Sober N Clean

I was disappointed to read Peter Schrag's comments regarding Proposition 5 in his Sept. 2 column, although I can understand how well-meaning and thoughtful people can be misled by this deceptive initiative.

I agree with Schrag's concern for those who are drug dependent, but I oppose Proposition 5 because I believe it will do so much harm to so many people.

Fighting drug addiction is an issue that is very close to my heart. I believe in rehabilitation and not incarceration. But successful rehabilitation needs accountability and so often demands direct intervention in the life of someone who is addicted to drugs, rather than waiting for them to seek treatment "when they are ready."

Too many addicts are never ready or don't live long enough to become ready. That's why drug courts and judicial involvement in pushing offenders into treatment and keeping them there is vital to making rehabilitation work for so many drug- dependent individuals.

Proposition 5 promises rehabilitation – but actually prevents it. Instead of helping break the addict's cycle of self-destruction, it actually feeds the cycle by allowing addicts to continue using drugs while in treatment, without any consequence.

Proposition 5 would cripple successful rehabilitation programs and dramatically limit the power of drug-court judges to help those who need it most. It will take limited resources away from proven programs and waste them on mandated programs that have already been shown to be failures.

Proposition 5 will cost billions; if it could deliver on its promises that would be a price worth paying, but it won't deliver because it can't. It is fatally flawed at its foundations because it rewards those who continue to take drugs while in treatment, instead of requiring accountability.

While virtually all of California's sheriffs, district attorneys, police chiefs and probation officers oppose Proposition 5, it would be a mistake to suggest that their opposition is no more than a knee-jerk response. Enlightened law enforcement leaders are among the strongest supporters of drug-treatment programs and consider such programs a vital part of the solution.

Sadly, Proposition 5 shifts funding away from programs that demand accountability and into "harm reduction" programs whose goals are to make drug users better-informed consumers. Highly effective programs like Delancey Street or Narcotics Anonymous require those enrolled in treatment to quit using drugs, which means they wouldn't qualify under Proposition 5's "harm reduction" theory. Under Proposition 5, those in "treatment" could continue using drugs and even commit additional felonies, without fear of consequences. That alone should cause serious-minded people to question Proposition 5.

Yes, Proposition 5 does shorten parole from three years to just six months for drug dealers caught with up to $50,000 of methamphetamine, and, yes, Proposition 5 could allow those arrested for auto theft, identity theft and a host of other crimes involving victims to escape real consequences if they continued to violate the law.

We all need to look beyond the simplistic and the cliché and recognize that truly effective drug treatment programs with real accountability are in our best interests. The real problem with Proposition 5 is that it is not about stopping drug use. If it were, it would mandate funding for ongoing drug testing instead of prohibiting that funding, and it would not give drug sellers a reward for the harm they do to so many.

This poorly designed and dangerous initiative will deliver more drug addiction and more pain for thousands of addicts, their families and our state's communities. It is opposed by Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the League of Latin American Citizens and prominent treatment professionals. It is opposed by former Gov. Gray Davis and by Sacramento County District Attorney Jan Scully and Sheriff John McGinnis. I strongly urge that this dangerous and misguided measure be given the scrutiny it deserves.
_________
source: The Sacramento Bee, http://www.sacbee.com

WHO WOULD have thought that cavalier lending practices in the U.S. Sunbelt would damage the second-largest industry in British Columbia?

No, I’m not talking about forestry and lumber. I’m talking about dope. BC Business magazine reckons that marijuana production in B.C. contributes $7.5 billion and 250,000 jobs to the province’s GDP — second only to construction, and more than forestry.

Most of the product is exported to the United States. The RCMP estimate that marijuana is being grown in about 20,000 B.C. homes, not to mention sizable farms in the Interior and large-scale commercial operations in former warehouses and industrial buildings. One academic study concluded that if marijuana in B.C. were legalized, the province would see $5 billion in additional legal business activity and could collect $2 billion in taxes.

The ranks of British Columbia marijuana producers have also broadened remarkably. Cannabis cultivation is no longer the exclusive preserve of organized crime, though organized crime certainly continues to thrive in the fetid netherworld of prohibition. Today, however, marijuana production has become a sideline for thousands of otherwise law-abiding middle-class citizens.

As a recent BBC report put it, "Much of the revenue derived from B.C. Bud, as the cannabis crop is known, goes on paying college fees, perhaps buying a second car or making that holiday to the Caribbean just a little bit more affordable." As a result, "the trade is so large that the police in B.C. are faced with an impossible task."

Indeed they are, and the job is getting harder. The RCMP drug section in Greater Vancouver once employed more than 100 officers; it’s now down to 60. The number of tips they receive about grow-ops has also fallen, from 615 in September 2003 to 207 last December.

Does that mean that the number of grow-ops has fallen? Probably it has, says Tony Emery, a leading cannabis advocate and leader of the B.C. Marijuana Party.

For one thing, the rising Canadian dollar has hurt the competitiveness of B.C. Bud, just as it has hurt filmmakers, the forest industries and furniture manufacturers.

In addition, the downturn in the U.S. economy has induced many Americans to try their hand at growing their own pot. Marijuana plantations have been turning up in the national forests, while laid-off workers and homeowners facing foreclosure have been converting their basements and spare rooms into grow-ops. Even a tiny operation using only a couple of high-intensity lights can earn $20,000 a year for the owner — in cash, and tax-free.

"It certainly is enough to tide people over, no problem," Emery says, "and two lights are not going to get you into trouble, either."

So there you have it. Predatory and foolhardy lending practices in the United States lead to a wave of foreclosures. Wary consumers stop buying. Workers get laid off. Desperate for cash, the victims of the downturn try their hand at illicit agriculture. At the same time, the rising loonie makes B.C. Bud less competitive, so Canadian growers find their markets contracting.

What’s so striking about this story is that it really is not a story about crime and the law. It’s a business story, and almost all accounts of the situation treat it that way. In theory this whole industry is illegal, but in practice it’s so big that the police can’t even begin to control it. Any serious attempt to enforce the law would require an army of police officers and gobble up so much public money that governments would almost have to abandon such other concerns as health care and education.

So the business is completely unregulated and the only controls on it are the controls the market itself imposes. As with any business, unfavourable market conditions affect the industry. Adverse exchange rates and increased competition drive prices down and eliminate marginal producers.

Nevertheless, the market is huge and hungry. It reaches into every social class and every age group, though a recent study from the University of Alberta apparently revealed that marijuana is particularly popular among educated, middle-class Canadians. Do they wish to break the law? Probably not. But do they think this law deserves to be obeyed? Obviously not.

In short, the law has essentially made itself irrelevant. If anything, the law benefits the business. To a large extent, the industry is profitable precisely because it is illegal. All entrepreneurs take risks, but if the risks include jail time, only the boldest entrepreneurs will enter the business — and they’ll demand a premium for the extra risk.

The net result of our irrational drug policies is that we enrich the criminals and criminalize ordinary citizens. We control tobacco and alcohol far more effectively than we control any illegal drugs. If those are the results we want, these policies are perfect.
_______
source: The Chronicle-Herald Nova Scotia, http://thechronicleherald.ca/TheNovaScotian