
media could all play a stronger
part in eliminating illicit
drug use in Canada. For
example, when the famous
skier, Steve Podborski,
shunned a skiing event sponsored
by a tobacco company, some
said he did more to fight
drug addiction in Canada
than the Canadian drug-enforcement
establishment. Moreover,
all parents, all families,
all communities, all Canadians,
must take part. As well
as increasing our demand
and supply efforts as a
country, as individuals
we must support and positively
influence those around us
because drugs are becoming
an increasingly serious
problem in Canada. In fact,
they are threatening our
way of life.
|
