Category: Drug Law Reform

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

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

DONATE to Support Drug Policy Reform

Peter Wall International Research Roundtable (April 2019)

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

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

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

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

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

Peter Wall International Research Roundtable public event (April 2019)

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

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

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

DONATE to Fund the Next Phase of our Legal Regulation Model

(Interactive Graph)

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

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

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

Peter Wall International Research Roundtable breakout session (April 2019)

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

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

It is now time to turn words into action.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

October 28, 2015
The Political Parties Response to our Drug Policy Questionnaire

Last month, we worked with the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, and “moms united and mandated to saving the lives of Drug Users” (mumsDU) to send out a policy questionnaire to all the political parties to get their opinion on issues surrounding an ever-changing drug policy landscape. Our intention was to gauge the direction each party would take Canada if elected on October 19^th.

Fortunately, with the notable exception of the Conservative Party which didn’t respond, the responses we received are very encouraging. All parties gave us answers that indicated a different approach to drug policy would be taken after the votes have been counted, but there are subtle differences between the parties on each of the issues. Below is a summary of answers the parties gave us.

Does your party support restoring harm reduction as a key pillar in Canada’s federal drug strategy, including support for supervised consumption services as one important component of an overall federal strategy on drugs — and as part of efforts to prevent the spread of HIV and hepatitis C (HCV), associated with unsafe injection drug use?

All responding parties agreed that harm reduction needs to return as a key pillar in Canada’s national drug strategy, including support for safe-consumption services. The NDP mentioned that harm reduction was a “fundamental pillar in framing Canada’s drug policy”. The Liberal Party recognized the importance of harm reduction policies and would prioritize “evidence based policies”. Both the NDP and the Green Party voiced their opposition to Bill C-2, legislation that makes it difficult to open supervised-consumption sites, and promised to address the bill after the election.

Does your party support Good Samaritan legislation as one important component of a comprehensive approach to addressing the pandemic of death by drug overdose in Canada, and expediting access to naloxone by making it a non-prescription drug?

We found it encouraging that not only did the Liberal Party agree that Good Samaritan legislation should be enacted, but they correctly cited the United States as a leader in this regard. The Green Party answered both of our concerns in the questionnaire by supporting passing Good Samaritan legislation and easier access to naloxone. In fact, the Greens were the only party that explicitly mentioned that they would allow naloxone to be offered over the counter. Neither the Liberal Party nor NDP mentioned rescheduling naloxone, but instead both mentioned that they would be interested in working with experts and civil society groups such as the CDPC on creating better legislation and good policy on this issue if they were to form government.

Does your party support considering new approaches to regulating and controlling cannabis production, distribution and possession, as a way of minimizing the harms of the cannabis industry and cannabis use, promote public health, and respect the human rights of adults who use it?

Ever since Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau admitted to smoking cannabis after being elected to public office, which was followed by promising to legalize and regulate cannabis if elected, drug policy has become an active topic in electoral politics. The NDP mentioned that “no one should go to jail” over possession of small amounts of cannabis, a position they’ve held for over 40 years, since the release of the LeDain commission. The Greens have a position similar to that of the Liberals, full legalization, and mentioned that it’s time for Canada to have “an adult conversation on ending the war on drugs”.

Given the scientific evidence of the ineffectiveness of mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug offences, does your party support eliminating the use of such sentences and again allowing judges to employ discretionary practices for these offences?

Mandatory minimum sentencing is one of the signature pieces of legislation that the Conservative government has put out since winning their majority in 2011. Both the NDP and Green Party directly mention their opposition to the Conservatives’ Bill C-10, which puts in place mandatory minimums for non-violent drug offences. The Green Party states clearly that it would repeal Bill-10, while the NDP and Liberals say they would consider policies that reduce crime, prevent re-offending, support rehabilitation of offenders and victim’s rights. The Liberal Party does not outright say what their stances on mandatory minimums are for non-violent drug offences in the questionnaire. Instead, they state that mandatory minimums do not deter crime, but that they do have a place “when necessary to protect the public from specific threats.”

Does your party support Canada advocating at the 2016 UN General Assembly Special Session on Drugs (UNGASS) for a comprehensive approach to drugs based on evidence, public health objectives, and human rights standards, including support for harm reduction programs?

Does your party support the creation of a mechanism within the United Nations that brings countries and civil society experts together to consider alternatives to drug prohibition as the main strategy for controlling drugs?

All political parties that responded agree that Canada needs to take a progressive role at next years United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Drugs (UNGASS). The NDP simply answered “yes” to our questions, and the Green Party said that “Canada should be a leader at the 2016 UNGASS to promote progressive and science-based drug policies that accomplish pressing public health objectives”. The answer from the Liberal Party was clearly the most fleshed out, and well researched. They agreed that civil society groups need to play a strong role both nationally and internationally “in order to find real solutions that are based on evidence.”

Overall these responses are quite encouraging and indicate that if any of these parties were elected on October 19^th, we would see a significant change in direction towards a public health approach to drugs in Canada.

Check out the full party responses here:

Liberal Party of Canada Response

New Democratic Party Response

Green Party of Canada Response

October 9, 2015
Canadian Drug Policy Coalition/Canadian HIV / AIDS Legal Network Policy Briefs

Harm Reduction Brief

Canada is known around the world as a leader in harm reduction. It is host to the first, and only supervised consumption site in North America, Insite, which has saved lives and helped to build a healthier community in one of the most at-risk neighbourhoods in the county. Unfortunately, the federal government has moved away from harm reduction and more towards a criminal approach to drugs. Of course, there is a way forward. In our policy brief, we make the case that not only should the federal government restore the harm reduction model, but expand upon what is already in place. Please click and read below.

CDPC-HarmReduction-Brief English

CDPC-HarmReduction-Brief Français

Overdose Brief

The tragedy of drug overdose has increased dramatically in recent years. The rise of fentanyl, an extremely potent opioid, has dramatically increased overdose deaths in recent months. Policy change at the federal level is urgently needed. Fortunately, overdoses are preventable. From allowing for easier access to lifesaving medication such as naloxone, to testing the purity level of street drugs, there are several actions the government can take right now to put an end to these avoidable deaths. Our policy brief contains many commonsense policy solutions that the government can enact immediately. Please click and read.

CDPC-Overdose-Brief English

CDPC-Overdose-Brief Français

Cannabis Brief

Cannabis law is changing around the world. From the United States to Latin America, a wider consensus is growing that cannabis prohibition has failed to prevent both the sale and consumption of the plant for non-medicinal purposes. Public opinion in Canada and worldwide is experiencing a paradigm shift, and the mindset of policymakers needs to change with it. Clearly, an alternative strategy to this broken system needs to be taken seriously. In the following brief, we outline our strategic recommendations on how the federal government can end prohibition, and use its power to begin the process to create a regulatory system that works.

CDPC-Cannabis-Brief English

CDPC-Cannabis-Brief Français

October 9, 2015
Le temps est venu de repenser notre approche en ce qui concerne la consommation de drogues en milieu carcéral

Il s’agit du troisième d’une série de trois articles consacrés à l’importance d’envisager une réforme des politiques et programmes en vigueur dans les prisons canadiennes. Vous pouvez consulter le premier article ici et le deuxième article ici.

Dans cette série d’articles, j’ai remis en cause l’efficacité des mesures de contrôle des stupéfiants en milieu carcéral et soulevé un certain nombre de questions en ce qui concernel’accès aux médicaments dans les établissements du Service correctionnel du Canada (SCC). Sous le gouvernement actuel, qui se veut déterminé à s’attaquer à la criminalité,la population carcérale augmente et la majorité des détenus déclare être aux prises avec des problèmes de toxicomanie. Face à cette réalité, il importe de se demander si les détenus font l’objet d’interventions, en matière de consommation de drogues, qui améliorent leur état de santé et leur bien-être, et facilitent leur réintégration dans la société ?

Pour les personnes désireuses de réduire ou d’éliminer leur consommation d’alcool ou de drogues, les traitements de la toxicomanie peuvent avoir un impact positif. Au fil des années, le SCC a élaboré plusieurs programmes ciblant la consommation de drogues en milieu carcéral (p. ex. les programmes d’intensité moyenne et élevée) et déclare avoir enregistré des succès aussi bien en milieu institutionnel que suite à la libération. Les Lignes directrices nationales du SCC relatives à l’aiguillage vers les programmes correctionnels stipulent que les plans correctionnels doivent permettre aux prisonniers de participer ‘le plus tôt possible’ aux programmes de lutte contre la consommation abusive de drogues. Cependant, plusieurs détenus, y compris ceux aux prises avec de graves problèmes de toxicomanie, se retrouvent sur de longues listes d’attente.
De nombreux obstacles s’opposent à la prestation efficace et en temps opportun de traitements contre la toxicomanie en milieu carcéral. Les prisons constituent, de par leur conception, un milieu difficile pour les programmes de réadaptation. Les gens ne s’y trouvent pas volontairement. Les impératifs de sécurité dictent les procédures opérationnelles (p. ex. l’isolement cellulaire), ainsi que l’attitude adoptée par le personnel correctionnel et les employés des programmes. Il y a considérablement plus d’argent alloué à l’infrastructure de sécurité qu’aux programmes, et le financement des programmes est davantage susceptible de subir des coupures budgétaires. Par exemple, l’ombudsman des Services correctionnels du Canada a notéque l’investissement dans le programme du SCC dans le traitement d’entretien de la méthadone, un traitement efficace de substitution aux opiacés, devait être réduit en 2014/15. Comme les populations carcérales continuent de croître et le financement public se raréfie, le surpeuplement qui en découle (p. ex. la double occupation des cellules, le manque d’espace pour les programmes) et les problèmes de ressources (p. ex. le manque de personnel qualifié pour satisfaire à la demande du programme) auront une incidence sur l’accessibilité et la qualité des programmes.

Un autre aspect problématique est la hiérarchisation des candidats éligibles aux programmes de traitement de la toxicomanie. Les anciens membres du personnel correctionnel expliquent que la durée des peines et les dates d’admissibilité à la mise en liberté sont souvent utilisées pour déterminer qui aura d’abord accès aux programmes. Les individus purgeant des peines plus courtes (p. ex. quatre ans ou moins) voient s’accélérer le plan d’exécution de leur peine. Inversement, ceux qui purgent des peines plus longues, peu importe leurs antécédents personnels, sont parfois dépriorisés, ou ne sont retenus pour les programmes que plusieurs années plus tard. Cela aboutit à une situation incohérente. En outre, tout prisonnier présentant une demande de liberté conditionnelle sans avoir complété sa programmation désignée, est susceptible d’être jugé inadmissible ou sans fondement.

L’absence d’accès en temps opportun aux traitements de la toxicomanie pourrait expliquer pourquoi certains détenus continuent à consommer de la drogue pendant leur incarcération. Les politiques de tolérance zéro dans les prisons fédérales rendent difficile l’institution de programmes de sensibilisation et de services de réduction des méfaits. J’ai déjà traité en détail des obstacles politiques et opérationnels, y compris la suppression d’éléments de preuve, qui empêchent la mise en oeuvre de certains programmes de réduction des méfaits, tels que les projets de tatouage sécuritaire et de distribution de seringues au Canada. De tels programmes ont vu le jour dans d’autres pays. Ici au Canada, des efforts plurilatéraux sont en cours pour renforcer l’appui apporté à la mise en oeuvre de programmes de distribution d’aiguilles et de seringues, en vue d’améliorer les services de santé offerts aux détenus.

Il est essentiel de se rappeler que la plupart des détenus fédéraux sont éventuellement réintégrés à la collectivité. Pour les consommateurs de drogues, la période initiale suivant leur remise en liberté est reconnue comme un moment critique. Il est possible qu’ils réintègrent un réseau social qui encourage la consommation de drogues ou qu’ils recommencent à consommer des drogues qui augmentent leur risque de surdose. Au cours de cette période de transition, la continuité des soins (p. ex. l’établissement de liens entre les anciens détenus et les traitements communautaires de la toxicomanie et les services de réduction des méfaits) est un autre domaine auquel il faudrait apporter d’importantes améliorations. Aussi est-il d’autant plus important que les toxicomanes puissent bénéficier de programmes et de services de traitement de qualité qui les aident à accroître leur sécurité pendant leur incarcération. Si nous ne parvenons pas à relever ces défis, les mesures que nous prenons sont insuffisantes et arrivent trop tard.

March 30, 2015
Le contexte entourant l’application des lois antidrogues dans les prisons fédérales canadiennes

Voici le premier d’une série de trois articles consacrés à l’importance d’envisager une réforme des politiques et programmes en vigueur dans les prisons canadiennes.

Au cours des dernières années, le Service Correctionnel du Canada (SCC) a intensifié ses efforts visant à empêcher l’introduction de drogues dans les prisons. Néanmoins, la priorité accordée à la détection des drogues et à l’application des lois antidrogues en milieu carcéral semble être à l’origine de plusieurs problèmes.

Pour certains, une peine d’emprisonnement constitue en effet une chance de se « désintoxiquer ». Cependant, l’idée qu’une prison offre un endroit sûr et libre de drogues pour tous est fondée sur des hypothèses erronées au sujet de la réduction de la demande et de l’offre de stupéfiants en milieu carcéral. Dans le cadre de mes recherches, j’ai découvert qu’en dépit d’un financement considérable et de l’application accrue de lois antidrogues dans les prisons, l’objectif de non-circulation de la drogue dans les prisons est encore loin de pouvoir se réaliser au Canada.

En 2007, le SCC a mis en oeuvre son Programme de transformation qui inclut, dans le cadre de ses cinq domaines d’action prioritaire, « l’élimination des drogues en milieu carcéral ». L’année suivante, le système carcéral fédéral a bénéficié d’un investissement de120 millions de dollars échelonné sur cinq anspour intensifier sa stratégie antidrogues . Ce financement visait à améliorer les outils permettant de détecter, perturber et dissuader la consommation de drogues dans les prisons, tels que les tests de dépistage aléatoires de drogues dans l’urine, les agents de renseignement de sécurité, les chiens détecteurs de drogues et les scanneurs ioniques. Il s’agit là d’une trousse d’outils énorme et coûteuse, et nous ne disposons toujours pas de preuves certaines de son efficacité.

Les avis demeurent partagés sur l’application des lois antidrogues et leur incidence en milieu carcéral. Certains observateurs bien renseignés, tels que les anciens agents correctionnels et les employés d’organismes communautaires offrant un soutien aux prisonniers, déclarent que le renforcement des mesures d’application des lois antidrogues a non seulement échoué à empêcher l’introduction de drogues dans les prisons, mais contribue au contraire à aggraver la situation. Les problèmes liés aux mesures d’application incluent les individus qui changent le type de drogue qu’ils consomment (qui passent p. ex. du cannabis aux opiacés) pour éviter d’être repérés, une recrudescence des comportements à risque, des tensions accrues, la violence liée au commerce de la drogue et une baisse du nombre de visiteurs.

Les conséquences peuvent être immédiates ou se prolonger bien au delà de la peine d’emprisonnement. Par exemple, lorsque les prisonniers qui s’injectent des drogues partagent leurs aiguilles, ils risquent de contracter le VIH et l’hépatite C . Lorsque les familles, les amis, et les bénévoles se sentent marginalisés et accablés par des mesures de sécurité envahissantes, oulorsqu’on leur refuse l’accès en raison de renseignement potentiellement inexacts, ils visitent moins souvent, ou cessent tout simplement de visiter. Ceci affaiblit les rapports essentiels à la réinsertion fructueuse des détenus au moment de leur libération.

Ces problèmes sont souvent réinterprétés ou rejetés par le SCC. Le SCC souligne plutôt l’augmentation du nombre de saisies de drogue et le nombre réduit de tests d’urine positifs et de refus, pour indiquer que les mesures d’application de la loi fonctionnent. Les visiteurs qui tournent le dos aux portes des prisons sont présentés comme éléments probants de l’efficacité des mesures visant à dissuader les détenteurs de stupéfiants. Bref, ces questions demeurent controversées. Mais il importe de souligner que le SCC, ainsi que les autres autorités pénitentiaires, ont tendance à blâmer les détenus et les visiteurs pour tous les problèmes liés à la drogue, sans égard à l’incidence de leur politique à tolérance zéro et à son application.

Cette approche focalisée qui exclut les informations et les perspective divergentes rend difficile la tâche de réformer les approches et les pratiques courantes. Il y a quelques années, le Comité parlementaire permanent de la sécurité publique et nationale a rassemblé un groupe varié d’intervenants et d’experts bien informés, dont des représentants du SCC, pour étudier le« problème accablant » des drogues et de l’alcool en milieu carcéral. Les témoins ont exprimé des « points de vue très divergents au sujet des politiques et des mesures prises par le SCC ». Certains ont même témoigné que l’application des lois antidrogues n’a pas réussi à éliminer les stupéfiants du milieu carcéral et contribue à compromettre la santé et la sûreté des détenus, du personnel pénitentiaire et des collectivités. En dépit de tout cela, le rapport final recommandait un investissement continu dans le renforcement des mesures d’application des lois antidrogues et s’obstinait à défendre son engagement envers « l’établissement de prisons sans drogues ». Autrement dit, il ne s’écartait pas du Programme de transformation. Les Canadiens devraient porter un regard critique sur de tels rapports et demander quels changements ont réellement été apportés.

Le SCC administre un grand nombre de détenus dans des prisons implantées d’un bout à l’autre du Canada. Bien que nous préconisions une réforme des politiques sur les drogues hors du milieu carcéral, nous ne devons pas oublier les politiques et les programmes qui affectent les consommateurs de drogues purgeant une peine de ressort fédéral (y compris le nombre disproportionné de personnes autochtones). Une évaluation complète et bien conçue des mesures d’application des lois antidrogues en milieu carcéral se fait attendre depuis beaucoup trop longtemps. Et compte tenu de la consommation continue de drogues dans les prisons canadiennes, une évaluation réaliste des programmes appropriés de réduction des méfaits, tels que l’éducation à la consommation de drogues plus sécuritaire et les programmes de distribution de seringues, devraient également être une priorité.

December 16, 2014
Les politiciens d’un bout à l’autre du Canada souffrent d’un Abus de politique en matière de drogues

Une nouvelle affection psychiatrique invalidante a été reconnue aujourd’hui par la Coalition canadienne des politiques sur les drogues. Malheureusement, plusieurs politiciens sont atteints de ce mal, que l’on a baptisé l’« Abus de politique en matière de drogues ».

Vous avez sans aucun doute observé les symptômes. Ces politiciens qui résistent au changement et écartent les données probantes. Qui persistent à se montrer « sévères » et à envoyer un message répressif. Qui refusent d’examiner les différentes approches envisageables en ce qui concerne les politiques sur les drogues, malgré l’abondance de preuves démontrant les retombées physiques, psychologiques et sociales défavorables de notre approche actuelle envers les drogues, qui perdure depuis des décennies.

Tels sont les symptômes de l’Abus de politique en matière de drogues. Et la CCPD a lancé une campagne pour sensibiliser les citoyens à cette maladie invalidante.

Consultez le site Web de la campagne ici.

La bonne nouvelle, c’est qu’il existe un traitement efficace pour ceux qui reconnaissent avoir un problème en ce sens. Il suffit de garder l’esprit ouvert et de reconnaitre que l’élaboration de politiques bien orientées, peu importe l’enjeu, nécessite un dialogue franc et ouvert, éclairé par des données probantes. Comme le fait que les services de réduction des risques et les interventions réglementaires améliorent l’espérance de vie et augmentent la probabilité que les consommateurs problématiques de drogues suivront un traitement. Et que le taux de consommation de drogue n’augmente pas dans les juridictions où les drogues ont été décriminalisées ou légalisées.

Heureusement, certains individus de diverses allégeances politiques sont prêts à entamer le dialogue. Les parlementaires fédéraux en faveur de la légalisation du cannabis incluent non seulement le chef libéral Justin Trudeau, mais également le député conservateur Scott Reid et la leader adjointe du NPD, Libby Davies. Le NDP soutient la décriminalisation du cannabis depuis 40 ans, une politique officielle qui a été réaffirmée par le leader actuel du parti, Thomas Mulcair. Le Parti Vert d’Elizabeth May appuie la légalisation de la marijuana et désire engager une consultation publique au sujet de la décriminalisation de toutes les drogues illicites. De même, le député libéral de l’Ile du Prince Edouard, Wayne Easter, soutient que les sites d’injection supervisés sont nécessaires et appuie la mise en place d’un cadre réglementaire en ce qui concerne les drogues illicites, puisque « les lois actuelles en matière de drogues ne fonctionnent pas. »

Au niveau provincial, la chef du parti Wildrose Alliance de l’Alberta, Danielle Smith, est en faveur de la décriminalisation du cannabis. En Colombie-Britannique, le succès d’Insite, le site d’injection supervisé de Vancouver, dans la prévention de la transmission du VIH et autres infections à diffusion hématogène, la réduction des risques de surdose et la mise en rapport des consommateurs de drogues avec les services appropriés. Et les anciens procureurs généraux Kash Heed et Geoff Plant parlent ouvertement du besoin de réglementation en ce qui concerne le cannabis en Colombie-Britannique et au Canada.

Au plan municipal, l’ancien maire de Vancouver Larry Campbell a fait campagne en préconisant la mise en place de sites d’injection supervisés et certains conseillers municipaux de Toronto ont exercé des pressions pour que de tels sites soient implantés dans leur ville. Huit maires de Colombie-Britannique, y compris celui de Vancouver, Gregor Robertson, ont réclamé l’élaboration de nouveaux règlements portant sur le cannabis au Canada. Le maire de Thunder Bay (et ancien officier de police), Keith Hobbs, en a fait de même. Les conseillers et les maires ayant assisté à la convention de 2012 de l’Union des municipalités de la Colombie-Britannique ont adopté une résolution exigeant que les niveaux appropriés de gouvernement « décriminalisent la marijuana et établissent une politique de recherche, de fiscalité et de réglementation de la marijuana.

À l’internationale, les politiciens européens appuient activement les efforts de réduction des risques et les dirigeants latino-américains exigent des alternatives à la criminalisation et aux actions strictement punitives ayant été mises en oeuvre au cours des 40 dernières années. L’Uruguay projette de légaliser la consommation adulte du cannabis. Plus près de chez nous, deux états américains (le Colorado et l’état de Washington) ont fait de même, par l’entremise de votes au scrutin adoptés grâce en partie à l’appui de certains hauts fonctionnaires. Il est certain que d’autres états en feront de même.

L’idée est que les politiciens n’ont pas à souffrir d’Abus de politique en matière de drogues. Certaines juridictions explorent des solutions de rechange à la lutte contre la drogue. Le dialogue a été entamé. Malheureusement, plusieurs politiciens canadiens craignent ce dialogue et ont du mal à envisager des approches différentes.

Alors pour ceux qui s’en remettent à des théories dépassées, le temps est venu de discuter! Consultez le site Web de la campagne et signez l’engagement à communiquer avec vos représentants élus, s’ils souffrent d’un problème d’Abus de politique en matière de drogues. Le site de la campagne met à votre disposition des outils vous permettant de diffuser des messages Twitter aux chefs des partis politiques nationaux, dans le cadre d’un plus vaste dialogue visant à guérir ce mal dont souffre notre pays.

Nous vous invitons donc à consulter les détails de la campagne, à visionner les vidéos et à passer le mot à vos amis.

November 4, 2014
Illegal Drugs Get Cheaper, More Potent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 19, 2013