News

"Billy Weselowski has seen it all, and he hates what he sees on Vancouver's Downtown Eastside," Margaret Wente wrote Saturday in her column Legalization in disguise which wrapped up a four-column series on drug addiction, treatment, toleration and Canada's laws.

To view this video you need to upgrade your Flash Player

Download Flash Player from the Adobe website.

"Mr. Weselowski knows this world all too well. He grew up here. His childhood was a nightmare of violence and abuse.

"At 13, he blacked out from booze for the first time, and quickly wound up on the streets. He injected, snorted, stole, pimped women, stabbed men and became an accomplished felon. He was the hardest of the hard core.

"Today, he runs rehab programs for drug addicts that borrow from the tough-love model of AA.

"He has successfully treated thousands of people, using an approach that emphasizes structure, personal responsibility and abstinence.

"But this approach to addiction is deeply out of fashion. The experts who make drug policy, allocate public money, dispense research funds, advise politicians and push for reform aren't interested in hearing from people like him.

"Instead, they're interested in 'harm reduction.' In Mr. Weselowski's view, harm reduction is a farce . . .

:Canada's official drug policy is known as the Four Pillars approach: prevention, treatment, harm reduction and enforcement.

"In practice, prevention and treatment have been neglected, while harm-reduction measures have steadily gained ground."

Ms. Wente concludes by arguing that maybe Canada needs to take the tough-love approach of Mr. Weselowski, rather than toleration and "harm-reduction."

Whether you agree or not, it's a provocative argument, so we're pleased that Ms. Wente was online earlier today to take your questions on her argument and her four-column series.

Your questions and Ms. Wente's answers appear at the bottom of this page.

Ms. Wente is a past winner of the National Newspaper Award for column-writing who has had a diverse career in Canadian journalism as both a writer and an editor.

She has edited two leading business magazines, Canadian Business and ROB Magazine. She has also been editor of The Globe's business section, the Report on Business, and managing editor of the paper. Her columns have appeared in the Globe since 1992.

Ms. Wente was born in Chicago and moved to Toronto with her family when she was in her teens. She has won numerous journalism awards. She holds a BA from the University of Michigan, and an MA in English from the University of Toronto.

Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: Thanks for joining us today. Your four columns on drug use, harm-reduction and a possible tougher approach in Canada certainly generated a lot of comment and controversy.

Many of our online readers have asked why you decided to tackle this subject and how you researched it. Can you elaborate?

Margaret Wente: I have to say that this is one of the most volatile issues I've ever investigated. It's very polarizing, to the extent that people on opposite sides tend to disagree on the most basic facts.

I got interested in the subject because I wondered why Vancouver's supervised-injection site — a tiny operation in the big scheme of things — was generating such heat.

I also wondered (like everybody else) why, after at least 20 years of intensive intervention and attention, Vancouver's drug scene is worse than ever. It is really a national disgrace, a place full of wrecked lives and terrible tragedy.

So I decided to poke around.

It's important to say that I didn't begin with any fixed opinion on drug policy issues.

I had been hearing for years that needle exchanges and other harm -reduction measures are necessary and successful.

But I also wondered, as many people do, whether we really want our governments to be handing out needles and crack pipes to addicts.

So I decided to go to Vancouver too see for myself. And what I found was a fundamental clash of values and philosophies over our approach to addictions, which masked an even deeper debate about drug policies and legalization.

The most eye-opening part for me was speaking with front-line workers — doctors, nurses, cops, rehab workers and others — who have to deal daily with the human tragedies on the streets.

As for drug addicts themselves — about 100 per cent of current addicts I met support the supervised-injection site, and about 100 per cent of former addicts I met think it's a terrible idea.

Jim Bender, Woodstock, Ont.: Legalizing all drugs would be the best solution for solving an issue of catastrophic social consequence.

The system of prohibition and arrest has left the entire "drug" trade in the hands of a few people who most of us would never want to meet on the streets. Treating people for addiction and its social effects should be the first priority of any government. Violence is associated with drugs of all types because they are in high demand, hard to get and have values higher than what should be. Legal access would reduce the price due to competition. Prohibition of all drugs has made some of Canada's most undesirables rich beyond belief.

Marijuana — being one of the most benign substances on earth — should be re-categorized, taxed and sold on store shelves. The taxes collected should go to broadening Canada's social agenda.

At present, people with addiction problems are forced to hide away. If they have children, the chance of them going to rehab is almost nil. Most government social agencies will report you to CAS if you use drugs. It's no wonder people refuse to access treatment programs.

As a former Marijuana Party Candidate (2004 and 2006), I find that many Canadians (not just pot heads) want this system changed to accommodate legal access to pot. There is a way to do it . . . and it's a heck of a lot easier than we think.

Turning large portions of the population into criminals for a choice they've made in their personal lives is stunned. We let alcoholics access jobs, services, and they are not forced to undergo pee tests, blood tests to prove that they are fit for work. You can be a stark raving drunkard in this society...but huff a doobie and you are off to jail.

Margaret Wente: You've expressed a prevalent and popular view. But it's way too simplistic. The tradeoffs would probably be more grim than you imagine.

Rather than argue point-by-point, I'll just suggest that people who are interested in this debate google Mark Kleiman, a public policy professor at UCLA. He is a very outside the box thinker who argues that an optimum drug policy would require us to loosen up in some areas and tighten up in others.

On pot: Nobody is jailed these days for simple possession. So we are not turning large parts of the population into criminals. Also, you are wrong about alcohol. You won't keep your job for long if you show up drunk for work.

One more point about pot. It's a big red herring. Pot is a relatively benign and widely used drug that has negligible consequences in terms of public disorder, secondary addictions illnesses, crime, and wrecked lives.

The real problem is what you see on the downtown east side in Vancouver — coke, crack, heroin, crystal meth, and other baddies that nobody would argue are good for you.

Those drugs, abused by a very small number of people, cause most of the problems and create most of the profits for big drug cartels.

Ed Long: Many have compared drug legalization to alcohol or tobacco. I could add gambling and prescription drugs.

If I overlooked the question of cognitive, emotional and physical degradation from drugs such as meth, heroin and cocaine, I still cannot accept the "benign as alcohol, tobacco, etc." rationale.

The reason is we are talking about addiction and societal provision of a substance that will most certainly prove destructively addictive in the vast majority of users. This is brutal weakness and an admission of inability or desire to deal with the real problem.

Margaret Wente: Ed, the simple fact is that no addictions are benign.

If you make a harmful substance legal and easily available, you're simply going to increase the number of people who are addicted to it.

You can argue there's a case for at least decriminalizing pot — but it's very, very hard to argue that people should be allowed to self-destruct with hard drugs.

And let's remember that they're not just hurting themselves. They're hurting society, and their families and communities. Just ask any parent with a crack-addicted kid.

There is no upside to these drugs at all.

S.J., Toronto: Margaret, I find your desire and opinions on how to reduce harmful drug use admirable.

However, as a drug consumer for 40 years (legal, illegal, medical, recreational, addictive and non addictive), I find your opinions and theories contradictory to my experiences.

My question to you would be: If marijuana is truly a gateway drug for our youth, why would we not eliminate that door to more harmful drugs and behaviour by controlling its sale and distribution?

Margaret Wente: Marijuana legalization seems so easy! But it's very vexed.

Here's one part of the problem. If we legalize it, someone is going to make a huge amount of money from promoting and selling it. Who do you want that to be? Private enterprise, like Big Tobacco? Or your government? Do you want your government shilling weed the way it does the lottery?

And it will still be stuck with figuring out how to restrict access to the underaged (that worked well for cigarettes, didn't it?), paying for the social and medical costs of smokers (marijuana hurts your lungs too) and keeping the price low enough to discourage the crime scene (see: cigarettes) but high enough to discourage too much smoking (see: cigarettes.)

Michael Tripper, Vancouver: Ms. Wente, I'm sure there are many who are confused, annoyed and angered that you would be presented here as an authority on this issue. Count me among the bemused.

I am curious about the following, though: These so-called tough-love methods and abstinence are based upon religious belief — belief in a higher power as it were and often explicitly belief in one of the myriad Abrahamic Gods as per the AA model originally created by an Evangelical Christian Fellowship.

My question to you: What about all the other people who do not believe in god or gods, what methodology do you think would work to cure their addictions?

Margaret Wente: Hi, Michael. Let me count the reformed addicts I know who don't believe in God. Dozens.

The point is to acknowledge that there are things in this world that are beyond your control. AA isn't for everyone, but it's still among the most effective addiction treatments ever devised.

Funnily enough, it doesn't depend on "experts." Its power is the fellowship of people who've all been there, done that.

Dean Johnson, Victoria: I'd like to know your thoughts on the impact of giving money to street people.

As a youth, I lived in several homeless shelters in Toronto. At some, the only real rule of admission was that you can't be violent or so noticeably intoxicated that you're causing problems. At others, such as Covenant House, there are many rules and compulsory requirements designed to give people structure and get off drugs.

From my experience there, I would say that 99% of money given to homeless people goes to drugs, and many of the people begging for money are fed and housed in homeless shelters.

I've since moved to Victoria. While here, I've noticed that many people take great pride giving money to street people.

I wonder to myself whether they know they are buying that person death? But one doesn't hear of many people (except Sam Sullivan) directly buying street people crack, Lysol or Scope, so the egotistic need to feel wealthy or middle class is not so strong that people are just ignoring the known negative impact.

More likely, the problem is that left-wing advocates of harm reduction have succeeded in convincing a sizable percentage of Canadians that our governments leave homeless people to wither and starve. And giving money directly makes some feel like they're doing something.

Is there a mountain of evidence somewhere that shows that giving money to street people undermines social services programs? Should giving money to those who clearly cannot handle money be socially acceptable?

Margaret Wente: Hi, Dean. You're the expert on this, not me, so I think your comments speak for themselves.

As someone who sometimes gives money to street people, I mostly think it's a cheap way for us to feel good about ourselves — even better than putting a few bucks in the collection plate on Sundays.

J.S.: I want to make it plain that I would not challenge Mr. Weselowski's experience or the work of 12-step programs. The fact remains that too many are not successful in that model but it is really the only game in town. Why is that?

Each time I've attempted a rational conversation on this subject over the years, I've been met with defensive rhetoric.

This has often been as a member of various regional and/or provincial M/H committees. I would not advocate harm-reduction as "treatment," but obviously 12-step is not the only answer either.

Why are polar opposites our only considerations? What happened to best practice — for everyone, not just for those who happen to fit particular ideologies?

Margaret Wente: J.S, I 'm with you.

Here in Ontario, for example, Homewood has a full range of services, from the residential AA-type model to various forms of harm-reduction.

One thing I heard from addictions doctors is that they really want more facilities for people who are still using — which AA-type programs won't accept.

I agree that we have to get over our ideologies and see what works, and for whom.

Devil Bud, Toronto: Ms. Wente, while I appreciate differing viewpoints on the subject matter, most openly identify their deep-seeded bias/political leanings.

Looking to addiction of any sort as a true illness/disability, do you advocate for such "tough-love" approaches for others who suffer from disabilities? For example, would you simply tell the epidemic levels of those suffering from HIV/AIDS in African nations that they should have abstained from sexual intercourse, rather than offering such things as free condoms, etc.?

Seems like a moral crusade on your part, more than an objective opinion.

Margaret Wente: Hey, Devil Bud, don't be so dumb.

The disease analogy only takes you so far. HIV-AIDS is currently incurable, as is diabetes, etc. Other diseases can be alleviated or cured by medical treatment.

Drug addiction is 100 per cent curable through changing your personal behaviour. It's ridiculous to tell AIDS patients they can cure themselves. It is not ridiculous to tell a coke addict that.

Brian Lowry, Fredericton, N.B.: Hi, Margaret. While I agree with the general thesis that legalizing addictive drugs (or just making them more available) is bad policy, I'm confused by your arguments.

If cocaine is the main problem, then presumably safe-injection sites don't contribute to that (perhaps I'm naive, but isn't cocaine inhaled mostly?)

What's the solution to the cocaine problem, as you see it, and what's wrong about current policy/orthodoxy there?

Margaret Wente: Hi, Brian. Cocaine can be injected — often 20 times a day. That's one reason that supervised-injection sites aren't very effective, and why the authorities are handing out 3 million needles a year in Vancouver. Nobody is going to go an injection site 20 times a day.

BTW, Vancouver's site also includes a safe-inhalation room, which they would like to open. I think it has the same problems (with fewer justifications) as the injection site. It says there are safe ways to use these drugs. But actually, there are not.

Anne P: W-5 did a program about this with Paula Todd though it was covering Ottawa, same issues. Did you see it and what did you think?

Margaret Wente: Hello, Anne. No, I didn't see the W-5 program, but I will now.

Matthew Elrod, Vancouver: Why did you not offer the Insite researchers an opportunity to defend themselves?

Margaret Wente: Matthew, Insite and its supporters have ably defended their position in these pages and elsewhere, and I am sure they will be given the chance to do so again.

Also, as a columnist, my job is to express a point of view, not to present all points of view.

Nick Oliver, Halifax: I've noticed that you seem to be advocating some methods of reducing addiction and not others. Yet, I believe, none of them have been effective by themselves.

My questions might seem self-evident to some, but we rarely see them in the coverage surrounding Canada's drug problems:

Why can't we use all of the ideas at once? Why do we have to limit ourselves to only one solution? Can we not reduce harm and advocate for stricter sentencing for second and third drug-related offences, including mandatory drug rehab? Can we not create a system of voluntary committal where an addict can relinquish his or her right to freedom temporarily in exchange for help from the state?

Why can't we have both a justice system that is tough on addicts who break the law and a compassionate health care system that treats addiction like the public health problem it is, or can become if left unaddressed?

Margaret Wente: Nick, I think you've said a mouthful.

We need some approaches that are tougher (offer law-breaking addicts a choice of jail or treatment) and some that are more compassionate (offer street addicts the same access to treatment that doctors, lawyers and journalists get).

The trouble is that the harm-reduction advocates who dominate our approach to addiction treatment are the same people who would fiercely resist any move toward compulsory treatment options, even though they have worked reasonably well elsewhere.

These people are committed to the belief that we have to keep it easy for people to keep using until they "choose" treatment of their own free will, or are dead, whichever comes first.

Jim Sheppard: Thanks again for joining us today. I'm sure our readers appreciated your insight and analysis. Any last thoughts, particularly for those who were so vehement in their criticisms?

Margaret Wente: I do have a last thought: These are complex issues with no simple answers.

I think that most Canadians share a lot of common ground, though — they don't want people criminalized for smoking dope in their basements, but they also don't want to find discarded crack pipes in the parks.

They think we should offer drug addicts humane treatment, but they also demand a certain personal accountability.

It's a tough balance to strike, and it's likely that the "optimal" drug policy for Canada will fail to please extremists at either end.