Donate

Category: International

  • Measuring lives saved: the facts about safer consumption services

    Measuring lives saved: the facts about safer consumption services

    This post first appeared in the Centre for Addictions Research of BC’s blog Matters of Substance.

    Despite the pragmatic nature of harm reduction programs, and their demonstrated ability to save lives, controversy still dogs efforts to scale-up harm reduction. One of the most misunderstood and controversial initiatives are safer consumption services (SCS).

    In the last 20 years, SCS services (sometimes also known as safer injection services (SIS) have been integrated into drug treatment and harm reduction programs in Western Europe, Australia, and Canada. The focus of these services is facilitating people to safely consume pre-obtained drugs with sterile equipment. These services can be offered using a number of models including under the supervision of health professionals or as autonomous services operated by groups of people who use drugs.

    The objectives of SCS include preventing the transmission of blood-borne infections such as HIV and hepatitis C; improving access to health care services for the most marginalized groups of people who use drugs; improving basic health and well-being; contributing to the safety and quality of communities; and reducing the impact of open drug scenes on communities.

    Safer consumption services grew out of the recognition that low-threshold, easily accessible programs to reduce the incidence of blood-borne pathogens were effective and cost-effective. This was the conclusion of over 30 research studies on Vancouver’s own supervised injection site known as Insite.

    Research has found that SIS services:

    • are actively used by people who inject drugs including people at higher risk of harm;
    • reduce overdose deaths — no deaths have occurred at Insite since its inception;
    • reduce behaviours such as the use of shared needles which can lead to HIV and Hep C infection;
    • reduce other unsafe injection practices and encourage the use of sterile swabs, water and safe needle disposal. Users of these services are more likely to report changes to their injecting practices such as less rushed injecting;
    • increase the use of detox and other treatment services. For example, the opening of Insite in Vancouver was associated with a 30% increase in the use of detoxification services and in Sydney, Australia, more than 9500 referrals to health and social services have been made since the service opened, half of which were for addiction treatment;
    • are cost-effective. Insite prevents 35 new cases of HIV and 3 deaths a year providing a societal benefit of approximately $6 million per year. Research estimates that in Sydney, Australia, only 0.8 of a life per year would need to be saved for the service to be cost-neutral;
    • reduce public drug use; and reduce the amount of publically discarded injection equipment; and
    • do not cause an increase in crime.

    Professional groups such as the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Nurses Association, the Public Health Physicians of Canada, the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario, and the Urban Public Health Network have expressed their support for SCS.

    Clearly it’s time to move beyond controversy and get on with creating more of these life-saving programs.

  • Voices of the Drug War: Mexico and Canada

    Voices of the Drug War: Mexico and Canada

    In Mexico the drug war has had a devastating impact on communities, families, the social fabric and the economy. Deepen your understanding of the complex roots of this tragedy and hear ideas for new and better ways forward.

    Join the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition, Global Exchange and the Movement for Peace with Justice and Dignity for an evening with Javier Sicilia and Teresa Carmona.  Both of these outstanding Mexicans have lost children in the drug-war-driven violence of recent years. Both have chosen to forge their tragedies into opportunities to become agents of the changes so urgently needed in Mexico as well as in North America.
    Mr. Sicilia and Ms Carmona will share their experiences as both victims of the drug war and founders of an important peace movement. They will lead a discussion on why they are committing the moral weight of Mexico’s Movement for Peace with Justice and Dignity to the call for drug policy reform throughout our hemisphere.

    In Canada the drug war has had devastating impacts on individuals, families and communities across the country. Canada’s current drug laws support a lucrative underground and violent drug trade, fuel the spread of HIV and Hepatitis C, disproportionally target marginalized populations, and ensure the availability of illegal drugs to young people in our communities. Bud Osborn poet and Downtown Eastside activist will read and talk about his own journey through the drug war in North America.

    Donald MacPherson, Director, Canadian Drug Policy Coalition will moderate the discussion and highlight the opportunities coming towards us to accelerate the movement for ending the war on drugs.

    You are invited to attend – Voices of the Drug War: Mexico and Canada

    Register here: drugpolicy.ca/javier-sicilia/

    Monday, October 28, 7-9 PM
    World Arts Room
    SFU Woodward’s
    149 West Hastings Street
    Vancouver, BC

    For more info: [email protected]

    donate1The Canadian Drug Policy Coalition relies on donations from people like you to operate. Our small team ensures even the smallest contributions go a long way to make your voice heard. Please donate today.

     

  • Will Hemispheric Leaders Change Course on Drug Policy?

    Will Hemispheric Leaders Change Course on Drug Policy?

    This winter the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition was invited to participate alongside 45 other representatives of government, business and civil society organizations in a process to create different scenarios for what could happen in the hemisphere related to drugs and drug policies over the next 15 years.

    The commitment to undertake such a forward thinking exercise was made by leaders at the 6th Summit of the Americas held in Cartagena, Colombia in 2012, where they agreed to review current approaches to illegal drugs and to consider alternative futures for drug policy in the region. Through a process of transformative scenario planning, a diverse array of participants came together to create different scenarios that each tell a story of what could happen in the next 15 years – not what should happen or what we want to happen – but what could happen in the area of drugs and drug policy. The OAS has also prepared an analytical report that looks at the situation on the ground.

    The agreement to undertake this process stemmed from the urgency Latin American leaders expressed this past year in response to the increasing levels of violence in the region. For several years the voices of former and sitting political leaders in Latin America have been becoming more insistent that drug policies must be reviewed because of the death and destruction being witnessed related to the ongoing war on drugs. Even Canada’s cautious and conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper said that “It is clear that what we are doing is not working” at the closing press conference of the Summit. He is not alone.

    Sitting leaders in Colombia, Uruguay, Guatemala and the former leaders of Mexico, Brazil and Colombia have all called for dialogue on alternative approaches including considering the legal regulation of drugs, decriminalization, and shifting illegal crops such as poppies and coca to legal cultivation regimes for medical and industrial uses. Is change really in the wind or is this a policy window that will slam shut with a few changes of leadership? Dialogue is an ongoing process and the commitment by the OAS to undertake scenario building is a great start. But where will it lead?

    On May 15th, the OAS will release its analytical report and a set of four scenarios developed through the scenario planning process. This release is another marker on the path towards drug policy reform in the hemisphere and the scenarios presented will provide an opportunity for dialogue and public engagement on the future of drug policy in the region. The release of a the scenarios is the next event in a string of opportunities that are coming up over the next 3 years that may help to turn the tide on the war on drugs.

    In early June, a Summit of Foreign Ministers will be held to discuss and craft a declaration to strengthen and update drug policies in the region including considering some alternative approaches. In 2014, the United Nations will complete a mid-term high-level review of the Plan of Action that came out of the 2009 Commission on Narcotic Drugs. In 2015, the next Summit of the Americas will take place in Panama, which will provide a serious opportunity for leaders to consider new directions in drug policy. And in 2016, the United Nations General Assembly will hold a special session on Drug Policy in New York. The road ahead provides a number of critical opportunities for politicians to show leadership and support efforts to learn from new ideas and approaches. Let’s see if they can rally the support and courage to do so.

    To keep up to date with CDPC’s activities abroad, sign up to our mailing list. And if you would like to support our efforts to end the war on drugs, please consider making a donation.

  • Civil Society is Key to Global Drug Policy Reform

    Civil Society is Key to Global Drug Policy Reform

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Bolivia and Coca Chewing: Speaking Truth to Power

    Bolivia and Coca Chewing: Speaking Truth to Power

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Repressive Drug Policy Still the Norm at CND

    Repressive Drug Policy Still the Norm at CND

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Sometimes Violations of International Law Are Cause for Celebration

    Sometimes Violations of International Law Are Cause for Celebration

    The United States is again in violation of international law. That is a strong statement and one that reminds us of the invasion of Iraq, Guantanamo bay, water-boarding, rendition, and the strong international legal arguments made about these situations.

    But in this case the violation will be hailed by many as a positive step.

    On 6 November various ballot initiatives were voted on in the US, from abolishing the death penalty to allowing assisted suicide, to legalising gay marriage. Three had the clearest potential to render the US in breach of international law if they succeeded. With the votes in Colorado and Washington which established a legally regulated framework for non-medical production and sale of marijuana, that breach has now occurred.

    The laws in question are the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the 1988 UN drug trafficking conventions (which has a longer, duller title). Alongside one other treaty (which deals with synthetics) these form the bedrock legal foundation of the global drug control regime. Most countries follow them very closely, including the US.

    Some states have been pushing at the boundaries of these treaties for some time, however, on particular points of contention that have developed in the decades since the treaties were negotiated. Times have changed since 1961. Grey areas have been exploited, arcane scheduling systems utilised, and interpretations adopted that allow more room for manoeuvre.

    But what sets these ballot initiatives apart is that there is no grey area to exploit, and it would take some legal gymnastics to interpret your way past that. This is straight up legalisation of recreational use, production, and sale, which is not permitted. It’s what the system was set up in large part to prohibit, with marijuana receiving particular attention alongside coca and opium. While most substances are listed in annexed schedules, these three are written into the very terms of the treaties (‘cannabis’ is the term used).

    The US (alongside over 180 other states) is required, under a very robust and politically supported regime, to ‘limit exclusively to medical and scientific purposes the production, manufacture, export, import, distribution of, trade in, use and possession of drugs’.

    There is more, of course, and there are various provisos and caveats on certain provisions, but this is a ‘general obligation’ of the regime around which all else revolves. In other words, the US is not just in breach of some marginal aspect of the system, now, but a fundamental requirement of it that goes to the heart of prohibition.

    Millions of US citizens are now permitted to buy and sell marijuana for recreational purposes (regulations pending). These laws apply to a population far exceeding that of Sweden (where I am currently sitting) and way over twice the size of Ireland (where I’m from). This would be supported by neither government, which have signed contracts with the US in the form of these international agreements to the effect that none of them would allow it. The fact that this has happened at state and not federal level does not rectify the legal dilemma the US government now faces.

    Many in the US and worldwide are celebrating the results in Colorado and Washington as the beginning of the end of the war on drugs – and appropriately through a democratic process. People have voted for the US to breach international law. That very few would have cared or knew about this is not relevant. This is the fact of it.

    There are now four possible scenarios. The US Federal Government can fight it out, stepping all over state sovereignty. The US can withdraw from the treaties in question. The treaties themselves can be changed by international processes. Or the US can carry on in breach and turn a blind eye. I think the fourth is the most likely. Ironically, this leads inexorably to arguments for broader reform, but this is something the US overnment has ardently opposed, even signing a recent declaration with the Russians to that effect.

    So the implications for international law and the place of the UN drugs conventions within it must be considered.

    We would not celebrate an ongoing breach by the US of the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which it is also bound. Nor would we tolerate (though they happen regularly) violations of the Geneva Conventions, the Torture Convention, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or environmental protocols. Indeed, there is a hierarchy in international law that is exposed by the Colorado and Washington votes.

    But it is one within which the drug control regime has an unnaturally elevated position due to the widespread political consensus around prohibition, and fears that have been intentionally fuelled over the years. Drugs, in the UN conventions, are seen as a threat to mankind, and an ‘evil’ to be fought. Over time, respect for the UN drugs conventions has been equated with respect for the rule of law itself. ‘The three United Nations drug control conventions…set the international rule of law that all States have agreed to respect and implement’ said the President of the UN’s International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) in a recent speech. (The INCB is the body that monitors States’ implementation of the drugs conventions). He has confused the rule of law with specific laws.

    There are some things that are wrong in themselves (malum in se) and things that are wrong because they are prohibited (malum prohibitum). But when it comes to drug laws, fighting something that is prohibited has resulted in widespread acts that are wrong in themselves and that breach basic legal principles – the rule of law.

    The racially discriminatory nature of drug laws is common knowledge. Some governments rely on the international regime to justify executions of people convicted of drug offences (in violation of international law, in fact). Police violence, mass incarceration, denial of due process are routine in States’ pursuit of the general obligation the US now breaches.

    The international legal arguments about the Colorado and Washington results will certainly arise. They must, though it will likely be in the rather closed and stale environment of UN drugs diplomacy. When that happens it must emerge is that these ballots are a victory for the rule of law even as they bring the US into conflict with the drugs conventions. Fundamental legal principles of proportionality, fairness and justice, not to mention democracy, have won out over arbitrary and unreasonable controls on human behaviour.

    Ending the war on drugs, moreover, will be a victory for international human rights law. It will be a victory for international law itself – for environmental law, anti-corruption agreements, international security, for the achievement of international development agreements and improved health – all of which have been damaged by decades of prohibition. Colorado and Washington have taken us one step closer. For that we should all celebrate.

    – Damon Barrett

    Damon Barrett is Deputy Director of Harm Reduction International, co-founder of the International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy, and an Editor-in-Chief of the journal Human Rights and Drugs.  This blog post was first published on Damon’s Huffington Post blog and the Transform website.

  • 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    From the release:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    As one commenter put it:

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