By: Yarr

“Drugs. If they did not exist our governs would have invented them in
order to prohibit them and so make much of the population vulnerable to arrest, imprisonment, seizure of property, and so on.” – Gore Vidal.

The purpose of this paper is to compare the Canadian and American systems of: criminal justice and availability of drug rehabilitation services, if there is any correlation between the criminal justice system and drug rehabilitation at all?

My hypothesis is that there are limited amounts of monetary resources that either government (Canadian or American) is willing to spend on drug rehabilitation services for its citizen’s that are in need of chemical dependency treatment. Conversely, each government has allocated a certain amounts of money to support its prison systems, national drug interdiction networks and international drug interdiction networks. Moreover, the dichotomy between health services and the criminalizing drugs has been a personal tragedy for many and an overall failure for society at large.

I do not plan on being able to draw a one to one line of correlation between the systems of the two governments. One reason being, that in the United States of America the drug laws and funding streams cross many different jurisdictional lines and come from a plethora of sources. One excellent example of this is that drug offense can be threefold, jurisdictionally speaking. Take the example of Donald Clark (Schlosser, Eric pg. 54) a farmer in Florida who was caught cultivating marijuana, tried and convicted under Florida state law and sentenced to probation. However, because his offense crossed Federal jurisdictional lines as well as state (and most likely local) the Federal prosecutor in that jurisdiction took his legal authority and tried Mr. Clark for the exact same offense, but in Federal court instead of State court. Mr. Clark ended up being convicted a second time for the exact same crime he was already serving his punishment for. This time, Mr. Clark was not so fortunate; he received LIFE in prison with out the possibility of parole. This was done at an estimated cost of between 25,000 and 28,000 dollars per year (Schlosser, Eric et al) of American taxpayer money. While there is no evidence that Mr. Clark himself was a drug addict, the questions should and I believe must be asked: would Mr. Clark have been growing marijuana in the first place, instead of his normal watermelons if it were not so profitable to grow the marijuana? Secondly, would the money spent on Mr. Clark’s trials and life long imprisonment be better spent on sending a drug addict who is seeking treatment to an effective treatment facility? Thirdly, what harm was Mr. Clark doing to society as whole? And finally, what effect does marijuana’s status as an illegal drug have on the price of it?

Moreover, I believe this example of public funds’ usage and the costs to either country’s (in this specific case the United States) citizenry for; drug interdiction, long prison sentences fore non-violent offender and the loss of individual liberties (not measurable by money) shows how the current laws in the United States (and in some cases Canada, but to a lesser extent) derails funding from health and human services’ budgets. Last year the projected Federal budget in the United State’s for its prison systems was 4.7 billion dollars. (Lappin, Harley G. pg. 2) The Canadian government (I apologize for not having the monetary statistic) has been considering the de-criminalizing small amounts of marijuana and has de-criminalized heroine in the Vancouver area.

Additionally, the United States declared a “War on Drugs” in 1980 during the Reagan Administration. This “war” was, in theory to declare drugs bad and eradicate their existence within the borders of the United States. Then the “war” was taken internationally, by the United States, whereas aide is being provided to those countries were drugs are gown and produced, such as, Columbia. (Never mind a VERY significant portion of the marijuana smoked in the United Sates is grown and cultivated in the United States) (Schlosser, Eric pg. 34) The funds and DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) involvement are provided in theory to stop the production of drugs, by supporting the military in their efforts of interdiction. However, it is important, I think, to note that in the instance of Columbia, there have been staunch criticisms of the Columbian government pertaining to violations of human rights. (Salisbury, Steven et al) Additionally, aide is denied to those countries that are considered not doing enough to stop the production of drugs, unless, they are considered either strategically important, economically important or both: like Afghanistan. That is until the Bush Administration decide they wanted the Taliban’s support in building a new oil pipeline that was to pass through Afghanistan. (Moore, Michael pg .51) The Taliban were considered to be one of the worlds, if not THE worlds, largest grower of opium poppies. The question then must be asked what truly is the impetus for the ‘war on drugs’ the perceived and propagated, (by the US government) inherent evil of drugs, or, as I suspect the economics of a black-market economy?

I recently interviewed a National Guardsman, who is former United States Marine and has worked in a support capacity for the DEA. I think it’s important to know that the information that was disclosed to me must be described as anecdotal due to the fact that the individual was acting in an official military capacity and currently still performs duties for narcotic officers and therefore, cannot have his/her identity disclosed. The importance of my interview and mentioning it this paper is to illustrate the amount of taxpayers’ money that is being be spent on just interdiction, the fact that those who are responsible for enforcing the laws are actually in many cases breaking the laws and shed light on the mentality of those who are ‘fighting’ the ‘war on drugs’ in the United Sates of America.

I never set out to interview anyone on May 4, 2004. But, found myself in a conversation with an individual whom I have known since high school. The National Guardsman never gave his/her military rank, but did disclose that he/she was being canvassed by the National Guard to again provide logistical and tactical support for a project called “CNET.” CNET is an acronym for Community Narcotics Enforcement Task-force, which is made up of Federal, State and local law enforcement officials who specifically target the illegal drug trade. I also feel it important to emphasize the fact that the National Guard is a military branch of the Federal government, but state governors can deploy it. There is no declared state of emergency that I am aware of or that has been made public with regards to the drug trade in New York State.

The Guardsman disclosed that when they were working in the Watertown area, near the Saint Lawrence River, (also near the Canadian border) they would frequently use military helicopters, from Fort Drum, at night in “stealth” or silent mode and take pictures of local corn fields with an infrared camera. The reason for the infrared camera was, because according to the Guardsman, due to the fact that marijuana plants have a stronger “heat signature.” The infrared camera picks up on heat signatures and therefore, they could tell precisely where the marijuana was being grown. It is a common tactic of marijuana growers to place the illegal crops within a legal crop such as corn. The corn acts as camouflage for the marijuana. The illegality of whole affairs comes into play when the Guardsman disclosed that the Narcotics officers and Guardsman would frequently and illegally fly over the local Native American reservation and photograph the marijuana fields. They had jurisdiction and order to only target cornfields used by New York State residence or farmers. The fly-overs of reservation territory were a violation of the treaty law and completely out of the task force’s jurisdiction. The evidence gathered could NEVER be used in a court of law because it was obtained illegally. Yet, after taking the photographs task force members, knowing they could not be used in court “turned over to the FBI” anyway.

I asked the Guardsman if he/she saw a problem with this illegal activity? Essentially the Guardsman said, “No!” The reason the Guardsman gave: was that the the drug growers have gotten more sophisticated and that the “good guys” need every edge they could get. To the Guardsman credit, they did acknowledge that the cost seemed exorbitant for the amount of benefit that was gained for such operations. He estimated the cost to be between 25,000 and 30,000 USD per night the helicopter and crew were used.

In the United States, I feel we take a militant and punitive approach to drugs, drug usage and drug addicts. In my opinion, the most damaging aspect of this militant attitude is observed when you look at who is paying the largest penalties for the ‘war on drugs’ from a demographic prospective. In 1990 the percentage of Federal prisoners incarcerated for violent crimes (murder, manslaughter, rape and assault) was 16.8%. By 1997, this percentage had fallen to 11.9%. During this same time period the percentage of Federal prisoners on drug related charges went from 53.5% to 60.0%. (Bureau of Justice Statistics et al) In the year 2001, there were 3,535 per 100,000 African American males incarnated in Federal Prisons. While that number for Hispanic males is 1,177 per 100,000 and 462 per 100,000 for white males. African American men are 7.6 times per 100,000 more likely to be incarcerated. This is especially alarming when one realizes that African Americans make up only 12% of the total population of the United States and Caucasians make up 75.3% of the population (based on the 2000 census, 281.4 million people). Additionally, in 1980 there were 143,000 African American males incarcerated and 463,000 enrolled in colleges and higher education learning programs. Twenty years later, the number of African American males incarcerated has risen to 791,000 surpassing the numbers in higher education, which were 603,032. (LRP Publications Correctional Educational Bulletin et al).

There is another sinister aspect to the approach that the United States has taken in its drug war. That is the civil penalties that can be involved with regards to those arrested for drug crimes. I use the word arrested because a victim of these laws does not, have to be convicted of anything. Forfeiture laws have changed. Once reserved for tax evaders they now pertain to those ensnared by drug laws. The war on drugs has expanded the application of conspiracy and attempted conspiracy laws to include anyone who aids or abets the sale or possession of a drug. It is important to note that a trial and/or conviction of a drug offense are not needed for the government to seize property owned by the accused. I see this as a grievous violation of the very principles our criminal justice system was founded upon, specifically with regard to an individual’s right to due process. A person is supposed to be considered “innocent” until they are “proven” guilty. (United States Constitution) Yet, if one is accused of committing a drug offense, their home, and all other property and any financial assets they possess become the property of the government. (McNamara, Joseph pg. 4) The government actually has a financial incentive to seek out drug dealers, those possessing drugs and those supposedly “conspiring” to do either. The burden of proof is so low to get an arrest or indictment, prosecutors often joke that is they wanted to they could ‘indict a ham sandwich.’

The state of California made an estimated 1.4 million dollars in 1998 from drug related a seizure alone (McNamara, Joseph pg. 3) Literally, a yacht can be seized and auctioned off if a marijuana cigarette is found on it, in the united states. The government need not prove that the joint belonged to the owner, that the owner of the yacht was engaged in drug trafficking or that the owner was even aware of the joints existence; all the government needs to prove is that a crime was committed on the yacht. Therefore, it is possible for the owner of the yacht to be cleared of all criminal charges and still not be entitled to get his yacht back. (Schlosser, Eric pg. 53)

The civil penalties do not however stop there. As of 2001 any college or prospective college student applying for federal financial aide, must answer a question pertaining to criminal history with regard to drug arrests. If an applicant has been convicted of ANY drug crime, they are denied financial aide. (More, Michael pg. 119) It is impossible to tell how many prospective college students have been denied access to higher education, based on this practice. I have found no such statistics that address the question. It is important to note here that an applicant could be a tried and convicted murderer, rapist, pedophile or armed robber and still not be denied financial aide in order to have access to higher education. But anyone who wishes to improve their lives by attending college, and has been convicted of a drug crime, even minor possession, cannot receive financial aide from a federally subsidized loans.

I think when you begin to look at the Canadian approach to drugs, interdiction and treatment one finds a ‘softer,’ less militant and more ration approach to the issues. Lately the Canadians have been increasingly critical of the United State’s “get tough” (Kerr, Thomas pg.2) approach. One reason is that according to the United Sates office of Drug Control “illicit drugs have become cheaper, purer and more available even as the federal government spent more on enforcement and interdiction.” (Kerr, Thomas pg.2) The fear for Canadian officials is that Canada will end up repeating the same failed attempts as the United States in an effort to ‘control’ the drug trade; which the US has not been able to control though criminalizing drugs, drug sales and drug usage.

According to Canada’ auditor general, the equivalent the GAO (General Accounting Office) in the United States, the Canadian government spends 475 million Canadian dollars per year on law enforcement of the 500 million, per year set aside for “problems associated with drugs.” (Kerr, Thomas pg.2) That is an astounding 95% of the total budget. One must then as the questions; are these strategies effective in curbing drugs, drug usage and illicit drugs sales and if not, how else could that money be spent to the greater good of Canadian society at large? More over is the Canadian approach really softer? The US far outspends Canada in total dollars and the US government puts constant pressure on the Canadian government to ‘get tough’ on drugs. In other words, if the Canadian government were to decriminalize and/or legalize some illicit drugs could some of those 475 million dollars a year be spent on; education, treatment and other social issues related to drug abuse?