Recovering Our Honour: Why Policing
Must Reject the “War on Drugs”

Gil Puder¹

My belief that the war on drugs must end arises from the damage being done to both policing and the society it serves. The tactics, weapons, and propaganda of our twentieth century narcotic prohibition have been borrowed from a Western military model, yet in their misguided application have generated nothing other than systemic conflict that has overwhelmed our justice and health care systems. As a front--line police officer, I am deeply troubled by the counterproductive law enforcement I observe on a daily basis. Talented officers diligently perform what many honestly believe to be their duty, placing themselves and others in harm's way to intervene in matters of personal choice.

Unwittingly, however, this merely raises the stakes in a game where criminal cartels meet the demand that our forefathers rather arbitrarily declared to be illegitimate. And while we attempt the impossible with increasingly limited resources, elected officials abdicate responsibility for legislation needed to reduce the harm to society. In a pointless civil war at the turn of the millennium, we need to “unlearn the habits we have taught ourselves, or we shall not survive.”² Rather than assigning victory or defeat to one side or the other, Canadians must fundamentally change the strategies of several interwoven social institutions, of which policing is the keystone.

I faithfully subscribe to Sir Robert Peel's admonition to “maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police.”³ While strongly believing in devotion to duty, I subordinate the unique requirements of my profession to my responsibilities as a human being, parent, and Canadian citizen who has no desire to raise his children in a country torn by needless criminality. My commitment cannot be fulfilled in a military context, that is, applying the law in a punitive manner to people unfairly labelled as amoral losers. Harsh, reactionary criminal justice has proven woefully miscast as a control mechanism for drug use.

A reformed drug control strategy

A truly comprehensive strategy is now required, including a legalized, controlled drug supply, coupling enforceable and decriminalized regulation with health, education, and economic programs. The challenge for policing is to measure traditional drug war practices against the integrity of truly ethical conduct, and where our performance is less than exemplary, take a leadership role in identifying overdue legislative change.

Decades of drug war have led us to abandon of one of Peel's fundamental principles, “to recognize always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.”¹ By this criterion drug enforcement has failed utterly, with no evidence more damning than agencies repeatedly inviting the media to view “trophy busts,” exemplified by marijuana growing operations and imported cocaine or heroin seizures. If police enforcing criminal prohibition were the appropriate substance control mechanism, then our drug--free communities should render such events a curious rarity. Unfortunately, the frequency with which we showcase these raids as examples of success, only proves the failure of criminal drug policies.

Why change is difficult

Changing our approach means addressing an entrenched police culture that rewards traditional performance measures, such as arrests, rather than citizen satisfaction and neighbourhood livability. Careers and reputations are too often built upon a demonstrated willingness to intervene strictly—often forcefully— without circumspection or remorse. Research long ago identified aggressive enforcement and a game--like atmosphere as features of drug policing, features which make it an attractive field of endeavour. In the many agencies fielding drug squads as specialized assignments, there is no shortage of officers waiting to enlist. Today I still observe some officers using this type of work to burnish their “Blue Knight” image, discarding discretion in favour of statistics and macho storytelling.

Make no mistake: drug--related arrests can be very easy, with hundreds of available, identifiable targets on city streets. Contrary to the Hollywood image, we rarely catch wealthy black marketers living in mansions and driving expensive automobiles. Reality finds bikers and other high--level gangsters using their profits for lawyers and accountants, effectively layering themselves from the transaction process. Arrests usually involve poor, hungry people on street corners or in rooming houses and filth--strewn alleyways.

Driven by various needs to obtain a drug or the money to effect its purchase, many users need simply be watched for a period of time before some criminal offence occurs, often a small drug sale or break--in to a home or vehicle. This enforcement strategy flies in the face of the fact that there will always be too many users, and never enough police. Moreover, our courts now recognize most street level arrests as either ones involving consenting adults or people who have an underlying disorder, and are consequently reluctant to impose sanctions.

Unfortunately, progress is thwarted by a system that rewards such a “cherry--picking” approach. Administrative requirements for drug arrests are simplified without the burden of witness or victim interviews and statements. Officers can get out of the office and back “on the street” that much faster, and trafficking or possession busts seldom require follow--up work assigned by Crown Counsel. Like most professional people, peer approval is gained through a demonstrated work ethic, and what better way to build your image than with a “bad guy” in jail, and drug exhibits or some recovered property as your visible evidence of success?

Furthermore, supervisors regularly request commendations and promotion for subordinates with high arrest statistics. Finally, officers with many court cases earn a large amount of publicly--funded overtime pay; they quickly learn the lesson that maximizing arrests maximizes earning power. A colleague recently complained to me that his transfer to an administrative position was costing him several thousand dollars in court--generated overtime, precluding an anticipated vacation.

Obstacles to modernizing attitudes

Over and above rewards for the status quo, there are three major obstacles to modernizing law enforcement attitudes. First, we persistently and wrongly identify drugs, rather than prohibition, as the cause of related criminal activity.

Most of my peers are unaware of the physiological effects of various controlled substances, and our insular professional culture discourages police from accessing up--to--date information. The drug war is also a turf war for police, resulting in medical and criminological research being regularly ignored or discredited. Some officers would be embarrassed to admit that they don't understand research findings, while others seem threatened by a potential change to their traditional way of doing business.

We are continually bombarded by self--proclaimed police “drug experts,” who speak to school children and make media releases on behalf of their agencies, readily contradicting scholarly analyses with smear tactics and conjecture. It is commonplace to find examples of police promoting the dogma that all drugs should be treated equally, including the groundless myth that drug use inevitably results in criminal conduct. Our self--imposed ignorance causes us to blame drug symptoms, rather than prohibition money, as the impetus for most property and some violent crime.

Second, our wilful blindness results in police painting themselves into a corner with wrongheaded public statements and questionable personal conduct. No one should be surprised, then, when the standard response to an overwhelming body of empirically proven evidence is that the ranks are closed in denial; does anyone know a cop or politician who admitted they were wrong recently? Shortly after I publicly questioned Canada's drug policies, a member of our drug squad was proclaiming the necessity of “dope work” as a prerequisite to understanding the issue of illicit narcotics. When I pointed out that he was relaxing over a beer and a cigarette, could not cite one piece of published research, and admitted to marijuana consumption as a youth, this officer became more than a little resentful.

He certainly appeared to understand my points: tobacco and alcohol have more damaging physiological effects than marijuana, and his professional measures of success were inconsistent with natural justice. The latter is particularly so given that most of my peers privately confess to marijuana use as teens. We are painfully sensitive to the institutionalized hypocrisy we practice.

Finally, labelling someone a “drug user” conveniently removes any need for introspection about using government power to remove that person's rights and freedoms. Quite simply, marginalized people require less respect. At the end of every shift, one hears officers in the police locker room congratulating themselves, extolling the virtues of apprehending a “hype,” “junkie,” or “druggie.” Since these tools for financial benefit, career advancement, and peer status are no longer valued as people, officers need not trouble themselves with ethical questions. Police are far from unique in this regard, and are merely reflecting attitudes which offer little sympathy for drug users. I frequently hear someone in social conversation opine that “junkies should be shot,” and yet, having had to shoot an addicted bank robber myself, I can safely say that most people would be unable to fulfil their “final solution.”

Turning sick people into monsters is useful for drug warriors, since it impedes serious consideration of enforcement alternatives. This perversion of morality enables politicians to crowd the drug war bandwagon to cultivate a “tough guy” image, yet the toughest fights they will ever face are in taxpayer--funded conferences and luncheons, far from the gutter reality of death on the streets which they claim to represent. I am one of many officers who has no desire to use his policing skills to become a paid thug for prevailing political or bureaucratic interests. Communities are fed up with criminality, yet the inappropriate use of our criminal justice system produces frustrated police who make predictable mistakes. Abusive enforcement is symptomatic of our failure to reduce drug--related crime, yet such behaviour merely worsens a world we can not escape.

Evaluating the war on drugs

An effective method of evaluating the drug war is to examine its impact on the collective integrity of our calling. A renowned ethicist has found that “integrity in the context of police work should amount to the sum of the virtues required to bring about the general goals of protection and service to the public.”¹ If we examine drug enforcement practices, such virtues are sadly lacking, which raises uncomfortable issues of character and professionalism.

made, and, more importantly, honestly acknowledge that law enforcement does not, and never will have all the answers. Again, we need merely ask ourselves when the last time, in any context, a police chief, or officer of any rank, publicly stated that they were sorry, wrong, or that better choices could have been made.

This unfortunate characteristic of our professional culture has been clearly identified in British Columbia, and, sadly, seems to be endemic in public service throughout North America.¹ With fiscal restraint and “fear of crime” combining to place enormous and often unrealistic expectations on police services, I am pessimistic that open-mindedness will be rediscovered any time soon. Blaming convenient scapegoats is simply an easier, politically expedient option.

With the behaviour of drug warriors substantially at odds with virtuous conduct, I fully expect my criticism of traditional policing to bring howls of outrage from those law enforcement traditionalists with related career interests. Such groups taking the position of aggrieved parties and attempting to curtail healthy debate will be, quite frankly, the best endorsement I could hope for.

I am proud to wear a uniform in our era of problem-oriented and community-based modernization, yet the drug war still forces too many of us to behave in a manner contrary to that which we condone. If public trust is the capital foundation upon which police service is built, then we cannot afford to squander it pursuing an archaic interpretation of morality. Our professional integrity must once again remain sacrosanct. Progressive legislation will not occur overnight, but the disastrous impact of drug war on policing is the impetus for us to demand it.

info@fraserinstitute.ca You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems.

If you know someone who would be interested in this web page, please enter their email address below, and we will forward this URL to them: Email Address:

Last Modified: Wednesday, October 20, 1999.