Donate

Category: Cannabis

  • 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

  • Cannabis, Cannabis Everywhere

    Cannabis, Cannabis Everywhere

    It’s a busy time for all things cannabis. Easily the most high profile developments are the legalization of recreational use in Colorado and Washington in the US. That paved the way for a widely heralded New York Times editorial that proclaimed unequivocally: “The federal government should repeal the ban on marijuana.” This coming November, legalization will be on the ballot in Alaska, Oregon, and Washington D.C.

    All of which has Mexican president Enrique Pena Nieto musing about liberalizing cannabis laws so that his country keeps pace with developments in the US. This comes after he and the presidents of Colombia, Costa Rica, and Guatemala persuaded the UN General Assembly to convene a special session (UNGASS) to explore alternatives to the failed war on drugs — in Mexico alone, an estimated 100,000 have died or disappeared in drug-related violence. Further south, delays in Uruguay’s roll-out of a legal, regulated cannabis market are putting that plan into question.

    Here in Canada, April 1 brought new medical cannabis laws that are confusing and now stalled by a court injunction. Nevertheless, the federal government projects that this industry will be worth $1.3 billion in 10 years. So it’s no surprise that entrepreneurs across the country are jockeying to get in on the action; applying for licences, building greenhouses, and repurposing vacant industrial space — like an old chocolate factory outside Ottawa.

    The government is also looking at changes to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that would make it possible for police to issues tickets for possession of small amounts of cannabis, instead of laying charges. It could be a positive step, but the risk is that if it’s easier for police to process minor cannabis offences, individual officers might stop using case-by-case discretion and instead formally record all minor offenses.

    Regardless, it’s a pretty timid move compared to what’s happening elsewhere in the Americas — particularly given how many Canadians don’t think possession should warrant any police attention whatsoever. Even the government’s own polling shows that over 70 percent of Canadians think cannabis should be legalized or decriminalized. No matter… Conservatives seem to have set their sights on the remaining 30 percent, denouncing Liberal leader Justin Trudeau’s pro-legalization stance and going so far as to claim he wants schoolchildren buying pot in convenience stores.

    To top it all off, anti-legalization Americans who don’t like what they’re seeing in their own country have inserted themselves into the Canadian conversation, helping launch a Canadian branch of Smart Approaches to Marijuana. It remains to be seen whether Canadians will buy their version of prohibition-lite — i.e. allowing for some degree of decriminalization, but maintaining that cannabis is a public health menace.

    So what’s next? Will Trudeau stand by his support for legalization come election time? How will the national debate be impacted by the return to Canada of Marc Emery — arguably Canada’s most famous pot crusader? What initiatives can we expect to see from Sensible BC, NORML Canada and other cannabis interest groups?

    Clearly there’s an emerging conversation in Canada, and a big year coming up.

    For our part, we intend to be at the forefront of that conversation. So here’s what we have planned:

    Medical Cannabis forum in Mexico City – Sept. 22-23. 2014

    As part of our International Program, CDPC is supporting efforts in Mexico to introduce medical cannabis in that country. In September we’re partnering with several Mexican organizations to co-sponsor a Medical Cannabis forum in Mexico City. Experts from the US and Canada will convene in two meetings, one sponsored by the Senate of Mexico — which is deliberating a bill to legalize medical cannabis — and a second meeting at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) to discuss the state of medical cannabis research in the three countries.

    Cannabis Policy Brief – Fall 2014

    We’re currently working on a policy brief that will outline what it could look like to regulate cannabis through a public health framework. It will cover the history of cannabis prohibition, the potential health harms, and the key social and health harms relating to cannabis policy, followed by an examination of the regulatory mechanisms that could balance the health impacts of cannabis with the rights of consumers and the pursuit of profit by commercial interests.

    UNGASS – Ongoing

    All off this is leading up to the UNGASS session in 2016. UNGASS is a special meeting of UN member states to discuss major global issues like health, gender, the status of children, etc. The focus of 2016 will be the world’s drug control priorities, and we expect it to precipitate a new approach to drug policy – either through the development of a more progressive global consensus, or, more likely, because it will shatter the distorted idea that a global consensus is possible.

    In the build-up to UNGASS, we’ll be asking “what’s Canada’s role in the world?” Will we line up with the old guard? People like the former president of the UN’s International Narcotics Control Board, who accused Uruguay of demonstrating “pirate attitudes” for proposing cannabis legalization? Or will we side with forward looking reformers who feel countries should be free to craft drug policy — regarding cannabis and otherwise — that reflects national attitudes and interests? Our job will be to make sure it’s the latter.

  • To ticket or not to ticket – Conservatives take a tiny step on cannabis

    To ticket or not to ticket – Conservatives take a tiny step on cannabis

    For a split second, the door to drug policy reform in Canada opened ever so slightly. But then Justice Minister Peter MacKay was quick to slam it shut: “We’re not talking about decriminalization or legalization.”

    On March 5th, MacKay announced that the federal government is looking at changes to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that would make it possible for police to issues tickets for possession of small amounts of cannabis.

    The announcement follows last summer’s resolution from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police asking the federal government to consider ticketing options. But it also follows Justin Trudeau’s considerably bolder endorsement of cannabis legalization. So I can’t help but wonder if this is a move to stem the Liberals’ rise in the polls.

    MacKay’s proposal would allow police to issue tickets to people possessing less than 3 grams of cannabis. It’s a positive move in one way, because it means these cases will no longer be sent to criminal court. So otherwise law-abiding citizens will not be burdened with a record of criminal conviction, which can have serious implications for travel and employment.

    But it also comes with the potential of a significant downside. In Australia, for example, similar measures resulted in a “net-widening” effect. That is, because it was easier for police to process minor cannabis offences, individual officers shifted away from using case-by-case discretion in giving informal cautions, to a process of formally recording all minor offences. The result was a significant increase in formal infractions, but no change in the pattern of cannabis use.

    Still even if we assume MacKay’s changes hold promise, we need to be clear that these modest steps are not the endgame to a much needed overhaul to drug laws in this country – especially considering that jurisdictions bordering Canada are moving toward legalization. Is this is best Canada can do given the momentous changes taking place around the world?

    Critics of legalization take pains to point out that cannabis can harm the health of its users. Of course it can! So can alcohol, but the lesson of alcohol prohibition is that an underground market is an unsafe market. The purpose of a legally regulated cannabis market is to ensure that we use the painful mistakes of alcohol and tobacco regulation to create the best possible approach to cannabis. Regulation rather than prohibition will make this substance safer, control its production and distribution, and ensure that at least some of the profits go to the public coffers.

    The other problem with cannabis prohibition is that the effects of drug laws are inequitably applied to poor and Indigenous Canadians. And prohibition doesn’t keep cannabis out of the hands of kids. As Unicef’s 2013 report on the well-being of children in rich countries reveals, Canadian youth use the most marijuana compared to our economic counterparts around the world. Yet they use the third least amount of tobacco. What accounts for this second stat? A solid, legally regulated market that relies on stringent controls and education about the harms of tobacco.

    It’s great that MacKay has taken a first step, but we need to keep moving toward a saner, safer approach to cannabis use. The CDPC is committed to talking with Canadians about the possibilities of cannabis regulation. To that end, in the coming months we’ll unveil proposals to help to build a regulatory framework that takes into consideration what we’ve learned from public health approaches to alcohol and tobacco. Canada can do better.

  • Cannabis regulation is by no means a simple matter, but it can be done

    Cannabis regulation is by no means a simple matter, but it can be done

    At the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition (CDPC) one of things we’ve noticed is that any blog we publish on cannabis regulation attracts more attention than any other topic. This is because there’s widespread interest in any discussion of changes to the laws that govern cannabis. Unfortunately when it comes to the nuts and bolts of cannabis regulation – in other words – the how of regulation, interest tends to drop off. This is because regulation is actually rather tedious. This claim is borne out by the length of the proposed regulations for legal recreational cannabis markets in the U.S. states of Washington and Colorado. That’s why I’m going to make a special plea to you our dear readers to stay with me as I say a few words about what regulation might actually entail.

    ucurveI think it’s fair to suggest that the CDPC favours a model of regulation that draws on the best evidence from public health regulation of alcohol and tobacco. But when it comes to cannabis regulation the devil really is in the details.

    There’s no magic bullet that will make all the current problems with cannabis prohibition disappear. But thanks to the Health Officer’s Council of BC, some of the heavy lifting when it comes to creating models for drug regulation has been done. If you’re curious, check out their 2011 report. As you can see from the diagram drawn from their 2011 report, regulations for cannabis should not be so loose that they create a free and unregulated market for cannabis; nor should regulations be so overly restrictive that we end up reproducing the negative aspects of the current underground economy (control by organized crime, etc.).

    At the same time we need to be clear about the goals we hope to achieve with a legal regulated market for cannabis. Ideally our regulations will help protect and improve public health, reduce drug related crime, protect the young and vulnerable, protect human rights and provide good value for money. So what are some of the things we’ll need to consider? How about we start with the basics.

    Presumably legalization would entail the removal of cannabis from Schedule 2 of the federal Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, followed by its inclusion in the Food and Drug Act. It seems like the next logical thing to do would be to then turn over the regulation of cannabis to the provinces, in the same way that alcohol is currently regulated. We would want to ensure that there is at least some consistency across the provinces so that means somebody at the federal level will have to oversee the regulations as they emerge. That’s the easy part because legalization would ALSO entail consideration of at least the following issues: production, product, packaging, vendor and outlet controls, marketing controls, creation of a system of regulators and inspectors as well as on-going research and monitoring.

    For this blog post, I want to focus on production and product controls. Future blogs may consider the other items on the already long list noted above. My comments are phrased as questions to stimulate discussion of regulation rather than to propose firm rules for how a legal recreational cannabis market might operate.

    IMG_2567In Canada, marijuana is currently produced in one of two ways – under existing legal medical marijuana guidelines or in illegal circumstances. Growing marijuana takes places in a vast array of situations ranging from a few plants grown for personal use all the way to large-scale industrial size operations with 100’s of plants.

    Thus regulating the growth of marijuana for a legal recreational market will not be simple. Many people are very attached to their small-scale gardens and it would be difficult to impossible (as well as undesirable) to eliminate growing marijuana for personal use. At the same time it’s important not to turn the whole thing over to heavily capitalized large scale commercial producers whose main motivation is profit, especially since the range of available strains of marijuana has been the result of innovation by many small-scale growers. Thus, we need to ensure that the best practices in indoor, outdoor, personal, commercial production are preserved while ensuring that cannabis is produced in safe and clean facilities. We will also need to decide who is the appropriate authority for regulating growing operations: municipalities or provinces or some combination of both. Neither seem overly keen on this role so they will require some convincing.

    Okay, if your head doesn’t hurt yet lets turn our attention to product controls. Product controls include issues like price, age limits, potency, permissible preparations (edibles, tinctures, etc.), quality control, and labeling and packaging requirements. Price is a key issue when it comes to meeting public health goals. Price can help shape sales and thus use of cannabis, so we want to ensure that pricing reflects what we’ve learned from alcohol – namely that alcohol consumption is sensitive to price and that price must in some way be related to potency. Related to price is taxation – at what point in the chain from seed to sale will cannabis be taxed and at what rate? And what preparations will cannabis regulations allow; plant materials, tinctures and oils, edibles? Right now Canada’s medical marijuana access program only allows for the distribution of plant material. Clearly this is a very limited approach given that the medical cannabis dispensaries have created a range of edible and other products that eliminate the necessity of smoking cannabis. We will also need to decide where we stand on potency: in other words will we put limits on how potent products can be, and given that there are over 100 cannabinoids, how will we decide which ones we want to measure and regulate.

    Okay so I haven’t covered other essential issues like vendor controls, marketing and evaluation and monitoring but I think you get the picture. Regulation is by no means a simple matter, but it can be done. In fact, experience from legal recreational markets in Washington and Colorado will provide valuable insights that can inform Canada’s approach. And regulation has the potential to create conditions where cannabis production and use is a whole lot safer than the current approach – prohibition.

     

  • Did You Know that Marijuana is Illegal in Canada?

    Did You Know that Marijuana is Illegal in Canada?

    The idea that marijuana is legal in this country is one of the persistent myths about this substance. In fact, marijuana is still illegal and is listed in Schedule 2 of the federal Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. This means that unless you have authorization to use medical marijuana, you cannot possess, sell or produce marijuana without risking a criminal penalty.  In fact, under 2012 revisions to the law, you could receive a mandatory minimum prison sentence for growing just six plants if any of a number of “aggravating factors” are present (such as being near a school or having children at the same place as the plants).

    Another persistent myth is that police don’t bother to enforce cannabis laws especially possession. It’s true that some police forces have de-prioritized enforcement of possession, but certainly not all.

    According to Statistics Canada, in 2012, there were 57,429 police reported incidents of cannabis possession. This number represents police resources that could be better spent elsewhere and this number also represents a ridiculous incursion on the civil liberties of far too many Canadians.

    Prohibition of cannabis seems even more regressive when we consider that legal recreational marijuana will soon be available in the U.S. states of Colorado and Washington. In the aftermath of successful 2012 ballot initiative campaigns, both states have released draft regulations to govern the production and sale of recreational cannabis. Changes in these U.S. states were a hot topic at the recent International Drug Policy Reform conference in Denver where speakers from Colorado and Washington outlined the rules for “tightly controlled” markets for recreational cannabis.

    Both models of regulation draw on experience with regulating alcohol, although regulations for recreational cannabis will be far more stringent. Both states require numerous controls including age limits, packaging information, and closely controlled documenting of wholesale and retail sales of cannabis to recreational users. Some of the proceeds of taxation will be directed to public health and educational goals.

    In Colorado the legalization of cannabis builds on a successful model of medical cannabis developed in that state over a number of years. In fact, during the three-day conference I had an opportunity to visit two medical cannabis dispensaries and an industrial size cannabis garden. Good Medicine and River Rock Medical Cannabis are just two of the companies in Denver that offer patients an array of medical cannabis products ranging from raw plant materials, to oils, and edibles in a myriad of forms. Lessons learned from these operations will be transferred to recreational cannabis when it becomes available for sale on January 1, 2014.

    What’s remarkable about the changes taking place in these two states is that they employ full legal regulation, not the models of decriminalization already in operation in other parts of the world. Decriminalization involves reducing or eliminating penalties for possession while still keeping production and sales illegal. Though an important step in the right direction, decriminalization still leaves cannabis in an unregulated market of producers and sellers.

    It was clear from visiting the two medical cannabis dispensaries that legalization makes this substance available in a variety of well-labeled forms and gives consumers the option to choose organic products. Security cameras that feed back to state regulators in real-time, monitor the dispensaries and the gardens. The people working in these operations are clearly knowledgeable and professional in the care they take with their products and their customers. Not only does this model work for consumers, but it also provides badly needed jobs.

    The scientific evidence suggests that cannabis has a smaller public health impact than alcohol. It seems that the real crime is staying a course that actually makes us less safe and less healthy because right now, marijuana is only available in Canada in an unregulated market. So what’s holding us back in this country? Maybe it’s that drugs are still politically expedient and some politicians don’t seem to have any qualms about using fears about drugs to get votes. At the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition we think it’s time for change and it’s time to challenge regressive and uninformed policies on cannabis. What do you think?

     

  • Canada’s New Marijuana Medical Access Program

    Canada’s New Marijuana Medical Access Program

    On June 10, 2013 the Minister of Health released the new regulations that will govern access to cannabis for medical purposes in Canada. The regulations are the result of consultations over the past two years and introduce significant changes to the program. The regulations eliminate previous requirements that patients submit an application to Health Canada requesting authorization to possess cannabis. Instead they must seek a document from their physicians that they would then present to a licensed producer. Though this move could potentially streamline access to cannabis for medical purposes, the Canadian Medical Association has released a report that suggests that many physicians believe they do not know enough about the benefits and risks of cannabis to “prescribe” it to their patients for medical purposes. The irony of this situation is that the prohibition of cannabis has limited the amount of research into its medical benefits (though research is increasing).

    In addition, the new rules eliminate personal and designated production by individuals in their homes by March 31, 2014. This means that current options to access cannabis for medical purposes will be replaced by regulated and commercial Licensed Producers and medical cannabis dispensaries remain excluded from the supply chain by these new regulations. Many patients produce their own cannabis in order to access strains that they have found to be helpful. Maintaining one’s own garden is also cost-effective. Even the government’s own regulatory impact statement notes that the cost of medical cannabis will go up with the new rules. These cost increases could potentially act as further barriers to accessing cannabis for medical purposes.

    The exclusion of medical cannabis dispensaries from the supply chain is counterintuitive. The personnel working in these dispensaries are experts on using cannabis to treat a variety of medical conditions. Dispensaries also offer a range of patient-centred services and supports that help challenge the isolation many patients experience. And Canadian medical cannabis dispensaries have developed a rigorous accreditation program to ensure consistency in both the quality of their services and the products dispensed at these sites. Without dispensaries, patients will have to submit their doctor’s authorization to a licensed commercial producer and then receive their medication by courier, without the supports accorded by face-to-face consultations.

    The odd thing about the new rules is that they introduce a fully commercialized route of access to cannabis for medical purposes while keeping the overall prohibition of this drug fully in place. Indeed some of the provisions for producers of cannabis for medical purposes may serve as a model for production of cannabis for a legal, regulated market. At the same time, the requirements for licensed producers are quite strict and could make it very difficult for small growers to transition to this new regime. It is also unclear how many licensed producers will be approved by Health Canada. This later point is key for patients who want to able to access a range of strains of cannabis.

    All in all, these new rules will likely result in new barriers to accessing cannabis for medical purposes and will end up costing patients more money over the long-term.

    – Connie Carter & Lynne Belle-Isle

  • 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.

  • Attorney Generals Speak Out On Pot Prohibition

    Attorney Generals Speak Out On Pot Prohibition

    Last Friday, in a commentary piece for the Globe and Mail, four former B.C. Attorney Generals came out in very clear terms and said what needs to be said: Canada’s pot laws don’t work.

    “As four former attorneys-general of British Columbia, we were the province’s chief prosecutors and held responsibility for overseeing the criminal justice system. We know the burden imposed on B.C.’s policing and justice system by the enforcement of marijuana prohibition and the role that prohibition itself plays in driving organized crime and making criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens.”

    – Ujjal Dosanjh, Colin Gabelmann, Graeme Bowbrick & Geoff Plant

    This is the paradox of prohibition. Rather than reducing the flow of drugs, prohibition generates a profitable black market, especially in the case of a widely used substance such as cannabis. While banning drugs and applying the criminal law to those who produce, distribute and possess them is intended to stifle the market and curb use, in reality, it only makes the market more robust and profitable where are any consumer demand is present.

    But the economic arguments against prohibition, while indisputable, neglect the real problem, which is moral in nature – prohibition puts our government, courts and police in a position where they are directly harming, rather than protecting, the Canadian public.

    The Canadian Drug Policy Coalition commends British Columbia’s former attorney generals for speaking out on the issue of cannabis regulation. The time has come for Canada to build a drug policy that does more good than harm – one that focuses on protecting the health and safety of Canadians.

    If you agree and would like to help, please consider becoming a member or signing up to our newsletter and we will keep you updated on upcoming events, actions and campaigns.