Donate

Category: All

  • Bud Osborn: Drug War Poems & DTES history

    Bud Osborn: Drug War Poems & DTES history

    Bud Osborn’s prose charges drug policy debates with deep revelations and compassion. As a long time poet and social activist living in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside, Bud is a light for many. His evidence is wrapped in poetry that can only come from first hand experiences. He turns the suffering he sees into poignant words aimed at shattering the paradigm of prohibition.

    At an epicenter of the war on drugs in Canada, the residents of the Downtown Eastside have long known the harms of prohibition. On September 22, 2012 the community gathered under a tent at Oppenheimer park for a day of open dialogue and discussion and food. After the acknowledgment and welcoming to Coast Salish Territory, Bud opened the day with this poem on the drug war and the story of the neighborhood. Please share this video and let his words inspire more discussion and change. Together we can build a future of collective self-determination and social justice.

  • Envy and Love in Portland

    Envy and Love in Portland

    Is it possible for a Canadian interested in issues like scaling-up harm reduction and drug law reform to envy the U.S.? That’s the worrisome question that crossed my mind as I sat in the opening plenary of the 9th National Harm Reduction Conference in Portland, Oregon.

    Two U.S. states recently voted to pass ballot initiatives that would end the prohibition of cannabis use by adults. And in the spirit of dignity, law reform and harm reduction activists have championed a myriad of community-based and public health department-led initiatives to scale-up overdose prevention and response programs. That reality is evident here in Portland, given the number of sessions devoted to this topic. Speakers like Willie Dudley of Casa Segura in Oakland, CA, talked about the empowerment experienced by peers who’ve been trained to respond to overdoses with the opiate agonist Naloxone.

    And then there’s Gil Kerlikowske. He’s the head of the White House’s Office on National Drug Control Policy. Given the recent U.S. election outcome, it looks like he gets to keep his job as Obama’s drug Czar. Typically that office has championed the war on drugs and all its brutality, but Kerlikowske delivered welcoming remarks to the delegates in Portland via video feed. He took pains to note that he was the first person in his position to do so. Likely his appearance at this conference is the result of the hard work of relationship building done by people like Allan Clear, head of the New York-based Harm Reduction Coalition. Kerlikowske reiterated his support for syringe exchange and echoed the commitment made by his office this past summer to support the scale-up of overdose programs including making Naloxone more readily available.

    Of course rhetoric is one thing and reality is another. Behind Kerlikowske’s words is still the reality of the U.S.-led war on drugs, which includes American support for the militarization of the drug war along the Mexico/U.S. border. There’s still a federal ban on funding for syringe distribution re-imposed by a Republican controlled congress in 2010. And there are still thousands of arrests daily for drug possession. One need only to turn briefly to Michelle Alexander’s book, The New Jim Crow, to be astutely reminded that this drug war is a racist one. But then again, these realities are also true in Canada where First Nations people are disproportionately imprisoned, where Canada also supports the militarization of the U.S./Mexico drug war and where harm reduction has been redlined in the National Anti-Drug Strategy.

    Yes it’s true that we have deep political resistance to harm reduction in Canada but nevertheless we must figure how we can work together across the country to scale-up harm reduction services. We can’t keep it secret anymore. The proponents of harm reduction have created a profoundly important practice of health engagement and we have something to teach the rest of the system. So let’s get that conversation going. If you’ve already started, let us know what works best and we will share that wisdom with everyone who will listen.

  • A Seismic Shift in Drug Policy

    A Seismic Shift in Drug Policy

    Watching the vote in last night in the U.S. was quite an amazing experience. We watched history being made yet again and not just with the re-election of America’s first black president.

    Yes, a second term for Obama was a rare feat given the poor economic situation in the U.S. and the vulnerability that brings for an incumbent president. A second term for Obama is without a doubt a historical event. But there was more – there was a seismic shift in the world of drug policy. In the belly of the beast of the war on drugs, in the country that historically has promoted a vigorous global assault on drugs and drug users, citizens of Washington state and Colorado sunk a wedge a mile wide into the monolithic paradigm of drug prohibition. In both states the voters have overwhelmingly supported the regulation of marijuana for adult use.

    Prohibition is upheld by a global consensus enshrined in international drug treaties. Much like the mortar that held the Berlin Wall together, it holds fast as long as no one challenges the logic of the system in a significant way. As long as things stay the same and no one has the courage to confront the absurdity of the status quo, the status quo prevails. But once the wall starts to be dismantled by ordinary citizens and the authorities stand aside, it is over. The mortar crumbles like dust. What was inconceivable only a few years ago seems like common sense today. Just like that wall in Berlin came tumbling down on November 9th, 1989, prohibition is collapsing before our eyes. The citizens of the U.S. have peacefully voted to overthrow the tired and worn out policy of drug prohibition and common sense has prevailed. It’s about time.

    There are many questions about how these two states will move forward and actually implement the regulations they have proposed. As they say, the devil is in the details. But that’s the grinding day-to-day work of finding the best regulatory regime that meets the many competing goals that are important to our communities – public health, public safety, civil liberties, education about the harms and benefits of substance use and the stewardship of our youth within a culture that has so many mixed messages around drug use. This is important work that we believe will improve the quality of life in those states that made this decision to move forward. The fact that resources will be focused on how to best regulate marijuana rather than whether to regulate this ubiquitous product is the most important point for those of us in Canada.

    Now that the U.S. has opened the door and started down that path towards regulation, the old excuse that Canadian politicians always use – that we can’t change anything until the Americans do, is gone. So let’s get on with it.

  • Drug Policy 101: Dangers of an Unregulated Drug Market

    Drug Policy 101: Dangers of an Unregulated Drug Market

    “We need to recognize that it’s not deviant or pathological for humans to desire to alter their consciousness with psychoactive substances. They’ve been doing it since pre-history… and it can be in a religious context, it can be in a social context, or it can be in the context of symptom management.”

    – Dr. Perry Kendall, Provincial Health Officer, British Columbia

    If the past century of prohibition has proved anything, it is that the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act has failed to discourage Canadians from using illegal drugs. Likewise, prohibition has also shown us that the financial incentive to produce and sell illegal drugs is far more powerful than the deterrent effect of the criminal law.

    This ongoing flow of supply and demand has, of course, resulted in a large and highly profitable black market for drugs in Canada. One aspect of this black market that goes unaddressed by the criminal justice system is that prohibition results in a situation where Canadians are consuming a completely unregulated product.

    Because the product is unregulated, its quality is not just questionable, but potentially dangerous. And those individuals who use drugs of questionable quality often have no idea as to the nature of the substance they are consuming.

    Some of the most illuminating examples of the dangers of an unregulated market can be found in relation to the differences between “ecstasy” and MDMA. In its pure form, and taken in controlled doses, MDMA is a relatively safe substance when compared to other drugs, legal and illegal.

    Many scientists and doctors have argued in favour of its regulation, including former UK government drugs advisor David Nutt, who recently conducted a televised study of MDMA’s therapeutic potential, and BC Provincial Health Officer Dr. Perry Kendall, who went on the record stating that MDMA could be “safe” for adults if consumed responsibly, and has called for a public dialogue on a regulatory regime. Such a dialogue could enable a full and honest discussion on the benefits and harms of using substances such as MDMA and similar drugs.

    But because MDMA isn’t currently regulated by a governing body, we have “ecstasy” which is regulated by the criminal element that currently controls its distribution. “Ecstasy” as opposed to pure MDMA, can contain a combination of various drugs, such as PCP, ketamine, methamphetamines and others. This leads to unknown purity, unknown dosage and the possibility that a pill could be contaminated. And the results of consuming pills of unknown origin can be tragic. Examples of the dangers of the current ecstasy market include a string of deaths throughout western Canada, where individuals using ecstasy died because the pills they took were cut with PMMA; a stimulant that has been linked to a number of deaths around the world during the same timeframe.

    These and similar deaths have lead many communities around the country to call for a different approach to how we deal with drugs like ecstasy, as “Just Say No” programs and wishing abstinence upon young people is clearly not working.

    Next Steps:

    As the current approach, which relies upon fear and ignorance to dissuade Canadians from using MDMA has failed, Canada should adopt a knowledge-based approach to best ensure that those who use MDMA and other drugs stay safe and informed.

    One of such existing approaches is the Dutch Drugs and Information Monitoring System (DIMS); a country-wide system of labs that will analyze substances without any threat of legal recourse. Since the 1990s, the Netherlands government has used this system as a measure to prevent the harms associated with unexpected and dangerous substances found in “party pills” and other drugs. The three main substances that DIMS tests are ecstasy/MDMA, amphetamine/Speed, and cocaine, and has tested some 100,000 drug samples since being established. Implementing such a system in Canada would have numerous public health benefits, including allowing drug users to have a full understanding of what they are actually taking, while also enabling public health authorities to respond more effectively when hazardous substances appear on the drug market.

    Long term solution: A regulated drug market

    MDMA is subject to the UN convention on psychotropic substances, rendering it illegal around the world, and any country that attempted to regulate it would be in violation of this treaty. However, there is currently legislation in front of the New Zealand government that would see the creation of the world’s first regulated recreational drug market.

    Under the new regulations, synthetic drugs, also known as “legal highs” or “party pills” would have to undergo an approval process before being brought to market. 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. Taking up to two years, the approval process will determine the effects and side-effects of a proposed drug, measuring it against an established health criteria.

    While it will only cover new drugs, i.e. those not covered by existing UN treaties, New Zealand’s proposed system could function as a blueprint for other nations to pursue the regulation of recreational drugs in the future.

  • The Drug War in Your Passport

    The Drug War in Your Passport

    On October 18th, 1929, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in England, the highest court in Canada at the time, made a landmark decision that would forever change the role of women in Canadian politics. It repealed a previous ruling by the Supreme Court and made official women’s status as “persons” in Canada, which meant that from that point on, women were eligible to become members of the senate.

    The individual largely responsible for this ruling was the trailblazing women’s rights activist Emily Murphy, who three years prior became the British Empire’s first female magistrate. Along with four other women, who came to be known as “the famous five”, Murphy campaigned for this crucial shift in the meaning of the word “person”.

    Murphy’s legacy is alive and well today, with statues and art depicting her campaign located across the country. And now, according to a recent announcement, she will also be appearing in the pages of the new Canadian passports, alongside Terry Fox.

    But Murphy has another, lesser-known legacy. She is, perhaps more than any one individual, responsible for the criminalization of cannabis in Canada and the beginning of this country’s 90-year war on pot.

    From 1920 to 1922, Murphy wrote a series of articles for Maclean’s magazine, which would later be collected in her book “The Black Candle”. These writings, which amounted to an explicitly racist, anti-immigrant diatribe, were aimed at “educating” the Canadian public as to the dangers of drug use and drug trafficking.

    Informed by her experience as a magistrate in Alberta and a tour of Vancouver’s Chinatown, Murphy surmised that drug addiction was “a scourge so dreadful in its effects that it threatens the very foundations of civilization.”

    In “The Black Candle” she argued that substances such as cannabis, opium and cocaine were being trafficked throughout the country as part of a vast conspiracy aimed at corrupting the “purity” of the white race and the destruction of Anglo-Saxon communities.

    Of cannabis users she wrote:

    “The addict loses all sense of moral responsibility. Addicts to this drug, while under its influence, are immune to pain, and could be severely injured without having any realization of their condition. While in this condition they become raving maniacs and are liable to kill or indulge in any form of violence to other persons, using the most savage methods of cruelty without, as said before, any sense of moral responsibility.”

    Capitalizing on the anti-Chinese sentiment in Vancouver at the time, she successfully elevated and expanded upon the moral panic associated with opium to the national level and helped persuade the Canadian government to enact stricter drug laws.

    In 1921, An Act to Amend the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act increased maximum sentences for trafficking and possession from one year to seven years. And in 1923, informed by Murphy’s argument and “evidence”, the Canadian government became the first western country to ban cannabis.

    It is a strange and tragic irony that Murphy, who used a contrived drug scare to attack immigrants, should after all these years appear in Canada’s new passport; a document that is meant to enshrine and protect the rights of all Canadian citizens, new or old.

  • Reporting on Canadian Drug Policy

    Reporting on Canadian Drug Policy

    The CDPC is in the process of preparing a report on Canadian drug policy. Due out this winter in advance of the next meeting of the International Narcotics Control Board, this report will assess the state of Canada’s drug policy frameworks using a public health, social inclusion and human rights lens.

    In Canada, as in most other places in the world, the best-funded response to problems associated with drug use has been to increase law enforcement efforts, resulting in the incarceration of increasing numbers of people who use drugs.

    Our critical assessment of policy frameworks will reveal the extent to which our governments are committed to effective policies that prevent and reduce harms associated with alcohol, tobacco and other drugs and seek alternatives to criminalization.

    This report will provide the baseline data for future reports on drug policy in Canada and it will be a cornerstone in the Coalition’s advocacy work. The CDPC is seeking your help with this project. If you have any information you would like to share about your organization or your experience with drug policy in Canada, or if you want more information about this project, please contact Connie Carter, Senior Policy Analyst, by email at [email protected].

  • Meeting up with the Caravan for Peace, Justice and Dignity

    Meeting up with the Caravan for Peace, Justice and Dignity

    Gillian Maxwell and CDPC Executive Director Donald MacPherson travelled with the Caravan for Peace from Baltimore to DC where their campaign to bring the realities of the drug war in Mexico to those in the US ended after meetings with US officials on Capitol Hill. The closing ceremony took place in Malcolm X Park where Sicilia gave a poetic and heartfelt speech about hope for the future and building a civil society movement for change through the connections that had been established during the Caravan’s presence in the US. Canadian leadership to end the drug war in Mexico is sorely needed at this time. CDPC will continue to work with our Mexican and American partners towards this end. 

    Having been part of the birthing process of the North American caravan that was inspired by the heartbreak of Javier Sicilia over the death of his son at the hands of a Mexican cartel, it seems only fitting to be joining it at the very end of its journey coast to coast across the United States.

    The Canadians rallied to the call and joined the Caravan in Baltimore for a Town Hall meeting on ending the War on Drugs. I was slated to speak on the panel to talk about the story of INSITE opening in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. It is a heroic tale of desperate circumstances, overcoming adversity and being part of a movement that went from local to national and prevailed. I talked about discovering the unique quality inside of us that we all have to offer to our community and how connecting to that is what makes the difference.

    It was the first time I told this story from a personal perspective. I had my doubts but was encouraged by others who reminded me that I have been saying for years that we need to talk about drug policy reform in a more interesting way than statistics. Put your money where your mouth is, so to speak.

    I stood in front of an audience of people who understood suffering only too well. There were the beleaguered African American community members from Baltimore, whose gracious and welcoming demeanour is totally disarming. Yes, they could talk about being stigmatised and persecuted for taking a stand.

    Then, there were the members of the Caravan led by the inspirational being that is Javier Sicilia. He is unwavering in his commitment to keep going and speaks so eloquently of the issues that keep a wealthy and proud country like Mexico caught up in the past.

    And then there were the rest of the Caravan pilgrims; mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, spouses and children of those who have been disappeared or killed. They are innocents whose lives were totally changed by an experience completely out of their control, and for most, without any hope of resolution or justice. Impunity is the worst betrayal of these gentle souls. Not only were their loved ones in the wrong place at the wrong time, the perpetrators of their murders are allowed to go free. There is no peace for these families and certainly no hope of justice. However, their quiet presence, their insistence in not being silent and asking for accountability is beyond dignified.

    So, I stood in front of this group of people and spoke about the trials and tribulations of a community in the north who were indomitable and dedicated in their creative efforts to stand up for people dying unnecessarily of drug overdoses and HIV/AIDS. I had reservations about my own story, as I hadn’t experienced the violence and tragedy that the caravan had emerged from. But many of the members came up to me and shook my hand afterwards and thanked me for speaking. Then I realised that in that moment we shared our humanity. It is all we have to offer each other and it is enough.

    – Gillian Maxwell

  • The House We All Live In

    The House We All Live In

    Winner of the Grand Jury prize for documentary at Sundance, Eugene Jarecki’s “The House I Live In” is a much needed and in-depth analysis of America’s longest war – the war on drugs.

    The facts are blunt: After 40 years, the war on drugs has resulted in 45 million arrests, cost 1 trillion dollars and led the U.S. to amass the largest prison population in the world. These facts alone are disturbing, to say the least, but the raw numbers only provide a one-dimensional picture of what has transpired under the American prohibitionist regime.

    With “The House I Live In”, Jarecki has constructed a compelling history of America’s drug war through the deeply personal stories of those who live it, not just the gangsters or DEA agents, but the drug war’s working class.

    The film strikes a balance between examining the systemic ills that plague and sustain American drug policy and demonstrating, on a deeply personal level, how these policies ensnare individuals, and in turn, those individual’s families and communities.

    Naturally, this is an American story that focuses on class and race issues unique to the U.S. But this doesn’t mean it isn’t relevant to a Canadian audience. Quite the contrary, The House I Live In provides a cautionary tale for Canadians. One of the dominant themes of the film is how destructive and restrictive mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses are; how they clog prisons with long-term inmates arrested on minor drug charges and hamstring the judiciary in its ability to show discretion.

    When the federal government first proposed to introduce mandatory minimum sentencing in Canada under its “tough-on-crime bill” it received numerous pleas from former and current U.S. law enforcement officials to reconsider and abandon the legislation, as it had proved a catastrophic failure down south.

    A letter delivered earlier this year from members of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition to the Canadian government read:

    “We are … extremely concerned that Canada is implementing mandatory minimum sentencing legislation for minor marijuana-related offences similar to those that have been such costly failures in the United States. These policies have bankrupted state budgets as limited tax dollars pay to imprison non-violent drug offenders at record rates instead of programs that can actually improve community safety.”

    But the government rejected this advice and went ahead with the legislation, leading Canada to replicate the mistakes the U.S. began to make some sixty years ago. Beyond the film’s many merits, this exploration of the side-effects of mandatory minimums will prove especially pertinent to Canadians now that the Safe Streets and Communities Act has been written into law.

    “The House I Live In” is an urgent and vital film, one that seeks to inspire and mobilize its viewers to take action – and it works. This is no small feat, given the sprawling and complex nature of drug war politics. The CDPC is currently working on bringing the film to Canada, so make sure to check back here for information on screenings.

  • One Step Closer to Cannabis Regulation

    One Step Closer to Cannabis Regulation

    At the initiative of Moralea Milne, Councillor in the Municipality of Metchosin, B.C., a resolution at this year’s UBCM conference called on the government to decriminalize marijuana and research its regulation and taxation. As you may have noticed, you can’t stumble over a newspaper or a radio report without hearing that the resolution passed. Media headlines like “Municipal leaders join call to decriminalize pot,” announced the success of this resolution at B.C.’s annual conference of municipal elected officials in Victoria. Even now as I write, the CBC morning show is debating regulation of cannabis.

    It looks like these municipal officials have joined the chorus of voices expressing their disapproval for current laws that prohibit cannabis. Due to the efforts of Stop the Violence BC, former mayors and former Attorney Generals have spoken out against current cannabis laws.

    While the motion supports the decriminalization of marijuana, it also pushes higher levels of government to research legalization and taxation. At Monday’s study session at UBCM, city officials were tangibly frustrated with the current state of affairs. Municipal officials continually find themselves shouldering the burden of prohibition, including rising police costs and complaints from citizens that run the gamut from concerns about the grow op next door, to the lack of accessibility of medical cannabis.

    At the same time, estimates of the value of the underground economy usually settle somewhere between 6 and 7 billion dollars and 44.3% of B.C. residents have used marijuana, with 46% of 16-18 year olds trying marijuana at least once.[1] Clearly this lucrative industry continues to attract customers.

    Lurking in the background of the conversation are the same old concerns about the health and other effects of this drug. It seems to me that while we should acknowledge this concern, we need to remind ourselves that we currently regulate harmful substances like alcohol and tobacco. The question is this: are we achieving what we want from prohibiting cannabis? The statistics above suggest that we are not achieving our goals – and we haven’t included policing and other criminal justice costs that occur when people are arrested for possession.

    As David Bratzer from Law Enforcement Against Prohibition reminded his UBCM audience on Monday, we have three options for the control or regulation of marijuana: leave things as they are, where an unregulated group of people produce and sell an unregulated product; we could legalize it and allow it to be fully commercialized by corporations, a mistake made ad naseum with alcohol and tobacco, or we could consider legalizing and regulating it.

    This last option could draw on the best thinking in tobacco control, and combine this with a clear-eyed assessment of the positive and negative effects of this substance. Of course even among advocates of cannabis law reform there isn’t necessarily agreement about what a regulatory model would look like. So coming up with a model won’t be easy.

    Sometimes it seems like attempts to legalize and regulate cannabis contradict the growing trend of public health scrutiny towards ingestible products. On Monday the local Medical Health Officer in Victoria, B.C. suggested that a ban on high sugar drinks might be coming. But we need to remind ourselves that this policy move would not ban sugar (try to imagine what would happen if we did) but instead send a clear message that high sugar drinks (and I’m talking about 473 ml drinks that contain as much as 16 teaspoons of sugar) might not be all that great for our health.

    Clearly, I’m not a civil libertarian about these matters. I believe there is a role for social policy in regulating cannabis. Imagine a situation where you could buy cannabis products labeled with the THC content, where you knew if the product was organic and where the technologies for ingesting this product without smoke were widely available.

    What do you think about a regulated model for cannabis? Let us know. We want to hear from you.