Donate

Category: Drug Law Reform

  • Why Decriminalize Drugs?

    Why Decriminalize Drugs?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • CDPC Report on Drug Policy Highlights the Failures of Criminalization

    CDPC Report on Drug Policy Highlights the Failures of Criminalization

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Les peuples autochtones du Canada seront les premiers à souffrir des peines minimales obligatoires imposées pour les crimes liés à la drogue

    Les peuples autochtones du Canada seront les premiers à souffrir des peines minimales obligatoires imposées pour les crimes liés à la drogue

    En début avril, le ministre provincial de la santé de la Colombie Britannique a publié un rapport annonçant que les changements récents apportés aux peines minimales et autres pratiques judiciaires, découlant de la mise en application de la Loi sur la sécurité des rues et des communautés (LSRC) , auront des effets très négatifs sur la santé des peuples autochtones – les changements apportés par la LSRC, tels que les peines minimales obligatoires, mèneront à l’incarcération d’un plus grand nombre d’autochtones.

    Ce rapport note également que la LSRC semble contraire aux autres programmes fédéraux visant à réduire le temps d’incarcération, notamment avec la section 718.2 (e) du Code Criminel, qui exige que les juges prononçant les peines prennent en considération toutes les options autres que l’incarcération. [I]

    L’imposition de peines minimales obligatoires va à l’encontre de la preuve de leur inefficacité. La condamnation des personnes accusées de crimes liés à la drogue ne réduit pas les problèmes liés à l’utilisation de drogues et ces condamnations ne découragent pas la criminalité. [II]

    La surreprésentation des autochtones dans le système carcéral du pays fait la honte nationale, et et son inévitabilité rend celle-ci d’autant plus inquiétante. En 2011, environ 4% de la population canadienne était autochtone, alors que 21,5% de la population fédérale en milieu carcéral était autochtone. Depuis 2006-07, la population autochtone en milieu carcéral a connu une augmentation de 43% et le tiers des femmes sous responsabilité fédérale est autochtone. Dans les Prairies, les peuples autochtones représentent plus de 55 % de la population totale incarcérée au pénitencier de la Saskatchewan et 60 % de la population du pénitencier de Stony Mountain au Manitoba. Les taux provinciaux sont encore pire ; 81 % des personnes incarcérées dans les établissements provinciaux en Saskatchewan étaient des autochtones en 2005.[iii]

    Comme le soutient le ministre provincial de la santé de la Colombie Britannique dans son rapport, les raisons de la surreprésentation des peuples autochtones en milieu carcéral sont multiples, mais elles sont enracinées dans les causes historiques, telles que le colonialisme, la perte de culture, et la marginalisation économique et sociale des autochtones par les citoyens canadiens de race blanche.

    Ces préoccupations ont été reprises dans un rapport d’octobre 2012 publié par l’enquêteur correctionnel du Canada intitulé Une question de spiritualité : les Autochtones et la Loi sur le système correctionnel et la mise en liberté sous condition (ADRC, 1992).[iv]. Ce rapport témoigne du manque de volonté de la part du Service correctionnel du Canada (SCC) relativement au respect des engagements pris dans le cadre de l’ADRC. L’ADRC contient des dispositions spécifiques aux autochtones, visant à favoriser la participation des communautés autochtones au système correctionnel et à adresser le problème de surreprésentation chronique des autochtones au sein du système correctionnel fédéral. Parmi ces exigences figurent l’établissement de pavillons de ressourcement qui soulignant les croyances et traditions autochtones, et mettent l’emphase sur la préparation à la remise en liberté.[v]

    Le rapport a constaté que, en Colombie-Britannique, en Ontario, au Canada Atlantique et du Nord, il n’existe aucun pavillon de ressourcement pour les femmes autochtones. En outre, du fait que l’accès aux pavillons de ressourcement est limité aux détenus à sécurité minimale, 90% des détenus autochtones ne seront pas pris en considération pour transfert vers des pavillons de ressourcement. Le rapport se termine par une critique de l’inaction du Service correctionnel du Canada: « Conformément aux expressions d’autodétermination autochtone, les Sections 81 et 84 capturent la promesse d’une nouvelle définition du rapport entre les peuples autochtones et le gouvernement fédéral. Un contrôle sur plusieurs aspects de la planification de la remise en liberté pour les détenus autochtones, ainsi qu’un accès élargi à des services et à des programmes adaptés à la culture autochtone étaient à l’origine de la création de l’ASRC en novembre 1992.  » [vi]

    Les implications des changements apportés par le gouvernement conservateur aux pratiques de détermination de la peine sont claires : une hausse du taux d’incarcération des autochtones et une augmentation des problèmes liés à la consommation de drogues, combinées à un manque d’engagement envers les voies de guérison alternatives, signifie qu’un nombre accru de contrevenants autochtones sous responsabilité fédérale et provinciale se retrouvera dans les prisons canadiennes, où ils ne recevront pas les services dont ils ont besoin.

  • Cannabis Prohibition is Falling Apart

    Cannabis Prohibition is Falling Apart

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I think the choice is clear.

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

  • Lire entre les lignes à la 56ième session de la Commission des stupéfiants

    Lire entre les lignes à la 56ième session de la Commission des stupéfiants

    Screen-Shot-2013-03-27-at-3.11.16-PMJe m’attendais pleinement à ce que la 56ième session de la Commission des stupéfiants (CND) soit aussi déprimante que celles auxquelles j’ai assisté au cours des dernières années. Avec tant d’organisations travaillant pour changer les politiques sur les drogues au niveau mondial et pour recentrer l’attention sur les torts causés par les politiques globales sur les drogues au niveau des individus, des familles, des communautés et des pays, participer à la CND signifie bien souvent être confronté à la réalité de la lenteur, parfois extrême, à laquelle les changements se produisent dans ce forum international traitant des politiques sur les drogues.

    Dès le début de la session, il est devenu évident qu’il y avait quelque chose de nouveau dans l’air. D’une part, le «buzz» habituel entourant le spécialiste américain en drogues n’était étrangement pas au rendez-vous; son budget de déplacement ayant subi de sérieuses coupures, Gil Kerlikowski est donc resté chez lui cette année. Pas si mal, compte tenu que son service de rédaction de discours aurait eu du mal à expliquer la situation récente au Colorado et à Washington, où les électeurs ont adopté des résolutions visant à mettre en oeuvre un régime juridique concernant l’utilisation personnelle du cannabis par des consommateurs adultes.

    Eva Morales, Président de l’État plurinational de Bolivie, dans son allocution d’ouverture devant la Commission, a remercié les délégués d’avoir permis à la Bolivie de se joindre à nouveau aux conventions, ajoutant une réserve respectant la constitution bolivienne qui soutient l’utilisation de la feuille de coca dans le cadre du patrimoine culturel bolivien. Le Président Morales a ensuite demandé s’il y avait une certaine tension dans la salle, possiblement liée au fait que « la guerre contre les drogues a échoué de manière globale ? » Il a par la suite dénoncé les USA pour avoir essayé de forcer la Bolivie à limiter sa production de coca en faisant des menaces et en liant l’éradication du coca à la construction d’écoles durant les années 80. Les paroles de M. Morales étaient particulièrement percutantes, du fait qu’il a clairement fait remarquer que les efforts déployés pour contrôler le trafic de drogue sont étroitement liés aux autres objectifs géopolitiques de « maîtrise » et de « domination ». De telles déclarations audacieuses sont rares dans le forum public de la CND.

    Les remarques préliminaires du Directeur de l’ONUDC, Yuri Fedetov, furent un intéressant mélange de l’ancien et du nouveau. Tout en affirmant qu’un certain progrès a été réalisé au niveau du problème global des drogues, Fedetov a reconnu que la politique internationale sur le contrôle des drogues ne peut être isolée des améliorations nécessaires au niveau des services liés au VIH, ni ignorer la discrimination et le manque de services fondés sur des données probantes pour les consommateurs de drogues. Pendant la session consacrée à la société civile en compagnie du Directeur, Fedetov était animé et semblait très ouvert à la franchise de la discussion durant cette session, pendant laquelle un certain nombre de questions centrées sur la réforme des politiques sur les drogues ont été abordées.

    Le Ministre du revenu néo-zélandais, Peter Dunne, une véritable cure d’oxygène, a expliqué à la Commission la nouvelle législation innovatrice qui sera présentée devant le parlement de la Nouvelle Zélande cet automne, et qui portera sur les nombreuses substances psychoactives nouvelles apparaissant quasi quotidiennement, et dont les traités ne tiennent pas compte. En vertu de la législation proposée, la Psychoactive Substances Bill (Loi sur les substances psychoactives), toutes ces nouvelles substances seront interdites, à moins que le fabricant ne puisse prouver qu’elles ne présentent aucun risque plus que minimal. Plutôt que d’interdire immédiatement toute nouvelle substance, le gouvernement néo-zélandais prévoit transférer la responsabilité à l’industrie, pour que celle-ci garantisse la sûreté de ses produits. Si ces produits passent le test, ils seront incorporés à un calendrier règlementaire permettant la vente au détail de tels produits, sous réserve de certaines conditions. Lorsqu’on lui a demandé comment ce régime a été reçu par les autres délégations, le ministre Dunn a déclaré que la législation proposée a suscité beaucoup d’intérêt et que les autres pays surveillent attentivement les résultats.

    La révision globale des politiques sur les drogues dans l’hémisphère occidental, ordonnée lors du dernier Sommet des Amériques en avril 2012 auprès de l’Organisation des États Américains, a également suscité un grand intérêt, maintenant que les attentes s’intensifient en vue de la conclusion prochaine de la révision au cours des mois à venir.

    Dans l’ensemble, la CND a connu des moments intéressants cette année, si l’on peut lire entre les lignes et porter une oreille attentive aux bourdonnements qui régnaient en coulisse. Mon opinion est qu’il existe une reconnaissance implicite, sinon explicite, que le paysage politique en matière de drogues est en effet en pleine évolution, que de nouvelles approches sont maintenant considérées et que divers pays exigent désormais un débat plus large sur les politiques en matière de drogues. Il est crucial que de telles discussions soient accueillies comme étant une occasion importante lors des prochaines réunions de la Commission, afin d’assurer la pertinence continue de la CND.

  • Civil Society is Key to Global Drug Policy Reform

    Civil Society is Key to Global Drug Policy Reform

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Repressive Drug Policy Still the Norm at CND

    Repressive Drug Policy Still the Norm at CND

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Is This The Future of Drug Law?

    Is This The Future of Drug Law?

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

    From the BBC:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Canada’s War on Pot Just Got Weirder

    Canada’s War on Pot Just Got Weirder

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

    From the CBC:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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