Legalize It, Control It

One of the most devastating problems that our society faces is that of addiction.  Whether that is to tobacco, alcohol or narcotics - any substance addiction can have long term consequences for the addict, those around them and society at large.

Smoking is known to cause cancers, alcoholics can destroy their families and careers, and drug addicts become pariahs of society.

Tobacco is not illegal in this country, but it is highly regulated and among the most heavily taxed of all products out there.  Over the course of my own lifetime, I have seen smoking go from common and nearly pervasive to being almost rare.  Few people in my circles smoke, and I can go into restaurants and nightclubs without inhaling the equivalent of a pack of cigarettes in second-hand smoke.  Alcohol is similarly regulated, but not illegal.

Then we come to narcotics like heroin.  Heroin is illegal in Canada, and requires special authorization even for medical applications.  Opioid medications are all heavily controlled, and heavily sought after by addicts.

The difference between the three?  Treatment for tobacco addiction or alcoholism is fairly readily accessed and doesn't carry with it the stigma and fear that is associated with seeking treatment for being addicted to narcotics which are (theoretically) illegal and should not be on the streets.

So when Canada's Minister of Health, Rona Ambrose, had a ministerial hissy fit over a handful of heroin addicts participating in a clinical study being granted permission for medically controlled access to heroin, I was a little bit surprised - but for the ideological stripe of the current government.

"This decision is in direct opposition to the government's anti-drug policy and violates the spirit and intent of the special access program," she said in a statement. 

"I am taking immediate action to protect the integrity of the special access program and ensure this does not happen again." 

There are already safe treatments for heroin addiction, such as methadone, Ambrose argued. 

"The special access program was designed to treat unusual cases and medical emergencies; it was not intended as a way to give illicit drugs to drug addicts."

As a columnist over at Global points out, these addicts fall well within the scope of the Special Access program - they are the addicts for whom treatment regimes such as Methadone have already failed.

Let me be clear - I'm not advocating that these drugs should be readily available on the street.  Far from it.  What needs to be taken out of the picture is the criminalization of the addict.  An addict doesn't need to be punished - the addiction is far worse than any punishment the courts may dish out.

The SALOME (Study to Assess Longer-term Opioid Medication Effectiveness) study’s not yet complete. But in the meantime, doctors say they need a viable way to treat participants who’ve completed their 13-month trials and remain very, very dependent on heroin. 

The idea is to administer – in safe doses, in a medical environment and under close observation – an illicit substance these people would otherwise break the law to obtain. Best-case scenario: You stabilize and, eventually, quit. 

Several doctors, including Vancouver Coastal Health’s Chief Medical Officer, submitted 1,000-plus pages of studies and missives as part of an application requesting injectable heroin prescriptions for 35 people.Health Canada approved 16. 

Is it ideal? Hardly. But traditional solutions haven’t worked so far. 

In her indictment of her department’s decision, Ambrose said she plans to “ensure this does not happen again.” 

Giving addicts this heroin, she argued, is “not to treat an underlying medical condition, but simply to allow them to continue to have access to heroin for their addiction even though other safe treatments for heroin addiction, such as methadone, are available.” 

She’s right: Methadone maintenance is one of the most commonly used treatments for serious opioid addiction. In some places across the country, it’s insufficiently accessible – especially now that many of those who need it aren’t addicted to illicit heroin, but to licit (highly addictive, frequently abused or misused) prescription opioids. 

But the addicts getting this heroin were by definition ones methadone wouldn’t help: They’ve already tried.

Instead of the Minister getting up on her high horse and complaining about a small, controlled study, she might want to consider directing Health Canada to start the process of figuring out how to help addicts get off the substances that they are addicted to - without fear of being prosecuted.

Narcotics have legitimate medical uses, and perhaps we have lost sight of that in the drive to use prohibition to restrict these substances.  The underlying discussion should be one of how to help the addicts.  There will always be those who sell these drugs illicitly - those people should be held accountable for their actions, for no other reason than they are ultimately doing grave harm to their customers.  Their customers, on the other hand, need to have access to treatment that enables them to escape the chemical bondage they find themselves held to.

We have experimented with prohibition for too long.  It is a failed strategy, and it is time for us to reassess the effects of the legal frameworks that are in place.  Unfortunately, I don't expect the current government to move one iota towards a constructive approach to these issues - Harper and his ilk seem to think that harsher and harsher punishments are the way to go.

Analyzing The Manning Centre Report "City Council Vote Tracking"

The Manning Centre released a report this week, "Growing the Democratic Toolbox:  City Council Vote Tracking".

The first thing about this that I find interesting is that this appears to be a sign that the Manning Centre is going to start positioning itself in a manner similar to the Fraser Institute, which has spent much of the last twenty years spouting ideologically slanted "research" as if it is somehow unbiased and logical.  The fact that this report's release coincides with the launch of the "Common Sense Calgary" campaign and the launch of Calgary's civic election suggests that there is an attempt to attack the current city council incumbents who don't align well with the Conservative cabal that wants to control all levels of politics.

The report is lengthy - some 38 pages, and filled with lots of statistical analysis of council meeting minutes.  It is filled with lots of "pretty graphs", but graphs seldom tell the whole story - in fact, statistics themselves have proven to be a somewhat suspect tool in analyzing politics in general.

[More Detailed Analysis After The Jump]

Remember Harper Muzzling Scientists? He's Doing It To Veterans Too

Under the Harper Government, we have been fed enormous amounts of propaganda pablum in the name of "Support the War in Afghanistan Troops".  The "highway of heroes" when our troops were being returned in pine boxes on a weekly basis; goodness knows how many photo-ops of Harper and Mackay on the tarmac in Afghanistan, and Harper wearing partial uniforms at various times.

You would think that the troops are some kind of privileged class under Harper.  Not so much, it seems.  In fact, if you manage to get yourself injured in the line of duty, the big old roll of duct tape gets dragged out and put across your mouth.

The Canadian Forces is requiring physically and mentally wounded soldiers to sign a form acknowledging they won’t criticize senior officers or discourage others in uniform with their comments on social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter. 

The form, given to military personnel who are transferred to the Joint Personnel Support Unit, was sent to the Citizen by military members upset with what they see as a threat to their right to speak out about the failure of the Department of National Defence and Canadian Forces to take care of the wounded.

Now, at first, you might think that this is little more than the usual private industry policies that basically state that criticizing your employer publicly can get you fired.  I have more than a few problems with those policies too - but there is a reasonable level of non-disclosure in the workplace.  I certainly wouldn't want trade secrets being revealed in public media, unless of course the "trade secret" is in fact a violation of the law.

This goes several steps further, and begins to sound a lot like the controls that Harper has used to suppress Canadian scientists who might say things that are in conflict with his political dogma.

The JPSU “policy on proper comments on social media” repeats well-known military directions not to post secret information on websites and other forums. It also tells military personnel not to make disparaging comments about senior officers or fellow personnel. 

But military personnel in JPSU are also told not to “write anything that might discourage others or make them dissatisfied with their conditions or their employment.” 

In addition, those in JPSU were told not to disclose “your views on any military subject.”The form, introduced in March, notes military personnel in JPSU will be held responsible for not only the content they post on social media outlets but also the content of their friends which they have “tagged” on various sites. 

Wait a second.  So, if a member of the JPSU (any injured veteran still enlisted, I presume) posts something, they can get disciplined?  But, worse, if someone they know posts something, the service member can be held accountable for that?  Excuse me?  In principle, that means that this blog could be used against any active members of the armed forces that I may be associated with.   This policy, like the "duty of loyalty to the elected government" letter sent to Parks Canada staff last year, is a gross abuse of legitimate rights.

Of course, what Harper wants us to do is revere his propagandized notion of the military, and not look too closely behind the curtain at how the troops are treated when they get home minus a limb or suffering from PTSD.

Let The Astroturfing Begin

It seems that the astroturfing of Calgary has begun, with the Manning Centre sitting right behind it.

Common Sense Calgary has been launched using funds from the Manning Centre.

Started with $10,000 in seed money from the Manning Centre, content for the website is being provided by the Manning Foundation.

A video leaked in April showed Shane Homes CEO Cal Wenzel urging a group of fellow home builders to financially support industry-friendly candidates. 

He and 10 others gave $100,000 each — totalling $1.1 million — to the Manning Centre, part of which was used as the seed money for Common Sense Calgary. 

“It’s not a charity, it’s not a not-for-profit, we are not soliciting contributions,” Billington said. “It’s an initiative of a group of private individuals.”

A few moments of poking around their website makes the agenda pretty clear.  The news page is filled with an assortment of articles that are critical of incumbent mayor Nenshi's positions (if you scroll down their news page, there's rather a lot from the Calgary Sun ...).

Looking a little further through Common Sense Calgary's website, their position on key areas are classic conservative positions (with all of the nuance of a sledgehammer), and mysteriously they are backed up by reports published by the Manning Centre.

It has been no secret that the Manning Centre has been building a set of positions relative to municipal politics for quite some time.  Then we get this group, funded by the Manning Centre no less, coming forward to promote them.  How unsurprising.

... and when the man at the front of the organization is Rick Billington, a man with unquestionable ties to the local CPC power structure, it seems even less likely that this is anything but an astroturf organization.  Consider that this group is funded by the Manning Centre, and if the Calgary Sun is correct using some of the $1.1 million from the developers community.  This doesn't sound like anything remotely resembling "grassroots".

[Update]
In today's Calgary Herald, there is a similar article, but it attempts to claim that this is going on "across the board":

The city’s labour unions are the other traditional big interest in civic politics, bestowing money on progressive candidates and encouraging their thousands of members to vote and volunteer for them.
In this fall’s campaign, the unions for city hall and transit staff are working more closely together than before, and will choose preferred candidates in many wards. 

“What we’re looking for is ideally candidates we can work with and candidates that won’t target labour,” said Alex Shevalier, president of Calgary and District Labour Council, an umbrella group for unions. He warned of politicians who may outsource civic jobs or press to cut worker benefits and wages. 

“They very much want to end city planning as we know it and understand it, and it would be a very libertarian approach to city council,” said Shevalier. “And one person’s red tape is another person’s due process.” 

The labour council is co-ordinating unions’ efforts and has its own knowyourcanadidates.ca campaign website.

The difference here?  The labour council's knowyourcanadidates.ca website is informational at this stage - it tells you who your candidates are in a given ward.  They apparently have a survey out to all of the candidates, but so far the results haven't come back yet.  The nature of the survey is not known to me at this point.  

At least the site is upfront about the fact that it is being funded by the Calgary Labour Council - unlike the Common Sense Calgary group whose website tries to portray it as being a "bunch of concerned citizens", when it is being funded and facilitated by a political think-tank.
[/Update]

Harper, The UN and Aboriginal Issues

Once again, we find The Harper Government (which, I am more and more convinced is not a Canadian government), squabbling over the UN's initiatives to review Canada's treatment of our Aboriginal population.

Countries have their rights records reviewed every four years by the Geneva-based UN forum, but the Harper government has been skeptical of it in part because it allows countries with dubious rights records to criticize Canada.

Recommendations from Iran, Sri Lanka and Cuba were among the 40 out of 162 that Canada chose to reject.

Frankly, Canada's relationship with its Aboriginal peoples is less than ideal, and arguably subject to quite a lot of very legitimate criticism.  While we have begun to take steps to address the wrongs done such as the Residential Schools, we keep uncovering other evils carried out by past governments, or for that matter accusations of negligent or sloppy investigation is missing native women and the ongoing crisis conditions at Attawapiskat.

To be honest, I find the "what to do" with respect to the wrongs that have been perpetrated on native peoples by our governments - past and present, a very complex and unsettling puzzle.  More recent abuses such as the seemingly negligent approach to investigating missing persons cases involving aboriginal women on the part of the RCMP have some fairly obvious remediations.  But, older wrongs, including those which are contained in treaties that are now hundreds of years old are more complex.  Is it reasonable to hold today's generations "to account" for the problems that the treaty system created?  I am less sure that is constructive.

However, I'm not going to attempt to untangle the complexities of Aboriginal issues in Canada here - that is a topic which is probably worthy of a book of its own, not a mere blog post.

The issue that the Harper Government is creating here is profoundly troubling.  Harper has very little difficulty with complaining loudly about being judged by the very countries which he is so quick to condemn for their human rights record.  Harper seems to think that he is only subject to criticism by countries which he perceives as being his peers.  

Reality check time.  I don't give a damn if Harper thinks that Iran is "lower on the totem pole" than Canada when it comes to human rights.  The fact is that at the level of the UN, all countries are peers.  Just because Iran or Cuba might have something to say that you don't like, that doesn't automatically make it an invalid commentary.  

In my opinion, Harper's actions in this case reveal two things about Harper that are profoundly offensive to Canadian sensibilities.  First, it reveals an excessively thin skin on Harper's part with respect to any kind of criticism.  (Arguably, he has used Prorogation of Parliament to avoid being held accountable).  Second, it also reveals the subtle bigotry that has always been just below the surface of Harper's politics.  While Harper has had Jason Kenney running around courting the various ethnic populations, he has quietly worked to undermine women, aboriginals and other groups in Canada through a series of program cuts.

Slates In Calgary Municipal Elections

While Calgary's municipal elections are ostensibly "non-partisan", in so far as we don't have the various political parties directly involved, it is naive to think that we don't have slates of candidates backed by interest groups of one sort or another.

In the last several elections, we have had what I will politely classify as "right wing" slates of one sort or another fielding candidates.  In 2007 and in 2010, we had slates running which were backed/endorsed by the political far right.  The usual outcome was that one or two of the slate candidates might get elected.

Over the last fifteen years, these groups have gotten more subtle, and much more careful about letting themselves be known.  If you try to pin any of the candidates down as to their affiliations, they will prevaricate and dodge the question as much as possible in order to maintain the appearance of being non-partisan.

That is partly why the Cal Wenzel homebuilder's video that came to light this spring is so significant.  It was common knowledge that the Manning Centre was making a play in the civic politics arena, and Wenzel's speech told us a lot about who was behind it.

Do we have a slate running in Calgary in 2013?  Officially, no.  Practically, we do.  It came to light again this week when six candidates and two previously unheard of "grassroots" (possibly astroturf groups, it's hard to tell) organizations banded together to take out a full page ad in the Calgary Herald.  When five of those six candidates are running in wards that Wenzel specifically named as targets for unseating the incumbent, it smells distinctly like we have a slate running.  Even fishier is the fact that they are taking out this ad about a golf course that isn't in any of the wards they are running for.

I don't like slates for one very simple reason - they are inevitably very narrowly focused on a particular political viewpoint, and as such are ultimately partisan in nature.  When the funding is coming from people who are willing to push seven figure amounts around, I think we have to become extremely worried about the expectations that will be attached to that kind of money in the long term.

There is also an underlying dishonesty with slates.  They inevitably try to run below the public radar (the slates in 2007 and 2010 could be identified by some common affiliations, with the slate running this year, the affiliations are better hidden, and except for Wenzel's speech, would be difficult to unearth unless you had access to the "student" lists from the Manning Centre's training programs.

While I am not thrilled with Mayor Nenshi's response to this ad, I can sympathize with the fact that it's quite clear that the big money conservative power base in Calgary are gunning to undermine Nenshi whatever way they can.  Ever since his victory in 2010, the Calgary Sun has been overtly hostile to just about everything he has done, and the fact that the developers led by Wenzel were willing to fork over a million dollars to the Manning Centre to "train" a group of sympathetic candidates, one can imagine that Nenshi feels distinctly under siege.

If we are going to play partisan politics like that, let's get it out in the open so that voters know what they are voting for and can assess it with a clear head.  Anything less than this is dishonesty on the part of our candidates.

Corcoran Misses The Point On Income Disparity

On CBC's "The House" this weekend, I heard an interview with the Financial Post's Terrance Corcoran, in which he was basically poo-pooing the very real issue of the growing disparity between Canada's top earners and the rest of Canadians.  He made a comparison between a pensioner pulling in $20,000 a year and an executive making $190,000 and said "who cares?" - a statement which trivialized the entire discussion and leftA little digging this morning, and I find that he has more or less made the same points in one of his FP editorials.

If Canadians actually seriously look at the income data instead of following instant Occupy interpretation in much of the media they might end up feeling pretty good about income distribution in Canada.  The Canadians within the top 1% cover a wide cross-section of professions and occupations.  Almost 70% of the 1% have univeristy educations, as does 50% of the top 10% of income earners.

The lesson:  Getting the right higher education pays.

How generous of Mr. Corcoran to patronize us with the old saw about higher education.  Education is important, but it is far from the entirety of the story. I do note that he turns the knife with an extra twist by adding that it has to be "the right" higher education.  Presumably, like most of the far right in this country, Corcoran is among those who believe that the only degrees which matter are the so-called "useful" degrees:  Business, Engineering, and so on.  "Lesser degrees" like English, Philosophy and so on don't count.

That's not the Occupy idea, which is that inequality is a function of a corrupt 1% populated by system manipulating, fat-cat bankers, investment executives and Wall Street/Bay Street corporate gougers who are skimming massive bonuses out of semi-corrupt boards of directors ... 

Having sat close enough to the executive suite in my own career, watching a company grow from a modest size to being part of a frighteningly huge organization, I have seen first-hand the way that decisions get made.  A smaller organization's leadership is closer to the day to day business problems and is capable of responding to them appropriately - balancing both financial and human factors appropriately.  At a certain size, things become entirely abstract in the boardroom, and the business' leadership is dealing not with people and clients but all the executive sees are numbers.  People become numbers, salaries are numbers, and profits are numbers ... so are the bonuses.

When business starts looking at its people as "expenses", rather than as assets, things go seriously awry.  We are seeing this in the service industry today - companies like Wal-Mart, Loblaws, Sobey's are all cutting staff and wages to the point where getting service in their stores is next to impossible.  (The Sobey's near me has had seriously empty shelves in the produce area on Saturdays quite frequently, and their shelves are often half empty in the rest of the store)  There are explicit policies in companies like Wal-Mart which are designed to cap a worker's hours to limit the company's "wage expenses".

These are very real problems.  Worse, they are symptomatic of a malaise that reaches much further than the service industry jobs (which are often the entry level jobs for so many beginning their working careers).  In higher paying, professional companies, there are similar games going on which are designed at their core to tie the worker to the company and its fortunes.  I've written quite a lot on this subject on this blog under the label of Corporate Feudalism.  Make no mistake about it, the whole "outsourcing" game of sending jobs overseas where wages are cheaper and laws are more lax about how employees can be treated is another dimension of the same evil - and it's an approach to business that is similar, only it ends up affecting higher paid, professionals such as IT specialists.

What Mr. Corcoran, sitting comfortably in his high chair at the Financial Post is misconstruing about the "Occupy" movement and its offshoots (or unions come to that) is that they are really about the growing exploitation of the lower income earners by the top income earners.  It is about the sociopathy of large corporations and their boards which are so abstracted from the people that their decisions affect that they make increasingly abusive decisions.

Income disparity is a symptom of a problem, not the problem itself.