Category: Drug Law Reform

A Roadmap for Canada’s Drug Policy Future: The Peter Wall International Research Roundtable
The first steps for systemic change are usually the hardest. But thanks to an international community of experts, including and especially those with lived expertise on the frontlines of Canada’s drug policy crisis, we’ve surmounted that hurdle.

Last month, over 40 researchers, frontline advocates, policymakers, and other experts convened in Vancouver for the Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies International Research Roundtable. The end vision of our collaboration is at once simple and dauntingly complex: to realize legal regulation of drugs in Canada to stem the tide of fatalities crippling communities across the country and end the ongoing harms of prohibition. A regulated legal supply of drugs would mean a safer supply of drugs to those who use them, elimination of the toxic drug market controlled by organized crime groups, and financial resources to invest in people who need access to health, housing, and social services.

DONATE to Support Drug Policy Reform

Peter Wall International Research Roundtable (April 2019)

We began this task by tapping into the collective expertise and wisdom of the people in the room, workshopping ideas, brainstorming solutions, and refining tactics that will bring us to our end goal. It was just a start, but critical if we are to realize the systemic change Canada needs, where principles of human rights and public health that are informed by evidence guide policy decisions—not public sentiment and the moralization of behaviour.

We as a collective began several important initiatives during our four days together:
- developing a strategic road map—with concrete steps—for Canada to shift away from the policies of prohibition towards those that promote public health, human rights, and social inclusion based on the legal regulation of currently illegal substances;
- outlining areas of further research to inform this strategy and identify regulatory models for the Canadian context;
- outlining a knowledge translation strategy aimed at building momentum for policy change; and
- identifying opportunities for international collaborations that will support our goals.
From left to right: Steve Rolles, Garth Mullins, Zara Snapp, Scott Bernstein, Suzanne Fraser, Akwasi Owusu-Bempah

Many important advocates and international experts generously offered their insight, and their involvement was critical in shaping the contours of important discussions over the four days:
- Zoë Dodd, a passionate long-time human rights and harm reduction leader in Toronto who has for years stood on the frontlines of a grassroots lifesaving efforts
- Steve Rolles, an expert in substances regulation from the UK who advised the Canadian government on its cannabis regulatory framework
- Dr. Debra Meness, a skilled physician trained in both Western and traditional Ojibwe medicine from the Kitigan Zibi Anishinaabeg First Nation
- Paul Salembier, a legal mind skilled at crafting laws and precise legal language that could save lives
There were many, many more, and we thank them all.

Audience members during Peter Wall International Research Roundtable public event (April 2019)

The Research Roundtable culminated in a public forum at SFU Woodward’s, Systems Change: Envisioning a Canada Beyond Prohibition, where activist and award-winning broadcaster Garth Mullins guided our imaginations toward a world where prohibition was a thing of the past. What would that world look like? What would it take to get us there?

Peter Wall International Research Roundtable public event (April 2019)

The event was recorded as an episode of the Crackdown podcast and featured Akwasi Owusu-Bempah (University of Toronto); Steve Rolles (Transform Drug Policy Foundation, UK); Zara Snapp (Instituto RIA, Mexico); and Suzanne Fraser (Curtin University, Australia).

There are mountains of evidence that the ill-conceived “war on drugs” (prohibition) has had significant negative impacts on individuals, families and communities around the world. Far from making citizens safer, prohibition and a criminal justice approach has spawned an illegal market flush with toxic drugs that kills indiscriminately (over 10,000 in Canada in the less than three years).

Prohibition has also needlessly criminalized and ruined the lives of vulnerable people who should have never seen the inside of a jail cell. It forces individuals to turn to more dangerous methods of consumption and dissuades those who want help from accessing it. In short: it has been an abysmal failure.

DONATE to Fund the Next Phase of our Legal Regulation Model

(Interactive Graph)

But one area of hope was a more clearly-defined path toward the future: creating regulatory models for opioids, stimulants, sedatives and psychedelics. Tapping into the collective knowledge in the room, we workshopped models of how four drugs might be available to consumers in a post-prohibition world, considering questions such as:
- who might have access to drugs;
- how would they access them;
- how much can they get, and
- where can they consume them.
This focus group was only the first of what we anticipate will be up to 20 focus groups across Canada to gather feedback about what Canadians would imagine a legal system would look like. With the online platform we are developing, we hope to engage an additional 40,000 Canadians in these decisions over the next two years!

Scott Bernstein, Canadian Drug Policy Coalition Director of Policy (April 2019)

Politicians with the power to enact life-saving changes to drug policy have long argued that the lack of viable models for legal regulation were a barrier to action. This project will describe a way forward to legal regulation of all drugs and no longer will they have an excuse for inaction.

Peter Wall International Research Roundtable breakout session (April 2019)

Over the four days, we explored three themes in service of our mission to advance the legal regulation of all drugs in Canada: the regulation of opioids as a response to the overdose crisis; the impact of criminal justice policies on people who use drugs; and the intersections of drug policy and the social determinants of health, including poverty, housing, stigma, income, access to healthcare.

It was from these vantage points the wealth of knowledge in the room surfaced solutions and strategies to make our shared vision a reality. The Roundtable engendered many important discussions over the four days.

It is now time to turn words into action.

The Peter Wall International Research Roundtable was supported by the Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies, Community Action Initiative, BCCDC Foundation for Public Health, and SFU Woodward’s.
June 4, 2019
Methadone north of 60

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

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

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

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

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

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

October 28, 2015
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 19^th.

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 19^th, 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

October 9, 2015
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

October 9, 2015
Time to rethink our approach to drugs in prisons: Barriers to in-prison substance use treatment and harm reduction programs

This is the third in a three-part series highlighting the critical need to consider policy and program reform in Canadian federal prisons. You can read the first post here, and the second post here.

In this series, I’ve cast doubt on the effectiveness of in-prison drug enforcement and raised a number of issues related to access to medication in Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) institutions. Under the current federal government’s tough-on-crime agenda, the prison population is expanding and a majority of these prisoners report substance use problems. Given this, it’s important to ask: are prisoners receiving substance use interventions that improve their health and well-being, and assist with community re-entry?

For people hoping to reduce or eliminate their use of alcohol and other drugs, substance use treatment can have a positive impact. Over the years, CSC has developed various programs that target prisoners’ substance use (e.g., moderate and high intensity programs) and has reported successes with those programs in terms of both institutional and post-release outcomes. CSC’s National Correctional Programs Referral Guidelines state that correctional planning should allow for prisoner participation in substance use programming “as soon as possible”. However, many prisoners, including those with severe substance use needs, end up on long waitlists.

There are numerous barriers to timely and effective delivery of in-prison substance use treatment – prisons are, by design, difficult environments for rehabilitative programming. People are not sent there voluntarily. And the fact that security imperatives take precedence correspondingly shapes operational procedures (e.g., lockdowns) and correctional and program staff attitudes.

Security infrastructure gets considerably more money than programming, and funding for the latter is more likely to face cuts. For example, Canada’s correctional services ombudsman has noted that investment in CSC’s methadone maintenance treatment – an effective substitution therapy for opiate dependence – was set to be reduced in 2014/15. As prison populations grow and funding becomes scarcer, the resulting overcrowding (e.g., “double bunking,” lack of rooms for programs) and resource issues (e.g., not enough trained staff to meet program demand) will affect access to and quality of programs.

Another problematic issue is the prioritisation of candidates for substance use treatment programs. Former correctional staff explain that sentence length and release eligibility dates are often used as filters to determine who gets programming first. Those serving shorter sentences (e.g. four years or less) often get swiftly pushed through their sentence plan. Conversely, those serving longer sentences, regardless of their personal history, are de-prioritised or not even considered for programs until many years down the line. This situation creates a lot of inconsistency. And any prisoner applying for parole who has not been able to complete their designated programming is likely to be deemed ineligible or unsupported.

Lack of timely access to substance use treatment is another reason why some people continue to use drugs while incarcerated. The zero-tolerance policies in place in federal prisons make it difficult to establish harm reduction education and services. Elsewhere I have written in detail about the political and operational barriers, including evidence suppression, that prevent certain in-prison harm reduction programs like safer tattooing and needle distribution initiatives in Canada. In some other countries, these types of programs are operational. Here in Canada, multi-stakeholder efforts are underway to build support for implementation of prison-based needle and syringe programs to help improve the health services available to prisoners.

It’s essential to remember that most people who serve time in federal prisons eventually return to the community. For people who use drugs, the initial period after release is a critical window – they may return to enabling social networks or reinstate drug use that exposes them to increased risk of overdose. During this transition period, continuity of care, such as linking former prisoners to community-based substance use treatment and harm reduction services, is yet another area that requires significant improvements. This makes it that much more important that people who use drugs receive access to quality treatment programs and services that help them learn to stay safer while they are in custody. If we don’t address these issues, we are doing too little, too late.

March 30, 2015
Drugs in Canadian prisons: has enforcement worked?

This is the first in a three-part series highlighting the critical need to consider policy and program reform in Canadian federal prisons.

In recent years, the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) has stepped up efforts to keep drugs out of prisons. Nonetheless, the emphasis on in-prison drug detection and enforcement is linked to numerous problems.

For some people, a prison sentence is indeed a valuable opportunity to “get clean” from drugs. However, the idea that prison offers a safe and abstinent setting for everyone rests on flawed assumptions about reduced supply and demand for drugs in prison. In my research, I found that despite substantial funding and increased prison-based enforcement, the goal of “drug-free prisons” is still far out of reach in Canada.

In 2007, CSC launched a Transformation Agenda that includes as one of its five priority areas “eliminating drugs from prison.” The following year, the federal prison system received an investment of $120 million over five years to augment its anti-drug strategy. The funding was to enhance tools to detect, disrupt, and deter drug use inside prisons such as random urine testing, security intelligence officers, drug-detector dogs, and ion scanners. It’s a big, expensive toolkit – and yet there is no clear evidence that these tools have proven effective.

Depending on who you ask, you’ll get different opinions about drug enforcement and its impact inside prisons. Some highly informed observers – such as former correctional officers and people who work for community-based agencies that provide support to prisoners – say that not only have enhanced enforcement efforts failed to keep drugs out of prison, they may in fact be making matters worse. Problems related to enforcement include people switching the substances they use (e.g., cannabis to opiates) to avoid detection, increased risk behaviours (e.g., needle hiding and sharing), heightened tensions and violence related to the drug trade, and fewer visitors.

The consequences can be immediate or extend well beyond the prison sentence. For instance, when prisoners who inject drugs share needles, they are at risk of getting HIV and hepatitis C. When relatives, friends, and volunteers feel stigmatised and distressed due to invasive security procedures or are denied access based on potentially inaccurate information, they visit less or not at all. This weakens relationships that are vital to successful reintegration upon release.

These problems tend to be reinterpreted or even dismissed by CSC. Instead, CSC points to the increases in drug seizures and fewer positive urine tests and refusals as indicators that enforcement is working. Visitors turning away at prison gates is offered as evidence that entrance procedures are effectively deterring people who are carrying drugs. In short, these issues remain contentious. But it’s important to emphasize that CSC – and other prison agencies, generally – tends to lay blame for drug-related problems on prisoners and visitors, without acknowledging the impact of their zero-tolerance policy and enforcement.

This narrow focus that overlooks competing information and perspectives makes it difficult to reform current policy and practices. A few years ago, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security brought together a variety of knowledgeable stakeholders and experts, including CSC officials, to investigate the “alarming problem” of drugs and alcohol in federal prisons. Witnesses voiced “very different positions on the policy and the measures taken by CSC,” with some testifying that the enforcement response has not eliminated drugs in prisons and plays a role in jeopardizing the health and safety of prisoners, prison staff, and communities. Despite this, the final report recommended continued investment in enforcement enhancements and upheld the “commitment to establish drug-free prisons.” In other words, it didn’t stray from the Transformation Agenda. Canadians should read such reports with a critical eye and ask what has actually been transformed.

CSC manages a large population within prison walls in communities across Canada. While we advocate for drug policy reform outside of prisons, we must not forget about policy and programs that affect the many federally sentenced men and women (including disproportionate numbers of Indigenous people) who use drugs. Well-designed and comprehensive evaluations of drug enforcement efforts inside our prisons are long, long overdue. And given the persistence of drug use in Canadian prisons, realistic assessment of appropriate harm reduction programs, such as safer drug use education and syringe distribution, should also be a priority.

December 16, 2014
Drug Policy Abuse: a condition affecting politicians across Canada

A new, debilitating psychiatric condition has been identified today by the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition. Sadly this condition – dubbed “Drug Policy Abuse” – affects a great many politicians across the country.

You’ve undoubtedly seen the symptoms. Politicians who resist change and disregard data. Who insist on being “tough” and sending a punitive message. Who refuse to discuss alternative approaches to conventional, decades-old drug policy, despite all the evidence of adverse physical, psychological and social consequences stemming from the current approach to drugs.

These are the signs of Drug Policy Abuse. And CDPC has developed a campaign to draw attention to this crippling condition.

Check it out the campaign here.

The good news is, treatment is available for those who are diagnosed and acknowledge that they have a problem. All it takes is an open mind and the recognition that good policymaking – no matter what the subject matter – requires frank and open dialogue informed by evidence. Like the fact that harm reduction and regulatory interventions improve life expectancy and increase the likelihood that problematic users will seek treatment. And that drug use doesn’t go up in jurisdictions that have decriminalized or legalized drugs.

Fortunately, we do have some bright lights of various political stripes willing to have the conversation. Federal parliamentarians who favour cannabis legalization include not only Liberal leader Justin Trudeau, but also Conservative MP Scott Reid and NDP Deputy Leader Libby Davies. The NDP’s official cannabis policy for 40 years – reaffirmed by current party leader Thomas Mulcair– is decriminalization. Elizabeth May’s Green Party would legalize marijuana and launch a public consultation on the decriminalization of all illicit drugs. Similarly, Liberal Prince Edward Island MP Wayne Easter defends the need for safe injection sites and favours bringing illicit drugs under a regulatory framework given that “The current drug laws are not working.”

At the provincial level, Wildrose Pary leader Danielle Smith in Alberta is in favour of decriminalization of cannabis. In British Columbia, Health Minister Terry Lake points to the success of Vancouver’s Insite supervised injection site in preventing transmission of HIV and other blood borne infections, reducing overdose risks, and connecting drug users to services. And former Attorney Generals Kash Heed and Geoff Plant speak out about the need to regulate cannabis in BC and Canada.

Municipally, former Vancouver mayor Larry Campbell ran on a platform of implementing supervised injection sites, and city councilors in Toronto have lobbied for such a site in their city. Eight BC mayors including Vancouver’s Gregor Robertson, have called for the legal regulation of cannabis in Canada, as has Thunder Bay mayor – and former police officer – Keith Hobbs. Councillors and mayors at the 2012 Union of BC municipalities convention passed a resolution calling for the appropriate levels of government to “decriminalize marijuana, and research the regulation and taxation of marijuana.”

Outside of Canada, European politicians are actively supporting harm reduction efforts and Latin American leaders are demanding alternatives to criminalization and the punitive approaches to drugs over the past 40 years. Uruguay plans to legalize cannabis use for adults. Closer to home, two US states – Colorado and Washington – have done the same, thanks to ballot initiatives that passed thanks in part to key endorsements from public officials. More states will surely follow.

The point is, politicians don’t need to suffer from Drug Policy Abuse. There are jurisdictions exploring alternative approaches to the war on drugs. The conversation is happening. Unfortunately, though, many politicians in Canada are scared of the conversation and have difficulty considering alternative approaches.

So for those who cling to outmoded models, it’s time to “Have the Talk”. Go to our campaign site to sign the pledge that you’ll reach out to your elected representatives if they have Drug Policy Abuse problem. The campaign site includes tools to tweet national party leaders as part of a larger conversation to address this nationwide affliction.

Check out the campaign, watch the videos and spread the word.

November 14, 2014
Illegal Drugs Get Cheaper, More Potent

Sometimes my work as a drug policy analyst is really hard to explain to my non-drug policy friends. Most of the research findings about drug policy that I deal with on a daily basis fly in the face of conventional wisdom about drugs, drug users and drug laws. One of these pieces of conventional wisdom taught routinely to Canadian high school students is that drug law enforcement is necessary to keep the supply of illegal drug under control, and to discourage young people especially, from using these drugs.

Change in estimated heroin price and purity in the context of the annual drug control budget in the United States. Source: Global Commission on Drug Policy

As any of you in the field of drug policy reform know, despite the claims by police, drugs are now more available, higher purity and more potent than they were 20 years ago. So says a recent publication in the British Journal of Medicine Open, entitled, “The temporal relationship between drug supply indicators: An audit of international government surveillance systems.” Whew that’s mouthful. Authors of this study at the BC based International Centre for Science in Drug Policy culled from two decades (1990 to 2010) of government databases on illegal drug supply, and found the supply of major illegal drugs has (with a few exceptions) increased. With the exception of powder cocaine, the purity and/or potency of illegal drugs in the U.S. generally increased. Their findings also confirm that the price of illegal drugs generally decreased.

These findings once again throw into question the effectiveness of current government drug policies that emphasize supply reduction at the expense of other goals. These deficiencies are aptly illustrated by the World Drug Report, an annual publication of the United Nations Office on drugs and Crime that relies on reports of police drug seizures (i.e. size and estimates of drugs found in raids) along with police-based estimates of crop size (i.e. for cannabis and coca) to evaluate the effectiveness of drug policies. The larger the seizure, the more enforcement officials assert the effectiveness of their approaches. But the findings described above suggest that no matter how hard we try to apply supply-side drug enforcement, drugs are still widely available, cheap and increasingly potent.

As the authors of this study suggest, new measures of the success of drug policies are urgently needed. Rather than using measures of drug supply, its time for governments to assess the effectiveness of their drug policies by using indicators of drug-related harm like overdoses, rates of blood-borne disease transmission (i.e. HIV or Hep C) and emergency room visits…you get the picture. And as the Global Commission on Drug Policy reports, supply-side drug enforcement actually exacerbates the problem of drugs by driving people away from supports and services, at the same time as it creates a growing underground market in drugs.

Sounds sensible, but Canada has poor quality data for measuring the health of people who use drugs. The Canadian Alcohol and Drug Use Monitoring Survey is small and relies on the use of land-lines. There’s no national level data on drug overdoses like there is in the U.S. This lack of data seemingly reinforces the proposition that if you can’t count it, it’s not a problem.

We do know how many people are arrested for drug crimes (57,000 plus for cannabis possession in 2012). But these measures only tell us about police priorities, though they do suggest that the criminalization of people who use drugs is a major way Canada attempts to limit drug use – an approach shown to be less than effective at stopping drug use and a key driver of stigma and discrimination.

So it’s time for all of us to sit down with our friends and family and explain that the conventional maxims of drug policy fail to keep us safe, do not limit the supply of drugs and overlook the health and other needs of people who use drugs. Clearly it’s time for a new approach.

October 10, 2013
How a Prorogued Parliament Could Help Harm Reduction

Today the Conservative government prorogued the Canadian parliament. What this means is that the current legislative agenda, on hold when parliament recessed for the summer, is now dead. This move does not come as much of a surprise given the recent cabinet shuffle that signaled some shifts in direction for the current government, and prorogation will give them a chance to reboot its legislative and parliamentary agenda.

This is potentially good news for those of us who have been watching the progression of Bill C-65 (Respect for Communities act). The extensive provisions of Bill C-65 promised to make it more difficult to implement new supervised injection services in Canada because of the myriad levels of approval that service providers would need to demonstrate in their applications (potential service providers must make an application to the federal Minister of Health for an exemption to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act if they wish to shield clients and staff from potential drug charges). Now that Bill C-65 is dead it gives us some breathing room to continue to work on getting more supervised injection services in Canada.

But dead does not necessarily mean buried. The CDPC will be watching closely when the Harper government announces its new legislative agenda in the fall. There’s always the chance the Harper government could reintroduce the bill in either its current form or as a revised attempt to muzzle harm reduction in Canada. Stay tuned. You know we will be.

In the meantime, September 30, 2013 (9/30) is the second anniversary of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision that allowed Insite (Vancouver’s supervised injection site) to stay open. The CDPC is working with our partners across the country to encourage local groups to host events and activities that mark this important occasion and raise the profile of safer consumption services in Canada. We hope you will join or help organize one of these events in your community.

For organizations: Consider creating a mock injection site open to the public and the media and ask local supportive nurses to be on hand to answer questions. You might also want to do something simple like creating a media release making the case for these services in your city.

For individuals: Send a letter to the local paper expressing your dismay at the lack of support for safer consumption services in your region or write an editorial for you local paper and along the lines of the letter suggested above. Visit your local MP, mayor, or other politicians and make the case for these services in your community. Let them know that the safety and health of every member of your community is important and that’s why you support these services. And don’t forget to the write letters to the Prime Minister’s Office expressing your concerns about the lack of federal support for harm reduction services.

We are creating a tool kit of ideas for this day so contact Connie Carter if you would like more information.

August 19, 2013