Donate

Author: admin

  • Aboriginal people in Canada will bear the brunt of Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Drug Crimes

    Aboriginal people in Canada will bear the brunt of Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Drug Crimes

    In early April, the BC Provincial Health Officer released a report that warns that recent changes to sentencing and other justice practices brought about by the enactment of the Safe Streets and Communities Act (SSCA) will have very negative effects on the health of Aboriginal people – changes brought about by the SSCA like mandatory minimum sentences will put more Aboriginal people in prison.

    This report also notes that the SSCA appears to conflict with other federal programs aimed at reducing prison time, specifically section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, which requires sentencing judges to consider all options other than incarceration.[i]

    The imposition of mandatory minimum sentences flies in the face of evidence of their ineffectiveness. Convicting people of drug-related offences does not reduce the problems associated with drug use, nor do these sentences deter crime.[ii]

    The overrepresentation of Aboriginal Canadians in this country’s prison system is a national disgrace, made all the more disturbing by its avoidability. In 2011, approximately 4% of the Canadian population was Aboriginal, while 21.5% of the federal incarcerated population were Aboriginal. Since 2006-07, there has been a 43% increase in Aboriginal inmate population, and one in three federally sentenced women are Aborignal. In the Prairies, Aboriginal people comprise more than 55% of the total prison population at Saskatchewan Penitentiary and 60% at Stony Mountain Penitentiary in Manitoba. Provincial rates are even worse; 81% of people in provincial custody in Saskatchewan were Aboriginal in 2005.[iii]

    As the BC Provincial Health Officer’s report argues, the reasons for the overrepresentation of Aboriginal people in Canada’s prisons are multifaceted but are rooted in historical causes like colonialism, loss of culture, and economic and social marginalization by white Canadians.

    These concerns were echoed in an October 2012 report by the Correctional Investigator of Canada entitled, Spirit Matters: Aboriginal People and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA, 1992).[iv] This report speaks to the lack of resolve on the part of the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) to meet the commitments set out in the CCRA. The CCRA contains Aboriginal-specific provisions to enhance Aboriginal community involvement in corrections and address chronic over-representation of Aboriginal people in federal corrections. Included among these requirements were the establishment of Healing Lodges that emphasize Aboriginal beliefs and traditions and a focus on preparation for release.[v]

    The report found that in BC, Ontario, Atlantic Canada and the North there were no Healing Lodge spaces for Aboriginal Women. In addition, because Healing Lodges limit intake to minimum-security offenders, 90% of Aboriginal offenders were excluded from being considered for a transfer to a Healing Lodge. The report concludes with a critique of the lack of action by the Correctional Service of Canada: “Consistent with expressions of Aboriginal self–determination, Sections 81 and 84 capture the promise to redefine the relationship between Aboriginal people and the federal government. Control over more aspects of release planning for Aboriginal offenders and greater access to more culturally-appropriate services and programming were original hopes when the CCRA was proclaimed in November 1992.”[vi]

    The implications of Conservative government changes to sentencing practices are clear: rising rates of incarceration of Aboriginal people, higher rates of substance use problems combined with a lack of commitment to alternative healing paths means more federally and provincially sentenced Aboriginal people will end up in Canada’s prisons where they will not receive the services they need.

  • Cannabis Prohibition is Falling Apart

    Cannabis Prohibition is Falling Apart

    During the March meetings of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs, discussion of drug policy reform occurred mainly in side events organized by NGO’s. The International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC) organized a series of lunch-time discussions on themes like cannabis policy reform, the Latin American agenda for drug policy reform, and models of decriminalization. In each of these sessions the current state of cannabis control was a key issue given that several countries and other jurisdictions have or are considering lessening controls on this drug.

    As speakers at the session on cannabis policy reform pointed out, the history of the inclusion of cannabis in the international drug control treaties had little to do with facts or evidence. In Canada for example, cannabis was prohibited in 1923 with little public debate and even less actual use of this substance. Its prohibition may have been related to a number of factors including emerging international drug control agreements as well as a series of racist articles in Canada’s national magazine, Maclean’s, written by Emily Murphy from 1920-22 and published in her book, The Black Candle, in 1922. [1] Murphy depicted cannabis use as the domain of Black men and insisted that this drug undermined the morality of otherwise good white women. In fact, at that time very few people used cannabis in Canada and most members of Canada’s Parliament did not even know what it was. [2]

    But the misanthropic roots of Canada’s efforts to control cannabis also stemmed from geopolitical politics of the late 19th and early 20th century. As the Canadian Senate argued in 2002:

    “The international regime for the control of psychoactive substances, beyond any moral or even racist roots may have initially had, in first and foremost a system that reflects the geopolitics of North-South relations in the 20th century. Indeed, the strictest controls were placed on organic substances – the coca bush, the poppy and cannabis plant – which are often part of the ancestral traditions of the countries where these plants originate, whereas the North’s cultural products, tobacco and alcohol, were ignored and the synthetic substances produced by the North’s pharmaceutical industry were subject to regulation rather than prohibition.” [3]

    By 1961, a patchwork of international treaties existed to control drugs (I.e. cocaine, heroin).  In 1961, the CND consolidated these treaties into the aptly named Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. Cannabis was included in both Schedule IV and Schedule I of the Convention marking this plant one of the most dangerous substances. [4] This new Convention obliged signatories to create a system of penalties for possession, trafficking and cultivation of this plant. But by 1961, cannabis had been prohibited in Canada for almost 40 years. It remains today a prohibited substance. In fact, the most recent amendments to Canada’s drug law, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, provide mandatory minimum prison sentences for cultivating as little as six plants. [5]

    But as the IDPC session at the CND illustrated, the international consensus on the prohibition of cannabis is quickly breaking down. Legislators in Uruguay are seriously considered the implementation of a legally regulated and state controlled regime for cannabis; the US states of Washington and Colorado have voted to create regulated markets for cannabis for adults and proposed legislation to do the same has been introduced in eight other state legislatures. These events follow on a long history of decriminalization of cannabis including the Dutch coffee shop model, the decriminalization of cannabis in several Australian states, and the initiation of discussions about cannabis decriminalization in several Latin American countries. In fact, the pace of recent developments that lend support to new models for regulating cannabis has been so rapid that it’s hard to keep up.

    BC sits on the border of the one the U.S. states currently creating a regulated market for this drug. It begs the obvious question…what is Canada going to do in the face of these changes? Drug law in this country is a federal matter and thus changes must occur at that level. That hasn’t stopped Sensible BC from initiating a campaign to get British Columbians to vote for a ballot initiative that would see changes to BC’s Policing Act. These changes would redirect policing resources in BC away from enforcing laws against simple possession of cannabis by adults – a form of defacto decriminalization.

    The public health footprint of cannabis is small compared to other substances like alcohol. And there are likely significant tax revenues to be gained from a regulated model. One of the other advantages that seldom gets a mention is the fact that a regulated model can borrow some of the techniques used to regulate tobacco and alcohol including age controls, plain packaging, limits on who can sell, when they can sell, licensing for cultivation, specifications for potency and purity, among others. Right now, cannabis supply is controlled by an underground market with none of the provisions I noted above. What make more sense? Continue along the same failed road, or create a regulated market which could potentially balance the need for consumer choice with public health goals?

    I think the choice is clear.

    To support the CDPC’s cannabis reform activities,  please consider making a donation.

  • Civil Society is Key to Global Drug Policy Reform

    Civil Society is Key to Global Drug Policy Reform

    The CDPC is continuing its coverage of the week-long meetings of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs in Vienna this week. 

    The current UN drug control system is based on three international drug control treaties: the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the 1971 UN Convention on Psychotropic Drugs and the 1988 Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. This drug control systems requires member states to take measures to prevent the non-medical use of a wide range of drugs through restrictions on production and supply, and by suppressing demand.

    Canada is a party to these treaties and subject to scrutiny by the International Narcotic Control Board. Historically, these drug control treaties and organizations were created by governments and stacked with law enforcement professionals with very little influence or participation by civil society groups.

    The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) operates as the secretariat for the UN and advises governments on effective law enforcement, treatment systems, methods of estimating drug use and publishes the annual World Drug Report. The UNODC is front and centre this week because of its responsibilities for the organization of the Commission’s meetings

    On Wednesday, the head of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Yury Fedetov, met informally with NGO’s. Fedetov was faced with drug policy reform groups like the Transnational Institute in Holland, Transform Drug Policy Foundation, the International Drug Policy Consortium, and Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.  I almost felt sorry for the guy and then I remembered that he still holds many of the cards when it comes world drug control. Fedetov faced many questions about the involvement of civil society in the deliberations of the Commission. Clearly there is a push for these groups to be involved in a more meaningful way – and there are examples at the UN where civil society groups play a much larger role, such as UNAIDS.

    This week the CND Committee of the Whole is discussing a resolution entitled “Preparations for the high-level review of the implementation by Member States of the Political Declaration and Plan of Action on International Cooperation towards an Integrated and Balanced Strategy to Counter the World Drug Problem.” Yes, apparently the titles given to CND resolutions can be … long. Let’s just say the resolution has something to do with an upcoming review of the Commission’s activities.

    This resolution also refers to the 2016 UN Special Session (UNGASS) on the “World Drug Problem”. This session is the first opportunity for a global discussion on drug policy since 1998. The last paragraph of the resolution would make the CND the primary preparatory body for UNGASS 2106. Some civil society groups are here in Vienna pressing delegations to open the preparatory process so that it will include civil society and other UN organizations with a stake in drug policy.

    This is key to global drug policy reform. We want as fulsome and open a debate in 2016 as we can muster to ensure the numerous experiments in reform taking place around the globe can be openly considered.

  • Bolivia and Coca Chewing: Speaking Truth to Power

    Bolivia and Coca Chewing: Speaking Truth to Power

    As I mentioned in my previous blog, representatives of the CDPC are here in Vienna at the annual week-long meetings of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs. The opening plenary on Monday March 11th included an extremely engaging speech from Evo Morales, President of Bolivia. While most speakers reiterated their support for international drug control efforts and continually emphasized the need for “international cooperation”, Morales pushed through the usual dull diplomatic language to speak some truth to power. He opened his speech by asking if there was tension in the room and he wondered if it was related to the knowledge that “the fight against drugs has failed globally?”

    This isn’t something that’s said very often here in heart of international drug control policy-making.

    Morales thanked the 169 countries who supported Bolivia’s re-accession to the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. After a first attempt to amend the Single Convention failed in 2011, Bolivia left the Convention with the intent to rejoin with a new reservation designed to align its international obligations with its constitution, which protects indigenous rights.

    The reservation, which legalizes coca for local use, applies only to Bolivian territory and the exportation of coca internationally remains prohibited. With the support of those 169 countries Bolivia re-entered the Convention with the reservation in place. Only 15 countries objected, including Canada.

    Morales reminded his audience that traditional and indigenous use of coca leaf has important social and health benefits and that its inclusion in the 1961 Convention was an error. In its natural state it has many medicinal properties, and he suggested that international drug controls have hindered scientific research into these benefits. He was careful to emphasize that Bolivia does not support the trade in cocaine but he pointedly noted that efforts to control drug trafficking are intertwined with other geopolitical goals of “mastery” and “dominance”. He chastised the U.S. for trying force Bolivia to curb its coca farming with threats and by tying eradication of coca to the building of schools in the 1980s. In no uncertain terms, Morales drew a parallel between these policies and American efforts to control the region. No doubt, in a sedate and conservative institution like the CND, his words stung for some delegates.

    His speech was a reminder that the edifice of international drug control has some serious cracks. Not only are other Latin American leaders speaking out on the need for debate about the way forward, but the recent legalization of cannabis in Colorado and Washington, a proposal by the Norwegian government to decriminalize heroin smoking (a way of using heroin considered to be more safe than injecting because the risk of overdose is less), and the now fairly long-standing decriminalization of drugs in Portugal, represents the efforts of jurisdictions to plot a new way forward guided more by the principles of justice and public health than by law enforcement. In fact, in eight U.S. states bills legalizing cannabis have been introduced in recent months.

    It looks like the long-term efforts to broaden the scope of policy options for drug issues is beginning to reap rewards. Let’s hope the CND can catch up.

  • Repressive Drug Policy Still the Norm at CND

    Repressive Drug Policy Still the Norm at CND

    The Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) was established in 1946 as a commission of the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). UN commissions carry out specific responsibilities assigned to ECOSOC. The CND assists ECOSOC in supervising the application of international drug control conventions and agreements. It is the principal policy-making body within the UN system on drug control issues. It is also the governing body of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime Programme.

    The CDPC is here in Vienna for the annual week-long meetings of the CND at the UN. And as you can see, it’s easy to slip into talking in acronyms when attending such an event. The casual use of these acronyms is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to accessing the often turgid and mostly impenetrable operations of the CND. Unlike other UN commissions and programs, civil society plays a small but growing part in the deliberations of the CND. In fact, some countries still oppose the participation of civil society entirely. What this means is that the key policy-making body for global drug control is still partly insulated from the concerns of groups working on issues like human rights and the prevention of HIV and Hep C among people who use drugs. It’s also clear that words like “harm reduction” are flash points. Official country delegations and speakers avoid this term assiduously.

    The opening plenary session on Monday morning signaled the tone of these meetings. Most speeches in this session reiterated support for the international drug control system but cracks were apparent, such as a rousing speech by the President of Bolivia, Evo Morales. A speech by Yuri Federtov, Executive Director of the UNODC, reflected some of these tensions. Federtov’s speech was a carefully constructed one. He embraced the key assumption of these UN groups and meetings: that drugs are at the centre of the world’s drug problems and he touted the role that the UNODC is playing in trying to control the availability of drugs.

    An alternative diagnosis might suggest that drug laws based on the international treaties are responsible for many of the harms associated with drugs themselves. Criminalization of drug use fosters discrimination and discrimination drives people away from health and other services. Criminalization has failed to stem the tide of drug use around the world, but it has helped to create a lucrative underground economy without regulatory controls.

    Despite lofty words to the contrary, drugs are more available than ever and ever more pure than they were 40 years ago. But, and this is an important but, Federtov acknowledged that international drug control policy cannot remain isolated from needed improvements in HIV services nor can it ignore discrimination and the lack of evidence-based services for people who use drugs. In fact, the Deputy Executive Director of the UNODC admitted that historically, drug control was handed over to law enforcement and the principle of public health has been forgotten until recently.

    Despite these admissions, much more needs to done to change a system where repressive drug policies and laws still trump public health approaches in many places around the world with dire consequences for people who use drugs.

    Canada is no exception. As CDPC’s upcoming report on Canadian drug policy will reveal, a public health approach to drug use has not been fully realized. We still rely on a patchwork of policies and programs to support harm reduction and treatment, while law enforcement continues to receive escalating resources. This approach is expensive, lacks evidence of its effectiveness and continues to result in harms to people who use drugs including criminalization and marginalization.

  • Is This The Future of Drug Law?

    Is This The Future of Drug Law?

    This week the New Zealand government will publish its Psychoactive Drugs Bill. Under the new regulations proposed in the bill, “legal highs” would have to undergo an approval process before being brought to market. The New Zealand Ministry of Health would then issue licenses relating to the importation, manufacture, and sale of psychoactive substances covered by the bill. This process would place the burden on the synthetic drug industry, which would have to prove its products are safe before being made available to the consumer.

    From the BBC:

    “The new law is a response to the problem of “legal highs”, but is being seized upon by reformers because it crosses a Rubicon – designing a legislative framework built upon regulation rather than prohibition.”

    Therein lies the significance of this bill – it is a response to a drug-related issue that uses regulation rather than prohibition as the method of control. Instead of simply issuing criminal bans on emerging drugs, a method that has proven a failure time and time again, New Zealand is choosing to shift the focus to protecting public health.

    Rather than allowing these substances to be controlled by the criminal element, they will instead exist within a regulated market. Beyond health considerations, a variety of restrictions will apply to the drugs, such as hefty fines and jail time for any manufacturer caught selling their products to minors.

    This bill presents a timely and thoughtful solution to a rapidly emerging problem. In 2012, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drugs Addiction reported that a new “legal high” goes on sale every week.

    Thus far, The Canadian government’s response to the phenomenon of “legal highs” has been a traditional approach of banning a substance when the media brings it to the public’s attention, as was the case with the great MDPV (aka Bath Salts) scare of 2012.

    Last September, after the federal government proposed that MDPV be included in Schedule I of the Controlled Drugs and Substances act, we issued a submission to Health Canada recommending that banning the substance would have unintended negative effects and that the government should regulate, rather than criminalize its use.

    The CDPC is optimistic about New Zealand’s Psychoactive Drug Bill as it is line with a greater paradigm shift occurring in many countries around the world. Leaving the control of drugs and drug quality in the hands of criminals protects no one and creates a litany of disastrous side effects. We look forward to seeing the bill implemented in the near future.

    If you would like to learn more about how we are building a better drug policy for Canada, please sign up to our mailing list and we will keep you up to date on news and upcoming campaigns.

  • Canada’s War on Pot Just Got Weirder

    Canada’s War on Pot Just Got Weirder

    Prohibition took another strange turn this week when it was reported that RCMP officers in Alberta have started to strap on snowboards and patrol the Lake Louise and Nakiska ski resorts in an effort to deter “substance abuse”.

    From the CBC:

    The officers, who are in uniform and carrying weapons, are focusing their attention on substance abuse on the chairlifts and gondolas.

    “It’s going to deter people from bringing narcotics or have that second look of doing something on the ski hill because they know there is going to be a police presence,” said RCMP Cpl. Jeff Campbell, the detachment commander in Lake Louise. (…) 

    Two officers will be on patrol Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays as well as holidays including March break and Easter weekend. RCMP hope to expand the program once they have more officers certified.”

    While the RCMP ski patrol is a volunteer program, it is still very much official police business and carries the full weight of the law. The program has been in effect since December with the primary focus being to deter skiers and snowboarders from using “narcotics”, but has thus far resulted in just one minor cannabis seizure.

    Officials from Lake Louise have gone on record welcoming the RCMP presence, but have also made a point of clarifying that crime isn’t an issue at the resort, which raises a number of questions as to why such a program even exists.

    With 65% of Canadians in favour of either legalizing or decriminalizing cannabis, should the RCMP really be expanding their efforts to clamp down on casual use?

    The RCMP is touting the ski patrols as a “pro-active policing initiative” but given that neither ski hill (nor any ski hill for that matter) has any real need for a police presence, is it an appropriate and responsible use of police resources?

    This program, which explicitly promotes the additional enforcement of a highly unpopular law, is emblematic of a much larger problem: the growing disconnect between the RCMP and the Canadian public.

    An Ipsos-Reid poll from late December on public confidence in the RCMP found that support for the mounties has decreased sharply over the past five years.

    In January, Vic Toews, Minister of Public Safety, held a summit with law enforcement officials from across the country to discuss the economics of policing. The purpose of the summit was to examine policing costs, which reached a whopping $12.6 billion in 2011, and to discuss ways to make policing in Canada more efficient and cost-effective.

    As the cost of policing becomes increasingly unsustainable and confidence in the RCMP heads downhill, chasing after pot-smoking snowboarders seems like a rather absurd waste of police resources.

    So how could Canada lower its policing costs and repair public confidence in the RCMP?

    One of the simplest solutions to these two critical problems would be to regulate and tax cannabis.

    This would free up police resources currently being wasted on the suppression of a substance that the majority of Canadians think should not be illegal, while at the same time restoring faith in police officers by removing the burden of such an unpopular law.

    If you’d like to learn more about how the CDPC is working to change cannabis law in Canada, please sign up for our email alerts and we’ll keep you up to date.

  • Harm Reduction and the Public Good in Victoria, BC

    Harm Reduction and the Public Good in Victoria, BC

    It seems that in Canada, public meetings about harm reduction bring out the best and worst in people. This was certainly the case on Wednesday at a public meeting to discuss the inclusion of improved services in a local health unit on the edge of Victoria’s Fernwood neighbourhood.

    This location is already the site of Victoria’s Sobering Centre and its Medical Detox facility. The meeting was held at the initiation of the Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA) to discuss their plan to create two service hubs in Victoria for harm reduction services. As you may recall, Victoria was forced to close its only fixed site needle exchange in 2008 after controversy erupted over public congregation outside its doors. Since then, attempts to move this site to other locations have been met with vociferous public opposition despite an intentional shift away from having just one location to having over 20 options for accessing needles and supplies.

    Going in to the meeting, no one was happy. Clearly some thought the proposed services were too little and some though they were too much. Supporters of people who use drugs wondered about the inclusion of peers in the development and implementation of these services. But some area residents seemed palpably angry about VIHA’s new plan. The Health Authority took pains to argue that their latest proposal only adds new professional services to two locations already providing harm reduction supplies. But no matter how much reassurance representatives gave, some residents still angrily denounced the service.

    Their language was pointed and painfully discriminatory – “those people”, “them” – meaning people who use drugs. Some neighbours worried about the safety of their children and some were afraid that violence, property theft and damage would escalate in their community. Even a Victoria Police’s Staff Sergeant Dave Bown challenged these speakers to rethink that one. These same neighbours were angry with VIHA for communicating their plans in the media despite an agreement to consult with neighbours.

    These days, community input into health care can be an afterthought and even VIHA representatives admitted last night that that they could have done a better job of getting feedback on the plans from residents. So the neighbours are probably angry for a reason. But still, the opposition to harm reduction reminded me that it’s easy to pit children’s safety against the needs of a scary “other”. It’s much harder to get down to work on making the community safe for all, including people who use drugs.

    These kinds of public meetings are taking place all over Canada as residents oppose proposed harm reduction or methadone services in their neighbourhoods. And media coverage often goes hand-in-hand with these events – conveying partial truths and giving angry voices the opportunity to parade out the worst of discriminatory attitudes toward people who use drugs.

    At the same time, I was heartened by some of last night’s speakers who invited their neighbours to help clean up used needles and offered examples of successful programs to educate children about harm reduction. Some neighbours repeatedly spoke about their fear of discarded needles until one resident of Fernwood, Andrea Langlois, stood up and reminded everyone that no one had ever contracted HIV from being poked by a inappropriately discarded syringe off the street. That turned the tide and other neighbours stepped forward to praise the plan and welcome the services. A couple of speakers even wondered if public use of drugs could be addressed with supervised consumption services. These weren’t people used to speaking the language of harm reduction but they seemed to get it – that the public safety and health of the whole community is enhanced by a full range of harm reduction services.

    One of the final speakers from the audience capped off the evening with a request that many of us could heed – stop sowing the seeds of fear and get to work on meeting the needs of all our citizens.

  • If The War On Drugs Isn’t Working, Why Are We Still Fighting It?

    If The War On Drugs Isn’t Working, Why Are We Still Fighting It?

    When leaders from the Organization of American States gathered in Cartagena last April, Prime Minister Stephen Harper offered a rare concession on the topic of drug policy.

    In response to the chorus of dissent coming from countries like Guatemala, Mexico and Colombia, Harper stated:

    “I think what everyone believes and agrees with, and to be frank myself, is that the current approach is not working, but it is not clear what we should do.”

    But as the Canadian Press reported yesterday, it would seem that the Harper government is steadfast in its commitment to dysfunctional anti-drug strategies:

    “Spillover from Mexico’s violent drug war is prompting the Harper government and the Canadian military to become more involved in helping defend the tiny, Central American country of Belize.

    A series of internal reports, obtained by The Canadian Press under the access to information law, show the government has quietly increased co-operation with the Commonwealth nation, formerly known as British Honduras.”

    While details are scarce, the Canadian military has been actively participating in a variety of counter-narcotic operations in the region. For example, in December, a Canadian Forces press release indicated that the Canadian Navy was involved in a “large drug bust”.

    From the release:

    “Working alongside our American and multinational allies, HMCS Ottawa’s successful operation demonstrates our Government’s commitment to address the illegal trafficking of drugs in the Caribbean basin”, said the Honourable Peter MacKay.   “I’m proud our sailors act as excellent ambassadors for our nation, for making Canadian streets safer by patrolling the seas to our south and for working with like-minded nations to better protect citizens of our continent.”

    This particular dimension of the war on drugs – military interdiction ­– has been especially damaging to those Central and South American states that have hosted broad counter-narcotic conflicts. And tragically, the mistakes that have been made time and time again seem to be materializing in Belize.

    The rationale for the Canadian military’s involvement in Central America and the Caribbean is built on a series of faulty premises. Firstly – that military might and securitization can defeat drug cartels. One need only look to Mexico, which saw an explosion in violence after President Calderón declared war on the drug cartels, to see how woefully dangerous an idea this is.

    Secondly, regardless of the Canadian military’s interdiction efforts, the supply of illegal drugs to Canadian consumers has remained the same. As with all attempts over the last forty-plus years to control the flow of narcotics into Canada, as long as a demand exists, the supply will continue. No counter-narcotic activity, no matter how costly or logistically sophisticated, has ever managed to halt the flow of drugs across Canadian borders. All it does is shift violence from one theatre to the next, destroying communities and causing unneeded deaths as conflict spills from state to state.

    And so the question is – if war on drugs isn’t working, as PM Harper has stated, then why are we still fighting it?

    Thankfully there is a silver lining to the Belize report – if one scrolls below the fold and scans the comment section, you’ll find an outpouring of common sense from readers.

    As one commenter put it:

    “The single biggest thing we can do is end the drug war at home.”