Drug addicts should be sent to isolated work camps
By Brian Purdy, Postmedia News, September 14, 2011
I prosecuted a lot of drug dealers in Vancouver during my career. Those at the wholesale level were not usually addicts. At the retail level of drug dealing, many were addicts, peddling drugs to anyone, including kids, to obtain money to fuel their addiction.
Of course, the addicts engaged in many other crimes to get money for more drugs. They mugged old ladies, broke into homes and cars, stole from stores and family, broke their parole and probation terms, abused the welfare system, prostituted themselves, and generally led a degenerate, lawless life.
>>>
In one case I argued before the B.C. Court of Appeal, I presented several authoritative studies that showed an indisputable correlation between criminal activity and drug addiction. I have, as a result of my prosecution career, never seen addicts as victims. I see them as victimizers, who make victims of their families and children, and their friends, as well as the general public, all for the sake of the next fix.
When it comes to sentencing drug addicts for their crimes, the addiction is often presented by defence counsel as a mitigating factor. I don't see it that way.
An addict chooses to be an addict. Sure, some of them have had a rough or even tragic life, some not, but escaping into drug addiction is the action of an amoral fool.
When it comes to sentencing those who are convicted of a crime, I have always been pragmatic. The sentence should be one which first of all does the best job of protecting the public. Consideration for the criminal is secondary.
During the 1970s, the late unlamented Trudeau government reversed these priorities. Pierre Trudeau's solicitor-general, Jean-Paul Goyer, said to Parliament in 1971: "We have decided from now on to stress the rehabilitation of individuals rather than the protection of society."
Since then, the increase of crime has conclusively demonstrated the failure of this policy, and the endangerment of the public that resulted.
Despite that, many cling to the concept of rehabilitation because it seems more humane and uplifting - even if it fails most of the time and the public suffers.
That brings me to the safe house shooting gallery called Insite, and the handing out of free crack pipes in Vancouver.
Those with good intentions think they are helping drug addicts to be healthy.
In fact they are paving a freeway to hell for the addicts, and endangering the public as a result of the crimes those addicts will commit to get more drugs.
Should we just allow addicts to use dirty needles or crack pipes and die in the gutter?
No, we aren't that indifferent in this country.
We need to do something effective to rid them of the addiction, and protect the public from drug-related crime so long as they are addicted. That means addicts should be segregated from society until they are no longer addicted. Put them in jail for long terms? No, that is expensive, and it is too easy to get drugs in our jails.
I suggest isolated work camps, where drug addicts will go cold turkey or are weaned off drugs in a medically supervised way.
They will be taught a work ethic, by doing work of a meaningful type, such as farming or manufacturing. They will be required to pass a basic education course, and a technical course to make them employable, before they are released. They will remain in the camp until they have become drugfree, physically and psychologically, and have passed the work and education tests.
Some, of course, would never qualify for release. They would, however, have room and board, and free medical care at taxpayer expense for their lifetime, even though most will never have contributed a dime in taxes. That's better than continuing to be a criminal and an addict even if you do have a clean needle or crack pipe.
I can already hear words like "gulag" and "concentration camp" being hurled about by those who want to help stray animals and broken people. Just remember, though, that stray animals are put into animal shelters. They are locked into those shelters until they can be released into a new environment.
Think of the addict camp as a shelter, but one with the ability to make a drug addict into a drug-free person with some reasonable prospect of a productive life. The alternative is a life of crime, and the destruction of the addict and all those close to him. Which is better?
Brian Purdy, Q.C., spent more than 30 years working in criminal law. He is a retired general counsel with the federal Department of Justice and lives in Calgary.
http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Drug+addicts+should+sent+isolated+work+camps/5399755/story.html
http://www.calgaryherald.com/story_print.html?id=5366951&sponsor=
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun © Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment