IN THE NEWS

What really is wrong with trying to keep a lid on drug use in Canada?

The Harper government's new anti-drug policy has yet to be officially announced, but already it is being savaged by those adamantly opposed to

Conservative thinking on the subject.

As with plenty of other topics -- climate change springs to mind -- the debate tends to be dominated by over-ardent advocates on either side of a great divide.

The opinions of the many in the middle -- the voices of thousands of "ordinary" families -- are rarely sought and given precious little attention.

But these are precisely the people who will be most affected by whatever policies are chosen to deal with the growing problem of drug addiction.

There are an estimated 5,000 addicts in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside -- a tragically high number for sure, but trifling compared to those potentially at risk.

Stephen Harper is intent on directing the bulk of the government's resources toward preventing the spread of addiction and cracking down on the parasites who fuel the drug trade.

That puts him at odds with the addictions industry, whose preoccupation is with "harm reduction" -- which embraces the notion of catering to drug users' needs in order to limit the collateral damage they inflict on society, such as HIV/AIDS transmission, crime and general public disorder.

Harm reduction is the rationale behind Vancouver's Insite, where addicts inject illegal drugs under "expert" supervision. Proponents of Insite are enraged that

Harper wants it shut down, and cite positive references in academic journals to support their claim that lives are being saved.

The difference in emphasis is stark: The government doesn't buy the logic of using taxpayers' money to facilitate the continuing consumption of illegal substances.

The Tories would rather spend it to crack down on grow-ops and dealers, provide better treatment facilities and fund a much-needed drug-prevention program.

Cynics will scoff that the "war on drugs" has been fought and lost already.

But what war? Only yesterday it seems, under a Liberal government, we were hell-bent on decriminalizing marijuana, having persuaded ourselves, and presumably our kids, of its harmlessness.

Look, I'm not saying a couple of tokes are going to drive you to ruin. But we've all heard horror stories from parents whose children's lives have been devastated by crystal meth. And terrible addictions to cocaine and heroin stretch across all demographics and all ages.

There is a powerful case for tolerance toward those who become addicted. But there is an equally strong case for creating and sustaining a community mindset that refuses to accept drugs as an unavoidable hazard of life.

To many people, the ubiquitous cries for legalization, regulation and taxation of drugs have the ring of doom.

The number of people currently addicted to drugs is a tiny fraction of the total population. What's wrong with a strategy intended to keep it that way?

[email protected]