Donate

Author: admin

  • An abundance of loss

    An abundance of loss

    So many in our community have been lost to toxic drugs that it’s hard to keep track. That’s a horrible feeling. We want to honour and respect each individual, so forgetting them, even for a few seconds, is such an injustice.

    It is distressing to admit that so many people have passed that you can’t even remember them all. Who would have known when we were kids playing tag on the school field or skateboarding through the streets, that some friends would not be growing old with us? Who could have predicted that one day they would be alone and no one would be there to help when they needed it most? I wish I could go back in time and tell them how cool I thought they were; that I loved them. They enriched our lives, inspired us and contributed to our community. They were beautiful people who were ripped from us, leaving behind a dark hole that can never be refilled.

    Unfortunately, nothing is changing, in fact it’s getting worse. We don’t know who we are going to lose next. Scrolling through my feed on social media, the dreadful news is almost anticipated and followed by frantic texts to learn the truth. As my head is flooded with the final memories I have of that friend, I can hear my own voice:

    “Don’t give up; your daughter needs you.”

    Those were the last words I recently shared with a friend who passed away soon after. Because of outdated, racist drugs policies, that little girl doesn’t have a dad, we’ve lost our friend and our community has lost one of its brightest spirits.

    International Drug Users’ Remembrance Day is a time to remember the people whose lives were lost due to ongoing criminalization and stigmatization of People Who Use Drugs. On this day we renew a call for an accessible safe supply of drugs to end the drug toxicity crisis.

  • The Canadian Drug Policy Coalition on Cannabis Regulation

    The Canadian Drug Policy Coalition on Cannabis Regulation

    Canada is at a turning point in terms of cannabis policy. The Task Force on Marijuana Legalization and Regulation has released its discussion paper for input. The Task Force proposes five elements of a new system for cannabis. I discuss each of these elements from the CDPC’s perspective.

     

    1. Minimizing harms of use

    A public health approach to cannabis policy focuses on principles of social justice, human rights and scientific evidence. It puts health promotion and the prevention of harms at the forefront. Through health promotion, we can enable Canadians to increase control over their health and, ultimately, reduce the health and social harms associated with cannabis use.

    How do we use health promotion to assist Canadians in making healthy choices? There is a great example in British Columbia with a program called iMinds. It is offered in schools to teach young people health literacy when it comes to drug use. They learn the knowledge and skills they need to navigate in a world where drug use, including cannabis, is common.

    Drug literacy is built by engaging Canadians in honest, thoughtful discussions about drug use in order to encourage them to express themselves and think critically about their beliefs, attitudes and behaviours related to drugs. They learn to assess the complex ways in which drugs have an impact on the health and wellbeing of individuals, communities and societies. They learn about the diversity of reasons people use drugs and the social attitudes and norms related to various drugs. They also develop personal and social strategies to manage the risks and harms related to drugs. As we repeal prohibition on cannabis, we need to include such health promotion approaches.

    1. Establishing a Safe and Responsible Production System

    The production of cannabis for personal use needs to be legal. Current legal production of cannabis is for medical purposes only and occurs through a few licensed commercial producers, often big corporations, who can only distribute cannabis through mail order. Licensed producers must adhere to strict manufacturing practices to produce cannabis for medical purposes. Quality control and proper packaging and labelling are of course important, though some argue licensed producers are currently overly regulated.

    It would be easy for existing licensed producers to open up their sales for personal use once Canada regulates cannabis, and I know they are already planning for that to happen. What is less clear is how the smaller producers will be integrated into a regulated market. Like craft beer and wine, there is a growing movement to integrate craft cannabis producers into the regulated market. We support their licensing for commercial purposes.

    For non-commercial, personal use, we also support the home cultivation of a limited number of plants, with access to municipal inspections to meet building codes and standards.

    1. Designing an Appropriate Distribution System

    Store fronts for the sale of cannabis for personal use have been a source of tension in Canada over the last few years. Almost 20 years ago, a social movement emerged in Canada to provide access to cannabis for medical purposes through medical cannabis dispensaries or compassion clubs. Founders of these dispensaries did so to ensure people had safer, more controlled options to cannabis. These dispensaries remain in legal limbo despite the fact that courts have recognized that they provide a valuable service. In 2002, the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs recommended that medical cannabis dispensaries be integrated into the federal medical cannabis program. The supply of a legal source of cannabis for medical purposes through licensed producers has worked for many but has not succeeded in meeting the varied needs of all of those who use it for medical purposes.

    We now find ourselves with a proliferation of cannabis dispensaries that may or may not be strictly dispensing cannabis for medical purposes. In my opinion, this situation speaks to the fact that cannabis is widely used and Canadians want access to it for personal use.

    It is clear that we need to integrate retail sales outlets into how we move forward with cannabis regulation.

    1. Enforcing Public Safety and Protection

    Cannabis is unique and we need to keep these unique characteristics in mind as we develop cannabis policy. Cannabis is a plant that is widely used for personal use, medical or otherwise. It has a wide range of therapeutic effects. It is exceptionally safe, in that there is no lethal dose of cannabis, unlike almost any other product on the market, even table salt. That is useful information to have under a public health approach to cannabis that focuses on health promotion and reducing harms.

    That said, cannabis is a psychoactive substance and we need to approach it responsibly and respectfully. We need to address the complexity of driving under the influence of cannabis. We also need to provide adequate services to those who struggle with problematic cannabis use.

    Now the human rights aspect of a public health approach to cannabis strives to deal with cannabis in a way that does not harm others. Under prohibition, people who use cannabis have been criminalized and incarcerated, stigmatized and discriminated against. Some more than others. Many agree that prohibition has done more harm than cannabis use.

    As Canada prepares to regulate cannabis for personal use, we urge the government of Canada to immediately stop arresting Canadians for possession of cannabis.

    1. Accessing Cannabis for Medical Purposes

    As we move forward with the regulation of cannabis, let’s not forget about the needs of people who use cannabis for medical purposes.

    I was recently part of a coalition of health charities and patient groups that issued recommendations to keep in mind to meet patients’ needs for medical purposes as we develop cannabis regulation.

    Canada needs to invest in research on cannabis for therapeutic purposes to expand the evidence base. I refer you to research priorities we recently identified at a medical cannabis research roundtable of key cannabis researchers, health charities and patient groups.

    Canadians with various health conditions and states of mobility want access to a variety of products in various forms and in a range of potencies, through a variety of distribution options. There is a need for onsite dispensing through pharmacies and dispensaries. Mail order through licensed producers remains a good option, especially for those in rural and remote areas and those who have limited mobility. Self-production of a few plants for personal, non-commercial use, perhaps even collective gardens, must also be allowed.

    These thoughts are the CDPC’s contribution to this important conversation. I welcome your input.

    ______________________________________________

    Lynne Belle-Isle, PhD, is Co-founder and Chair of the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition. She is a National Programs Manager with the Canadian AIDS Society and a Research Affiliate of the Centre for Addictions Research of BC. Her health services research focuses on access to cannabis for medical purposes. She testified as an expert witness in R. v. Beren. Her ongoing collaborative work has been used in various court cases challenging the constitutionality of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations.

  • Survey sheds light on safety issues around drug use and music festivals in B.C.

    Survey sheds light on safety issues around drug use and music festivals in B.C.

    Originally posted on straight.com on June 9th, 2016 at 1:43 PM

    Stacey Forrester is a Vancouver-based harm-reduction advocate and nurse involved in projects on health and safety at live-music events and is focusing her studies at UBC on the intersection of community, gender, and health. Kimberly Girling is a UBC PhD candidate in neuroscience with a strong interest in global health and accessible medicine who has worked with the Student Biotechnology Network and who volunteers with the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition.

    In 2015, the B.C. Coroners Service reported that drug-related deaths in the province had reached an all-time high. By the year’s end, that number, a 33-percent increase from the 364 deaths in 2014, represented 484 lives lost, and with an increase in the use of the potent opiate fentanyl, it was showing no signs of slowing down.

    Tragically, it did not, and drug-related deaths are still on the rise. Just three months into 2016, another 200 people died, and B.C. now finds itself in the throes of a public-health emergency .

    As a result, many initiatives have been developed to address these high-risk populations, with harm-reduction programs such as Toward the Heart and the long-established Insite aiming to increase access to safe spaces, education, and substance-use facilities for street-drug users.

    Casual drug use at concerts, clubs, and festivals a concern

    Programs like these and many others are immensely important and are helping to make positive changes in the lives of many drug users. However, the reality is that drug use extends beyond these stereotypes, and many people of all backgrounds also use drugs on a social basis: at music festivals, at concerts, or on the
    occasional weekend at a club or with friends.

    In the summer of 2014 alone, almost 100 people were hospitalized due to drug-related incidents at just two music festivals in Canada. Three of these people died.

    The sad truth is that many of these deaths and incidents could have been prevented with better access to drug testing to prevent ingestion of adulterated or unknown substances, better legislation surrounding harm reduction, and better discussion and education about recreational drug use. Making assumptions about a homogenous drug-user population may leave a portion of those users vulnerable, particularly recreational users who may not have easy access to harm-reduction strategies or education.

    Currently, a major barrier to making changes in harm-reduction strategies for this population is a lack of good data on use patterns and perspectives of young people regarding drugs.

    Survey questioned 700 young people about drug use

    To address this, in the fall of 2105 we created and launched the Canadian Survey on Substance Use and asked more than 700 young people across the country about their drug use: where, when, why, and what they are using. We did this in the hopes of collecting a set of data to help better direct safety
    measures for this subpopulation and address the barriers that leave them at risk of preventable consequences.

    We aimed to create information that stakeholders, agencies, insurance providers, security teams, and patrons might find useful to help maximize opportunities for event safety and to benefit harm-reduction organizers and educators looking to address gaps in young peoples’ knowledge of drug use.

    We had Vancouver-based harm-reduction organization Karmik review the survey prior to launch and provide feedback on the questions. Once ready, it was disseminated exclusively online, with the assistance of the B.C. Centre for Addictions Research, Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy, the Canadian Working Group on Overdose, and social-media outlets.

    The largest group represented within our participants were those between the ages of 25 to 30 with at least a bachelor’s-degree level of education and reporting a middle-range income. Almost 90 percent of survey takers reported having used, or are currently using, substances other than tobacco, alcohol,
    or medicinal cannabis.

    Almost half of the participants reported first using substances between the ages of 12 and 15, which is valuable information in conversations about when to introduce drug-related education to youth.

    The three most common reasons selected, when asked what their motivations were in using illicit substances, were (one could select all that applied): to have fun/relax (89 percent), to enhance an experience (82 percent), and to learn about yourself/your mind/the world (64 percent).

    One participant explained his motivation in more detail: “To have a different perspective and lens, to feel more connected with people and natural spaces.”

    How much do people know about drugs?

    People who took our survey indicated that they felt they had a strong baseline knowledge of what they were using, and almost half indicated that they “always” research the substance prior to using. People want be familiar with dosages, what to expect, and warning signs, and they told us they use
    the Internet (94 percent) and friends as their primary sources of information.

    As one person stated: “Knowing what to expect from a given substance, what constitutes an appropriate dose, and how to recognize potential dangers is prudent, to say the least.” Another said: “The recent fentanyl issues make me more cautious.”

    Thirty-six percent of people surveyed reported having an “unexpected” response to a substance at some point in their lives. Some of the common things experienced were dizziness, vomiting, sweating, blurred vision, and rapid or irregular heartbeat, with some needing to utilize event medic services or being sent to the hospital.

    Almost half (42 percent) of the people surveyed indicated they were “very aware” of the danger signs to look out for. The habits described in the hundreds of responses we received paint a picture of educated, inquisitive, cautious people who use drugs socially and thoughtfully, people who feel confident and informed about their choices, but are receptive and wanting access to more science-based, factual information.

    What substances are people using and why?

    When asked where they are using drugs, music festivals and concerts (78 percent) was selected as one of the primary sites of drug use, alongside parties (77 percent) and with friends (89 percent). This is important. Festival season is about to begin in B.C., with dozens of large single- and multi-day music gatherings happening over the next four months.

    Drug-related hospitalizations and, more tragically, deaths do happen at festivals in B.C. and across Canada. These are realities that are usually preventable. We need to be realistic and expect that some of those festivalgoers are going to be indulging recreationally. What do they need to help keep themselves and each other safe?

    Asked if they had a preference between using drugs or alcohol, drugs were preferred by a slightly higher margin (35 percent) than alcohol (22 percent), informing us that entertainment events need to be prepared to prevent and handle harms coming from both. When asked if the legal status of a substance factored into their choices, 51 percent answered “not at all” and 22 percent stated “a little”.

    Banning drug use and outside alcohol is standard at most live-music events, but to pretend that prohibition policies are an effective enough safety measure ignores the first basic principle of harm reduction: pragmatism.

    What is being done? What can we do?

    Shambhala Music Festival in B.C.’s Kootenay region has established a “gold standard” for music-festival harm reduction. Working with the area health authority and with full support from the local RCMP, ANKORS (a Nelson-based group) offers a full gamut of safer-substance-use education and intervention, including on-site substance-testing (pills and powders) carried out by trained volunteers.

    However, this model has not been easy for other communities to replicate. Across Canada, and elsewhere in North America, events intending to include testing, sanctuary space, or even just a table with harm-reduction information have been forced to make the choice between having the event shut down, losing their liability insurance, or removing the offending harm-reduction measure in question.

    This is concerning, given that: only 53 percent of survey respondents reported feeling “fairly confident” that what they are buying is the substance they want; 21 percent would like to test before using but don’t know where or how to go about that; and 95.5 percent indicated that they would testbefore using if the resources were available.

    Police won’t talk about fest tests; young people wary about self-testing

    Setting up substance-testing facilities, or offering ticketholders test kits, is a legal issue because, unlike simply offering information, substance-testing requires the explicit acknowledgement that patrons are in possession of narcotics at the event. This acknowledgement weighs heavy on hosts and insurance providers and is one that, even in our fentanyl crisis, is not always supported by the RCMP, police, local government, or the community. This makes it hard to balance patron safety in communities where support for harm reduction is inconsistent, limited, or nonexistent.

    We contacted multiple police departments for a discussion on this aspect of harm reduction: one was refused and the others went unanswered. This isn’t to say that individual users cannot purchase a kit and test their substances on their own, as 19 percent of respondents report having done. However, as pointed out in the survey, many people reported feeling apprehensive about purchasing these test kits online without knowing the legal implications. One participant stated: “Would like to but feel nervous about having test kits shipped to my home.”

    It is important to acknowledge that testing is not a catch-all solution, as there is no test yet that can detect fentanyl, and with powerful designer drugs like W-18 (reportedly up to 100 times stronger than fentanyl) surfacing on a regular basis, test kits cannot be relied on to keep up with the production of new and deadly analogues. It also doesn’t mitigate the risks of polysubstance use or other medical risks at concerts and festivals, such as how heat and dehydration further complicate substance use.

    No government guidelines for managing festival drug use

    So where does this leave us? Herein lies the problem. To date, there are no established provincial or federal guidelines to provide consistent direction on how to prevent and manage drug- and alcohol-related incidents at entertainment events.

    Therefore, it is important that harm-reduction measures are as comprehensive as possible and even creative in their delivery to this demographic, including accurate information about drugs, including polysubstance use as well as other aspects of self-care and safety.

    Hope for future?

    The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse (no affiliation with our survey) and UBC’s Mass Gathering Medicine Interest Group—recognizing the dangers swimming in the trenches between reality, theory, and the law—hosted a stakeholder meeting that created some recommendations for large-scale events.

    Bass Coast Music Festival in Merritt has a robust, fact based harm-reduction componentto its events, which, like Shambhala, use trained volunteers and outreach to promote safety, community, and informed choice. Harm-reduction group Karmik brings representatives, workshops, and information to both large festivals and smaller-scale local events.

    The strengths of these and similar harm-reduction programs, despite a challenging political climate, come from their use of a peer-based approach. This was clear as we were poring over people’s detailed responses to our survey. We continue to be encouraged by people’s reflections on the importance of learning and the ongoing responsibility to look after themselves and each other.

    While we wait for government and law enforcement to step up with a realistic plan to help minimize the harms to people who use substances in our communities, we are left to fill in the gaps by ourselves, with ourselves. This sentiment is best reflected in a final comment from a survey participant: “Knowledge is power. Informed communities are better at helping each other, protecting each other.”

    The data collected and shared in this survey belong to the authors.

  • Canada charts a new path on drug policy

    Canada charts a new path on drug policy

    Scott Bernstein is the global drug policy program officer at the New York-based Open Society Foundations. He’s also the former health and drug policy campaigner for Pivot Legal Society, where he initiated legal challenges to anti-harm reduction bylaws and restrictions to opioid substitution treatments.

    Last week Scott attended the Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly on the World Drug Problem (UNGASS 2016), where Canada presented a new vision for drug policy.

    “I am proud to stand up for drug policy that is informed by solid scientific evidence and uses a lens of public health to maximize education and minimize harm.” 

    – Jane Philpott, Minister of Health

    Sitting in the gallery of the General Assembly of the United Nations in New York surrounded by non-governmental organizations from around the globe, I listened proudly as Minister Philpott said those words to representatives from nations of the world at UNGASS last week.

    Her statement supported harm reduction, proportional responses to drug offenses, and creation of a regulated market for cannabis in 2017. Canada’s new position around Vancouver’s Insite was clear and was finally in line with the monumental evidence supporting these facilities: supervised consumption sites work; people can access the care they need; Insite has saved lives.

    As one of the lawyers working on the Insite case years ago, and advocating for human rights and access to harm reduction services for Pivot clients, I reflected on the dramatic change in messaging from the last decade.

    For many years, the Conservative government not only declared to the world opposition to harm reduction, but fought a five-year legal battle to shut down Insite that put the lives of hundreds of individuals who rely on the service every day at risk and cost taxpayers millions in legal expenses. That fight ended poorly for the government when the Supreme Court of Canada declared in late 2011 that Insite saved lives and should remain open, but breathed new life into the Conservative’s war against evidence-based interventions to minimize the harms of drug use.

    Two years after the groundbreaking Supreme Court decision, the Harper government introduced new legislation that created 26 new hurdles that proponents of new consumption sites must jump before the federal government could even consider whether to allow this life-saving service to open. In March 2015, Bill C-2, the so-called Respect for Communities Act, became – and remains – the law of the land in Canada.

    Minister Philpott’s assertive and welcome statement to the UN began with a note of poignancy. Reflecting on a meeting a few weeks earlier, she noted how hearing from a mother who had lost her daughter to overdose had deeply affected her and helped to ground Canada’s new policy issues in a humanity that we all can understand. As Minister Philpott noted, we must do better.

    Even with a supportive government now in place, we can never bring back those whose lives were tragically lost or who suffered the harms of a policy based in an ideology that stigmatizes people who use drugs and stands in the way of evidence-based interventions.

    There is a new urgency to make up for lost time and to scale up consumption sites and overdose prevention across the country. We also need to begin implementing programs that provide prescription opioids to patients who need such interventions and explore new and better ways to reduce the personal and societal harms of drug use and prohibitionist drug policies. The Trudeau government must commit to repeal Bill C-2, roll back mandatory minimum sentences, and implement harm reduction services widely across the country. To do any less would not live up to the expectations created within Canada and the international community for change.

    Canada has stood in the UN as an international leader and must now put actions behind the words.

  • Are 420 gatherings still relevant?

    Are 420 gatherings still relevant?

    On April 20th, or 420, I spoke with several reporters. They were particularly interested in my thoughts on 420 protests calling for the legalization of cannabis and whether such gatherings would still be necessary once Canada lifts prohibition on cannabis in the spring of 2017.

    As I spoke to one reporter after another, my thoughts and speculations started formulating. I was quoted as stating that there might no longer be a need for 420 gatherings as a rebellious act. Perhaps, though this speculation brought me to think more deeply about the purpose of 420 gatherings.

    Beyond rebellion, and in my experience, 420 gatherings are an opportunity to “come out of the cannabis closet” and feel the freedom of openly consuming cannabis without too much fear of police intervention. For anyone who has experienced being closeted for something that is not socially accepted or illegal, the mere act of being amongst a crowd that shares your behaviour or identity can be quite liberating.

    Much like the Pride movement of the LGBT communities, which started off with small parades by a few brave souls who walked through jeers of a disapproving crowd, 420 gatherings have brought the consumption of cannabis to the foreground. Until cannabis is regulated in Canada, such gatherings still bring attention to the issue of a law that is not in synch with the practices of many Canadians.

    As we roll up our sleeves and get ready to create a regulatory framework for cannabis in Canada, I urge the government to adopt a moratorium on arrests for cannabis possession while we sort it all out.

    I suspect that 420 gatherings may evolve into more of a festival of sorts, similar to what Pride events have now become. Reports on April 20th from cities across Canada seemed to indicate large crowds, in some cases larger than they have ever been before. Perhaps people feel more comfortable coming out since Canada is on the verge of legalization.

    I decided to venture out to the 420 event here in Victoria, BC to observe for myself. Quite a large crowd had gathered in Centennial Square. Many were youth, though ages ranged greatly. Many people were dressed up in festive wear. There were smiles, random music here and there, and laughter. The voice of a local protester was broadcasting through an inadequate amplifier so that no one other than the people standing a few feet away could make out what was being said.

    I listened to the conversations around me. People were wondering where the stage was and what happened to the music. They seemed to be seeking that festival atmosphere. Some attention seekers were chasing cameras. Others were lurking around groups sharing a joint, hoping for a toke. People were generously sharing. I saw some excessive use, as well as some restraint. Finally, the countdown to 4:20 pm, the loud cheers, and the large cloud of smoke bellowing over the crowd. And then many people left.

    Is this cannabis culture? Well, it is a snapshot of some of it. Mostly, though, I see it as a social movement advocating for change to laws that do not suit reality. Cannabis is the most widely used illegal drug in the world. 420 rallies have pointed this fact out, quite bluntly. Pun intended.

    Will 420 gatherings turn more into festivals, with music and vendors and such, much like the Pride festivals? Will they fizzle out, as implied in the media? That remains to be seen.

    One thing I do believe, though, is that in time, and with cannabis regulation, its use will become more normalized. We will be able to have more open dialogues about what is responsible use and what is not. We will develop social norms, much like we have with alcohol. We will have better information about how to use it more safely and reduce some of its harms. Personally, that is the kind of cannabis culture I would like to see.

  • War on Drugs Takes Center Stage at UN as Global Leaders and International Activists Assemble in NY

    War on Drugs Takes Center Stage at UN as Global Leaders and International Activists Assemble in NY

    Hannah Hetzer is the Senior Policy Manager of the Americas for the Drug Policy Alliance. Suchitra Rajagopalan is pursuing her Bachelor of Laws at the University of Mumbai and is currently interning for the Drug Policy Alliance.

    In April, the world will come together to talk about drugs. The United Nations will host a General Assembly Special Session on Drugs (UNGASS), the most significant high-level international drug policy event in almost two decades. At the last UNGASS in 1998, the international community met under the slogan “A drug free world – We can do it!” and committed itself to this unrealistic goal. Fortunately, we’ve come a long way since then. This time, when global leaders meet at the UN to discuss drugs once again, the farce of a drug free world will be far away. Influential voices from around the world are calling for new approaches to drug policy, countries and cities are experimenting with innovative reforms, and a global movement has emerged calling for an end to the failed prohibitionist policies of the past. From April 18 to 21, people from all over the world will be descending upon New York City to demand change.

    The UN shapes international drug policy. National drug laws must adhere to three UN treaties on drugs that prohibit the production and supply of certain drugs, and criminalize people who use them. The most significant of these treaties, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, was ratified in 1961, over half a century ago. These treaties represent an outdated framework from a bygone time. There is ample evidence of the overwhelming failure of drug prohibition, and the human costs associated with it. This includes mass incarceration for drug offenses in the US, hundreds of thousands killed in drug war violence in Latin America, insufficient access to treatment and harm reduction services around the world, environments and livelihoods destroyed in forced crop eradication, and thousands executed for drug offenses, not to mention the fact that neither drug use nor supply has diminished.

    At the 1998 UNGASS, instead of using the opportunity to critically evaluate the global drug control regime, countries decided to perpetuate the failed policies of the past. But things have since shifted. There is growing consensus even within the UN that these policies do not work. And we have a strong movement of individuals and groups affected by the war on drugs that will come to NY in April to appeal to the UN to use the historic opportunity of this UNGASS to charter a different path for international drug policy. These groups will be rallying under Stop the Harm, a diverse, broad, and powerful movement of organizations from around the world who have united around one common purpose: rectifying the catastrophic failures of the current global drug policy regime through campaigning for a new course firmly grounded in health, compassion, and human rights.

    · Faith leaders taking lead will kick off the week of February 15th in Houston, Texas during the Samuel DeWitt Proctor Conference where hundreds of African American faith leaders will be educated on the UNGASS and will connect with drug policy reformers around the globe, uniting under the Stop the Harm umbrella to call for a more compassionate and just global drug policy. They will also be developing a multi-faith statement on drug policy reform, holding high level faith and policy events in New York and Washington DC, and utilizing important religious holidays and observances to highlight the plight of those impacted by the global drug war.

    · Making drug war devastation visible, encouraging debate, and demanding change are at the heart of the Caravan for Peace, Life, and Justice, comprised of families whose loved ones have disappeared or been killed in mindless drug war violence in Latin America as well as indigenous peoples, faith leaders, rights defenders, policy experts, health workers, student movements, farmers, and informed citizens all working together to end this war. The Caravan will begin in Honduras on March 28and travel to El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, and Texas before flying to DC and continuing on to NY, arriving on April 18 for a day of protest, reflection, and prayer on the eve of the UNGASS.

    · Dedicated to amplifying the voice of the global youth on matters of drug policy, Students for Sensible Drug Policy is bringing hundreds of students to NY to demonstrate their opposition to the drug war, and its harmful impact on communities in the US and around the world. They will be hosting a series of art installations representing the harms of the drug war at Bryant Park on April 18 and holding events at Foley Square and the UN along with their allies.

    · The crowd gathering in NY will be joined by International Families Against the Drug War, a global coalition of family members that have lost loved ones to overdose, incarceration, violence, and other harms associated with drug prohibition. Families involved with Anyone’s Child: Families for Safer Drug Controland Moms United to End the War on Drugs will join with others from Canada, Mexico, Kenya, Afghanistan and the Philippines. They will hold a press conference at the UN to tell global leaders, face-to-face, that their drug policies are harming our children and relatives, and that current drug laws are causing far more damage than the drugs themselves.

    · The leading US organization working to dismantle the drug war, the Drug Policy Alliance will host an invite-only meeting of its allies and partners, national and international, at Columbia University over the weekend preceding the UNGASS, to consider the most important work to be taken up after the UN session has concluded.

    · Prominent high-level individuals will also be adding their voice to the UNGASS debate. The Global Commission on Drug Policy, comprised of former presidents of Colombia, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Switzerland, Poland and Portugal, along with other notable figures such as Richard Branson, and former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, will be advocating to current world presidents, both before and at UNGASS, to redesign policies to reflect a more humane and effective way of dealing with the negative impacts of the current strategy. Global Commissioner and Former UK Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, recently wrote an article urging Europe to pull its weight on the international stage for drug policy reform.

    · Not only will be people be mobilising on the ground ahead of the UNGASS, but online, too. Already individuals from around the world have started to demand action from their governments at the UNGASS through a series of videos, highlighting the urgent need for reform, from ending the death penalty, to implementing an approach based on compassion and human rights.

    · Women too are calling for an overhaul of global drug policies as rates of incarceration of women skyrocket across the world. A group of more than 50 organizations representing every continent have joined in a Women’s Declarationcalling on the UN to consider harms women and their families face under punitive drug laws, and demanding change that promotes women’s human rights.

    · Support. Don’t Punish is a global advocacy campaign that brings together activists, affected communities and policy makers under a common message: that the harms caused by the war on drugs can no longer be ignored – it is high time to adopt drug policies that protect the health and human rights of people who use drugs. As part of the Support. Don’t Punish global advocacy campaign, activists will mobilize at the UNGASS to call for the end of the war on drugs and promote policies grounded on health and human rights.

    · Over 1,000 individuals and organizations have endorsed the Harm Reduction Decade Declaration, launched by the former president of Switzerland Ruth Dreifuss. Signatories include the Kofi Annan Foundation, Richard Branson, the Elton John Foundation and UNAIDS Asia and Pacific. The Declaration calls on governments to adopt harm reduction as a key principle of drug policy throughout the next decade and to redirect 10 percent of the resources that they currently spend on ineffective punitive responses to harm reduction.

    · And just last week, the largest national Latino online organization, Presente, launched a petition asking President Obama to address the UNGASS and “call for a change of direction from the failed “War on Drugs” towards common sense drug policies that prioritize public health, harm reduction, and human rights.”

    · With decades of experience collecting evidence on the catastrophic outcomes of drug policies, scientific experts from around the world are calling on the UN and national governments to put the needs of communities first. Instead of basing success on the number of drug busts or seizures, drug policy should be evaluated on its health, safety, development, and human rights impacts. Such an evaluation would undoubtable show that we need an entirely different approach, one based on evidence, not ideology.

    UNGASS 2016 is going to be a watershed moment. It is time that the health, safety and rights of human beings take center stage in the international drug control regime. Current UN drug treaties maintain that the “health and welfare of mankind” is their primary objective, but it is clear that this cannot be achieved if governments continue to criminalize, stigmatize, penalize and incarcerate people who use drugs. We must use this momentum for change to demand evidence-based policies that effectively deal with the risks associated with drug use and misuse, while maintaining respect for human rights and our compassion for individuals everywhere.

  • Methadone north of 60

    Methadone north of 60

    The harm reduction tool box contains many useful programs: needle exchanges and safer crack kits, safe injection sites and outreach vans are very important tools that a community can use to support people who use drugs and manage illicit drug use. Methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) is an important component of a community’s harm reduction services. For people addicted to opiates, MMT can be a life saver and a game changer. MMT offers people a way out of the illicit drug life. It is not a panacea and it doesn’t work for everyone, but for some it has been transformative. Many communities in Canada offer MMT including Whitehorse.

    Given that MMT can be both a life saver and a way of reducing the number of people involved in illicit drugs and the resultant crime that often comes with it, one would think that every community where there is illicit opiate drug use would be clamoring for a methadone program – like a prison community environment for instance. A prison environment is not only a “good” place to offer MMT it is the most perfect place to offer MMT. Here you have a disproportionately high number of people who use illicit drugs, and you have illicit drug use in the jail that administrators sorely wish wasn’t true, and you have a relatively controlled environment with LOTS of supervision. Offering MMT in a prison setting makes good sense. Here’s why: in a controlled prison environment a person entering it could be offered MMT and in doing so could reduce his/her likelihood of injecting illicit smuggled drugs. It could prevent sharing of such illicitly smuggled drugs and therefore reduce HIV and HCV transmissions. It could stabilize the person’s addiction and he/she would get lots of supervision transitioning from illicit opiates to methadone. Conceivably by the time s/he is released their opiate addiction could be well managed by MMT. Back in community this person is not seeking illicit drugs and can conceivably side step the illicit drug scene and future involvement in the justice system altogether. So both the jail and the inmate win.

    Imagine then my dismay when in 2012 the Whitehorse Correctional Centre discontinued offering MMT to its inmate population. A host of reasons for discontinuing the program were offered: it was a risk issue; inmates on methadone also had other drugs in their system; the medical staff at the jail weren’t sufficiently trained; it could be used as currency in the jail; MMT wasn’t a legitimate medical treatment. Letters to the Minister from the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition, the Legal Network and my agency did nothing to sway the department. Evidence that showed every other jail and penitentiary in Canada offered MMT still did nothing to change the department’s mind. People entering the Whitehorse Correctional Centre who were on MMT were abruptly withdrawn and suffered both greatly and unnecessarily.

    It took a human rights complaint from a former inmate against the department to create change. Facing a human rights complaint that they would most likely lose, the department in the summer of 2015 modified their policy and allowed people entering into the correctional facility already on MMT to continue their course of treatment. In policy anyway this meant no more abrupt withdrawals. It was and is a win.

    But before we could even get the celebration party invitations mailed another barrier; the centre is still abruptly withdrawing new inmates from their methadone if they have a “dirty” urine test including THC. Furthermore the centre will not start anyone with an opiate addiction on MMT. The only people getting MMT at Whitehorse Correctional Centre are people who are currently on MMT when they enter the prison and have no other drugs including marijuana in their system.

    So the fight continues in Whitehorse for a better and more humane approach and it saddens me to think that the only way to have that fight is likely through more human rights complaints. It also saddens me that the department is so short sighted it cannot see how instrumental they could be in really changing lives. Putting people with addictions on a treatment program that can be their ticket out of the justice system once and for all rather than getting hung up on clean urine tests and other excuses is the shortest of the short sighted. Starting people onto MMT while incarcerated could position the department as truly understanding that their mandate is not to fill jail cells but rather to put themselves out of business. The end result – people coming back into their home community healthy and out of the system. Now that would be a game changer.

  • The Political Parties Response to our Drug Policy Questionnaire

    The Political Parties Response to our Drug Policy Questionnaire

    Last month, we worked with the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, and “moms united and mandated to saving the lives of Drug Users” (mumsDU) to send out a policy questionnaire to all the political parties to get their opinion on issues surrounding an ever-changing drug policy landscape. Our intention was to gauge the direction each party would take Canada if elected on October 19th.

    Fortunately, with the notable exception of the Conservative Party which didn’t respond, the responses we received are very encouraging. All parties gave us answers that indicated a different approach to drug policy would be taken after the votes have been counted, but there are subtle differences between the parties on each of the issues. Below is a summary of answers the parties gave us.

     Does your party support restoring harm reduction as a key pillar in Canada’s federal drug strategy, including support for supervised consumption services as one important component of an overall federal strategy on drugs — and as part of efforts to prevent the spread of HIV and hepatitis C (HCV), associated with unsafe injection drug use?

    All responding parties agreed that harm reduction needs to return as a key pillar in Canada’s national drug strategy, including support for safe-consumption services. The NDP mentioned that harm reduction was a “fundamental pillar in framing Canada’s drug policy”. The Liberal Party recognized the importance of harm reduction policies and would prioritize “evidence based policies”. Both the NDP and the Green Party voiced their opposition to Bill C-2, legislation that makes it difficult to open supervised-consumption sites, and promised to address the bill after the election.

    Does your party support Good Samaritan legislation as one important component of a comprehensive approach to addressing the pandemic of death by drug overdose in Canada, and expediting access to naloxone by making it a non-prescription drug?

    We found it encouraging that not only did the Liberal Party agree that Good Samaritan legislation should be enacted, but they correctly cited the United States as a leader in this regard. The Green Party answered both of our concerns in the questionnaire by supporting passing Good Samaritan legislation and easier access to naloxone. In fact, the Greens were the only party that explicitly mentioned that they would allow naloxone to be offered over the counter. Neither the Liberal Party nor NDP mentioned rescheduling naloxone, but instead both mentioned that they would be interested in working with experts and civil society groups such as the CDPC on creating better legislation and good policy on this issue if they were to form government.

    Does your party support considering new approaches to regulating and controlling cannabis production, distribution and possession, as a way of minimizing the harms of the cannabis industry and cannabis use, promote public health, and respect the human rights of adults who use it?

    Ever since Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau admitted to smoking cannabis after being elected to public office, which was followed by promising to legalize and regulate cannabis if elected, drug policy has become an active topic in electoral politics. The NDP mentioned that “no one should go to jail” over possession of small amounts of cannabis, a position they’ve held for over 40 years, since the release of the LeDain commission. The Greens have a position similar to that of the Liberals, full legalization, and mentioned that it’s time for Canada to have “an adult conversation on ending the war on drugs”.

    Given the scientific evidence of the ineffectiveness of mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug offences, does your party support eliminating the use of such sentences and again allowing judges to employ discretionary practices for these offences?

    Mandatory minimum sentencing is one of the signature pieces of legislation that the Conservative government has put out since winning their majority in 2011.  Both the NDP and Green Party directly mention their opposition to the Conservatives’ Bill C-10, which puts in place mandatory minimums for non-violent drug offences. The Green Party states clearly that it would repeal Bill-10, while the NDP and Liberals say they would consider policies that reduce crime, prevent re-offending, support rehabilitation of offenders and victim’s rights. The Liberal Party does not outright say what their stances on mandatory minimums are for non-violent drug offences in the questionnaire. Instead, they state that mandatory minimums do not deter crime, but that they do have a place “when necessary to protect the public from specific threats.”

    Does your party support Canada advocating at the 2016 UN General Assembly Special Session on Drugs (UNGASS)  for a comprehensive approach to drugs based on evidence, public health objectives, and human rights standards, including support for harm reduction programs?

    Does your party support the creation of a mechanism within the United Nations that brings countries and civil society experts together to consider alternatives to drug prohibition as the main strategy for controlling drugs?

    All political parties that responded agree that Canada needs to take a progressive role at next years United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Drugs (UNGASS). The NDP simply answered “yes” to our questions, and the Green Party said that “Canada should be a leader at the 2016 UNGASS to promote progressive and science-based drug policies that accomplish pressing public health objectives”. The answer from the Liberal Party was clearly the most fleshed out, and well researched. They agreed that civil society groups need to play a strong role both nationally and internationally “in order to find real solutions that are based on evidence.”

    Overall these responses are quite encouraging and indicate that if any of these parties were elected on October 19th, we would see a significant change in direction towards a public health approach to drugs in Canada.

    Check out the full party responses here:

    Liberal Party of Canada Response

    New Democratic Party Response

    Green Party of Canada Response

  • Canadian Drug Policy Coalition/Canadian HIV / AIDS Legal Network Policy Briefs

    Canadian Drug Policy Coalition/Canadian HIV / AIDS Legal Network Policy Briefs

    Harm Reduction Brief

    Canada is known around the world as a leader in harm reduction. It is host to the first, and only supervised consumption site in North America, Insite, which has saved lives and helped to build a healthier community in one of the most at-risk neighbourhoods in the county. Unfortunately, the federal government has moved away from harm reduction and more towards a criminal approach to drugs. Of course, there is a way forward. In our policy brief, we make the case that not only should the federal government restore the harm reduction model, but expand upon what is already in place. Please click and read below.

    CDPC-HarmReduction-Brief English

    CDPC-HarmReduction-Brief Français

    Overdose Brief

    The tragedy of drug overdose has increased dramatically in recent years. The rise of fentanyl, an extremely potent opioid, has dramatically increased overdose deaths in recent months. Policy change at the federal level is urgently needed. Fortunately, overdoses are preventable. From allowing for easier access to lifesaving medication such as naloxone, to testing the purity level of street drugs, there are several actions the government can take right now to put an end to these avoidable deaths. Our policy brief contains many commonsense policy solutions that the government can enact immediately. Please click and read.

    CDPC-Overdose-Brief English

    CDPC-Overdose-Brief Français

    Cannabis Brief

    Cannabis law is changing around the world. From the United States to Latin America, a wider consensus is growing that cannabis prohibition has failed to prevent both the sale and consumption of the plant for non-medicinal purposes. Public opinion in Canada and worldwide is experiencing a paradigm shift, and the mindset of policymakers needs to change with it. Clearly, an alternative strategy to this broken system needs to be taken seriously. In the following brief, we outline our strategic recommendations on how the federal government can end prohibition, and use its power to begin the process to create a regulatory system that works.

    CDPC-Cannabis-Brief English

    CDPC-Cannabis-Brief Français