Donate

Category: Drug Law Reform

  • Why Decriminalize Drugs?

    Why Decriminalize Drugs?

    On Thursday, May 24th the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition released a report on Canadian drug policy. The report calls for the replacement of Canada’s National Anti-Drug Strategy with one focused on health and human rights, the scale-up of comprehensive health and social services, including housing and treatment services that engage people with drug problems; more robust educational programs about safer drug use, the decriminalization of all drugs for personal use and the creation of a regulatory system for adult cannabis use.

    The Canadian media responded quickly to our recommendation to decriminalize personal possession of drugs with questions about how this approach would work, especially when it comes to drugs like heroin and cocaine. Canada’s Conservative government also reacted swiftly to media coverage of our report and publicly dismissed our proposal to decriminalize the personal use of all other drugs.

    Let’s be very clear about what the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition is recommending: the full legal regulation of cannabis for adult use and the decriminalization of possession of small quantities of all other drugs for personal use. We do not at this time recommend full legal regulation of drugs other than cannabis; nor do we suggest that all currently illegal drugs should become widely available. Decriminalization of possession of these drugs will not address the harms associated with an underground market. But it is a first step towards a more effective policy. Decriminalization, a strategy currently in use by up to 30 countries world-wide, has been quietly adopted in the wake of the escalating costs of prohibition and its failure to stem the tide of drug use and eliminate drug markets.

    Politicians still insist that decriminalizing drug use would send the “wrong message”. This idea is grounded in the false belief that criminalizing drugs keeps people from using them and lessening penalties for drug use will in fact result in higher rates of drug use.  But in countries and regions where decriminalization has been implemented, this has just not been the case. As the Global Commission on Drug Policy suggested in 2011,

    “A key idea behind the ‘war on drugs’ approach was that the threat of arrest and harsh punishment would deter people from using drugs. In practice, this hypothesis has been disproved – many countries that have enacted harsh laws and implemented widespread arrest and imprisonment of drug users and low-level dealers have higher levels of drug use and related problems than countries with more tolerant approaches. Similarly, countries that have introduced decriminalization, or other forms of reduction in arrest or punishment, have not seen the rises in drug use or dependence rates that had been feared.”

    International comparisons also show us that there is no correlation between the harshness of enforcement and the prevalence of drug use. Even in states that have decriminalized all drugs, the sky has not fallen. In 2000, Portugal moved to decriminalize all drugs, including cocaine and heroin, at the same time as it scaled up the availability of services to address drug use problems. By moving personal possession away from law enforcement, drug use did not rise significantly, especially when compared with neighbouring countries. Portugal has also seen a reduction in illegal drug use among problematic drug users and teens, a reduced burden on the criminal justice system, and a significant drop in HIV infections and drug-related deaths.

    Prohibition has failed. Drug use is still high, incarceration for drug offenses is increasing and despite billions of dollars spent over the years, law enforcement has failed to meet its objectives of protecting public health and public safety.

    One of the drugs that causes the most health and public safety harms – alcohol — is completely legal and widely available yet other drugs with a relatively small public health footprint remain completely illegal. Using the criminal law to discourage a behaviour like drug use only throws the law into disrepute because a complex phenomena like harmful drug use is the result of many factors, none of which the law, police, courts or prisons are prepared to address.

    In preparing our report, we talked to people across the country – service providers, family members, people who use drugs — and they told us again and again that Canada’s outdated approach to drug policy is hurting our citizens. In fact, using law enforcement to curb drug use increases its harms by driving it into the shadows. The criminalization of drug use also makes it more difficult to engage people in vital and life-saving health care services.

    We need to overhaul our approach to drugs. Globally, the current system of drug control is under considerable pressure to change. Some national governments have begun to chart their own paths when it comes to drug control, including experimenting with decriminalization. It’s time to follow suit, and modernise Canada’s legislative, policy and regulatory frameworks that address drugs.

  • CDPC Report on Drug Policy Highlights the Failures of Criminalization

    CDPC Report on Drug Policy Highlights the Failures of Criminalization

    On Thursday, May 23, CDPC released the first- ever comprehensive report by a civil society organization on the failures of Canada’s approach to drug policy. The report calls for the replacement of the current national anti-drug strategy with one focused on health and human rights; the decriminalization of all drugs for personal use; the creation of a regulatory system for adult cannabis use, increased efforts to eliminate stigma and discrimination against people who use drugs, the scale up of comprehensive health and social services, including housing and treatment services that engage people with drug problems; more robust educational programs about safer drug use, programs for distributing new supplies for injection and crack cocaine use, safer consumption services, opioid substitution therapies and heroin-assisted treatment and the collection and monitoring of data on drug use and its effects in Canada.

    All of these measures are designed to reduce harm from substance use in Canada and assist people who develop problems with drugs to get the help they need.

    Canadian media responded quickly to our recommendation to decriminalize personal possession of drugs with questions about how this approach would increase the safety and health of Canadians, especially when it comes to so-called “hard” drugs like heroin and cocaine. Canada’s Conservative government also reacted swiftly to media coverage of our report and publicly dismissed our proposal to decriminalize the personal use of all other drugs, while failing to adequately justify their current approach, which has shifted focus from a public health approach to drugs back to one that relies heavily on the criminal justice system.

    Our recommendations were shaped by the stories Canadians told us as we prepared this report. The CDPC talked to people across the country – service providers, family members, and people who use drugs. Story after story, along with research evidence, confirmed that the harms of drug use are exacerbated by Canada’s current drug policies. Canada still puts the majority of its resources behind conventional approaches to drug control like policing, courts, and prisons – approaches that have failed to meet their objectives – public health and public safety. In fact, Canada’s national drug policy increases the harms of substance use by driving it into the shadows and away from life-saving services. And like the United States, Canada’s drug laws disproportionally target already marginalized groups.

    Our report rues that fact that Canada used to be a leader when it came to progressive drug policy. Before the current federal government took power, harm reduction was a key pillar of the federal drug strategy, and the federal government supported innovative approaches like supervised injection sites, heroin assisted treatment and the expansion of needle exchange programs as well as focusing on prevention through social development rather than “Just Say No to Drugs” style of programs that have been shown not to work. Since 2007, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s approach is best represented by the National Anti-Drug Strategy; a yet to be proven effort that reasserts the use of criminal law to suppress the trade and use of illegal substances.

    Our report documents how this approach, encapsulated by last year’s enactment of minimum sentencing provisions for some drug crimes, neither supports health or public safety but will lead to increasingly overcrowded and costly prisons. But the most stunning display of unimaginative thinking when it comes to solving current drug problems is the refusal by our government to even talk about the failures of the overarching policy framework and the criminalization of drugs and prohibition – policies that not only create much of the drug crime in Canada, but also constrain our ability to address many drug-related health harms. In fact, the Canadian government was one of the few that voted against the 2012 motion at the UN put forward by the President of Mexico to have a United Nations General Assembly Special Sesssion on global drug policy in 2016.

    Even where provincial level policies attempt to make “every door the right door” people still fall between the cracks, or wait intolerably long for drug treatment services because private treatment is prohibitively expensive and the publicly funded workforce whose role it is to provide these services is small.

    In many places in Canada, the harms associated with drug use continue unabated because we can’t commit fully to services like needle exchanges and supervised injection sites that help reduce these harms. The federal government remains openly hostile to evidence-based measures like key harm reduction services. As a result, rates of HIV and HCV associated with drug use remain unacceptably high, particularly among some groups of Canadians. In 2010, 30.4% of new infections in women versus 13.5 % of new cases in men were attributed to injection drug use. Cases of HIV attributed to injecting drug use among First Nations, Métis and Inuit persons have gone up to more than 50% in the period spanning 2001 to 2008. This is a tragedy and a national disgrace that can be prevented.

    Canada must modernize its approach to drugs. Globally, the current system of drug control is under considerable pressure to change and some jurisdictions have begun to chart their own paths when it comes to drug control, including experimenting with decriminalization and legal regulation of cannabis while over 70 countries embrace harm reduction in their drug strategy policy frameworks. The CDPC’s report recommends that it’s time to follow suit and modernise Canada’s legislative, policy and regulatory frameworks that address psychoactive substances.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Cannabis Prohibition is Falling Apart

    Cannabis Prohibition is Falling Apart

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I think the choice is clear.

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

  • Reading between the lines at the 56th Commission on Narcotic Drugs

    Reading between the lines at the 56th Commission on Narcotic Drugs

    I fully expected the 51st Commission on Narcotic Drugs to be as depressing as others that I have attended in recent years. With so many organizations in the world working to change drug policies and refocus attention on the harms that arise from global drug polices on individuals, families, communities and countries, attending the CND is often a reality check on the slow, sometimes microscopic pace of change in this international forum on drug policies.

    As the meeting commenced it became clear that there was something different in the air this year. For one the usual buzz around the presence of the US Drug Czar was strangely missing from the proceedings – his travel budget a victim of sequestration cuts, Gil Kerlikowski stayed home this year. Not a bad one to miss given the torturous task his staff might have had writing speaking notes to explain the recent situation in Colorado and Washington where voters passed resolutions to bring into existence a legal regulatory regime for adult non-medical use of cannabis.

    Evo Morales, President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, in his opening address to the Commission thanked the delegates for allowing Bolivia to re-join the conventions with a reservation that addressed Bolivia’s constitution, which upholds the use of coca leaf as a part of Bolivia’s cultural heritage. President Morales went on to ask whether there was tension in the room and he wondered if it was related to the knowledge that “the fight against drugs has failed globally?” He went on to chastise the US for trying to force Bolivia to curb its coca farming with threats and by tying eradication of coca to the building of schools in the 1980s. Morales’ words were strong in that he pointedly noted that efforts to control drug trafficking are intertwined with other geopolitical goals of “mastery” and “dominance”. Such bold statements are rare in the public forum at CND.

    UNODC Director, Yuri Fedetov’s opening remarks were an interesting mix of the old and the new. While asserting that progress is being made on the global drug problem Fedetov acknowledged that international drug control policy cannot remain isolated from needed improvements in HIV services nor can it ignore discrimination and the lack of evidence-based services for people who use drugs. During the civil society session with the Director, Fedetov was animated and seemed to welcome the openness of the debate at this session where a number of questions focusing on drug policy reform surfaced.

    Another fresh breath of air in this years event was New Zealand’s Minister of Revenue, Peter Dunne who addressed the Commission and explained the new and innovative legislation that will be coming before the New Zealand parliament in the fall that will address the many new psychoactive substances that are appearing almost daily that are unscheduled within the treaties. Under the proposed legislation, the Psychoactive Substances Bill, all of these new substances will be banned unless a manufacturer can prove that they pose no more than a low risk of harm. Rather than ban all new substances immediately the New Zealand government plan to put the onus on the industry to ensure the safety of their products and if they pass muster they will be placed in a regulatory schedule that will allow retail sales of the products under certain conditions.  When asked how this scheme was received by other delegations Minister Dunn said there was a great deal of interest in the proposed legislation and countries are watching closely to see the outcomes.

    The Organization of American States review of drug policy in the western hemisphere that was mandated by the last Summit of the Americas in April 2012 was also a topic of interest as expectations begin to mount now that the review is coming to conclusion in the next couple of months.

    All in all this years CND had some interesting moments if you read the tea leaves and listened to the buzz in the corridors. My take is that there is an implicit if not explicit recognition that the drug policy landscape is indeed changing, new approaches are being considered, and countries are beginning to demand a wider debate on policy. For the CND to remain relevant, these debates should be welcomed as an important opportunity at future meetings of the Commission.

  • Civil Society is Key to Global Drug Policy Reform

    Civil Society is Key to Global Drug Policy Reform

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Repressive Drug Policy Still the Norm at CND

    Repressive Drug Policy Still the Norm at CND

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Is This The Future of Drug Law?

    Is This The Future of Drug Law?

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

    From the BBC:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Canada’s War on Pot Just Got Weirder

    Canada’s War on Pot Just Got Weirder

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

    From the CBC:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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