Category: Regulation

Drug Policy 101: Dangers of an Unregulated Drug Market

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next Steps:

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

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

Long term solution: A regulated drug market

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

Under the new regulations, synthetic drugs, also known as “legal highs” or “party pills” would have to undergo an approval process before being brought to market. This process would place the burden on the synthetic drug industry, which would have to prove its products are safe before being made available to the consumer. Taking up to two years, the approval process will determine the effects and side-effects of a proposed drug, measuring it against an established health criteria.

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

November 4, 2012
The House We All Live In

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

October 1, 2012
One Step Closer to Cannabis Regulation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 28, 2012
21st Century Justice: The Economics of Public Safety

Every day, most of us make certain assumptions. We assume that we are generally safe in our homes and on our streets. We assume that the government services that we rely upon will continue unimpaired. We assume that our lot, as individuals and as a community, will improve over time. We don’t expect a collapse of our economic or political systems.

If we didn’t harbour certain assumptions, we wouldn’t have time to take care of the day-to-day business of living. Yet, hovering around us is a cloud of headlines that should cause us to rethink our basic expectations.

For the last four years, the world’s economy has experienced a multi-dimensional crisis. Massive American long-term debt, bankrupt state and local governments, a Eurozone threatening to unravel – these are just a few of the factors that force a rethinking of some of our assumptions.

Most Canadians have been fortunate to have suffered less than the citizens of some other developed countries. But we are not immune to financial ill-health and its impact on the quality of our lives. We have an aging population, one that will place increasing demands on the country’s health care system and other ‘entitlements’, and we can look forward to intense competition between ministries and agencies for funds to keep operating, let alone expanding.

Looking outside our own borders, we can see examples of the impact of financial hardship on criminal justice and public safety. In England and Wales, a reduction of more than 20,000 police is in progress. Many American jurisdictions have already undergone significant downsizing in police services, driven by shrinking tax bases. In the field of corrections, The United States Supreme Court has ordered California to reduce its prison population by more than 30,000 inmates, in direct response to overcrowding.

In this country, Chief Justice McLachlin has spoken out about high legal fees as an insurmountable obstacle, for those without the means, to justice. In British Columbia, legal aid lawyers have, on occasion, withdrawn services to emphasize the inadequacy of that system’s budget. Unavailability of Sheriffs has in some instances caused unscheduled court closures. Bill C-10’s financial impact is debated endlessly, and the cost of RCMP policing services is driving active consideration of municipally-based alternatives.

Our crises don’t seem to have the blunt effect of those in the U.S. and elsewhere. We have the advantage of time to think about alternatives and options before we are forced to confront British or American-style consequences.

To give focus to the discussion of our options, the planners of the 2013 Canadian Congress on Criminal Justice has determined that the theme for next year’s event (October 2-5 in Vancouver) will be 21^st Century Justice: The Economics of Public Safety. The 2013 Congress is a joint undertaking of the Canadian Criminal Justice Association (www.ccja-acjp.ca) and the British Columbia Criminal Justice Association (www.bccja.com), and next year’s event will be the 34^th of these biennial gatherings.

Recently a Call for Papers to be presented at the Congress was published on the CCJA’s website, and in its quarterly magazine, Justice Report. The Call for Papers creates an opportunity to contribute directly to conversation about justice reform, a reform movement that will increasingly be pushed along by the need to find affordable and sustainable alternatives.

Pierre Trudeau talked, more than 40 years ago, about Canada as a “Just Society”. If we truly aspire to create and sustain a country that can claim to be a just society, we need to think long and hard about the shape of our justice system, its effective and efficient functioning, and our ability to sustain and improve public safety. It is time to check our assumptions.

September 28, 2012
What would it take to change cannabis laws in Canada?

Laws against cannabis in this country are the domain of the federal government. This is because cannabis is currently a controlled substance subject to the provisions of federal criminal law. In the current political climate, Stephen Harper’s Conservative government is unlikely to consider changes to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. But this hasn’t stopped activists in B.C. from pushing hard to end cannabis prohibition.

Sensible BC is pushing forward a ballot initiative that would direct the B.C. provincial government to pass the Sensible Policing Act. It would redirect all police in the province from taking any action, including searches, seizures, citations or arrests, in cases of simple cannabis possession by adults. This would apply to all RCMP and municipal police in B.C.

The success of these initiatives relies heavily on the political opportunity created by the intersection of media coverage and police claims about marijuana production in this province. In the past ten years, newspapers in B.C. have routinely covered marijuana issues by repeatedly pointing out the extent to which the production of this plant is controlled by organized crime and beset with violence and general social chaos. In a move sure to have the scholars of social movements talking for years, Stop the Violence BC (STV-BC) has moved into the space created by this media/police spectacle and garnered the support of key politicians, including four former Attorney Generals, to oppose the continued prohibition of cannabis.

Yesterday, one of STV-BC’s founders, Dr. Evan Wood, spoke at a study session at the annual Union of B.C. Municipalities convention in advance of a vote on a resolution on decriminalization scheduled for Wednesday of this week. His presentation emphasized the failures of prohibition and urged the audience to consider regulation as an alternative. This study session featured a debate between Wood and a key opponent of regulation, Dr. Darryl Plecas, RCMP University Research Chair at the University College of the Fraser Valley.

Plecas’ support for municipal programs that crack down on grow ops did not sit well with some members of the audience, especially where these programs have unnecessarily targeted innocent homeowners with intrusive electrical inspections and fines. The comments of his fellow opponents of regulation including Dave Williams, RCMP, and Pat Slack, Snohomish Regional Drug and Gang Task Force in Washington State, also seemed to admit the failure of drug prohibition even as these speakers ardently opposed the regulation of cannabis. This was apparent in their repeated comments that cannabis enforcement usually results in market displacement rather than eradication.

Another speaker at this debate, Geoff Plant, a former B.C. Attorney General, grabbed the attention of his audience by speaking directly to their concerns about rising costs, and emphasizing that current laws are out of step with the social, economic and other potential harms of cannabis use. He urged them to consider that a law that is routinely and widely flouted makes all law a joke. Plant evoked laughter from his audience when he suggested that we need to get over our “multigenerational Reefer Madness” and deal with drugs as a public health issue, rather than through a failed criminal justice policy.

These sentiments were echoed in a public event sponsored by Sensible BC later in the evening. Dana Larson kicked off the ballot initiative campaign with a roster of speakers who again forcefully made the case that current cannabis laws are routinely disregarded and that its harms do not nearly approximate the harms that ensue from continued prohibition, which include a vast underground economy, loss of tax revenue, drug violence, and an unregulated product.

While speakers from both of these events were able to make the case that drug laws need to be changed, the “how” of cannabis regulation still requires further development and some creative thinking.

The CDPC is committed to talking with Canadians about the possibilities of cannabis regulation and helping to build a regulatory framework that takes into consideration what we’ve learned from public health approaches to alcohol and tobacco. Stay tuned for more.

September 25, 2012
Syringe Exchange in Prison – A Matter of Human Rights

People do not surrender their human rights when they enter prison. Instead, they are dependent on the criminal justice system to uphold their human rights — including their right to health. Prison health is public health.

These statements may seem self-evident to some, but the right to adequate health care services is the basis of a new legal case brought against the Canadian federal government.

Syringe exchange programs are a crucial component of a comprehensive strategy to prevent the spread of infectious diseases but the federal correctional service does not permit this life-saving health service in Canada’s federal prisons. To challenge this policy, the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, Prisoners with HIV/AIDS Support Action Network (PASAN), CATIE, the Canadian Aboriginal AIDS Network (CAAN) and Steven Simons, a former federal prisoner, launched a lawsuit against the Government of Canada today over its failure to protect the health of people in prison through its ongoing refusal to implement clean needle and syringe programs.

Drug use in prisons is a reality. A 2007 survey by the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) revealed that 17% of men and 14% of women had injected drugs while in prison. Some prisoners are not ready to partake in treatment, treatment may be unavailable or treatment may not be appropriate.

Despite the fact that drug use and possession is illegal in prison and despite prison systems’ efforts to prevent drugs from entering the prisons, drugs remain widely available. In fact, no prison system in the world has been able to keep drugs completely out. Sharing syringes is a pretty efficient way of sharing blood-born illnesses. People in prison have rates of HIV and Hep C that are at least 10 and 30 times higher than the population as a whole, and much of this infection is occurring because prisoners do not have access to sterile injection equipment.

This legal case challenges the belief that people revoke their rights when they enter a prison. In fact, prisoners retain all the human rights available to the population at large, except those that are necessarily restricted by incarceration. This includes the right to the highest attainable standard of health, a right enshrined in several U.N. Treaties and Conventions. This right encompasses measures such as syringe exchange that have been shown repeatedly to prevent the transmission of diseases.

There’s also sound reasons to think that prison syringe exchange services are good for all of us. These services are available in many parts of the world and evaluations have found that they reduce needle sharing, do not lead to increased drug use or injecting, help reduce drug overdoses, facilitate referrals of users to drug treatment programmes, and have not resulted in needles or syringes being used as weapons against staff. When these services were introduced in Swiss prisons, staff were initially relunctant, but because syringe exchange reduced the likelihood of a needle stick they realized that distribution of sterile injection equipment was in their own interest, and felt safer than before the distribution started.

The vast majority of prisoners eventually return to the community, so illnesses that are acquired in prison do not necessarily stay in prison. This means that when we protect the health of prisoners we protect the health of everyone in our communities. Prisoners are part of our lives too – they are mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, friends and loved ones. While you may not think you know a prisoner, chances are you will – and you will have concern for their health and well being.

September 25, 2012
AIDS 2012 Director’s Summary

The dust has settled on the most recent International AIDS Conference that took place July 22 – 27th in Washington DC. The Canadian Drug Policy Coalition was there on the ground, taking part in the many sessions and events that took place at this bi-annual gathering. Holding the event in DC, ground-zero for the war on drugs, is what made this year’s conference so special and yet so disappointing at the same time.

Donald MacPherson and Alan Clear at CDPC booth

In recent years, a strong argument has been made by the world’s leading HIV/AIDS scientists, physicians, and activists that global drug policies, directly responsible for one third of new HIV infections in the world, must be reviewed if efforts to slow or halt the epidemic are to be successful. The emergence of initiatives like the Vienna Declaration , organizations like International Doctors for Healthy Drug Policies, and the International Centre for Science in Drug Policy are testaments to the concern about the harms that global drug policies are causing world-wide.

What was most disappointing about the conference was the lack of focus on drug policy and its contribution to the global epidemic.

AIDS Action Now

There was little in the official program that acknowledged that the criminalization of drugs and those who use them is a key driver of increased risk of HIV transmission. There was absolutely no mention of this issue in any of the opening ceremonies of the conference. On the other hand, in the Global Village (the community organized venue that takes place parallel to the conference but outside the main event) there were many events, actions, discussions, and panels that highlighted the importance of finding alternative drug policies that worked better to protect public health, reduce stigma and uphold the human rights of people who use drugs.

Canada’s Federal Minister of Health, Leona Aglukkaq, was given a hostile reception by many of the Canadians in attendance over the federal government’s lack of support for harm reduction, cuts to HIV AIDS organizations and the denial of health care benefits for refugee claimants. The video of this action can be found here http://www.aidsactionnow.org/

CDPC created a live-blog for AIDS 2012 to follow the issues raised at the conference. Check it out for stories, videos and commentary on the relationship between drug policy and HIV/AIDS.

Watch Now

We also delivered a newspaper that flew off the stands at the CDPC booth in the Global Village. Thanks to the wonderful design team that helped us put it together. It was a real hit!

Watch Stephen Lewis on drug policy and HIV here on our live blog.

August 15, 2012
Drug policy off-limits at AIDS 2012 Opening

The opening session of AIDS 2012 is the anchor event for many attendees. This is the place where world leaders in the AIDS movement say their piece and inspire attendees to continue their work. Speakers at this year’s session were numerous and notable, including World Bank President Jim Yong Kim, who delivered the message that his organization cares and wants to see more involvement of civil society in shaping global anti-poverty programs (despite years of insisting that countries scale down their social safety nets to receive World Bank financial assistance). The conference co-chairs, Diane Havlir and Elly Katabira, along with the Deputy President of South Africa also urged conference attendees to embrace the goal of eliminating HIV in our generation. All good stuff.

New Vienna Declaration Ad

The highlight of the evening was Annah Sango from the International Community of Women Living with HIV/AIDS who spoke most poignantly about the need to integrate women’s issues into the international AIDS agenda. She praised the work of NGO’s addressing the needs of people who use drugs and reminded the audience that the way forward cannot proceed without the voices of those most affected, including people who use drugs, women, and sex workers. Speakers made it clear that organizations focused on AIDS in a global context have had major successes at scaling up prevention and treatment. Yet it was apparent that discussion of controversial issues like the decriminalization or even legalization of drugs was a nonstarter. Last night’s speakers briefly mentioned needle exchange but the overall framework of global drug policy was clearly not on the agenda.

These profound absences were supposed to be remedied by the 2010 Vienna Declaration. But the lack of drug policy discussion last night makes it clear why CDPC’s presence is needed in Washington this week. Our work is to remind attendees that drug policy is AIDS policy and that harm reduction interventions and a discussion of legal frameworks should not only be up for discussion, but are central to the conference’s goal of an AIDS-free generation.

July 23, 2012
Director’s Report

The past three months have been a blur of activity as we further establish our presence and connect with organizations and individuals across the country and around the world. There truly is something bigger going on and momentum is building towards considering new and innovative approaches to addressing drug problems.

Mexico Unido Contra la Delincuencia

In February, I was invited to speak at an international conference in Mexico City – Drogas: Un balance a un siglo de su prohicion, organized by the crime prevention group Mexico Unido Contra la Delincuencia. The forum provided a thorough consideration of possible alternatives to the devastating consequences of the Mexican government’s war on drugs. Speakers came from around the world to share stories of innovation, legislative changes and practices that have moved their drug policies towards a public health approach and away from a failed criminal justice model.

Integrating Supervised Injection Into Health Services and Community: A National Knowledge Exchange

CAHR 2012 Montréal

In April, CDPC organized a forum on supervised injection services in partnership with the Dr. Peter Centre in Vancouver and Cactus Montreal as an ancillary event at the Canadian Association of HIV Research meeting in Montreal. The event was held in the beautiful Biblioteque et Archive National du Quebec and was a chance for organizations to share their experiences and review the current state of the discussion in their jurisdictions. CDPC will be working with a number of organizations to keep this national discussion moving forward as different localities explore implementing these services.

North American Drug Strategy Meeting – San Francisco, April 12, 13

San Fransisco

As part of CDPC’s international work we co-hosted a meeting in partnership with the Drug Policy Alliance in the US and CUPHID from Mexico City to explore the development of a coordinated North American drug policy dialogue. The San Francisco meeting was the initial exploratory session to see how we can work together to bring forward alternatives to North America’s current drug policies. In an effort to strengthen our ties across the continent, CDPC is currently looking for Canadian allies interested in supporting our work in Mexico.

Visit to the Maritimes

People & Policies Conference Halifax

As part of our ongoing efforts to build a national coalition I visited Atlantic Canada in May, attending events and meetings in Halifax, Saint John, New Brunswick and Charlottetown. Atlantic Harm Reduction Research Network invited CDPC to be a part of their public session – People and Policies: How do Drug Policies Impact the Health of our Communities? In addition to this, a day-long session with service providers and researchers also considered how best to integrate harm reduction services into shelter and emergency ward settings.

In Saint John, NB, AIDS Saint John, the Urban and Community Studies Institute at University of New Brunswick and CDPC co-hosted an event – Drugs and the City, which featured a panel discussion on drug policy with Tim Christie, Ethics Director, Saint John Health Region and Bill Reid, Chief of Saint John Police Department.

In Charlottetown, I met with a number of parents who are concerned about the lack of youth treatment on the Island and are interested in organizing a provincial “addictions movement” to generate discussion, share experiences and engage the provincial government in dialogue on improving services for people with drug problems.

Thunder Bay Municipal Drug Strategy

Pot, Pills and Parties Thunder Bay

On May 24^th Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy and Thunder Bay Drug Strategy put on the event – Pot, Pills and Parties. The event focused on the impact of Bill C-10 on young people and included a presentation from CDPC – Changing the Frame: A New Approach to Drug Policy in Canada.

As CDPC reaches out across the country we are finding new and innovative ways to strengthen and build our national coalition to improve Canada’s approach to drug problems. We will continue to engage Canadians and work at the international level towards this end.

Photo Credits:
Mexico – Steve Rolles
Montréal – Caroline Mousseau
San Fransisco – CC Flickr evoo73
Halifax – Wooden Shoe Photography

June 29, 2012