So How Seriously Does the Green Party Really Take Climate Change?

Throughout the 2011 election campaign -- and for years beforehand -- the Green Party has presented itself as the best party to fight climate change. Even when Green Party leader was partnering with the great do-nothing environment minister, then-Liberal Party leader Stephane Dion, in the "Red Green coalition", the Green Party has touted climate change as the most important reason to vote Green.

But how serious is the Green Party on fighting climate change? Perhaps not as seriously as one may think.

At 21:33 of the following video, May lays out the Green Party's policy on marijuana:

"When you look at the World Health Organization information on marijuana, from a health point of view compared to cigarettes or alcohol, you do not have as strong a case to ban marijuana as you do to ban cigarettes or alcohol.

Prohibition is not working, it's resulting in a distortion of our law-enforcement resources toward something that does not represent the health threat. But,\ it's fuelling organized crime. It's creating very dangerous grow-ops.

So by legalizing, taxing, regulating and encouraging Canadians not to get involved with marijuana the same way we say 'don't drink too much, don't smoke cigarettes'. It's a failed policy we're on now, and our approach is, frankly, very practical."

But how practical is the Green Party's approach to marijuana? Really? Especially as it pertains to their #1 priority of fighting climate change?

As it turns out, not very.

According to a study produced by Evan Mills, PhD entitled "Energy Up in Smoke", indoor marijuana production is actually one of the biggest unidentified contributors to climate change.

How big a contributor is it? When compared to the Alberta oil sands, indoor marijuana production in the state of California has half the carbon footprint of the oilsands. To make matters even more remarkable, California represents only 1/5 of the total indoor marijuana production in the United States.

It speaks for itself, especially when one considers that Canada's indoor marijuana grow-ops -- which are more energy-intensive due to the colder climate -- are not included in the figures.

So how serious is the Green Party about fighting climate change? If its policy on marijuana is any indication, the answer is: not serious enough to give up their reefer.

The oilsands they'd love to shut down, even if they don't publicly come out and say it. But the two-pounds-of-CO2-per-joint vice of the Canadians they desperately want to vote for them? Apparently, they'll take a pass on that.

Drug Cartels Represent a Clear and Present Danger

In 1994, it was widely believed that Central American drug cartels represented a clear and present danger to the United States.

16 years later, it may have gotten worse yet.

In Clear and Present Danger (released guess when?), Tom Clancy creation Jack Ryan (Harrison Ford) is handed one of the most dangerous jobs an American intelligence operative could be given: go to Colombia and get a handle on the drug cartels there.

When the government freezes assets held by the Colombian cartels in American financial institutions, druglord Ernesto Escobado (Miguel Sandoval) orders his lieutenant, Felix Cortez (Joaquim de Almeida) to launch a devastating retaliation in which Ryan himself is nearly killed -- from which he narrowly escapes.

What Ryan doesn't know is that CIA operative John Clark (Willem Dafoe) is leading a secret mission to kill Cortez and Esbobedo. But when an airstrike aimed at killing Escobado also kills women and children at the site of the attack, attention is drawn to this black op that was never supposed to have taken place, but was quietly authorized by National Security Advisor James Cutter.

When Ryan begins to pick up the trail of the op, the special forces unit in Colombia is cut off from assistance and overtaken.

The only option left is for Ryan and Clark to team up in order to rescue the remnants of the unit -- a mission which will lead them into a direct confrontation with Esbobedo and Cortez.

16 years later, the situation on the United States' border with Mexico continues to deteriorate, as drug-related violence spills over the border and US citizens come under fire.

The security of the US/Mexico border has deteriorated to the degree that armed Mexican Bavy helicopters have been spotted in US airspace over Texas.

This could have catastrophic consequences for the United States.

For example, should the US attempt to help get a handle on Mexican drug cartels by freezing their assets, the likelihood that a retaliation similar to the one depicted in Clear and Present Danger occurring is more and more likely. It's also more and more likely that such a retaliation could occur within US sovereign territory.

The time for the United States to get a handle on their border security -- and start pressuring the government of Mexico to more robustly pursue their country's drug cartels -- is now.

This clear and present danger cannot be ignored any longer.

Safe Injection Sites: France Not Convinced

France rejects "safe injection rooms"

As Vancouver's InSite continues to be quietly controversial, the French government has decided not to adopt them as part of a French harm prevention strategy.

French Prime Minister Francois Filon -- represnting the Union for a Popular Movement party -- has rejected a move by his government's Minister of Health, Roselyne Bachelot to open the so-called "shooting rooms", where hard drug users will be able to inject under supervised conditions.

For her own part, Bachelot is not prepared to let this matter go away quietly.

“A study has confirmed the benefit of these supervised injection centres where heavily addicted drug users can go to avoid contamination from viruses like hepatitis C or HIV/AIDS,” Bachelot insisted.

Bachelot isn't the only one prepared to go to bat for the shooting rooms.

Secretary of State for Families Nadine Morano suggested that the shooting rooms would help users get off of drugs. “When drug addicts are able to take their drugs under supervision and if we manage to get them off drugs, I think we will have won a battle.”

If the shooting rooms proposed by Bachelot feature on-site detox centres, as does Vancouver's InSite, Morano may have a valid point.

The other issue clearly linked to safe injection sites is the matter of crime.

Yet a 2008 study by Simon Fraser University Professor Neil Boyd actually found that InSite has had no adverse affect on crime rates in the surrounding neighbourhood, and that InSite had improved public order due to a significant reduction in discarded needles in the neighbourhood.

Many argue that Canada's Conservative government hasn't weighed the evidence regarding InSite carefully enough -- and they have a point. While stronger measures to get InSite users into detox and long-term treatement may be in order, InSite has succeeded as a harm reduction measure.

Safe injection sites such as InSite and the shooting rooms proposed by Roselyne Bachelot currently operate in 45 cities in eight countries. They also function in Switzerland, Luxembourg, Australia, Norway, Germany, Spain, and the Netherlands. In each of these countries they can claim similar successes.

Francois Filon is being misguided and short-sighted in ruling out safe injection sites so quickly.

Who Scans the Scanners?

For the past 20 years, the United States has been fighting a war on drugs.

US forces have been active in many South American countries where drugs such as marijuana and cocaine are produced. Yet, no matter what the American government does, they can't seem to prevent this war from coming home to their own streets.

In A Scanner Darkly, Philip K Dick presents a chilling depiction of a crucial part of the drug war -- the intelligence war.

In the film Bob Arctor (Keanu Reeves) is a cop under unprecedentedly deep cover. Not only do his roommates, who he is surveilling for an unstated reason, not know who he is, but neither do his fellow officers in the force. Even so, it comes as a shock when Arctor, in the course of his meeting with an also-unidentifiable superior officer, is assigned to watch himself.

In Preempting Dissent, Andy Opel and Greg Elmer argue that a culture of preemption has led to the development of countless weapons and surveillance tools for use by police to control "undesirable" or "subversive" elements of the civilian population.

In A Scanner Darkly, the Orange County sheriff's department is depicted using an unprecedented level of computerized surveillance in order to monitor the activities of Substance D users. In order to do this, however, they have to literally watch everyone, and they do.

The epitome of this new breed of policing technology seems to be symbolized in the scramble suit -- a suit that conceals the identity of its wearer by continually morphing into more than one million-and-a-half different personalities.

Like a surveillance net that watches everyone -- regardless of one's involvement or lack thereof with Substance D -- the scramble suit erases personal identity. In Arctor's case, it conceals identity to the point of personal confusion -- although the drugs he continually ingests throughout the film certainly must help in this regard.

Ironically, the scramble suit is used not to conceal the undercover officer's identity from those he is monitoring, but rather from their fellow officers. This makes it fairly clear how Arctor could even possibly be assigned to watch himself.

The "who watches the watchers?" (or in this case, "who scans the scanners?") theme of the film actually goes even deeper than this. In A Scanner Darkly almost nothing is as it seems, right up to the final credits.

The film even unfortunately does take a few seconds to indulge blowhard conspiracy theorist Alex Jones in his own delusions of significance -- in one scene in the film he's swept into an unmarked van by men dressed entirely in black. At least those who have always wanted to see Jones kidnapped by a team of G-men will be able to enjoy these few seconds of the film.

For anyone interested in a film combining the best elements of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas with the best elements of The Recruit, A Scanner Darkly is sure to please, but the grim warning about the unrestrained development and use of police surveillance technologies should not be overlooked.

Angels and Demons Can Be As Real As We Perceive

Warning: the following post contains significant spoilers about the movie Max Payne. Those still interested in seeing this film should consider themselves forewarned.



Drugs and religion are a devastating combination

Those who have seen the trailers for Max Payne may suspect the movie to be a supernatural thriller -- something of a Constantine without Keanu Reeves.

However, Max Payne is actually quite different than the uninitiated -- those who haven't played the video game -- may otherwise suspect. The fire and brimstone images in the film turn out to be not the result of supernatural forces, but rather the hallucinations caused by a powerful drug.

Max Payne (Mark Wahlberg) is, by day, an emotionally shattered widower working the cold cases desk at the police department and, by night, a brooding hunter, seeking to uncover the identity of his wife and child's last escaped murderer.

In the course of a fateful evening he's drawn into the cumulative intrigue of drug culture, religious zealotry and corporate misdeeds that leads him to the very heart of his family's murder.

With the help of Mona Sax (Mila Kunis), an assassin whose sister's murder Payne is suspected of, Payne uncovers the trail of Jack Lupino.

Amaury Nolasco plays Lupino, a War on Terror veteran -- the theatre of conflict in which he serves is unspecified -- on whom Aesir tests their drug. As it turns out, Valkyr has, at best a 1% success rate. The rest of the test subjects go insane amid hallucinations of angels and demons.

Valkyr is also tremendously addictive -- more addictive in fact, than anything pharmaceutical executive Jason Colvin (Chris O'Donnel) has ever encountered. In time, even Lupino succumbs to its neurosis-inducing effects, and builds a Norse-themed religion around the drug. His most fervent followers join the gang assembled by BB Hensley -- Beau Bridges, playing the former partner of Payne's father, himself a cop -- and Aesir to peddle Valkyr for profit as a designer drug.

Lupino and his gang take on the identity of the Norse berserker -- believing they must die violently in order to ascend to heaven. In time, even the casual users of Valkyr are drawn into Lupino's twisted faith. They're identified by their wing tattoos, symbolic of the Valkyries they believe watch over them in order to choose the worthy dead -- those who draw first blood -- to Valhalla.

Hensley has used the addiction afflicted upon Lupino and his followers in order to control them and use them to his own ends. One of those ends was the murder of Michelle Payne, who had uncovered Valkyr as an employee of Aesir pharmaceuticals.

The utmost sinister edge of Valkyr's use as a religious sacrament is that it empowers ordinary, infallible humans with the spiritual status and authority of a god.

"Max Payne is looking for something that god wants to stay hidden," the underused Lincoln DeNeuf (Jamie Hector) intones during the film. The remark is very telling indeed.

If Jesus Christ himself is considered symbolically to be the source of the wine and bread used in Roman Catholic sacrament, then surely the creator of Valkyr -- Aesir pharmaceuticals -- would have to be Lupino's god.

Yet Hensey is a very corrupt man. He ordered the murder of Michelle Payne just to ensure Valkyr remains covered up, then began to sell this extremely volatile and dangerous drug for profit.

As alarming as the combination of drugs and religion in Max Payne is, the real-life implications of mixing drugs and religion can be just as alarming, especially when if effects the young and impressionable.

In particular, raves are known as a place where impressionable youths are exposed to drugs and drug culture. Once upon a time, this revolved around recreational drugs that were (mostly) harmless. But as rave culture has gone more and more mainstream, the prospect of easy drug-related profits has attracted harder and more dangerous drugs to the rave scene. In particular, crystal meth has become more and more prominent in BC's rave scene.

Most often the drug is mixed with ecstasy. In such cases, many of the ravers using the drug don't even know what they're taking.

Like crystal meth, ecstasy is a hallucinogen. It normally heightens the brain's sensitivity to textile stimuli. Continued use of ecstasy can result in permanent changes to the brain's chemical balance, sometimes resulting in disturbed sleep patterns.

Crystal meth, meanwhile, is highly addictive. A single dose can result in confusion and violent behaviour. Delusional psychosis can set in over time.

When such delusions begin to take on religious overtones, the effects can be disastrous for a great many people.

Intriguingly -- and disturbingly -- such religious overtones can be found in the typical rave environment.

Drugs such as ecstasy and GHB are used at raves in order to help invoke what many ravers refer to as a spiritual experience.

The dangers of drug addiction -- more and more often to drugs such as meth and GHB -- make the raver's spiritual journey a perilous one. And while it shouldn't be said that there's anything illegitimate about pursuing spirituality through a rave -- spirituality is best followed on an individual basis, as the seeker sees fit -- those following this path need to be aware of the dangers that linger there.

Also of interest is Santo Daime, a religion followed mostly in the Amazon region of South America, but is slowly spreading to places such as Britain.

Santo Daime mixes Christianity with African animism and South American shamanism. Its holy sacrament is dimethyltryptamine, also known as DMT.

DMT, normally a hallucinogen, is used in Santo Daime to incur psychedelic experiences.

The use of DMT in Santo Daime, however, has sinister potential. When used in moderation, DMT is not addictive and has few negative effects. However, DMT binds itself to neuroreceptors normally sensitive to Serotonin. Overuse of DMT could result in a chemical imbalance, as the brain starts underproducing Serotonin in response to the presence of a convenient substitute.

This actually provides the leadership of a Santo Daime Church with a shocking amount of power. Withdrawing their sacrament would also withdraw the Serotonin substitute that the brain has begun to depend on. The resulting Serotonin deficiency has been linked to conditions such as bulimia, anorexia, migraines, obsessive compulsive disorders, social phobias, schizophrenia and depression.

This should be considered far from unsurprising. DMT has been promoted by some doctors as a potential treatment for many of these conditions. Introducing excessive amounts of DMT into a chemically normal brain, however, can have potentially disturbing effects. Withdrawing the DMT thereafter can make these effects devastating.

The results of incurring a depression speak for themselves. Statistics hold that 15% of individuals hospitalized for depression will either commit or attempt suicide.

A scene in Max Payne could be considered a parable for such depression: one in which a man, about to be brutally killed by Lupino, desires a vial of Valkyr more strongly than he fears death. He desperately laps the contents of a vial off of a floor while Lupino proceeds to mercilessly behead the man.

In all fairness, it must be mentioned that few credible examples of DMT being used to hold leverage over a Santo Daime worshipper have been documented. The potential for unscrupulous individuals seeking leadership within the Church to take advantage of their followers, however, clearly does exist.

Drugs and religion tend to make a dangerous combination. And while Max Payne is clearly a hyperbolic depiction of such possibilities, it's difficult to ignore the potential that already exists.

He's Kind of Angry For a Stoner

During the course of the 2008 federal election, NDP leader Jack Layton has run into some troubles over an alleged deal he struck with Marc Emery, the party has had some pot-related troubles.

Over the course of the campaign, Layton has shed two candidates over drug-related issues.

Layton himself denies the deal. But one particular individual -- clearly a Marijuana party activist -- takes exception to his denial.

Posting videos on YouTube under the name LyingLayton, one individual has taken it upon himself to reveal the depth of the alleged collaboration between Layton and Emery.

In one video, "LyingLayton" inserts numerous "fact checks" balloons into a video of Layton being asked by Jane Taber to comment on the allegations during an appearance on CTV's Question Period:



Another video features Layton speaking to Emery and Larsen's POT-TV, wherein Layton speaks ambiguously about marijuana decriminalization:



In another video, Layton appears on Much Music during the 2004 campaign in which he admits to having used marijuana (not terribly damaging, considering the broad number of Canadians who have either tried, or continue to use, marijuana).



During the video, Layton commits to removing marijuana from the criminal code, and commits to (as he previously described on POT-TV) a "rules-based system" wherein driving under the influence would remain forbidden (thus the removal of the irrepressible and irresponsible -- if not outright retarded -- Larsen as an NDP candidate).

In another video, Layton appears speaking with a Marc Emery and notes that his candidates are running on a platform of legalizing -- not merely decriminalizing -- pot:



He also invokes the expressed opinions of then-Vancouver Mayor Larry Campbell, who also favoured reform of marijuana-related drug laws.

Layton also speaks of visiting Amsterdam, and expresses an opinion that legalized marijuana would somehow be "self-regulating".

In the final video, Emery stumps for Layton.



Layton "gets it", and is "one of us", Emery insists.

Maybe not so much as Emery believed. Not only does Layton seem to want to disassociate himself from his obvious association with Emery and his cohorts, but apparently was never in full solidarity with them in the first place.

After all, when Dana Larsen took video of himself driving while smoking pot, he must have believed that it was A-OK. Whether or not he ever imagined his party would be A-OK with it is another matter entirely.

In the end, however, it's certainly better that Layton is willing to stake limits on his association with the Marijuana party and its activists.

After all, anyone in this country whose favoured political issue is whether or not they can toke up legally is simply too stupid to be taken seriously, and should do all Canadians a favour by declining to vote.

What is It With the Green Party and 9/11?

Greens pull candidate over controversial remarks

Less than a week before the seventh anniversary of 9/11, the Green party has pulled yet another candidate over some remarks made on the subject.

On Thursday, the party rejected the candidacy of John Shavluk, the party's nominated candidate for Newton-North Delta. At the heart of the issue lie comments made on Enmasse.ca in the course of a post about drug laws, police, the Iraq war, and (that troublesome old topic) 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Courtesy of blogger Robert Jago, the post in question reads as follows:

"… you cops are on borrowed time as far as being the enforcers of bad laws and being used as society’s GOONS.
YOU soon will be seen as relevant again and as important as you used to be ,a pillar of the community. i realize how hard it would be to enforce stupid laws and i know i could not have thrown Rosa Parks from the bus. must be a redneck gene somewhere.

if we want to talk about laws,,why don’t you care that your country started an illegal war in Iraq,,arrest some one you law racists!!!!
everyone knows but you guys whats going to happen and its way over due
hey i heard some guy in Australia knows someone who says he had something to do with your governments complicate attack on your shoddily built Jewish world bank headquarters. you know “the 2 towers” (who has the ring i wonder)better invade there too eh,,oh no oil?"

Apparently, John Shavluk isn't quite the kind of person any self-respecting political party (even the Green party) would want representing them. Go figure.

Of course, we've seen this kind of controversy with the Green party before. In fact, we've seen it within the last 18 months.

The Shavluk affair, as it will quickly come to be known in Green party circles, has quickly come to mirror the Kevin Potvin affair (as it has come to be known in Green party circles).

First off, you have a candidate oddly overconfident despite running for a fringe party with barely 5% popular support in the country. Secondly, controversial topics regarding 9/11 (although, for the record, Shavluk was removed due to the seeming anti-semitic nature of some of his remarks). Finally, both individuals seem to be completely unable to be honest -- even with themselves -- on the topic.

Kevin Potvin insisted that his words had somehow been misrepresented, and that he was being slandered by the mainstream media who found The Republic of East Vancouver threatening.

For his own part, Shavluk insists it's an insidious conspiracy against his particular political goals, insisting that the rejection of his nomination is merely intended to undermine his efforts to legalize marijuana. Shavluk reportedly had worked to bring members of the Marijuana party and like-minded members of the NDP over to the Green party.

Both candidates insist that the Green party will somehow be lost without them. Kevin Potvin imagined himself they would be denying themselves their first MP (although the recent defection of former Liberal Blair Wilson should have dispelled that particular fantasy). Shavluk insists "the Green Party are pretty much cutting their legs out beneath them".

Surely, they'll rue the day. And John Shavluk should totally hold his breath while he waits for that to happen.

As for Kevin Potvin, he's made his own views regarding 9/11 crystal clear. Not only was there his "Revolting Confession", but also once participated in a YouTube video in which another individual encouraged people to vote for Potvin based on his views on 9/11 (the video has since been marked as "private" by its creator).

Now, with John Shavluk's candidacy evaporating over some nutty 9/11-related comments, one has to wonder: does the Green party have an official policy regarding the 9/11 "truth" movement?

If not, does it need one? Apparently, it just might.

Insite Making Partisan Mountains Out of Political Molehills

Safe injection site poses dilemmas for addiction treatment, federal government

If one were to believe some of the rhetoric being forwarded by supporters of Insite, Vancouver's Safe Injection Site and (predictably) opposition MPs, one would think that the site is under immediate threat of being shut down by federal Health Minister Tony Clement.

"This is going to be catastrophic for people who have substance abuse problems, for society, for taxpayers, for crime," said Liberal MP Dr Keith Martin. Martin was, at the time, referring to then-forthcoming Conservative party drug policies.

Some may recall that the policies covered three different pillars: enforcement, prevention and treatment. In one of the most blatant examples of intellectual dishonesty in recent history, various left-wing ideologues refused to ackowledge the fact that $32 million -- the largest parcel of funds being doled out under the new program -- was directed toward new treatment programs, while another $10 million toward prevention programs. The very same treatment and prevention programs that most of Canada's top drug-policy experts advocate.

One sees a similar rhetorical feat being accomplished in regards to Insite. While those who support the site and those who benefit politically from portraying the government as dangerous and reactionary in regards to it have combined their efforts to perform an act of rhetorical slight-of-hand to try and apply pressure to keep the site open, it turns out that a lot of the hysteria suggesting that the site is in imminent danger of being closed is simply that: hysterics.

But to begin to demonstrate this, one really needs look no further than the most recent news-making item regarding Insite: the release of a recently-completed report about Insite's impact -- or, more notably, lack thereof -- on crime rates in its surrounding community.

"We looked at crime rates in the area surrounding Insite, and we talked to business operators, we talked to service providers, to police, to residents in the surrounding vicinity. We found, overwhelmingly, people had very positive sentiments," said Neil Boyd, a criminologist at Vancouver's Simon Frasier University. "Not only that, crime rates were quite unaffected by the implementation of Insite. ...In fact, we found some improvements in public order with respect to decreased injection debris, decreased injections around the site and those findings simply corroborated other research that had been carried out prior to our study."

Insite operates under an exemption to Section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

"I don't think there's much doubt anymore," Boyd said. "We have to move to close this chapter and give Insite a long-standing exemption."

There is strong support for Boyd's case. But one also needs to keep in mind that it was Tony Clement, in October of last year, extended Insite's exemption, which was due to expire. This was the second extension that Clement had granted the operation while his Conservative government examined the issue.

Naturally, the extensions themselves were treated derisively by opposition MPs who benefit politically from portraying the Conservative party as being too hard on drugs.

"If Prime Minister [Stephen] Harper really believed that Insite is a useful tool in treating addictions, he would have extended the program for years, not months," said Martin, who insisted that the extension was simply a "stalling tactic" used to leave the issue open so the Conservatives could close the site if they're able to win a majority.

"I am a little cynical about these short-term extensions. It's no way to address a serious health issue," agreed Victoria NDP MP Denise Savoie, who also harped on the Conservative party's alleged "narrow ideological view" on drugs.

This, one remembers, was coming from a party whose press release counter-factually admonished the Conservative party for allegedly not supporting treatment and prevention. Talk about a narrow view.

It would also be indicative of a narrow view to suggest that a fledgling government -- as the Conservatives have been for the past two years -- shouldn't review any active policies of the previous government that may give them cause for concern. And whether the varying supporters of Insite like to admit it or not, Insite does pose a number of practical, moral and ethical dilemmas for the government -- dilemmas that require time to examine.

In particular, Insite does pose a dilemma for politicians who understand that crime often has an interrelated nature. Drug addictions, in particular, have been shown to have an impact on property crime rates. While Insite has been decisively shown to not negatively impact crime rates in its community, the study itself was still important. Property crime in regards to Insite is one dilemma we can now consider effectively solved.

A Health Canada report released last month dealt with this particular dilemma, along with numerous others.

Among those other dilemmas is whether or not Insite provides users with an incentive to seek treatment. Harm reduction strategies clearly do a lot of good. The one particular benefit that offers the greatest public advantage is probably stemming the spread of sexually-transmitted disease.

The recent Health Canada report suggests that the number of referrals from Insite to detoxification and treatment centers has increased the overall use of these facilities -- certainly yet another feather in Insite's cap.

Another dilemma is whether or not the public funding for Insite is a particularly wise investment considering that it essentially supports the use of illicit substances. Clearly, the public benefit of the site would have to exceed its costs. The Health Canada panel conducted a cost-benefit analysis of Insite and found that it accrues $4 worth of public benefit for every single dollar spent. Clearly Insite passes this test as well.

The report also concludes that Insite saves lives by preventing drug overdoses.

"Overall, the report is very positive and confirms our research that the site is doing what it's supposed to do -- provide health benefits without increasing harm," said Sam Kerr, a researcher for Centre for Excellence on HIV/AIDS.

But meanwhile, one also needs to consider the fact that many organizations -- including the CEHA -- were apprehensive about even this study, concerned it would be used as a pretext for closing the site. Clearly, that isn't the case.

With the federal government's investigations into whether or not Insite represents a wise expenditure of Canadian tax dollars bearing obvious fruit in terms of keeping the site open, those who support the site -- and those who seek to benefit politically from it -- have resorted to strenuous data mining on the topic, scouring Tony Clement's comments regarding drug policy in general in order to find some sort of evidence that he intends to close the site.

What has emerged are some rather ludicrous attempts at twisting some otherwise largely-benign comments. In particular, some of these individuals went out of their way to distort some comments made by Clement to the Canadian Medical Association:

"The messages young people have received during the past several years have been confusing and conflicting to say the least," Clement announced. "We are very concerned about the damage and pain that drugs cause families and we intend to reverse the trend toward vague, ambiguous messaging that has characterized Canadian attitudes in the recent past."

"Harm reduction, in a sense, takes many forms," Clement added. "To me, prevention is harm reduction. Treatment is harm reduction. Enforcement is harm reduction."

And, of course, they are. But the simple truth of Clements words didn't stop individuals like Stephen Hwang, a researcher at the University of Toronto's department of medicine, from trying to read intonations of ideological danger into Clement's comments.

"The health of a nation is placed in peril if our leaders ignore crucial research findings simply because they run contrary to a rigid policy agenda driven by ideology or fixed beliefs," said Hwang, in a letter co-signed by 130 like-minded doctors and scientists.

But if Clements agenda was really "driven by ideology or fixed beliefs", one might have expected that he would have avoided visiting the safe injection site, or acknowledging any information that supports it. Instead, he's done the exact opposite.

"I had a good chat with the staff there, understood some of their procedures, asked a lot of questions, got a lot of answers," Clement announced after touring Insite in January 2007. "I think I am continuing to get a deeper understanding and this is all part of being the best health minister I can be for the country."

That was a big part of the short-term rulings made by Clement, while he waited on his own research into Insite, its impact on the surrounding community, and the impact on its users. The fact that the research corroborated previous research is and remains largely immaterial. The simple fact of the matter is that facilities like Insite need to be reevaluated on an annual basis.

Even though Insite is clearly an ideal way to help tackle some of the serious issues that accompany drug use right now, there's no guarantee that the factors that make it so ideal -- a favourable cost-benefit ratio, low impact on crime rates, referral to addiction-treatment services and saved lives -- will endure indefinitely. There may very well come a time in the near future when a new approach becomes necessary, be it due to changing conditions in the surrounding community, or the introduction of newer, more dangerous designer drugs, or any number of other things that are almost certainly going to change in a dynamic society.

Until that time arrives, however, it would clearly benefit Canadian society to allow Insite to continue performing its valuable services. A longer extension to its Drug and Controlled Substances Act clearly needs to be granted, just as Neil Boyd insists.

However, that extension needs to be well short of permanent. At some point over the next two or four years, Insite should be evaluated by Health Canada again, and continually every two or four years after that.

Insite should never be allowed to attain the position of an ideological drug policy orthodoxy that may never be challenged. In fact, it needs to be challenged on an annual basis, and Canadian society needs Insite for as long as it can stand up to scrutiny.

Such reevaluations should be considered minor political maintenance for an operation that, by its very nature, will almost always be contentious.

In the meantime, Canadians should reject the rhetoric of those trying to transform these political molehills into partisan mountains.

Tories Getting Tough on Drugs?

Not really

If one were to believe the voices of the hapless left, they would believe that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is fighting some sort of ill-advised war on drugs.

And he is. But not in the way they think.

The most recent bill proposed by the Conservative party will make use of mandatory minimum sentences for those involved in dealing and producing drugs.

Of course, various groups have decried this as a carbon-copy of the badly failing American anti-drug laws. It isn't, and they know it (but more on this later).

First off, the clear majority of the new Tory plan falls in line with what these people claim to want. in which 2/3 of new funding (approximately $42 million) would be addressed toward prevention and treatment.

Among other things, the program would fund an anti-drug campaign, modernize treatment services, develop new treatment methods, expand the treatment programs available to young addicts, provide provinces with new funding for expanding existing services, and more funding for a youth intervention program.

Of course, none of this is what opponents of the proposed bill want to focus on. Instead, they want to focus on (and distort) the enforcement portion of the proposed bill.

Today, the Conservatives rolled out this portion of the bill.

Those caught and convicted of selling marijuana as part of a criminal operation, or using a weapon, will recieve a mandatory minimum sentence of one year. Two years for selling drugs in the vicinity of a school. Two years for anyone operating an illegal marijuana grow-op of 300 plants or more. Two years for selling hard drugs.

Despite what those who oppose this bill what have you believe, the proposed mandatory minimum sentences actually aren't strong enough. Only in one case, the doubling of the maximum penalty for marijuana production from 7 to 14 years, did the proposed sentencing changes actually go too far.

If these groups want to argue that anyone caught selling drugs to school children shouldn't go to jail, a good number of Canadians would like to hear them try.

Opponents of these changes would like people to believe that this is merely a transplanting of American drug laws into Canada. But it isn't, and they know it.

The problem with mandatory minimum sentencing in the United States is that it's all too often directed merely at users. American prisons are overfilled with users sentenced to life for mere possession under the US' three-strikes laws.

That won't be the case under the Tory proposal, which focuses on treatment for users and punishment for dealers, whereas the American system focuses on punishment for both.

The Tory version, less the weak sentencing prescriptions, is how it should be.

While the party's opponents in this matter can at least safely argue that Canadian law is woefully restrictive toward medical marijuana, they'll only conitnue to fail to make that point if they insist on continuing to lie to Canadians about drug policy.

In the meantime, if the Conservatives want to get tough on drugs, they'd better go ahead and do it.