In the article “A policy that helps no one” [Sept. 20], the author criticizes a new initiative launched by the Springboard program and Toronto Police. The new “drug diversion” policy is aimed at placing non-violent drug addicts in rehab rather than prison. In his article, J.C Bolan alleges that the “wealthy dealer who poses as an addict” will be the only beneficiary of the new “drug diversion” policy.
Although there are flaws in any “lesser-of-two-evils” argument, I feel the need to point out that the a new narcotics regulation policy aimed at getting addicts out of prison and into rehab is a step in the right direction (i.e. away from mandatory minimum sentencing that can easily result in non-violent first-time offenders being subjected to lengthy prison sentences). Bolan’s fears that the “drug-diversion” policy will only benefit “wealthy dealers” ignores the practical realities of drug-dealing as well as the real positive effect it could have on those in need-the addicts.
According to Bolan, the “drug diversion” policy applies to criminals caught committing a (non-violent) crime, who the authorities are convinced have a drug problem. The “drug diversion” policy would come into effect only if the criminal in question has narcotics in his possession, in a small enough amount to exclude the possibly of an intent to distribute (Bolan uses two grams of crack cocaine as his example).
Bolan’s assertion that “wealthy drug dealers” who pose as addicts can use this policy as a “get-out-of-jail-free” card seems to ignore the fact that “big-time dealers” will never be caught doing something illegal with only two grams of crack cocaine.
Two grams of crack cocaine is at most a few hundred dollars. Small-time dealers might get caught with two grams on them, but so would many addicts (this is using crack cocaine as an example; with cocaine the line between the amount of “yayo” a casual user/addict will have in their possession and the amount a small time drug-dealer will have becomes even finer).
Bolan’s contention that the policy will become a legal shield for “wealthy dealers” ignores the basic economics of narcotics sales; any big-time dealer will not be caught committing a non-violent crime (i.e. dealing) with only two grams on him, in fact most small-time dealers will have more than two grams in their possession as well. The people that the policy benefits will be non-violent recreational users or addicts (I’m emphatically asserting that these two categories are not the same) who won’t be faced with the prospect of a criminal record for being arrested on a two-bit possession charge.
Bolan does make a valid point when he asserts that the “drug diversion” policy is flawed because it excludes addicts caught committing a crime, while not in possession of any crack, from the possibility of receiving rehab treatment.
It does, however, provide a way out of jail time and the damaging effects that go with it. Once a petty criminal like an addict goes behind bars, the chances that he will emerge to commit far more serious crimes are enormous. In my mind, this outweighs the admittedly negative impact of freeing a few dealers from jail.
