Donate

Category: Drug Law Reform

  • Training Drug Users and Bystanders to Treat Overdose Saves Lives

    Training Drug Users and Bystanders to Treat Overdose Saves Lives

    Drug overdose is a growing public health crisis that now kills more adults per year in the United States than motor vehicle accidents. In cars, seatbelts and airbags save lives. When it comes to opioid overdose a safe and non-abusable medicine called naloxone can restore breathing and avert death. Pragmatic doctors and health officials want anyone who uses opioids like heroin—and anyone likely to be around during an overdose—to have access to this life-saving drug, and know how to use it.

    In Massachusetts, researchers led by Dr. Alexander Walley at the Boston University Medical Center set out to discover the results of a state-supported overdose education and naloxone distribution program on deaths from overdose. We sat down with Dr. Walley to discuss the findings.

    What did your research find?

    This study demonstrates that overdose education and naloxone distribution is an effective public health intervention to address the growing overdose epidemic. We found that communities that received overdose education and naloxone reported significantly fewer deaths than communities that received no training. We also observed that the higher the cumulative rate of program implementation, the greater the reduction in death rates. In other words, the more people at risk or in contact with people at risk for overdose who were given naloxone, and trained to prevent, recognize and respond to an overdose, the lower the overdose death rates.

    Why are overdose education and naloxone delivery programs like these so important?

    Since the beginning of the Massachusetts overdose education and naloxone delivery programs, there have been more than 1,700 overdose rescues using naloxone. While we do not know how many of these people may have died if they had not received naloxone, it is likely that many of them would have. These rescues have inspired many us to maintain hope that all overdose deaths can be prevented.

    People who have recently stopped using opioids—whether because of jail time or treatment—are at increased risk of overdose, and we’ve heard inspiring stories of overdose reversals in these cases. While opioid addiction is a treatable disease, it is a chronic disease where relapse is unfortunately part of the natural history. Preventing overdose allows people to continue their progress towards recovery, and may enable them to seek out other lifesaving services.

    What barriers stand in the way of implementing programs like this in other parts of the United States?

    I’ll start first by listing features of the program in Massachusetts that contributed to its success and would support broader implementation: one is the use of a nasal delivery device for naloxone, allowing naloxone to be administered through the nose, instead of by injection. The other is a standing order issued by the health department that permits non-medical personnel to deliver overdose education and distribute naloxone. Without this order, a doctor would need to be present each time naloxone is given out. To date, there are still large parts of the country with no access to a lifesaving naloxone distribution program; though this program locator tool can help you find out if there is one near you.

    The two main barriers to the expansion of these initiatives are that insurance companies do not cover the nasal delivery device that allows naloxone to be administered through the nose, and prescribers (doctors, nurse practitioners and physicians’ assistants) are not yet adequately educated on prescribing naloxone. We’ve created a website, prescribetoprevent.org, to help facilitate naloxone prescribing.

    What message would you send to officials in countries like Russia and China where the death toll from drug overdoses continues to climb?

    Preventing needless deaths from opioid overdose is a bridge issue – it’s a cause that people from different perspectives on treatment and harm reduction can agree and work together on. It can be a starting point from which we can work together in addressing the harms associated with drug use.

    What happens now?

    We keep implementing and evaluating this program and ones like it. In Massachusetts, overdose education and naloxone have been delivered to heroin users, prescription opioid users, patients in emergency departments, and the people who are most likely to respond to an overdose including: people who are incarcerated, family members, social service providers, police officers, and firefighters. It is important to determine how these programs should be tailored to different populations to maximize their reach, effectiveness and sustainability. That’s what we’re working on now.

    This blog post was originally published on the Open Society Foundations website.
  • If The War On Drugs Isn’t Working, Why Are We Still Fighting It?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    From the release:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    As one commenter put it:

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

  • CDPC Heads to Panama to Create Alternative Scenarios for Drug Policy

    CDPC Heads to Panama to Create Alternative Scenarios for Drug Policy

    At the April 2012 Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, the members of the Organization of American States commissioned the OAS to analyze the hemisphere’s drug policies and to present and explore alternatives to address the issue of illegal drugs and drug use. On Saturday, January 20th, the OAS will formally commence this process in Panama City, Panama.

    The CDPC is proud to announce that CDPC Executive Director and SFU Adjunct Professor, Donald MacPherson, will be in attendance as part of the OAS’s scenario-building team and representative of Canada.

    “There is a real shift taking place in the global drug policy regime and the OAS review process is a good indicator of this. Governments from across the hemisphere are beginning to look for smarter alternatives to the war on drugs that are more effective at addressing both public health harms and public safety issues at the same time,” said MacPherson.

    “Who knows what will happen when we start imagining different futures in the area of drug policy. The important thing is to get people talking about alternatives – alternatives that have a hope of achieving success. The OAS process will begin to do that – it will bring people with diverse views together to look forward and see what kind of drug policies make more sense than prohibition. And in the end we all have the same goal – improved public health and safety when it comes to drugs and drug use.”

    The group will meet twice over the next two months and work together for four days each meeting. The meetings are being facilitated by Reos Partners and the Centro de Liderazgo y Gestion and will result in a report that will be used to inform the OAS’s position on drug policy.

  • Breaking the Taboo

    Breaking the Taboo

    The CDPC is proud to join together with the Beckley Foundation, Virgin Unite, Sundog Pictures, Avaaz.org, The Global Commission on Drugs, and civil society NGO’s from around the world in calling for a fundamental review of global strategies in response to drugs.

    Breaking the taboo is a bold new international challenge. At the heart of the initiative is a groundbreaking documentary film that uncovers the UN sanctioned war on drugs, charting its origins and its devastating impact on countries like the USA, Colombia and Russia. Narrated by Morgan Freeman and featuring prominent statesmen including Presidents Clinton and Carter, the film follows The Global Commission on Drug Policy on a mission to break the political taboo and expose the biggest failure of global policy in the last 50 years.

    www.breakingthetaboo.info

    We encourage you to get involved, read the Beckley Foundation letter, sign the AVAAZ Campaign, and join the conversation on twitter using the hashtag #breakingthetaboo.

    Global commissioner on drug policy Richard Branson hopes “this film will open people’s eyes on the war on drugs and the failed war on drugs and make it easier for people who want to be brave and do something about it.” Among those featured are Colombian president Juan Manuel Santos and former US president Bill Clinton, who admits bluntly that the US-led war on drugs in Colombia “hasn’t worked”. Clinton also talks about the need for rehabilitation rather than incarceration when dealing with people with addictions. Sir Richard said countries such as Portugal and Spain, where drug users receive treatment rather than being jailed, provide a template. He believes that legalisation of cannabis is “inevitable”. “I have hardly ever come across a politician that won’t say – off the record – what needs to be done … in the end they just need to be brave,” he said.

  • A Seismic Shift in Drug Policy

    A Seismic Shift in Drug Policy

    Watching the vote in last night in the U.S. was quite an amazing experience. We watched history being made yet again and not just with the re-election of America’s first black president.

    Yes, a second term for Obama was a rare feat given the poor economic situation in the U.S. and the vulnerability that brings for an incumbent president. A second term for Obama is without a doubt a historical event. But there was more – there was a seismic shift in the world of drug policy. In the belly of the beast of the war on drugs, in the country that historically has promoted a vigorous global assault on drugs and drug users, citizens of Washington state and Colorado sunk a wedge a mile wide into the monolithic paradigm of drug prohibition. In both states the voters have overwhelmingly supported the regulation of marijuana for adult use.

    Prohibition is upheld by a global consensus enshrined in international drug treaties. Much like the mortar that held the Berlin Wall together, it holds fast as long as no one challenges the logic of the system in a significant way. As long as things stay the same and no one has the courage to confront the absurdity of the status quo, the status quo prevails. But once the wall starts to be dismantled by ordinary citizens and the authorities stand aside, it is over. The mortar crumbles like dust. What was inconceivable only a few years ago seems like common sense today. Just like that wall in Berlin came tumbling down on November 9th, 1989, prohibition is collapsing before our eyes. The citizens of the U.S. have peacefully voted to overthrow the tired and worn out policy of drug prohibition and common sense has prevailed. It’s about time.

    There are many questions about how these two states will move forward and actually implement the regulations they have proposed. As they say, the devil is in the details. But that’s the grinding day-to-day work of finding the best regulatory regime that meets the many competing goals that are important to our communities – public health, public safety, civil liberties, education about the harms and benefits of substance use and the stewardship of our youth within a culture that has so many mixed messages around drug use. This is important work that we believe will improve the quality of life in those states that made this decision to move forward. The fact that resources will be focused on how to best regulate marijuana rather than whether to regulate this ubiquitous product is the most important point for those of us in Canada.

    Now that the U.S. has opened the door and started down that path towards regulation, the old excuse that Canadian politicians always use – that we can’t change anything until the Americans do, is gone. So let’s get on with it.

  • Drug Policy 101: Dangers of an Unregulated Drug Market

    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.

  • Rapport sur les politiques canadiennes sur les drogues

    Rapport sur les politiques canadiennes sur les drogues

    La CCPD se prépare présentement à rédiger un rapport sur les politiques canadiennes sur les drogues. Prévu pour l’hiver, préalablement à la prochaine réunion de l’Organe international de contrôle des stupéfiants, ce rapport évaluera l’état des cadres des politiques canadiennes sur les drogues, dans une optique de santé publique, d’inclusion sociale et de droits de la personne.

    Au Canada, comme presque partout ailleurs au monde, la réponse la mieux financée aux problèmes associés à l’utilisation de drogues a été d’accroître les initiatives policières, ce qui a entraîné l’incarcération d’un nombre croissant de personnes qui utilisent des drogues.

    Notre évaluation critique des cadres politiques révélera la mesure dans laquelle nos gouvernements se sont engagés à des politiques efficaces qui préviennent et réduisent les méfaits associés à l’alcool, au tabac, et à d’autres drogues, ainsi qu’à la recherche de solutions de rechange à la criminalisation.

    Ce rapport offrira des données de départ aux futurs rapports sur les politiques canadiennes sur les drogues, et constituera la pierre angulaire du travail de plaidoirie de la Coalition. La CCPD sollicite votre aide pour ce projet. Si vous souhaitez partager de l’information sur votre organisme ou votre expérience des politiques sur les drogues au Canada, ou encore si vous désirez plus de détails sur ce projet, veuillez communiquer avec Connie Carter, analyste principale en matière de politiques, à l’adresse de courriel [email protected].

  • Nouvelles directions pour les politiques sur les drogues à Bogota, Colombie

    Nouvelles directions pour les politiques sur les drogues à Bogota, Colombie

    Les 5 et 6 septembre, j’ai eu l’occasion de participer à un dialogue public portant sur les politiques en matière de drogues à Bogota, en Colombie, une initiative du maire Gustavo Petro Urrego : Conversatorio 2012 sobre : « Nouvelles solutions d’interventions dans la consommation de drogues et de substances psychoactives. »

    Ce fut une rencontre étonnante, qui m’a beaucoup rappelé le temps où j’étais à la Ville de Vancouver, où j’ai eu l’occasion de travailler avec le maire de l’époque, Philip Owen en 2001, quand il a lancé la stratégie des quatre piliers de la Ville de Vancouver par une série de dialogues publics permettant aux gens rassemblés d’échanger leurs opinions sur sa proposition visant à s’attaquer aux problèmes de drogue de Vancouver.

    Dans le magnifique auditorium de l’hôtel de ville de Bogota, toute la journée, nous avons écouté des experts internationaux, des universitaires, des représentants de la santé publique, et lemaire lui-même, et tous ont parlé de solutions éventuelles au sérieux problème de drogue de Bogota.

    Une grande différence entre le processus de Vancouver et celui qui s’est déroulé à Bogota est la rapidité avec laquelle le changement se produit en Colombie. Le maire Gustavo Petro Urrego a décidé que sa belle ville dans les montagnes a besoin d’idées neuves et de bouger rapidement pour mettre en œuvre les nouvelles approches aux problèmes de drogue de Bogota. Le maire Petro parle de créer une nouvelle démocratie où les gens aux prises avec des problèmes de toxicomanie sont inclus dans la société et ont de nouveau droit de parole, pour ainsi dire.

    Fin juillet, cette année, la Colombie a adopté une loi nationale décrétant que la toxicomanie est une question de santé publique et que « toute personne souffrant de troubles mentaux ou de toute autre pathologie induite par la consommation, l’abus, et la dépendance à des substances psychoactives légales ou illicites a le droit de recevoir des soins complets des Entités, notamment le Système général de sécurité sociale en santé et les institutions privées ou publiques spécialisées dans le traitement desdits troubles ».

    Cette nouvelle loi est un développement important qui fait en sorte que les réponses du gouvernement aux problèmes de drogue de la Colombie soient désormais axées sur une approche de santé et s’éloignent de la réponse traditionnelle par le système de justice pénale. Évidemment, trouver les finances pour créer un système complet est un défi majeur pour la Colombie, tout comme ce l’est ici au Canada.

    L’une des innovations que le maire Petro s’empresse de mettre en œuvre est la création d’une série de salles de consommation de drogue, dans trois secteurs de la ville. Les salles de consommation sont offertes un peu partout en Europe, dans le cadre d’une approche globale des personnes marginalisées qui utilisent des drogues. Un ensemble de données probantescroissant soutient que ces types de programmes sont un élément important d’une approche globale. Pour le maire Petro, cela démontrerait que Bogota commence à changer sa politique et à s’efforcer d’offrir de l’aide aux utilisateurs de drogues d’une nouvelle manière.

    Pendant 30 ans, les autorités de Bogota ont tenté de régler les problèmes de drogue du centre-ville sans grand succès. En 2000, ils ont même essayé des mesures draconiennes, comme de niveler le principal quartier où se concentrait le milieu de la drogue, « El Cartucho », pour créer un nouveau parc dans l’espoir que le problème disparaisse. Malheureusement, et c’était à prévoir, les drogues sont réapparues ailleurs, mais cette fois, dans quatre secteurs différents de la ville. Au lieu d’un quartier « à problèmes », ils en avaient maintenant quatre! Ces nouveaux secteurs de la ville, El Bronx, une section de Maria Paz en Kennedy, San Bernardo et Las Cruces, sont les quatre principales zones problématiques de Bogota qui échappent en grande partie au contrôle des autorités municipales.

    El Bronx est le quartier le plus notoire et a été abandonné par les autorités. Il est contrôlé par le crime organisé et abrite des milliers de toxicomanes invétérés. El Bronx est un endroit où il est extrêmement dangereux de s’aventurer si vous ne faites pas partie du milieu de la drogue d’une façon quelconque, comme utilisateur ou revendeur. Lorsque j’y étais, un policier a été tué dans El Bronx pendant qu’il enquêtait sur un incident. Les employés de la ville ont exprimé très clairement qu’ils ne voulaient pas simplement déplacer de nouveau le problème mais qu’ils souhaitaient commencer à stabiliser la situation dans ces quartiers.

    La création de salles de consommation fait partie de la stratégie du maire visant à changer la culture de ces quartiers plutôt que de les abandonner et de céder à la « mafia des drogues » locale. Il revendique l’adoption d’une approche de santé et sociale, laquelle pourrait instaurer des services de réduction des méfaits et de traitement, et offrir des options aux personnes pour quitter le milieu de la drogue. La principale drogue qui est utilisée dans la rue à Bogota est une substance appelée basuco ou pâte de coca ou paco. C’est un produit très peu dispendieux dérivé des phases intermédiaires de la production de cocaïne.

    La semaine dernière, le maire Petro a rencontré le président Manuel Santos pour discuter de ses idées de mise en œuvre des salles de consommation. Les rapports préliminaires suggèrent que la porte est ouverte à la proposition du maire de prescrire des drogues illicites aux utilisateurs dans le cadre d’un régime de traitement. Cela constituerait un moyen d’intervenir dans le marché des drogues et de s’interposer entre les personnes toxicomanes et la mafia des drogues. C’est une approche audacieuse et nous suivrons les développements à Bogota dans les mois à venir.

  • Notre soumission à Santé Canada concernant la MDPV (sels de bain)

    Notre soumission à Santé Canada concernant la MDPV (sels de bain)

    Vous souvenez-vous de la tempête dans un verre d’eau alimentée par les médias qui a eu lieu en juin, cette année? Cette brève mais sensationnelle alerte à la drogue a fait mieux connaître les « drogues légales » comme la MDPV, mais n’a probablement pas fait beaucoup pour protéger la santé des utilisateurs actuels et potentiels, quoique ce groupe soit restreint. La couverture médiatique a poussé le gouvernement fédéral canadien à proposer que la MDPV ou la méthylènedioxypyrovalérone (Oui! Si on peut l’épeler, on peut l’annexer), soit ajoutée à l’annexe I de la Loi réglementant certaines drogues et autres substances, ce qui signifie que les peines les plus dures pour possession et trafic s’appliqueraient.

    Comme à l’habitude, Santé Canada a sollicité une rétroaction à la proposition, et au début de juillet, la CCPD a soumis une réponse. Cette réponse a été l’occasion de peaufiner notre analyse de la facilité avec laquelle les gouvernements réagissent à certaines drogues avec de nouvelles formes de criminalisation plus sévères. Nous avons suggéré que l’interdiction de cette substance aurait des effets nocifs non voulus, et avons recommandé de rechercher des modèles de remplacement pour la réglementation de la MDPV, dans le but de répondre au besoin de protéger la santé des Canadiens contre les effets potentiellement nocifs de l’interdiction. Nous avons également insisté sur les importantes distinctions entre l’interdiction et la réglementation des drogues, et indiqué comment la proposition du fédéral d’interdire la MDPV renonce à la possibilité de réglementer et par le fait même, de réduire les méfaits de cette substance de façon significative.

    Nous avons fait valoir nos préoccupations au sujet des risques sociétaux et pour la santé que pose la MDPV, mais avons suggéré que la proposition d’inscrire cette drogue à l’annexe I de laLRCDAS ne produirait pas le résultat voulu de réduire les dangers de la MDPV, et aurait des conséquences néfastes non voulues pour les personnes qui utilisent cette substance. Nous avons favorisé une discussion plus approfondie des modèles et options disponibles pour réglementer toutes les substances psychoactives, en puisant aux leçons tirées d’autres enjeux politiques de santé publique. Nous avons également souligné que la proposition de Santé Canada d’annexer cette drogue était prématurée étant donné la quantité limitée d’information disponible sur les aspects scientifiques de cette drogue, la portée limitée de son utilisation, et la surenchère médiatique autour de son apparition

    Si vous voulez plus de détails sur cette question, une copie intégrale de notre soumission  se trouve ici (en anglais seulement).