Site
contents What's new
Updated:Thursday, 14-Nov-2013 10:12:31 PST|
Accessed:1433305times
What's new
- October 17, 2013: The federal government
re-introduces the Respect for Communities Act,
a bill that was originally introduced in June 2013,
but which died when Parliament was prorogued. The
Bill creates a formal process to obtain government
approval to set up supervised injection facilities.
Critics argue that the Bill will impede the
establishment of such facilities and cost lives. For
further details, click here.
And to see the 2011 Supreme Court of Canada decision
ordering the federal minister of health to allow
Vancouver's supervised injection facility, known as
Insite, to continue to operate, click here.
- September 30, 2011:
Supreme Court of Canada unanimously orders federal
Minister of Health to grant exemption to
Vancouver's supervised injection facility, known as
Insite, from the law prohibiting
possession of controlled substances. Here is
the decision
(French
version). Court also states that, on
future applications for exemptions by other
facilities, "Where the
Minister is considering an application for an
exemption for a supervised injection facility, he or
she will aim to strike the appropriate balance
between achieving the public health and public
safety goals. Where, as here, the evidence
indicates that a supervised injection site will
decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is
little or no evidence that it will have a negative
impact on public safety, the Minister should
generally grant an exemption."
- September 20, 2011: Conservative government
introduces omnibus crime bill, Bill C-10, the Safe
Streets and Communities Act. The
bill contains several amendments to the Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act. These amendments include
the introduction of mandatory minimum penalties
for some drug offences and increased penalties for
some other drug offences. Click here
for the legislative status of the bill (French
version). The parts of Bill C-10 dealing
with changes to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
are virtually identical to bills introduced by the
Conservative government in 2007, 2009 and 2010
(none of which were passed into law). These
proposed changes have attracted widespread
criticism for a variety of reasons.
For example, to see the position of the Canadian
HIV/AIDS Legal Network about the
predecessor to Bill C-10, click here
(French
version). To see the position of the Network
about mandatory minimum sentences, which feature
prominently in the new bill, click here
(French
version). Click here
(French
version) to see the Department of Justice
backgrounder on the drug law amendments.
- June 2011: Global
Commission on Drug Policy issues report: “Fifty years after
the initiation of the UN Single Convention on
Narcotic Drugs, and 40 years after President Nixon
launched the US government’s global war on drugs,
fundamental reforms in national and global drug
control policies are urgently needed,” said former
president of Brazil Fernando Henrique Cardoso.
“Let’s start by treating drug addiction as a
health issue, reducing drug demand through proven
educational initiatives and legally regulating
rather than criminalizing cannabis.”
What's new archives (For What's New archives (1998-99),
click here.)
-
Congratulations and and Sincere
Thanks! Dr. Eric Single, a
founding member of the Canadian Foundation
for Drug Policy in 1993 (as well as Adjunct
Professor of Public Health Sciences and
Professor of Sociology (joint appointment),
University of Toronto; Scientific Advisor
Emeritus, Canadian Centre on Substance
Abuse), has been awarded the 2008 Kaiser
Foundation National Award for
Excellence in Public Policy. Dr.
Single has decided to donate to the Canadian
Foundation for Drug Policy a significant
portion of the financial award that he
received from the Kaiser Foundation.
We thank Eric deeply for his generosity.
- May 2008: Federal government may refuse
to renew the legal exemption that allows Vancouver's
supervised injection facility, InSite, to keep
operating. Despite
extensive peer-reviewed
research showing the benefits of the
InSite facility, the federal government has
repeatedly criticized the operation, claiming a
lack of evidence of its effectiveness, and
threatened to shut it down.For one government press
release claiming the need for further evidence,
click here.
To
learn more about the facility, visit the Vancouver
Coastal Health web site. For
other details about the Vancouver
facility, click here.
To see a May 9, 2008 press conference by BC
nurses in support of InSite, click here. May 27, 2008: In a decision relating to
the right of InSite to continue operating, BC
Supreme Court Justice Pitfield declared section 4
(possession) and 5(trafficking) of the Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act to be unconstitutional and
invaldi as violating section 7 of the Charter (which
guarantees the right to life, liberty and security
of the person). Justice Pitfield suspended the
declaration of invalidity until June 9, 2009, to
enable the federal government to amend the law to
ensure it does not violate the Charter. In the
interim, InSite and users and staff on site enjoy a
constitutional exemption. For
judge's decision, click here.
May 29, 2008: Federal Health Minister Tony Clement
announces that the Conservative government will
appeal the BC Supreme Court decision.
- March 2008: Vienna NGO
[Non-governmental organization] Committee on
Narcotic Drugs,
- February 2008: Health Officers
Council of British Columbia releases its paper,
Regulation of
Psychoactive Substances in Canada: Seeking a
Coherent Public Health Approach:
"Every year, psychoactive
substances (alcohol, tobacco, illegal drugs, and
certain prescription drugs) cost Canadians over $40
billion. They are linked to more than 47,000 deaths
and many thousands more injuries and disabilities.
Inadequate, inappropriate, and ineffective
regulation of these substances contributes in large
measure to this terrible toll. Conversely, adequate,
appropriate, and effective regulation holds great
promise to protect public health and reduce this
devastating situation."
- November 20, 2007: Conservative Government
introduces amendments to Controlled Drugs and Substances Act,
imposing mandatory minimum penalties for several
offences and increasing the maximum penalty for
cannabis grow operations. To
see the Bill (Bill C-26, introduced in the House of
Commons on November 20, 2007), click
here (version
française). Here are
the Department of Justice press
release (version
française) and backgrounder
(version
française). Remember
that these are self-interested government documents
that cast the Bill in a very positive light.
Here is an explanation of how the mandatory
minimum
penalties (version
française) would
work. To see critical commentary in the press,
click here.
The Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network has prepared a briefing
document (version
française) that is highly
critical of mandatory minimum sentences such as
those proposed in the Bill.
- February 22, 2007: Press conference
held in Ottawa to challenge statements by US drug
"czar" John Walters and to discuss adverse impacts
of US "war on drugs" approach to drug issues.
To see video of press conference, click here.
- January 2007: BC Centre for
Excellence in HIV/AIDS study criticizes lack of
proof of effectiveness of current law
enforcement-based drug strategies:
"Currently, through Canadaʼs
Drug Strategy, the federal government
continues to invest heavily in policies and
practices that have repeatedly been shown in
the scientific literature to be ineffective or
harmful. Specifically, while the stated
goal of the Canadaʼs Drug Strategy is to
reduce harm, evidence obtained through this
analysis indicates that the overwhelming
emphasis continues to be on conventional
enforcement-based approaches which are costly
and often exacerbate, rather than reduce,
drug-related harms." For full report,
published in Canadian
HIV/AIDS Policy & Law Review, click here.
- February 2008: Health Officers Council of
British Columbia releases its paper, Regulation of Psychoactive
Substances in Canada: Seeking a Coherent Public
Health Approach: "Every year, psychoactive
substances (alcohol, tobacco, illegal drugs, and
certain prescription drugs) cost Canadians over $40
billion. They are linked to more than 47,000 deaths
and many thousands more injuries and disabilities.
Inadequate, inappropriate, and ineffective
regulation of these substances contributes in large
measure to this terrible toll. Conversely, adequate,
appropriate, and effective regulation holds great
promise to protect public health and reduce this
devastating situation."
- November 20, 2007: Conservative Government
introduces amendments to Controlled Drugs and Substances Act,
imposing mandatory minimum penalties for several
offences and increasing the maximum penalty for
cannabis grow operations. To
see the Bill (Bill C-26, introduced in the House of
Commons on November 20, 2007), click
here (version
française). Here are
the Department of Justice press
release (version
française) and backgrounder
(version
française). Remember
that these are self-interested government documents
that cast the Bill in a very positive light.
Here is an explanation of how the mandatory
minimum
penalties (version
française) would
work. To see critical commentary in the press,
click here.
The Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network has prepared a briefing
document (version
française) that is highly
critical of mandatory minimum sentences such as
those proposed in the Bill.
- January 2007: BC Centre for
Excellence in HIV/AIDS study criticizes lack of
proof of effectiveness of current law
enforcement-based drug strategies:
"Currently, through Canadaʼs
Drug Strategy, the federal government
continues to invest heavily in policies and
practices that have repeatedly been shown in
the scientific literature to be ineffective or
harmful. Specifically, while the stated
goal of the Canadaʼs Drug Strategy is to
reduce harm, evidence obtained through this
analysis indicates that the overwhelming
emphasis continues to be on conventional
enforcement-based approaches which are costly
and often exacerbate, rather than reduce,
drug-related harms." For full report,
published in Canadian
HIV/AIDS Policy & Law Review, click here.
- September 1,
2006: Vancouver safe injection facility
("Insite") receives extension until December 31,
2007, but no new sites to be allowed until
government is satisfied of benefits. For
government press release, click here.
For
details
about
the Vancouver facility, click here.
- October 16,
2005: Health Officers Council of British
Columbia releases discussion paper, A Public Health Approach to
Drug Control in Canada (October
2005). From the paper's
abstract: "Studies support public health
harm reduction strategies, but their
implementation is hindered by the criminal
status of drugs in popular use. Current
conditions are right to enter into serious
public discussions regarding the creation of a
regulatory system for currently illegal drugs
in Canada, with better control and reduced
harms to be achieved by management in a
tightly controlled system. The removal
of criminal penalties for drug possession for
personal use, and placement of these currently
illegal substances in a tight regulatory
framework, could both aid implementation of
programs to assist those engaged in harmful
drug use, and reduce secondary unintended
drug-related harms to society that spring from
a failed criminal-prohibition approach. This
would move individual harmful illegal drug use
from being primarily a criminal issue to being
primarily a health issue." For details
of the conference held to discuss the report,
"Beyond Drug
Prohibition: A Public Health Approach" (October 18,
19, 2005), click here.
- June 8, 2005: City of Vancouver report, Preventing Harm from
Psychoactive Substance Use, made public in
preparation for June 14, 2005, meeting of Vancouver
City Council. This was a draft report.
To see the final report, released in November 2005,
click here.
Among
the
many
recommendations in the report: "This plan recommends
that regulation of currently illegal substances
should be considered with the goals of increasing
our ability to prevent harm to individuals and
communities from substance use and of eliminating
the involvement of organized crime in these drug
markets. We propose that the Federal Government
proceed in this direction by first tackling the
regulation of cannabis, next evaluating the results
and finally moving incrementally to bring more
currently illegal substances into regulatory
frameworks." For related news story, click here.
- June 9, 2004: BC's annual marijuana crop,
if valued at retail street prices and sold by the
cigarette, is worth over $7 billion, according to a
new study Marijuana Growth in British Columbia,
released today by The Fraser Institute.Marijuana
should be decriminalized, treated like any legal
product, and the revenue taxed. Using conservative
assumptions about Canadian consumption, this could
translate into potential revenues for the government
of over $2 billion. The study's author is
Stephen Easton, professor of economics at Simon
Fraser University and a Senior Fellow at The Fraser
Institute. To see a copy of the study, click here.
- March 1, 2004: Canada's federal New
Democratic Party issues policy statement criticizing
proposed changes to cannabis laws (Bill C-10) and
criticizing drug prohibition generally. To see
statement, click here.
To see other NDP statements relating to drug
policy, click here
and look under the title "Modernizing Marijuana
Laws."
- February 2004: Summary
of the proceedings from the symposium "Visioning a
Future for Prevention: A Local Perspective," held
November 20 and 21, 2003 at the Wosk Centre for
Dialogue, Vancouver, BC
- February 23, 2004: Statistics Canada releases
report on "Trends in drug offences and the role of
alcohol and drugs in crime, 2002". To see .pdf
version of report, click here.
- February 12, 2004: Government
reintroduces cannabis law reform bill: Bill C-10, An
Act to amend the Contraventions Act and the
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. To see
the bill as it stood at First Reading (check for
later amendments on the Parliamentary web site),
click here.
- December 23, 2003: Supreme Court of
Canada rules that Parliament has the constitutional
right to prohibit cannabis possession using the
criminal law. See judgments in R.
v.
Malmo-Levine;
R.
v. Caine and R.
v. Clay.
- May 22, 2003: Illicit
IV
Drugs: A Public Health Approach, by Mark
Haden, M.S.W. This article, published
originally in the Canadian Journal of Public Health,
explores, from a public health perspective, the harm
done by Canadian drug laws, to both individuals and
society. It challenges the perceived dichotomy of
legalization and criminalization of intravenous
drugs. The article then expands the discussion by
exploring eight legal options for illicit drugs and
examines how these options interact with; the
marginalization of users, the illicit drug black
market, and levels of drug consumption. While the
main focus of this article is intravenous drugs, it
draws some lessons from cannabis research.
- May 16, 2003: Ontario Superior Court confirms
earlier lower court judgments that no law exists in
Canada banning possession of cannabis. For
story, click here.
Note: This decision is binding in
Ontario only, but may be adopted by other courts
elsewhere in Canada. As well, the federal
Department of Justice will likely appeal the
decision, which could result in this decision being
overturned.
- January 2003: The
origins
of cannabis prohibition in Canada (excerpted
from a 1991 Canadian study, Panic
and Indifference).
- January 2003: The links between drug
prohibition and illegal firearms. In
light of the current discussion about the value of
Canada's firearms registration program, here is a study
done
for
the
Canadian Firearms Centre in 1998 that
discusses several ways in which the drug trade
fostered by prohibition increases the unlawful use
of firearms and leads to the "militarization" (that
is, the increased reliance on heavy weapons) of
policing. Version
française.
- January 2, 2003: Ontario
judge
rules that possession of cannabis is not illegal.
Department
of Justice quickly announces appeal
of ruling. May 16, 2003: Ontario
Superior Court confirms earlier lower court
judgments that no law exists in Canada banning
possession of cannabis. For story, click here. Note:
This later decision is binding in Ontario
only, but may be adopted by other courts elsewhere
in Canada. As well, the federal Department of
Justice will likely appeal the decision, which could
result in this decision being overturned.
- December 18, 2002: Nearly one out of six
Members of the European Parliament ( MEPs ) are
now calling for an end to drug prohibition and the
revision of United Nations ( UN ) treaties that
block the way. Some 108 MEPs ( out of 624 )
from seven political parties or groups and 13
European Union countries have agreed on a draft
resolution urging the UN and its member states to
establish a "system for the legal control and
regulation of the production, sale and consumption
of substances which are currently illegal." To
see news reports and press releases, click here.
- December 9 and 12,
2002: Canadian House of Commons Special
Committee on Non-medical Use of Drugs releases
reports. The reports call for safe
injection sites, pilot heroin maintenance programs,
decriminalization of cannabis, among other reforms.
The reports are available through the committee's
web site. To see television coverage by
the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), click here.
- October 29, 2002: Police violence in
drug law enforcement? Vancouver's Pivot Legal
Society reports allegations of abuse by Vancouver
Police Department in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside.
Many of the allegations involve misconduct against
drug users. Allegations include assault, illegal
searches, unlawful detention, violation of Charter
mobility rights, and a range of other improprieties.
Report concludes: "Drug users and police officers
are both responding to a larger social policy
context that reinforces their mutual roles as
victims and aggressors or, viewed from the
perspective of the police, law breakers and law
enforcers. It is our decision as a society to
criminalize drug addiction, rather than understand
and treat those behaviours as medical and social
issues, that ultimately forces both sides of the
equation into an endless dehumanizing cycle of
criminalized behaviour, arrest, incarceration,
release, and further criminalized behaviour. And
until we change the way we deal with drug use, we
will not have a real opportunity to heal this
wounding cycle." To see report, click here.
- September 13, 2002: Is US "drug
czar" threatening Canada over Canadian Senate
proposals to legalize cannabis? "Canada's
marijuana policy is flawed by a lack of information
and outright lies, according to the highest-ranking
drug official in the United States." To see
story, click here.
- September
4,
2002: The Senate Special Committee on Illegal
Drugs released its report on cannabis. Among
other recommendations, the report calls for
cannabis to be legalized and regulated, and for
criminal records of those convicted of cannabis
possession in the past to be erased.
The report and summary are on the Committee
web site. The committee news
conference can be found here.
For various Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation radio and television reports, including
interviews with advocates, click here.
To
see
testimony
and briefs by Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy
founding members before the committee, click here.
- August 23, 2002: The Criminal
Intelligence Service Canada (CISC) releases its 2002
Annual Report on Organized Crime in Canada.
The report deals in part with how various criminal
groups continue to profit from the trade in illegal
drugs. It also describes various police
operations directed at marijuana grow operations
("grow ops"). This year's report states that
illicit drugs continue to be the major source of
income for organized crime groups. And again, as
with past reports, this year's report fails to
acknowledge that the drug trade is profitable for
criminals only because our laws prohibiting drugs
create a lucrative black market in them.
Here are the CISC
press release, the executive
summary
of
the
report, and the full report (.pdf
format or html
format).
- August 1, 2002: A British Columbia Supreme
Court justice has called the illegal activities of
the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in
Canada in a 1999 investigation "blatant acts in
disregard of Canadian sovereign values and law,"
and "so egregious as to constitute an abuse of
process." As a result, the judge stayed an
application by the US government to have a suspect
in Canada committed for extradition to the United
States. For details, click here.
- August 9, 2002: International Centre for
Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy
releases two May 2002 studies on marijuana in
British Columbia: Marihuana
Growing
Operations
in
British Columbia (click here for the executive
summary). The report includes a
description of: (1) The incidents of marihuana
cultivation that came to the attention of the
police; (2) The characteristics of marihuana
cultivation operations; (3) The characteristics of
the suspects involved and their criminal history (4)
The action taken at various stages of the criminal
justice process; and, (5) The patterns of sentencing
in such cases. The second report is Marihuana
Trafficking
Incidents
in
British Columbia. It gives a very
complete analysis of the charging practices, the
amounts involved and the sentences received for
trafficking offences. All files are in .pdf format.
- July 21, 2002: CBC Radio Cross-Country
Checkup program -- "Should Canada loosen its
marijuana laws?" You can listen to the
entire program by visiting the Cross-Country Checkup
archives
and going to the program for July 21, 2002.
The archives also contain the contents of the e-mail
discussion forum that occurred during the
program. The program includes interviews with
Randy White, co-chair of the House of Commons
Committee on Non-medical Use of Drugs, US
Congressman Mark Souder, Chair of US Justice
Sub-committee on Criminal Justice and Drug Policy
(he spoke about the response of the United States to
Canadian drug policy reform), Marc-Boris St.
Maurice, Leader of the Marijuana Party of Canada,
Mike Niebudek, Vice-President, Canadian Police
Association, and Eugene Oscapella, Canadian
Foundation for Drug Policy.
- July 16, 2002: Federal Justice Minister says
that cannabis law may be eased. For story,
click here.
- July 10, 2002: Canadian Human Rights
Commission calls most forms of employment drug
testing unacceptable, including pre-employment
drug and alcohol testing, random drug testing, and
random alcohol testing of employees in non-safety
sensitive positions. For details, click here.
- May 29, 2002: Associate editor of the
Financial Times (UK): "European countries are
starting to realise that a policy of retribution
against drug addicts is both immoral and stupid.
. . . Small chinks are opening in the wall of
stupidity that surrounds drug policy. In the
US, a few brave souls are challenging the "war on
drugs" - a euphemism for a war upon its citizens.
The Netherlands and Switzerland are experimenting
with decriminalisation. And, last week, a
report from a select committee of the House of
Commons even opened a few holes in British
government policy. It is regrettably timid but
still a small step in the right direction." For full
story, click here.
- American influence on
Canadian drug policy, video archive of
presentation by Eugene Oscapella of the Canadian
Foundation for Drug Policy at the James A. Baker
Institute for Public Policy, Houston, Texas, April
11, 2002.
- Drug trafficking remains the principal
source of revenue for most organized crime groups
- The hashish, heroin and cocaine that are
consumed in Canada originate in regions of the
globe where terrorist and insurgent groups are
involved to one extent or another in the
production, processing or movement of narcotics. .
. . Drug consumers are therefore supporting such
terrorist and insurgent groups. [For a
criticism of this analysis of the links between
drug use and terrorism, click here.]
- United
States-Canada
Border
Drug
Threat Assessment (.pdf file): "During the
Fourth Canada–United States Cross-Border Crime
Forum, held in Washington, D.C., in June 2000, it
was agreed to undertake a joint assessment of the
common threat posed by the cross-border drug trade.
The enclosed report, “United States–Canada Border
Drug Threat Assessment,” is the result of that
agreement. Numerous agencies involved in fighting
drugs participated in its preparation."
- May 13, 2002: Global Television network
report claims that US government is threatening
Canada with trade sanctions if Canada reforms its
drug laws. For full story, click here. To
see the video of the news report, click here.
- May 13, 2002: Corruption:
National Post reports that the federal
Justice Department is continuing to stay drug
prosecutions without explanation as a 10-month-old
RCMP-led probe into allegations of corruption in the
Toronto police force drug squad appears to be
widening its investigation. For story, click here.
- May 2, 2002: Canadian Senate
Special Committee on Illegal Drugs issues discussion
paper on cannabis. To see the press
release, click here.
To
see
the
discussion paper summary, click here.
To
see
the
full discussion paper, click here.
- April 30, 2002: Release of Canadian
multi-departmental study, Proportions of crimes
associated with alcohol and other drugs in Canada.
Report concludes: "The main findings of this report
confirm the close association between the use of
alcohol and other drugs, and criminal behaviour, and
indicate that a substantial portion of this
association is causal." For study highlights,
click here.
For
full
report,
click here
(PDF file).
- April 29, 2002: Canada’s proposed terrorist
legislation, the Public Safety Act, 2002
(Bill C-55), may expand police powers in relation to
drug offences that have nothing to do with
terrorism. For details, click here. What this
added police power in relation to drug offences
has in most cases to do with catching terrorists
is a mystery.
- March 11, 2002:
Canadian Medical Association testifies before
Senate Illegal Drugs Committee: "Whenever
possible, individuals suffering from drug
dependency should be diverted from the criminal
justice system into treatment and rehabilitation..
. . The vast majority of resources dedicated to
combating drugs are directed toward law
enforcement activities. Government needs to
re-balance the distribution, and allocate a
greater proportion of these resources to drug
treatment, prevention and harm reduction
programs." For details, click here.
- December 9, 2001: Britain's top police
officers have called for the mass prescription
of heroin to addicts. The Association of
Chief Police Officers (Acpo), which represents chief
constables in England, Wales and Northern Ireland,
will announce its shift in policy in January. Under
the proposals, addicts will no longer be treated as
criminals if they agree to register and inject
prescribed heroin in strictly controlled 'shooting
galleries' under medical supervision. For stories,
click here.
- December 8, 2001: Women strip-searched at
Halifax rave may try to re-open case in light of
Supreme Court of Canada decision (see immediately
below) on strip searches. For details, click here.
- December 7, 2001: Supreme Court of
Canada drug case places limits in on strip
searches: "The importance of preventing
unjustified searches before they occur is
particularly acute in the context of strip searches.
Strip searches are inherently humiliating and
degrading for detainees regardless of the manner in
which they are carried out and for this reason they
cannot be carried out simply as a matter of routine
policy." For complete decision in R. v.
Golden, click here.
- December 4, 2001: Auditor General of
Canada releases report on the federal government's
role in dealing with illicit drugs: "Eleven
federal departments and agencies are involved in the
effort to control illicit drugs at a cost of about
$500 million a year," says Auditor General.
"But they don't know the extent of the problem and
whether or not they are succeeding in their
efforts.... Let's make sure that our investments in
efforts to address this problem are
effective." For press release, click here.
For
full
report,
click here.
[Note that report completely overlooks the role
and cost of drug prohibition.]
- November 14, 2001: Federal
Health Minister Allan Rock announces support for
safe injection sites across Canada:
"We will do everything we can to facilitate pilots
in cities across the country if those cities
decide this is part of the strategy that they
want." For news story, click here.
- August 31, 2001: Health Canada issues
response (almost two years later) to November 1999
report of Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network on
Injection Drug Use and HIV/AIDS: Legal and Ethical
Issues. The 1999 report had called for
immediate and longer-term measures, including a move
away from criminal prohibition, to stem HIV
infections. To see the reaction of the
Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network to Health Canada’s
response, as well as a chronology of this issue,
click here.
- August 29, 2001: Ontario’s Centre for
Addiction and Mental Health reiterates its
call for reform of cannabis laws: “While
negative health effects can result from extensive
cannabis use, studies in other jurisdictions have
shown that reducing criminal sanctions for
possession for personal use lessens the negative
social and individual consequences, and does not
lead to increased use. . . . We urge the
government to follow . . . the growing number of
organizations and Canadians who support a more
rational and balanced approach to drug
policy.” For story, click here.
For
a
more
detailed explanation of the Centre’s position, click
here.
- August 22, 2001: Canadian
social and economic think-tank, The Fraser
Institute, issues policy papers calling drug
prohibition a complete failure. Here
are the Institute's media
release and the policy
papers themselves. See also June
1998 Fraser Institute analysis of media treatment of
drug policy issues in Canada. Click here
for report.
- August 21, 2001: Safe injection sites.
Canadian Medical Association Journal
editorial states: "Safe injection facilities serve a
unique and important function, particularly in terms
of providing immediate response to overdoses,
increasing use of health and social services, and
reducing the problems [described elsewhere in the
article] that are associated with injecting drugs in
public. Here are the articles:
- August 17, 2001: Organized crime and drugs
in Canada. Criminal Intelligence Service
Canada (CISC) releases its 2001 report on organized
crime in Canada: "Drug smuggling and
trafficking remain the major source of criminal
profit for many crime groups . . .". Report
details the extensive involvement of organized crime
in the illegal drug trade (but makes no mention that
the interest of organized crime in the drug trade
stems from the prohibition of those drugs). To
see excerpts of the report dealing with organized
crime and the drug trade, and to see the full
report, click here.
- August 16, 2001: RCMP to investigate widening
allegations of corruption among Toronto drug squad
officers. For details, click here.
August
29,
2001:
Peel (outside Toronto) regional police officer
charged with trafficking drugs and possesion of
proceeds of crime. For story, click here.
The
same
Peel
officer pleaded guility in March 2002 -- for story,
click here.
- July 30, 2001 and August 17, 2001.
Federal medical marijuana regulations take
effect. Click here
for details from Health Canada about the
regulations. August 17, 2001:
Canadian Medical Association Journal publishes
interim medical marijuana guidelines for
physicians. Click here
to see guidelines.
- July 26, 2001: Britain's
internationally respected The Economistmagazine
does survey on illegal drugs:
"Prohibition has failed, again. It has
long been clear that the laws on drugs are doing
more harm than good. For understandable
reasons, governments and voters alike are
reluctant to face the facts. The case for
legalisation is strong, both in principle and as
a practical matter." (click here
for The Economist's full survey on
illegal drugs)
- May 19-22, 2001:
Cannabis: Federal Minister of Justice
says she is "quite open" to a debate on whether
marijuana should be legalized, or at least
decriminalized, in Canada. For story, click
here. Federal
Conservative Party Leader speaks out for
decriminalizing (as opposed to legalizing)
cannabis. For story, click here. Poll
shows growing support for legalizing cannabis.
For story, click here.
- May 17, 2001: All
five parties in Canada’s House of Commons agree
to establish a committee to
study issues relating to
currently illegal drugs. For details,
click here.
- May 15, 2001: Canadian
Medical Association Journal calls for cannabis
to be decriminalized. Says the CMAJ:
"Health Canada's decision to legitimize the
medicinal use of marijuana is a step in the right
direction. But a bolder stride is needed. The
possession of small quantities for personal use
should be decriminalized. The minimal negative
health effects of moderate use would be attested
to by the estimated 1.5 million Canadians who
smoke marijuana for recreational purposes. The
real harm is the legal and social
fallout." Click here
for PDF file containing English editorial, and here for the French
version. For English HTML file, click here. For French HTML
file, click here. (Note:
This editorial does not necessarily reflect the
views of the CMA itself.)
- May 3, 2001: Britain's highly
respected The Economist magazine calls US
war on drugs "a disaster by any reasonable measure,"
and repeats its longstanding call for drugs to be
"decriminalized." Click here for
editorial.
- April
7,
2001: Medicinal Marijuana:
Health Canada releases proposed regulation
permitting tightly regulated access to marijuana
for therapeutic purposes. To see the Health
Canada press release, click here
(remember that this is the government's own
statement and does not point out the weaknesses of
the regulations.) To see the proposed
regulations, click here
(for the ASCII text version) or here
for the PDF version. To see one newspaper
report criticizing the proposed regulations, click
here.
- March
15,
2001: Supreme Court of
Canada agrees to hear case challenging the
constitutionality of Canada's cannabis laws.
For information, click here.
- March 2001: European
study of teenage drug use suggests that the war
on drugs may increase, not decrease, teen drug
use, or that it may have no impact at all. A
report by the Drug Reform Coordination Network (DRCNet) on the
findings of the European School Survey Project on
Alcohol and Other Drugs reports that a much higher
percentage of American teenagers consume
illicit drugs than do their European
counterparts. To see the DRCNet report,
click here.
- March 5, 2001:
Medicinal marijuana: Police raid home of Jim
Wakeford, man with a legal exemption to grow
marijuana, hours after his lawyers had argued in
court that the law provides such people inadequate
protection from drug charges. Police charge
Wakeford with possession for the purpose of
trafficking. To see story, click here.
- February 2001:
International
Narcotics Control Board releases its annual report
for 2000. Report says drug trafficking
continues to increase in Canada. Report also says
that efforts to eradicate cannabis have been made
by law enforcement agencies in
Canada, but the impact of those efforts has been
reduced by Canadian courts giving lenient sentences
to cannabis growers and couriers. Canada's
Minister of Justice promises to do more. To
see the report and critical commentary on the report
and the position of the Minister, click here.
- January 31, 2001:
Survey of Vancouver residents finds strong support
for decriminalizing cannabis, harm reduction
measures. For news report and editorial, click here.
- Police and
government corruption related to drug
prohibition
- May 13, 2002: Corruption:
National Post reports that the federal
Justice Department is continuing to stay drug
prosecutions without explanation as a 10-month-old
RCMP-led probe into allegations of corruption in
the Toronto police force drug squad appears to be
widening its investigation. For story, click
here.
- (February 28, 2001)
Toronto police officer convicted of robbing drug
dealers and plotting an Ecstasy trafficking
scheme described by prosecutors as the biggest
on record in Canada. Officer had also been
charged with attempted murder and conspiracy to
commit murder. For story, click here.
- (January 31, 2001) BC
police officer convicted of theft of cannabis
and helping drug sellers avoid police
raids. For stories, click here.
- (January 2001) BC
police drug education officer dies of drug
overdose. For stories, click here.
- (November 24, 2000) Corruption charges laid
against eight Toronto drug squad members.
Some lawyers claim that the charges may affect
hundreds of drug prosecutions. In all, 75
criminal charges were laid, including theft,
fraud, forgery and breach of trust, and the
officers also face a total of 98 disciplinary
charges under the Police Services Act.
For story, click here.
- For stories about police corruption in drug
law enforcement in the US, see the report
by
the
US
General Accounting Office (the investigative
arm of US Congress).
- Study prepared in
2000 by the Institute for Policy Studies
(Washington) on US
government
corruption
and
"complicity" relating to the war on drugs.
- January 22, 2001: Cannabis:
Belgium
issues directive allowing possession of
cannabis for personal use. For stories,
click here.
- Safe Injection Sites:
Here is the November 2000 proposal
(in PDF format) by the Harm Reduction Action
Society to establish a pilot project for two safe
injection sites in Vancouver.
- January 15, 2001: Medicinal
marijuana -- Grant Krieger: In
December 2000, an Alberta judge struck down
portion of federal law that prohibits the
cultivation of marijuana for medicinal purposes,
saying it was unconstitutional. For news story,
click here. The
judge struck down section 7(1) of the Controlled
Drugs and Substances Act, but stayed the
decision for a year. The Crown has now decided
to appeal the court's decision in Mr. Krieger's
case. For news report, click here.
Mr. Krieger's case was the second case where a
Canadian court declared the law unconstitutional as
it relates to medical marijuana. For details of the
Ontario Court of Appeal and trial decisions in the
other case, Parker, click here.
"On the subject of drugs, Mr. Clinton, who
famously claimed not to have inhaled, said that "most
small amounts of marijuana have been
decriminalized and should be." [Note to
reader from Canadian Foundation for Drug
Policy: In fact, most drug arrests in the
United States, as in Canada, relate to
cannabis.]
Going further, he said that mandatory
sentences for drug use should be re examined
[Note to Canadian readers: Unlike the
US, there are no mandatory minimum sentences
for drug offences in Canada's Controlled Drugs
and Substances Act.] along with the
distinction in sentencing between crack and
powdered cocaine. [Note to Canadian
readers: US penalties for crack cocaine
offences are enormously greater than for
powdered cocaine.] "The disparities are
unconscionable between crack and powdered
cocaine," Mr. Clinton said. "I tried
to change that. The Republican Congress
was willing to narrow but not eliminate them,
the theory being that people who used crack were
more violent than people who used cocaine.
"What they really meant was: People
that used crack were more likely to be poor -
and, coincidentally, black or brown. And
therefore not to have money. Those people
that used cocaine were more likely to be rich,
pay for it and therefore be peaceful."
See also the strong criticism of Mr. Clinton's
drug policies in The
Clinton
Drug War Legacy, published by High Times.
Mr. Clinton also calls for reexamination
of
US
policy
on imprisonment. (The US is one of the
most punitive countries in the world. The US
incarcerates 25 per cent of all the human beings
incarcerated in the world. See report
on incarceration rates in US, rates that are
increasingly fuelled by drug "offenders.")
- December 6, 2000: BC Premier says prescribing
drugs for addicts -- not just providing safe-injection
sites -- has to be part of any
comprehensive plan to tackle Vancouver's
drug problem. For story, click here.
- November 30,
2000: Canada's Justice Minister states that
the federal government plans to set up drug
courts in all major Canadian cities by 2004.
For news story, click here.
To see a 1999 report on Toronto's (then) new drug
court, click here.
For
descriptions
of
the US experience with drug courts, and criticisms
of those courts, click here.
See also the 1997
report
of the US General Accounting Office (GAO) on US drug courts.
(Note that drug court programs vary substantially
in how they operate, so some criticisms and
analyses may or may not apply to the drug courts
planned for Canada.
- November 21, 2000: Vancouver Mayor
Philip Owen unveils plan for dealing with city's
drug crisis. Safe-injection sites for drug users
and providing free heroin for hard-core addicts on
a trial basis are among the strategies the city of
Vancouver is recommending. For story, click here. To see the
City of Vancouver press release and the full plan, A
Framework for Action - A Four-Pillar Approach to
Drug Problems in Vancouver, click here.
- November 4, 2000: United States: The
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers'
(NACDL) board of directors unanimously approved a
resolution on November 4th calling for the end of
the war on drugs. In its resolution,
NACDL, the largest specialty bar association in the
United States representing the interests of criminal
defence lawyers, stated that drug use should be
considered a health problem, and that the government
should "repeal all laws criminalizing the
possession, use and delivery of controlled
substances." For report, click here.
- October 9, 2000: CNN reports that many
European governments are shifting from harsh
soft-drug penalties towards a more tolerant approach
to drugs such as cannabis. For story, click here.
- October 9, 2000: United Kingdom -- former
Scotland Yard drug squad chief says, "my direct
experience has convinced me that legalisation [of
cannabis], not prohibition, is the only viable
option." For story, click here.
- October 4, 2000: British Columbia Supreme
Court judge states that "We can't deal with mental
illness and addiction to substances in the criminal
justice system." For news story, click here.
- October 2, 2000: Swiss Cabinet comes out in
favour of legalising cannabis use. The Swiss
cabinet has decided to ask parliamentarians to make
the use and preparation of cannabis a non-criminal
offence. For story, click here.
- September 25, 2000: Medical marijuana
Federal Minister of Health states that a
government-controlled supply of marijuana will be
grown and federal regulations governing
medicinal use will be made into law within a year.
For story, click here.
- September 19, 2000: Federal political
leaders and MPs discuss whether drugs should be
"legalized". For Ottawa Citizen story,
click here.
- September 16, 2000: Colombian
parliamentary officials call for drugs to be
legalized. Colombia will argue at the
Inter-Parliamentary Forum of the Americas in
Ottawa next spring that decriminalizing and
regulating drugs like heroin and cocaine and
channelling profits into fighting addiction is the
best way to undermine organized crime. To see
story, click here.
- September 16, 2000: Medical
marijuana. Ottawa man with AIDS seeks
goes to court to seek legal right to import medical
marijuana. For story, click here.
- July 31, 2000:
Medical marijuana: Ontario Court of Appeal
unanimously confirms earlier trial court
decision in favour of legal access to medical
marijuana. Court was considering a
constitutional challenge to the marijuana
prohibitions in the former Narcotic Control Act
("NCA") and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
("CDSA") in the context of the medical use of
marijuana. On December 10, 1997, the trial judge,
Sheppard J. granted a stay of proceedings brought
against Terrance Parker for cultivating marijuana
contrary to the NCA and for possession of marijuana
contrary to the CDSA. The Crown
appealed. The unanimous Court of Appeal
confirmed the trial judge's decision to stay the
charges against Parker. Accordingly, the
prohibition on the possession of marijuana in the
CDSA is declared to be of no force and effect. However,
that declaration of invalidity is suspended for
a year. For a summary of the court
decision, click here.
For
the
full
text of the court decision, click here.
For
news
report,
click here.
For
Toronto
Globe
and Mail editorial, click here.
- June 9, 2000: Federal government pays
millions to BC law firms to prosecute marijuana
cases. For details, click here.
- May 15, 2000: Cannabis: Poll
conducted for National Post finds that about
two-thirds of Canadians say possession of small
amounts of marijuana for personal use should be a
non-criminal offence, punishable by a fine
rather than a jail term: 65% of those questioned
thought the concept of decriminalizing pot is an
excellent, very good, or good idea. Only 22%
responded negatively to the question. Thirteen
per cent did not have an opinion or refused to
answer. Over 90% favour legalizing
marijuana for medical purposes. For full
story, click here.
- May 15, 2000: U.S. Department of State
report on Canada and drugs for 1999 (released
March 2000). Report makes exaggerated claim that
Canada has 250,000 cocaine addicts. Report also
criticizes Canadian courts: "The impact of these
efforts [by the RCMP] have been undermined in
numerous cases by court decisions. Canadian courts
have been reluctant to impose tough prison sentences
. . .." To see report, click here. To see report
of British Columbia senior judge telling the US to
mind its own business, click here.
- May 15, 2000: Report of the International
Narcotics Control Board for 1999. "The
Board notes with disappointment the slow progress
made in Canada in controlling psychotropic
substances in line with the requirements of the 1971
Convention and in participating effectively in the
efforts of the international community to monitor
precursors. While Canada fully supported the
adoption of the action plans by the General Assembly
at its twentieth special session, it has not yet
implemented some of the basic provisionsof the
international drugcontrol conventions related to
them." To see the excerpts dealing with the
Americas, including Canada, click here (pdf file). To see
the entire report, click here.
- May 15, 2000: Cannabis: Centre for
Addiction and Mental Health (Ontario) "concurs
with similar calls from many other expert
stakeholders who believe that control of cannabis
possession for personal use should be removed from
the realm of the Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act and the criminal law/criminal
justice system." To see full statement,
click here. To see a
reiteration of the CAMH position in 2001, click here.
- May 12, 2000: Extradition
--
Renee
Boje -- update: The United States is
trying to have Canada extradite Ms. Boje to the US
because of her alleged involvement in a medical
marijuana growing operation in California. As
of December 1, 2000, Canada's Minister of Justice
had not yet made a decision on the extradition. To
see the affidavit filed with the Minister by
Eugene Oscapella, one of the Foundation's founding
members, in support of Ms. Boje, click here. For
details of Ms. Boje's case, click here.
Ms. Boje faces a mandatory minimum sentence
of ten years to life imprisonment. In
addition, Ms. Boje faces the real prospect of sexual
and other abuse in US prisons. See recent
reports by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch
and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights
about the abuse of women in the
US prison system. For example,
here is what Human Rights Watch concluded:
Our findings indicate that being a woman
prisoner in U.S. state prisons can be a terrifying
experience. If you are sexually abused, you cannot
escape from your abuser. Grievance or investigatory
procedures, where they exist, are often ineffectual,
and correctional employees continue to engage in
abuse because they believe they will rarely be held
accountable, administratively or criminally. Few
people outside the prison walls know what is going
on or care if they do know. Fewer still do anything
to address the problem.
- April 2000: RCMP publishes report, Drug
Situation
in Canada (1999). Report notes: "With
the exception of marihuana, seizures of all drug
types in 1999 have decreased compared to 1998." and
"For all drug types, supply and demand have
remained stable but will likely increase in the
near future." Are these yet further
signs that prohibition is not working? --
CFDP As well, in contrast to
oft-made claims by some that the potency of cannabis
has increased drastically in Canada in recent years,
the report notes: "The average THC content of
all [marihuana] samples analysed since 1995 is
about 6%." To download PDF version of
report, click here.
To visit the RCMP web site where the report is
located, click here.
April 26, 2000: Canada as the Evil
Empire? "A Northern Border Menace" says
the Boston
Globe, slamming Canada's hydroponic
cannabis operations because of exports to the United
States. Message is that Canada is not pulling its
weight in the war on drugs. [Please judge the
"facts" contained in this article for
yourselves. -- ed.]
- April 18, 2000: Demon Drugs And Holy
Wars: Canadian Drug Policy as Symbolic
Action, by Jennifer Tooley, M.A. (The
University of New Brunswick, July, 1999).
Abstract: Illicit drug use is a popular
topic for both media coverage and government
policy. In the summer of 1998, the Canadian
federal government revamped their drug policy,
Canada’s Drug Strategy. In the new Strategy,
the federal government attempts to divorce itself
from an enforcement related past by changing the
focus of drug policy to one which encompasses the
principles of harm reduction. Yet analysis of
federal government documents shows that Canada is
still pursuing a policy of criminalization.
Using contrived language which is both threatening
and reassuring to the public, the government
categorizes all illicit drug use as bad, and all
illicit drug users as sick. Through their
language, the government emerges as the primary
authority on drug use in Canadian society. Not
only does this language shape political action, it
also shapes the meanings that we hold about illicit
drugs and their users. The government’s
language on drug use helps to sustain the “symbolic
allure” of prohibition. It also legitimates the
control of the “Therapeutic State” over the
individual. (The Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy
thanks Ms. Tooley for allowing us to publish her
thesis.)
- April 11,
2000: Canadian Senate unanimously
agrees to conduct comprehensive review of drug
laws and policy. For details, including the
final terms of reference, click here. This committee
was initially proposed on June 14, 1999, by Senator
Pierre Claude Nolin. For the proposed
committee's original terms of reference, and
Senator Nolin's June 14, 1999, speech in the Senate
on this topic, please click here.
To see the extensive (350K) drug policy background
paper prepared for Senator Nolin by Dr. Diane Riley,
click here (footnotes
will be added as soon as we figure out the
technology). (For the executive summary, click here.) For the statement
issued by the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy in
support of the call for the committee, click here.
- February 11,
2000: US prison population set to top two
million; drug "offenders" a significant
contributor. The Justice Policy
Institute (JPI) of the United States reported
last December that America’s prison and jail
population will top two million on February 15th,
2000. It reports that, with less than 5% of
the world’s population, the U.S. has one-quarter of
the world’s prisoners. The rapid expansion of what
some term the U.S. “prison industrial complex” has
been fueled to a significant degree by the war on
drugs. In the U.S. federal prison system, 60% of the
prisoners are drug law violators with no violent
criminal history. There are about 500,000 drug law
prisoners nationwide.
Web site contents
THE (HEAVY HANDED) LAW IN CANADA
- Development of Canada's
current drug laws and policies
Media
Statements and News Clippings on Drug Policy Issues
Statements:The Toronto Globe and Mail
says "Prohibition does not work and cannot work" [May
18, 1998]. (The Ottawa Citizen 1997 editorials
calling for an end to prohibition are also set out
here).
**Well worth reading**: On February 12, 1996, the
conservative American periodical, National Review,
published a series of articles under the title, "The
War on Drugs is Lost". In a preamble to the articles,
the National Review editors stated:
[I]t is our judgment that the war
on drugs has failed, that it is diverting intelligent
energy away from how to deal with the problem of
addiction, that it is wasting our resources, and that
it is encouraging civil, judicial and penal procedures
associated with police states. We all agree on the
movement toward legalization, even though we may
differ on just how far.[at page 34]
The series of essays that followed this statement
were written by some of the leading American voices
supporting drug law reform: William F. Buckley, Jr.,
Lindesmith Center director Ethan A. Nadelmann, Baltimore
Mayor Kurt Schmoke, former police chief Joseph D.
McNamara, Judge Robert W. Sweet, psychiatry professor
Dr. Thomas Szasz and Yale law professor Steven B. Duke.
Click here
to see these essays.
News clippings:
See
the
stories (updated daily)
by the Media
Awareness Project. See also the excellent
materials at DRCNet
(Drug Reform Coordination Network). These are
excellent sources of current information about drug
policy developments in Canada and around the world. If
you hear about a major news story on drug policy,
chances are it will reproduced at one of these sites.
Liberal Party Resolutions on
Drug Policy
Twice in recent decades -- at its 1994 Biennial
Convention and again at its 1996 Biennial Convention
-- the Liberal Party of Canada passed resolutions
calling for a rethinking of Canada's drug laws. We
reproduce those resolutions below [the 1996 resolution
is incomplete, since it is missing its preamble.] Why
not ask your Liberal MP (or candidate) what he or she
plans to do about Canada's outdated drug policies? Why
not ask them for their response to calls for change
that have come at the last two Biennial
conventions?
Resolution 73: Passed at the Liberal
Party of Canada 1994 Convention
(Part 2)
Whereas the use possession and trafficking of
illicit drugs has become a serious problem for
society; and
Whereas the government spends enormous amounts of
money for police and the court system to combat drug
related problems; and
WHEREAS there are more and more illicit drugs
available and government measures to combat their
effects are not reducing the problem; and
Whereas, on the basis of medical studies, an
important distinction can be made between so-called
"soft" drugs and "hard" drugs.
BE IT RESOLVED that the government study and
review the legislation on illicit drugs and base its
position on the precedents, studies, experience and
statistics established in other countries where
illicit/illegal drugs are considered as a social
health problem rather than as a criminal activity. One
of the effects of this would be to free up large
amounts of money which could be redirected to health
services.
Liberal Party of Canada (Quebec)
Resolution Passed at the Liberal Party
of Canada Convention, 1996 [preamble missing]
BE IT RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada
recommends to the federal government that a
politically independent committee be established to
review Canadian legislation and policy with respect to
illegal drugs:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this committee shall
report to the government within one (1) year, making
recommendations and proposing necessary amendments or
other legislation.
Liberal Party of Canada (Quebec)
Background of Canada's
Drug Laws
On March 6, 1996, using the powers granted by a
motion introduced by the Liberal government, the House
of Commons revived the former Bill C-7, the Controlled
Drugs and Substances Act. Bill C-7 had been passed
by the House of Commons on October 30, 1995, but died in
the Senate when the Parliamentary session ended on
February 2, 1996. The new Bill was identical to the Bill
C-7 originally passed by the House, except that its
number changed to C-8. Bill C-8 was intended to replace
Canada's Narcotic Control Act and parts of the Food
and Drugs Act. It significantly expanded the reach
of Canada's drug laws and continues Canada's heavy
reliance on criminal prohibition.
The House of Commons passed Bill C-8 on March 6
and sent it to the Senate for approval. There, the
Bill was given first and second reading and sent to
the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and
Constitutional Affairs for hearings. (In effect, these
committee hearings were a resumption of the hearings
that were being held on the former Bill C-7 when the
session of Parliament ended on February 2, 1996.)
To see excerpts from the March 1 and 6, 1996 House
of Commons Debates about Bill C-8, please click here. To see the comments
made in the Senate when the Bill was given second
reading on March 21, 1996, please click here.
Neither the Senate nor the House of Commons
reacted to the objections raised about the punitive
nature of the Bill. Parliament enacted the Bill as the
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act on June 20,
1996. The new law came into force on May 14, 1997.
Canada's previous drug laws --
the Narcotic Control Act and the Food and
Drugs Act -- were either repealed in whole (the
Narcotic Control Act) or in part (the Food
and Drugs Act). Both Bill C-8 and the previous
drug laws ignore non-criminal alternatives being
developed in other countries to reduce the harms
associated with drugs. The Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act significantly expands the reach
of Canada's drug laws and continues Canada's heavy
reliance on a failed policy of criminal prohibition.
Parliament -- both the House of Commons and the Senate
-- has thus refused to moderate the harshness of the
present law, and has in fact expanded the reach of
Canada's drug laws .
In refusing to rethink the penalties for certain
activities relating to drugs -- possession, for
example -- Canada's Parliament has completely rejected
the recommendations of the large majority of witnesses
who appeared before or sent submissions to Senate and
House of Commons committees calling for some or all
currently illegal drugs to be decriminalized. These
groups included the Canadian Foundation for Drug
Policy, the Canadian Bar Association, the British
Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Law Union of
Ontario, the Criminal Lawyers' Association, the
Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and the Canadian AIDS
Society. Numerous individual witnesses also supported
decriminalization.
You can see the text of the Controlled Drugs
and Substances Act by clicking here.
Regulations give further details on the powers set out
in the Act. Click here
to see the regulations.
Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy objections
to Bill C-8
The Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy has raised
many objections to Bill C-8 (formerly Bill C-7) and
proposed either that it be withdrawn completely or
amended substantially. You can see these concerns by
looking at the following (since Bill C-7 and C-8 are
identical except for the bill number, you can interpret
any statements about Bill C-7 as applying to Bill C-8 as
well):
the June 14, 1996 press
release we issued after the Senate Committee
examining Bill C-8 failed to make substantial
changes to the Bill, but nonetheless recommended a
joint Senate -- House of Commons committee to
re-examine Canada's drug policies
the June 4, 1996 letter
sent by the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy to
the full Senate about Bill C-8. The letter was sent
because the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and
Constitutional Affairs was about to complete its
study of Bill C- 8 and possibly recommend changes to
the Bill
the June 3, 1996 letter we
wrote to one of the members of the Standing Senate
Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs about
several of his concerns about cannabis.
the May 6, 1996 letter we
wrote to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and
Constitutional Affairs to address several concerns:
Canada's international obligations relating to
illicit drugs, the impact of decriminalization on
rates of cannabis use, the myth of cannabis as a
"gateway" drug, the deterrent effect of the criminal
law, recent developments in Australia, and the need
to focus on the serious harms (HIV and hepatitis
infection, violence and overdoses) that criminal
prohibition fosters.
the transcript of an April
25, 1996 appearance before the Senate committee by
Glenn Gilmour, a founding member of the CFDP, to
discuss Canada's international obligations relating
to drugs
the changes we proposed to
Bill C-7 (now C-8) in February 1996 after the
Standing Senate Committee on Legal and
Constitutional Affairs invited us to suggest
amendments
the transcript of our
appearance before the Committee on December 14, 1995
press releases we issued when we
appeared before the Senate on December 14, 1995 and
when we addressed many other drug policy issues
the letter we sent to Liberal
MPs on June 9, 1995 about the original Bill C-7 (now
C-8)
the statement we issued in May
1994 when we appeared before the House of Commons
Health subcommittee examining Bill C-7
other press releases and
statements we have issued on drug policy issues in
general
Canadian Foundation for Drug
Policy
The Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy (CFDP) is a
non-profit organization founded in 1993 by several of
Canada's leading specialists in drug policy. Its founding members include
psychologists, pharmacologists, lawyers, health policy
advocates and public policy researchers. The Foundation
is funded entirely by its members and by contributions
from other organizations with an interest in drug policy
reform.
The aims of the Foundation include:
- acting as a forum for the exchange of views
among those interested in reform of drug policies
- serving as a vehicle for sharing those views
and for discussing significant drug policy issues
with government, the public, other organizations and
the media, and
- where necessary, recommending alternatives
that will make Canada's drug laws and policies
effective and humane.
Canadian advocates of drug policy reform had long
recognized the need for an independent body to address
drug policy issues. Existing organizations -- even those
reputed to be "independent" -- were almost all too
closely tied to government.
However, the immediate catalyst for the creation
of the CFDP was the need to challenge Bill C-85,
introduced into Canada's House of Commons in 1992. The
Bill would have replaced Canada's Narcotic Control
Act and parts of the Food and Drugs Act.
These laws made certain activities -- possession,
trafficking, cultivating, importing and exporting --
illegal and imposed criminal penalties for violations.
The proposed amendment would have continued this
policy of prohibition and created new drug offences as
well.
Bill C-85 was never enacted; it died when Canada's
Conservative government called an election in 1993.
However, the Liberal party, which won the 1993 federal
election, introduced a virtually identical bill on
February 2, 1994. That Bill was called Bill C-7, the Controlled
Drugs and Substances Act. Like its predecessor,
Bill C-7 died at the end of a Parliamentary session,
but the Liberal government revived it as Bill C-8 on
March 6, 1996 and sent it to the Senate for review and
approval. The Bill became law in May 1997. The
Foundation's efforts to reform Canada's drug laws and
policies continue.
Here is more information about our objects and our founding members. And here
are some of the major press releases
and statements we have made about drug policy
issues.
Here is how to become a member.
(Please consider helping us with our work.)
And here are extensive links to other drug policy reform
organizations and sources of information.
How to reach us
We invite you to contact any of our founding members. You can also
reach us in Ottawa at:
Telephone: (613) 236-1027
Facsimile: (613) 238-2891
Our mailing address:
70 MacDonald Street
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada K2P 1H6
Please send questions, comments and suggestions to
eoscapel@ca.inter.net.
Articles and Studies of Interest
Drug Policy Generally
- May 13, 2002: Global Television network
report claims that US government is threatening
Canada with trade sanctions if Canada reforms its
drug laws. For full story, click here. To
see the video of the news report, click here.
- December 4, 2001: Auditor General of
Canada releases report on the federal government's
role in dealing with illicit drugs: "Eleven
federal departments and agencies are involved in the
effort to control illicit drugs at a cost of about
$500 million a year," says Auditor General.
"But they don't know the extent of the problem and
whether or not they are succeeding in their
efforts.... Let's make sure that our investments in
efforts to address this problem are
effective." For press release, click here.
For
full
report,
click here.
[Note that report completely overlooks the role
and cost of drug prohibition.]
- November 14, 2001: Federal
Health Minister Allan Rock announces support for
safe injection sites across Canada:
"We will do everything we can to facilitate pilots
in cities across the country if those cities
decide this is part of the strategy that they
want." For news story, click here.
- August 22, 2001:
Canada's Fraser Institute issues policy papers
calling drug prohibition a complete failure.
Here are the Institute's media
release and the policy
papers themselves. See also June
1998 Fraser Institute analysis of media treatment of
drug policy issues in Canada. Click here
for report.
- July 26, 2001: Britain's
internationally respected The Economist magazine:
"Prohibition has failed,
again. It has long been clear that the
laws on drugs are doing more harm than
good. For understandable reasons,
governments and voters alike are reluctant to
face the facts. The case for
legalisation is strong, both in principle and
as a practical matter." (click here
for The Economist's full survey on
illegal drugs)
- April 2001: Possible wrongful
drug convictions: Department of Justice
reports possible wrongful drug convictions
between 1988 and 2001 due to faulty certificates
of analyst (these certificates are used to prove
the nature of the substance in drug
prosecutions). This may result in many
drug convictions being overturned. For
details from the Department of Justice, click here.
For a more detailed report, click here.
- Ottawa
Citizen series on Losing the War on
Drugs (September, 2000) -- an excellent primer
on drug policy issues.
- Vancouver
Sun series, Fix, Searching for Solutions
on the Dowtown Eastside (November 2000)
- August 21, 2001: Safe injection sites.
Canadian Medical Association Journal
editorial states: "Safe injection facilities serve a
unique and important function, particularly in terms
of providing immediate response to overdoses,
increasing use of health and social services, and
reducing the problems [described elsewhere in the
article] that are associated with injecting drugs in
public. Here are the articles:
- The
Roots of Addiction in Free Market Society,
by Bruce K. Alexander (a founding member of the
Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy)
- February 2001:
International Narcotics Control Board releases its
annual report for 2000. Report says drug
trafficking continues to increase in Canada.
Report also says that efforts to eradicate
cannabis have been made by law enforcement
agencies in Canada, but the impact of those
efforts has been reduced by Canadian courts giving
lenient sentences to cannabis growers and
couriers. Canada's Minister of Justice
promises to do more. To see the report and
critical commentary on the report and the position
of the Minister, click here.
- January 31, 2001:
Survey of Vancouver residents finds strong support
for decriminalizing cannabis, harm reduction
measures. For news report and editorial,
click here.
- November 2000: Safe
Injection Sites: Here is the November 2000 proposal (in PDF format) by
the Harm Reduction Action Society to establish a
pilot project for two safe injection sites in
Vancouver.
- December 6, 2000: BC Premier says
prescribing drugs for addicts -- not just
providing safe-injection sites -- has to
be part of any comprehensive plan to tackle
Vancouver's drug problem. For story,
click here.
- November 21, 2000: Vancouver Mayor
Philip Owen unveils plan for city's drug crisis. Safe-injection
sites
for drug users and providing free heroin for
hard-core addicts on a trial basis are among
the strategies the city of Vancouver is
recommending. For story, click here. To see
the City of Vancouver press release and the full
plan, A Framework for Action - A Four-Pillar
Approach to Drug Problems in Vancouver, click
here.
- November 30,
2000: Canada's Justice Minister states that
the federal government plans to set up drug
courts in all major Canadian cities by 2004.
For news story, click here.
To see a 1999 report on Toronto's (then) new drug
court, click here.
For descriptions of the US experience with drug
courts, and criticisms of those courts, click here.
See also the 1997
report
of the US General Accounting Office(GAO) on US drug courts.
(Note that drug court programs vary substantially
in how they operate, so some criticisms and
analyses may or may not apply to the drug courts
planned for Canada.)
- November 4, 2000: United States: The
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers'
(NACDL) board of directors unanimously approved a
resolution on November 4th calling for the end of
the war on drugs. In its resolution,
NACDL, the largest specialty bar association in the
United States representing the interests of criminal
defence lawyers, stated that drug use should be
considered a health problem, and that the government
should "repeal all laws criminalizing the
possession, use and delivery of controlled
substances." For report, click here.
- October 9, 2000: CNN reports that many
European governments are shifting from harsh
soft-drug penalties towards a more tolerant approach
to drugs such as cannabis. For story, click here.
- October 4, 2000: British Columbia Supreme
Court judge states that "We can't deal with mental
illness and addiction to substances in the criminal
justice system." For news story, click here.
- September 19, 2000: Federal political
leaders and MPs discuss whether drugs should be
"legalized". For Ottawa Citizen story,
click here.
- September 16, 2000: Colombian
parliamentary officials call for drugs to be
legalized. Colombia will argue at the
Inter-Parliamentary Forum of the Americas in
Ottawa next spring that decriminalizing and
regulating drugs like heroin and cocaine and
channelling profits into fighting addiction is the
best way to undermine organized crime. To see
story, click here.
May 26, 2000: An
Introduction to the Drug Policy Reform Movement,
by Matthew Elrod (prepared for and presented (in an
abbreviated form) to the Western Regional Criminology
Articulation Committee at the Justice Institute of
British Columbia, New Westminster, May 26,
2000).
- May 15, 2000: Report of the International
Narcotics Control Board for 1999. "The
Board notes with disappointment the slow progress
made in Canada in controlling psychotropic
substances in line with the requirements of the 1971
Convention and in participating effectively in the
efforts of the international community to monitor
precursors. While Canada fully supported the
adoption of the action plans by the General Assembly
at its twentieth special session, it has not yet
implemented some of the basic provisionsof the
international drugcontrol conventions related to
them." To see the excerpts dealing with the
Americas, including Canada, click here (pdf file). To see
the entire report, click here.
- May 15, 2000: U.S. Department of State report
on Canada and drugs for 1999 (released March 2000).
Report criticizes Canadian courts: "The impact of
these efforts [by the RCMP] have been undermined in
numerous cases by court decisions. Canadian courts
have been reluctant to impose tough prison sentences
. . .." To see report, click here. To see report
of British Columbia senior judge telling the US to
mind its own business, click here.
- April 2000: RCMP publishes report, Drug
Situation
in Canada (1999). Report notes: "With
the exception of marihuana, seizures of all drug
types in 1999 have decreased compared to 1998." and
"For all drug types, supply and demand have
remained stable but will likely increase in the
near future." Is this yet another
sign that prohibition is not working? --
CFDP As well, in contrast to
oft-made claims by some that the potency of cannabis
has increased drastically in Canada in recent years,
report notes: "The average THC content of all
[marihuana] samples analysed since 1995 is about
6%." To download PDF version of report,
click here. To visit
the RCMP web site where the report is located, click
here.
- April 18, 2000: Demon
Drugs And Holy Wars: Canadian Drug Policy
as Symbolic Action, by Jennifer Tooley,
M.A. (The University of New Brunswick, July, 1999).
Abstract: The issue of illicit drug use is a
popular topic for both media coverage and government
policy. In the summer of 1998, the Canadian
federal government revamped their drug policy,
Canada’s Drug Strategy. In the new Strategy,
the federal government attempts to divorce itself
from an enforcement related past by changing the
focus of drug policy to one which encompasses the
principles of harm reduction. Yet analysis of
federal government documents shows that Canada is
still pursuing a policy of criminalization.
Using contrived language which is both threatening
and reassuring to the public, the government
categorizes all illicit drug use as bad, and all
illicit drug users as sick. Through their
language, the government emerges as the primary
authority on drug use in Canadian society. Not
only does this language shape political action, it
also shapes the meanings that we hold about illicit
drugs and their users. The government’s
language on drug use helps to sustain the “symbolic
allure” of prohibition. It also legitimates the
control of the “Therapeutic State” over the
individual.
- April 11, 2000: Canadian Senate
agrees to conduct comprehensive review of drug
laws and policy. For details, including the
final terms of reference, click here. This
committee was initially proposed on June 14, 1999,
by Senator Pierre Claude Nolin. For
the proposed committee's original terms of
reference, and Senator Nolin's June 14, 1999, speech
in the Senate on this topic, please click here. To see the extensive
(350K) drug policy background paper prepared for
Senator Nolin by Dr. Diane Riley, click here (footnotes will be
added as soon as we figure out the technology). (For
the executive summary, click here.)
For the statement issued by the Canadian Foundation
for Drug Policy in support of the call for the
committee, click here.
- Feb. 7, 1999: American Bar Association
Criminal Justice Section study
concludes that increased drug arrests and longer
prison sentences have not slowed illegal drug use.
- Opposition to United Nations "War on Drugs" at
UN Special Session on Drugs (UNGASS), June 8-10,
1998. International coalition, including several
present and former leaders, call on UN Secretary
General for an honest appraisal of drug control
efforts, saying "we believe that the global war on
drugs is now causing more harm than drug abuse
itself." To see a copy of the letter sent to the
Secretary General, and the signatories to the
letter, click here.
For background about the UN Special Session on
Drugs, click here.
For Canadian press release and list of Canadian
signatories, click here. Here
are other events related to the 'Global Days Against The Drug
War', June 5-10, in response to United Nations
Special Session on Drugs.
- March 5, 1998: Is the United Nations
attempting to increase censorship of the drug policy
debate? UN International Narcotic Control Board's
1997 annual report criticizes those who speak in
support of changes to drug laws. Report also
criticizes media for allegedly showing favourable
images of drug "abuse" and calls for criminal
penalties and restrictions on freedom of expression.
See the relevant portions of the annual report by
clicking here.
- June 1998: Fraser Institute analysis of media
treatment of drug policy issues in Canada.
Click herefor
report.
Corruption
Police and government
corruption related to drug prohibition
- May 13, 2002: Corruption:
National Post reports that the federal
Justice Department is continuing to stay drug
prosecutions without explanation as a 10-month-old
RCMP-led probe into allegations of corruption in the
Toronto police force drug squad appears to be
widening its investigation. For story, click here.
- August 29, 2001: Peel (outside Toronton)
regional police officer charged with trafficking
drugs and possesion of proceeds of crime. For
story, click here.
The
same
Peel
officer pleaded guility in March 2002 -- for story,
click here.
- August 16, 2001: RCMP to investigate widening
allegations of corruption among Toronto drug squad
officers. For details, click here.
- (February 28, 2001)
Toronto police officer convicted of robbing drug
dealers and plotting an Ecstasy trafficking scheme
described by prosecutors as the biggest on record
in Canada. Officer had also been charged with
attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder.
For story, click here.
- (January 31, 2001) BC
police officer convicted of theft of cannabis and
helping drug sellers avoid police raids. For
stories, click here.
(January 2001) BC
police drug education officer dies of drug
overdose. For stories, click here.
November 24, 2000. Corruption charges
laid against eight Toronto drug squad members.
Some lawyers claim that the charges may affect
hundreds of drug prosecutions. In all, 75
criminal charges were laid, including theft, fraud,
forgery and breach of trust, and the officers also
face a total of 98 disciplinary charges under the
Police Services Act. For story, click here.
For stories about police corruption in drug
law enforcement in the US, see the report
by
the
US
General Accounting Office (the investigative
arm of US Congress).
Study prepared in 2000
by the Institute for Policy Studies (Washington)
on US
government
corruption
and
"complicity" relating to the war on drugs.
Heroin and Heroin Maintenance
- April
28,
1999: Heroin maintenance -- House of
Commons debate on motion by Libby Davies, MP
"That, in the opinion of this House, the
government should, in co-operation with the
provinces, implement clinical, multi-centre
heroin prescription trials for injection to
opiate users, including protocols for rigorous
scientific assessment and evaluation." For
transcript of debate, click here. To see the
background materials prepared by Libby Davies,
MP, please click here.
The purpose of the motion was to urge Health Canada,
and the federal government, to treat the drug crisis
in Vancouver (among other problems, over 200
dependent users had died in the first seven months
of 1998) as a medical emergency, rather than as a
criminal concern. The motion reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the
government in cooperation with the provinces,
implement clinical, multi-centre heroin prescription
trials for injection opiate users, including
protocols for rigorous scientific assessment and
evaluation.
Ms. Davies also has formed an informal
parliamentary working group of Members of Parliament
and Senators interested in discussing and developing
practical and rational approaches to illicit drug use
in Canada.
Libby Davies can be contacted in Ottawa
at (613) 992-6030, or by email at daviel@parl.gc.ca.
Heroin
Maintenance Program Proposal for
Canada: On August 11, 1998, Libby
Davies, Member of Parliament for Vancouver East,
announced a private member’s motion calling on the
federal government to immediately implement
clinical, multi-centre prescription heroin trials.
- April 10, 1999: Description of current and
planned heroin maintenance
programs in several countries (report from the 10th
International Conference on the Reduction of Drug
Related Harm - Geneva, 21-25 March, 1999). For
other reports from the conference, clickhere.
- Feb. 27, 1999: Premier of Victoria, Australia,
supports starting heroin trials, including the
provision of heroin to users.
- November 18, 1998 --Germany -- heroin
maintenance: The trial of a state
controlled distribution of heroin to sick addicts
will begin in Hamburg and Frankfurt.
International Law
- If you would like to see a challenge to the
oft-made claim that international conventions
require Canada to take a prohibitionist approach to
drugs, please click here.
Human Rights and
Racism
- February 11, 2000: US prison
population set to top two million; drug
"offenders" a significant contributor.
The Justice Policy Institute (JPI) of the United
States reported
last December that America’s prison and jail
population will top two million on February 15th,
2000. It reports that, with less than 5% of
the world’s population, the U.S. has one-quarter of
the world’s prisoners. The rapid expansion of what
some term the U.S. “prison industrial complex” has
been fueled to a significant degree by the war on
drugs. In the U.S. federal prison system, 60% of the
prisoners are drug law violators with no violent
criminal history. There are about 500,000 drug law
prisoners nationwide.
- August 6, 1999: Censorship of drug policy
discussions on Internet? Proposed U.S. bill
would ban Internet discussions of the use of
unapproved drugs and links to such sites and make
such actions a criminal offence. For details, click
here.
- April 23, 1999: Monitoring the
"alimentary canal" in the name of the War on
Drugs. Supreme Court of Canada addresses privacy
and the legality of "bedpan vigils" and "drug loo
facilities" to search suspected drug
smugglers. Court says that subjecting travellers
crossing the Canadian border to potential
embarrassment is the price to be paid in order to
achieve the necessary balance between an
individual's privacy interest and the compelling
countervailing state interest in protecting the
integrity of Canada's borders from the flow of
dangerous contraband materials. For newspaper report
on case, R. v. Monney, click here.
For complete judgment, click here.
- April 23, 1999:
Supreme Court of Canada criticizes RCMP for
breaking law during drug sting. "Police
illegality that is planned and approved within
the RCMP hierarchy and implemented in defiance
of legal advice would, if established, suggest a
potential systemic problem concerning police
accountability and control." For news story on
judgment, click here.
For the full Court judgment, click here.
- February 28, 1999: New York Times -- The
War on Drugs Retreats, Still Taking Prisoners.
"More people are behind bars for drug offenses in
the United States -- about 400,000 -- than are in
prison for all crimes in England, France, Germany
and Japan combined.. . . Every week, on average, a
new jail or prison is built to lock up more people
in the world's largest penal system."
- November 26, 1998: Supreme Court of
Canada decision allows drug search by high-school
vice-principal in presence of police. To see the
decision, R. v. M. (M.R.), click here.
- December 1998: New York state prison budget
now exceeds state spending on higher education. Correctional
Association
of New York and the Justice Policy Institute
(JPI) press release states "People of color and
non-violent offenders have been hardest hit by the
state's shifting priorities - which result, in part,
from the 1973 Rockefeller Drug Laws that introduced
harsh mandatory minimum sentencing laws for drug
offenders."
- Human Rights Watch, an international human
rights organization, completed a study in March 1997
arguing that sentencing in drug law cases in New
York state violated international prohibitions
against cruel and unusual punishment. This is an
excellent study. You can see a summary of the study,
Cruel and Unusual: Disproportionate Sentences for
New York Drug Offenders, by clicking here.
Human Rights Watch also published a study on racism
in the enforcement of drug laws in the state of
Georgia. The summary of the report is chilling:
The impact of crime control policies on
minorities is among the most important, disturbing
and contentious social issues facing the United
States. Overwhelming data establish the striking
proportion of African-Americans entangled in the
criminal justice system on any given day one in
three young black American males is either in prison
or jail, on probation or parole. Drug laws and
enforcement policies are among the most important
causes of this national crisis. As one expert has
noted, Urban black Americans have borne the brunt of
the War on Drugs. They have been arrested,
prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned at increasing
rates since the early 1980s, and grossly out of
proportion to their numbers in the general
population or among drug users. This report examines
drug law enforcement in Georgia in light of CERD and
the requirement of non-discrimination, focussing
primarily on the years 1990 to 1995.
You can order a copy of both these studies from
Human Rights Watch. Click here for
information about ordering.
Drug Use and Disease
- August 31, 2001: Health Canada issues
response to November 1999 report of Canadian
HIV/AIDS Legal Network on Injection Drug Use and
HIV/AIDS: Legal and Ethical Issues. The
1999 report had called for immediate and longer-term
measures, including a move away from criminal
prohibition, to stem HIV infections. To see
the reaction of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network
to Health Canada’s response, as well as a chronology
of this issue, click here.
- November 24, 1999: Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal
Network releases report, Injection Drug Use
and HIV/AIDS: Legal and Ethical Issues.
The Legal Network's report confirms that Canadian
drug laws and policies contribute to the
difficulties of reacting adequately to the HIV
epidemic among injection drug users. Dr David Roy,
author of the ethical component of the report,
explains: "The criminalization of drug use does not
achieve the goals it aims for. It causes harms equal
to or worse than those it is supposed to prevent."
One of his conclusions points out that "it is
ethically wrong to continue policies and programs
that so unilaterally and utopically insist on
abstinence from drug use that they ignore the more
immediately commanding urgency of reducing the
suffering of drug users and assuring their survival,
their health, and their growth into liberty and
dignity." Here are the the full
report, the executive
summary of the report and the background
papers on legal, ethical and policy issues.
- August 9, 1999: Report
of
October
1998
national consensus conference on Hepatitis C
(report dated June 1999) calls for comprehensive
harm reduction approach, including safe injection
sites and treating drug use as a health issue rather
than as a criminal justice issue. To see only the
sections of the report relating to injection drug
use, click here. Report
endorses the 1997 recommendations of Canada's National Task Force on HIV,
AIDS and Injection Drug Use, which called for
specific exemptions under criminal laws to allow
physicians to prescribe narcotics (e.g., heroin,
cocaine) to drug users AND also called for
decriminalizing the possession of small amounts of
currently illegal drugs for personal use.
- May 1997 report of Canada's National Task Force on HIV,
AIDS and Injection Drug Use calling for
specific exemptions under criminal laws to allow
physicians to prescribe narcotics (e.g., heroin,
cocaine) to drug users AND decriminalize the
possession of small amounts of currently illegal
drugs for personal use.
Cannabis
Medicinal Marijuana
- July 30, 2001 and August 17, 2001:.
Federal medical marijuana regulations take
effect. Click here
for details from Health Canada about the
regulations. August 17, 2001: Canadian
Medical Association Journal publishes interim
medical marijuana guidelines for physicians.
Click here
to see guidelines.
- April
7,
2001: Health Canada
releases proposed regulation permitting tightly
regulated access to marijuana for therapeutic
purposes. To see the Health Canada press
release, click here
(remember that this is the government's own
statement and does not point out the weaknesses of
the regulations.) To see the proposed
regulations, click here
(for the ASCII text version) or here
for the PDF version. To see one newspaper
report criticizing the proposed regulations, click
here.
- March 5, 2001:
Medicinal marijuana: Police raid home of Jim
Wakeford, man with a legal exemption to grow
marijuana, hours after his lawyers had argued in
court that the law provides such people inadequate
protection from drug charges. To see story, click
here.
- January
15,
2001: Medicinal marijuana -- Grant
Krieger: In December 2000, an Alberta
judge struck down portion of federal law that
prohibits the cultivation of marijuana for medicinal
purposes, saying it was unconstitutional. For news
story, click here.
The judge struck down section 7(1) of the Controlled
Drugs and Substances Act, but stayed the
decision for a year. The Crown has now decided
to appeal the court's decision in Mr. Krieger's
case. For news report, clickhere.
Mr. Krieger's case was the second case where a
Canadian court declared the law unconstitutional as
it relates to medical marijuana. For details of the
Ontario Court of Appeal and trial decisions in the
other case, Parker, click here.
- September 25, 2000: Federal Minister of
Health states that a government-controlled supply of
marijuana will be grown and federal
regulations governing medicinal use will be made
into law within a year. For story, click here.
- July 31, 2000: Parker
case: Ontario Court of Appeal unanimously
confirms earlier decision at trial in favour of
legal access to medical marijuana. Court was
considering a constitutional challenge to the
marijuana prohibitions in the former Narcotic
Control Act ("NCA") and the Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act ("CDSA") in the context of the
medical use of marijuana. On December 10, 1997, the
trial judge, Sheppard J. granted a stay of
proceedings brought against Terrance Parker for
cultivating marijuana contrary to the NCA and for
possession of marijuana contrary to the CDSA.
The Crown appealed. The unanimous Court of
Appeal confirmed the trial judge's decision to
stay the charges against Parker.
Accordingly, the prohibition on the possession of
marijuana in the CDSA is declared to be of no force
and effect. Howoever, that declaration of
invalidity is suspended for a year. For
a summary of the court of appeal decision, click here.
For the full text of the court decision, click here.
For
news
report,
click here.
For
Toronto
Globe
and Mail editorial, click here.
Click
here for stories,
including editorial responses, relating to original
trial court decision (December 10, 1997).
- October 6, 1999: Minister of Health announces
14 further successful applications for access to
medicinal marijuana. For news story, click here.
For the government's own press release,
click here.
- June 9, 1999: Medicinal marijuana:
Minister of Health announces clinical trials
program, and procedure for exempting from criminal
prosecution individuals who successfully apply to
Health Canada for access to medicinal marijuana. To
see the story in the Toronto Globe and Mail,
and the June 9 statement by the Minister of Health
in the House of Commons, click here. To see the
government press release, including the proposed
research plan, click here.
To see a detailed explanation of recent developments
in Canada relating to medicinal marijuana, click here. Here
is the site
where you can find information and application
forms to apply for access to medicinal
marijuana. To see a 1998
Health Canada document on regulating medicinal
marijuana, click here.
To see the Health Canada status report on a research
program for medicinal marijuana, click here.
- May 25, 1999: Final debate and vote held
Tuesday, May 25, 1999 on medicinal marijuana
motion proposed by Quebec MP. Original motion
M-381 (March 25, 1998 - Mr. Bigras (Rosemont))
reads: "That, in the opinion of this House, the
government should undertake all necessary
steps to legalize the use of marijuana for health
and medical purposes." House of Commons passes amended
motion: "That, in the opinion of this House, the
government should take steps immediately concerning
the possible legal medical use of marijuana
including developing a research plan containing
clinical trials, appropriate guidelines for its
medical use, as well as access to a safe medicinal
supply, and that the government report its findings
and recommendations before the House rises for the
summer." For transcript of the debates on this
motion, click here.
To see the web site on medical marijuana established
by Mr. Bigras, click here.
- May 10, 1999: Medicinal marijuana --
Court challenge by AIDS patient Jim Wakeford
succeeds. Judge grants interim constitutional
exemption to Mr. Wakeford: "Pursuant to S. 24(1) of
the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Mr. Wakeford is
hereby granted an interim constitutional exemption
from the applicability and operation of sections 4
(possession) and 7 (production and cultivation) of
the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. This
interim exemption shall remain in force until such
time as the Minister of Health decides upon the
application for exemption by Mr. Wakeford presently
before the Minister, and made pursuant to s.56 of
the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act." For
further details, including news reports and the text
of the judgment, click here.
- For an analysis by the Canadian Foundation for
Drug Policy of recent political and legal
developments in Canada relating to medicinal
marijuana, click here.
- April 9, 1999: Survey
shows Canadians overwhelmingly support medicinal
use of marijuana -- 78% said they support the
federal government's plan to consider the use of
marijuana as a possible treatment for various
medicinal conditions.
- March 17, 1999: U.S. Institute of
Medicine Releases Marijuana and Medicine,
Assessing the Science Base. For
details and the executive summary of the report,
click here.
See Reuters
and UPI
news stories.
- March 3, 1999: Federal Minister of
Health announces that the federal government intends
to start clinical trials with medicinal
marijuana. For details of announcement and
press coverage, click here.
- November 15, 1998: Medical marijuana: United
Kingdom
House of Lords committee recommends legal access
to medical marijuana; see report from The
Guardian and chapter
7, chapter
8 and appendices
to the House of Lords report. The
Times reports that UK government rejects
recommendation, but that government says doctors
might be allowed to prescribe the drug after
extensive clinical trials.
- November 1998: Medical marijuana
initiatives succeed in United States mid-term
elections; Oregon votes NOT to recriminalize
cannabis. Congress prevents disclosure of vote
results on medical marijuana initiative in
Washington, DC. For details, see the DRCNeT
(Drug Reform Coordination Network), DrugSense
and Lindesmith
Center discussions of these events.
- Press release and stories
relating to December 17, 1997 physician's
application to Health Canada for legal access to
medical marijuana for Jean Charles Pariseau. Also
includes text of the application. Ottawa Citizen
report (December 19) says that Health Canada ready
to approve application if "technical flaws" in
application are corrected. Health Canada ultimately
refused to accept the application, but Mr. Pariseau
was granted an exemption by the Minister of Health
in June 1999 under the section 56 of the Controlled
Drugs and Substances Act. Click here for details of the
Special Access Programme application by Mr.
Pariseau.
- To see research information and policy
discussions about medical marijuana, visit the medicinal
marijuana section of the Lindesmith Center (of
New York) Library. See also the articles about
marijuana in the widely respected British
Medical Journal and The Lancet by
clicking here. Finally,
visit the **comprehensive** medicinal marijuana
research site of Drs. Lester Grinspoon and James
Bakalar of Harvard Medical School by clicking here.
Cannabis generally
- May 19-22, 2001:
Cannabis: Federal Minister of Justice
says she is "quite open" to a debate on whether
marijuana should be legalized, or at least
decriminalized, in Canada. For story, click
here. Federal
Conservative Party Leader speaks out for
decriminalizing (as opposed to legalizing)
cannabis. For story, click here. Poll shows growing
support for legalizing cannabis. For
story, click here.
- May 15, 2001: Canadian
Medical Association Journal calls for cannabis
to be decriminalized. Says the CMAJ:
"Health Canada's decision to legitimize the
medicinal use of marijuana is a step in the right
direction. But a bolder stride is needed. The
possession of small quantities for personal use
should be decriminalized. The minimal negative
health effects of moderate use would be attested
to by the estimated 1.5 million Canadians who
smoke marijuana for recreational purposes. The
real harm is the legal and social
fallout." Click here
for PDF file containing English editorial, and here for the French
version. For English HTML file, click here. For French HTML
file, click here.
- January 22, 2001: Cannabis:
Belgium
issues directive allowing possession of
cannabis for personal use. For stories,
click here.
- October 9, 2000: United Kingdom -- former
Scotland Yard drug squad chief says, "my direct
experience has convinced me that legalisation [of
cannabis], not prohibition, is the only viable
option." For story, click here.
- September 25, 2000: Medical marijuana
Federal Minister of Health states that a
government-controlled supply of marijuana will be
grown and federal regulations governing
medicinal use will be made into law within a year.
For story, click here.
- June 9, 2000: Federal government pays
millions to BC law firms to prosecute marijuana
cases. For details, click here.
- May 15, 2000: Cannabis: Poll conducted
for National Postfinds that about
two-thirds of Canadians say possession of small
amounts of marijuana for personal use should be a
non-criminal offence, punishable by a fine
rather than a jail term: 65% of those questioned
thought the concept of decriminalizing pot is an
excellent, very good, or good idea. Only 22%
responded negatively to the question. Thirteen
per cent did not have an opinion or refused to
answer. For full story, click here.
- May 15, 2000: Centre for Addiction and Mental
Health (Ontario) "concurs with similar calls
from many other expert stakeholders who believe
that control of cannabis possession for personal
use should be removed from the realm of the Controlled
Drugs and Substances Act and the criminal
law/criminal justice system." To
see full statement, click here.
- April 22, 1999:
National Post report confirms that board
of Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police
wants to decriminalize possession of cannabis.
Earlier (April 21) National Post story
had suggested that chiefs wanted to
decriminalize all drugs. For both
stories, click here.
Minister of Justice
agrees to review chiefs' position..
- August 17, 1997: Chris
Clay convicted after constitutional challenge to
cannabis laws, despite judge's finding that
marijuana relatively harmless. Decision to be
appealed. To see the judgment, click here. The judge appended
an addendum to his judgment containing Chris Clay's
summaries of several major reports on cannabis. To
see the addendum, click here.
- Here is a study, Exposing
Marijuana
Myths:
A
Review of the Scientific Evidence, by Lynn
Zimmer, Associate Professor of Sociology, Queens
College (New York), and John P. Morgan, Professor of
Pharmacology, City University Medical School (New
York). The study was prepared for New York's
Lindesmith Center. Professors Morgan and
Zimmer have since completed an expanded version of
this original study, offering a much more detailed
and comprehensive look at this subject. You
can learn more about this book, Marijuana Myths:
Marijuana Facts, and how to order it, by
clicking here.
- March 4, 1998: Britain's New Scientist
magazine claims that officials at the World Health
Organisation in Geneva suppressed report findings
that cannabis is safer than alcohol or tobacco. WHO
says it dropped the findings because of
contradictions and that "conclusions were not
scientifically sound." Click here
for press coverage and the extensive articles in the
New Scientist.
- Here are British articles about cannabis and the War on Drugs
-- one from The Lancet (1995) and one from the
British Medical Association. As well, here is the 1998 update of the article
from The Lancet, which qualifies its 1995 statement
that "The smoking of cannabis, even long term, is
not harmful to health" and now concludes that,
"on the medical evidence available, moderate
indulgence in cannabis has little ill-effect on
health, and that decisions to ban or to legalise
cannabis should be based on other
considerations." See also the November 17,
1998 editorial in Le
Monde (Paris) in support of the Lancet
article.
Statistics
- April 30, 2002: Release of Canadian
multi-departmental study, Proportions of
crimes associated with alcohol and other drugs
in Canada. "The main findings of
this report confirm the close association between
the use of alcohol and other drugs, and criminal
behaviour, and indicate that a substantial portion
of this association is causal." For study
highlights, click here.
For
full
report,
click here
(PDF file).
- March 2001: European
study (European School Survey Project on Alcohol
and Other Drugs (ESPAD)) of teenage drug use
suggests that the war on drugs may be actually
increasing, not decreasing, teen drug use, or it
may have no impact at all. Study compares
drug use among American and European
teenagers, finds that a much higher percentage of
American teenagers consume illicit drugs
than do their European counterparts. To see a
report of the study by the Drug Reform
Coordination Network (DRCNet), click here.
- March 9, 1999: Statistics Canada releases
1997 drug offence statistics: "During the
1990s, cannabis offences have been increasing while
cocaine and heroin offences have been declining. In
1997, cannabis offences accounted for 72% of all
drug crimes, compared with 58% in 1991. In
contrast, cocaine accounted for 17% of all cases in
1997, down from 28% in 1991, and heroin accounted
for about 2% of all cases, down marginally from
1991. Possession of cannabis alone accounted for
almost half of all drug offences." For
further details, click here.
Violence
- October 29, 2002: Police violence in
drug law enforcement? Vancouver's Pivot Legal
Society reports allegations of abuse by Vancouver
Police Department in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside.
Many of the allegations involve misconduct against
drug users. Allegations include assault, illegal
searches, unlawful detention, violation of Charter
mobility rights, and a range of other improprieties.
Report concludes: "Drug users and police officers
are both responding to a larger social policy
context that reinforces their mutual roles as
victims and aggressors or, viewed from the
perspective of the police, law breakers and law
enforcers. It is our decision as a society to
criminalize drug addiction, rather than understand
and treat those behaviours as medical and social
issues, that ultimately forces both sides of the
equation into an endless dehumanizing cycle of
criminalized behaviour, arrest, incarceration,
release, and further criminalized behaviour. And
until we change the way we deal with drug use, we
will not have a real opportunity to heal this
wounding cycle." To see report, click here.
- August 23, 2002: The Criminal
Intelligence Service Canada (CISC) releases its 2002
Annual Report on Organized Crime in Canada.
The report deals in part with how various criminal
groups continue to profit from the trade in illegal
drugs. It also describes various police
operations directed at marijuana grow operations
("grow ops"). This year's report states that
illicit drugs continue to be the major source of
income for organized crime groups. And again, as
with past reports, this year's report fails to
acknowledge that the drug trade is profitable for
criminals only because our laws prohibiting drugs
create a lucrative black market in them.
Here are the CISC
press release, the executive
summary
of
the
report, and the full report (.pdf
format or html
format).
- August 17, 2001: Criminal Intelligence Service
Canada (CISC) releases its 2001 report on organized
crime in Canada. Report details
the extensive involvement of organized crime in the
drug trade (but makes no mention that the interest
of organized crime in the drug trade stems from the
prohibition of those drugs). To see excerpts
of the report dealing with organized crime and
the drug trade, and to see the full report, click here.
Senate
Committee
Transcripts
Here are transcripts of appearances to date by
government officials and public interest groups before
the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and
Constitutional Affairs (remember that any reference to
Bill C-7 in these transcripts can be read as a
reference to Bill C-8, since the text of the two Bills
is identical):
government officials
supporting (what else would you expect!) the Bill
Law Union of Ontario and
Addiction Research Foundation of Ontario (both
strongly criticizing the Bill)
the Canadian Foundation for
Drug Policy (strongly criticizing the Bill)
the Canadian Medical
Association (criticizing aspects of the Bill dealing
with medical practice, but staying away from the
issue of decriminalizing drugs in other contexts)
the Canadian Bar Association
(strongly criticizing the Bill) and the Criminal
Lawyers' Association of Ontario (supporting the
decriminalization of marijuana, but maintaining a
relatively hard line on other drugs)
Representatives from
Hempline, the Canadian Industrial Hemp Lobby, the
Hemp Research Institute, the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal
Network, the Canadian AIDS Society, and Messrs.
Robert Hamon, Andy Rapoch and Nicholas Bureau
(morning of April 18, 1996)
Representatives from the
City of Toronto (Mayor's Task Force on Drugs), the
Downtown/Eastside Residents Association (Vancouver),
the Assembly of First Nations, the National
Coalition for Health Freedom (afternoon of April 18,
1996)
Lambton Families in Action,
Council on Drug Abuse (both strongly prohibitionist
views; needless to say, we disagree with many of the
"facts" they assert)
Glenn Gilmour, Barrister and
Solicitor (and a founding member of the CFDP) and
representatives of the federal Department of Justice
and Health Canada, examining Canada's international
obligations relating to drugs
Appearances by Department of
Justice, Paul Saint-Denis, Senior Counsel, and
Gerard Normand, Counsel; from the Department of
Health, Bruce Rowsell, Director, Bureau of Drug
Surveillance; from the Ministry of the Solicitor
General of Canada, Ronald Dykeman, Senior Policy
Analyst, Policing, Policing and Law Enforcement
in a final public attempt to dissuade the Senate
Committee from recommending significant changes to
Canada's drug laws and policies.
Debate
on Bill C-7 (now C-8) and text of Bill
To see the debate in the House of Commons on the
day Bill C-7 (now C-8) was passed by the House
(October 30, 1995), press here.
[Note: this file is 150K long -- those
Parliamentarians *do* love to talk! You can also
download a zipped version of the file (57 K) by
pressing here].
To see excerpts from the March 1 and 6 House of
Commons Debates about the revived Bill (Bill C-8),
please click here. To see
the comments made in the Senate when it gave Bill C-8
second reading on March 21, 1996, and sent it for
further committee hearings, please click here.
To see a copy of the Bill as it was passed by the
House of Commons, click here.
[This file is 130K long; to download the zipped
version of the file (33K), please click here].
Promised
government
initiatives on drug policy
During the third reading debate on Bill C-7 in the
House on October 30, 1995, the government announced
two further initiatives dealing with drug policy. The
first was the creation of a task force to examine the
way that drugs are "scheduled" under Bill C-7 (now the
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act). (Under the Act,
drugs are listed in one or more of several schedules
set out at the end of the Act. For example, cannabis
was listed in Schedules II, VII and VIII. What
schedule a given drug appears in determined whether
penalties would apply for certain activities (for
example, possession) and the severity of those
penalties.) The Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy
was one of the groups that was to be invited to sit on
the task force. The need for a reexamination of the
"scheduling" of drugs remains, since the schedules in
the new Act are seriously deficient. In fact, no such
invitation was ever extended to the Foundation.
Bill C-7 (later renamed Bill C-8) then went to the
Senate for review. Several members of the Standing
Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs,
the committee reviewing the Bill, publicly stated
their support for decriminalizing marijuana. However,
the reluctance of the Senate Committee to carry
through with this measure baffled many observers. A Montreal
Gazette article (June 14, 1996, p. A9) quoted
Committee Chair Senator Sharon Carstairs as saying the
Senators on the Committee dropped the idea of
recommending that there be no criminal charge for
having a few "joints" of marijuana because they felt
it would never pass the House of Commons (the Bill
would have to be returned to the House for a vote on
that issue). Senator Carstairs is also quoted as
saying that her committee members were also concerned
that decriminalizing marijuana possession would
violate several international treaties that Canada has
signed (several authorities would strongly disagree
with the Senator on this point). The Gazette article
states further:
But Carstairs said the panel members were
indeed serious about decriminalization but foresaw
that a recommendation would be futile at this point.
"The majority of the Senators -- and I was with them
-- felt all the evidence indicated decriminalization
for simple possession is the way we should be going,"
she said in an interview.
However, the Committee did attach an **extremely
important recommendation** to its report on Bill C-8 --
that a joint Senate - House of Commons committee be
established to conduct an extensive review of Canadian
drug laws and policies. The text of the recommendation
follows:
THE Standing Senate Committee on Legal
and Constitutional Affairs strongly urges that a Joint
Senate and House of Commons Committee be struck to
review all of Canada's existing drug laws, and
policies and programs.
Without restricting its mandate, this
Joint Committee should be authorized to:
reassess Government's approach to
dealing with illicit drug use in Canada, its
effectiveness in curtailing drug use, and its
fairness of application;
develop a national harm-reduction
policy to minimize the negative consequences
associated with illicit drug use in Canada; and
recommend how such a harm-reduction policy would
be implemented, including viewing drug use and
abuse as primarily a health and social policy
issue;
study harm-reduction models adopted
by other countries (treatment and alternative
programs for illicit drug use); consider whether
such programs should be implemented in whole or in
part in Canada;
examine Canada's role and
international obligations under the United Nations
drug conventions to determine whether alternative
measures to prosecution and punishment are
possible under the conventions;
and if not, consider whether Canada
should seek an amendment to the United Nations
drug conventions which would allow alternative
harm-reduction measures to permit signatory
parties to comply;
revisit the LeDain Commission's
findings and recommendations and determine what
further action is needed; [note to reader from
CFDP; the LeDain Commission was Canada's last
major study of the non-medical use of drugs; the
Commission reported in 1973, but its proposals
were never implemented]
explore the health effects of
cannabis use; consider whether the
decriminalization of cannabis would lead to
increased use and abuse, both in the short- and
long-term;
explore using the Government's
regulatory power under the Contraventions Act as
an additional tool to implement a harm-reduction
policy.
In addition, the Joint Committee should
undertake intensive public consultations to
determine the needs of different jurisdictions
across Canada, including large urban centres where
the societal problems associated with the illicit
drug trade are more visible. The goal should be to
devise a made-in-Canada drug strategy where all
levels of government work effectively together to
reduce the harm associated with the use of illicit
and legal drugs.
To see the full text of the Committee's report on
Bill C-8, including the technical amendments it
proposed to the Bill, please click here.
To see the transcripts of testimony of groups,
including the CFDP, that have appeared before the
Senate Committee since it began hearings in December
1995, please click here.
Even before the Senate Committee recommended a
joint Senate -- House of Commons Committee on drug
policy, the House of Commons Standing Committee on
Health agreed undertake a review of Canada's drug
policies. The committee started hearing witnesses in
early October 1996. Representatives of the Canadian
Foundation for Drug Policy appeared on October 22.
You can see the transcript of our testimony by
clicking here. You can
see the press release we issued when we appeared
before the committee by clicking here.
The main problem with the Health Committee's
review of drug policy was the narrowness of its
mandate. The committee's terms of reference
read as follows:
1. to receive evidence about the
harmful impact of misuse and abuse of legal and
illegal drugs on the social behaviour and physical
health of Canadians
2. to identify the relevance of variables such
as age, sex, ethnicity, socio-economic status and
geographical area on the demand for and effect of
such substances
3. to examine effective measures for
reducing the demand for and use of such substances
through education, prevention, treatment, and
rehabilitation
4. to make appropriate recommendations on
future policy actions to reduce the demand for
such substances.
The CFDP stated its strong objections to the
narrow mandate of the Health Committee. Nonetheless,
in early October 1996, the Health Committee began its
review of drug policy without involving the Senate.
This review gave drug policy reform groups the chance
to argue for a re-thinking of Canada's drug laws and
policies. However, nothing came of the work of
the Committee, since a federal election was called in
April 1997, before the Committee had issued a report.
On June 14, 1999, Senator Pierre Claude Nolin
called for thorough review of Canada's drug
policies, proposed setting up special Senate
committee to examine drug policy. For the proposed
committee's terms of reference, and Senator Nolin's
June 14, 1999, speech in the Senate on this topic,
please click here. To see
the extensive (350K) drug policy background paper
prepared for Senator Nolin by Dr. Diane Riley, click
here.
(For the executive summary, click here.) For the statement
issued by the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy in
support of the call for the committee, click here.
On April 11, 2000, the Senate approved the
creation of the Senate Special Committee on
Illegal Drugs. For details, including the final
terms of reference, click here.
This site is
maintained for the CFDP by Eugene Oscapella.
|