Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy
Press releases and statements
Note to readers: On June 20, 1996, Parliament enacted
the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, formerly called Bill
C-7 (in the first session of Parliament that ended on
February 2, 1996), and Bill C-8 in the second session that
began in early March 1996. The law came into force in May
1997, replacing the Narcotic Control Act and Parts III and IV
of the Food and Drugs Act.
Any comments and criticisms relating to Bill
C-7 and Bill C-8 found in the press releases and
statements set out here also apply to the Controlled Drugs
and Substances Act. The text of Bills C-7, C-8 and the Act
are very similar.
the October 22, 1996 press release
issued by the Foundation when it appeared before the House of
Commons Standing Committee on Health
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 Commitee
on Legal and Constitutional Affairs about several of his
concerns about cannabis.
The letter we sent to the Standing
Senate Committtee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on May
6, 1996 clarifying several points that had been raised in
hearings before the Committee: Canada's international
obligations, the impact of decriminalization of cannabis on
rates of use, recent Australian developments, etc.
The transcript of the 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
Press release supporting legal
associations' challenge to Bill C-8, March 28, 1996
Transcript of appearance by
Foundation representatives before Standing Senate Committtee
on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, December 14, 1995
Press release issued at
time of appearance before Standing Senate Committee on Legal
and Constitutional Affairs, December 14, 1995
February 1995 statement
supporting British Columbia Chief Coroner's report on drug
overdose deaths in B.C.
March 1994 statement supporting
Ottawa Police Chief Brian Ford's call to re-examine drug laws
June 1994 letter to Paddy
Torsney, MP, in response to claims that decriminalization of
marijuana leads to a major increase in consumption
November 1994 letter to Liberal
MPs about the impact of drug policies on the spread of HIV
infection among drug users and their contacts
November 1994 statement from B.C.
HIV/AIDS conference about contribution of drug laws to spread
of HIV infection among drug users
June 1994 letter to Liberal MPs
about Bill C- 7
PRESS RELEASE
Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy
welcomes legal associations' challenge to proposed drug law
OTTAWA, March 28, 1996 -- The Canadian Foundation for Drug
Policy today stated its strong support for the views of two
prominent legal groups condemning Bill C-8, the proposed Controlled
Drugs and Substances Act now before a Senate committee.
The two groups -- the Canadian Bar Association and the Law
Union of Ontario -- roundly criticized Bill C-8 in separate
appearances before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and
Constitutional Affairs. The Bill is intended to replace
Canada's Narcotics Control Act and parts of the Food
and Drugs Act, Canada's main laws on "illegal"
drugs. The Bill retains an almost exclusive focus on using
the criminal law to deal with drugs, despite a growing number
of calls to use other, more effective and humane means to
reduce drug-related harms.
The Canadian Bar Association, appearing on March 28,
challenged the Bill's continued reliance on criminalization
and incarceration, a model that the CBA argued is
"expensive, ineffective and counterproductive". CBA
representatives stated that the Bill "moves Canada's
drug policy in a direction that causes more harm than it
remedies. . . . Instead, drug use should be treated primarily
as a health and social issue."
In a December 1995 appearance before the Committee, Law
Union of Ontario representative Robert Kellerman argued that
the proposed legislation "perpetuates . . . an
irrational policy about drugs which criminalizes them without
any scientific foundation. . . . The criminalization of these
drugs increases the amount of criminal activity in society. .
. . With decriminalization, a huge amount of that peripheral
criminal activity would disappear."
The challenges by these associations echo arguments
pressed by the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy when it
appeared before the Senate Committee in December 1995. CFDP
representatives argued that the Bill's continuing reliance on
criminal prohibition would continue to foster violence by
supporting a powerful, vicious and corrupting global black
market in drugs. It would also force dependent users to turn
to crime to be able to pay the inflated black market price of
drugs. The Bill would not prevent the use of drugs or stop
the flow of drugs into or within Canada.
Furthermore, Foundation representatives argued,
prohibitionist drug policies such as those in the Bill are
directly responsible for the conditions leading to the
alarming spread of HIV infection and hepatitis B and C in
Canada. Parliamentarians must therefore be prepared to show
leadership to Canadians by looking to non-criminal
alternatives -- alternatives that might initially appear
unpopular, but that would dramatically reduce the harm of
drug use to users and broader society alike.
The Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy is a non-profit
organization founded in 1993 by several of Canada's leading
specialists in drug policy. Its founding members include
psychologists, pharmacologists, criminologists, lawyers,
health policy advocates and public policy researchers.
- 30 -
Contact: Eugene Oscapella Ottawa (613) 238-5909
Return to list of press releases
and statements
Return to CFDP home page
PRESS RELEASE
Foundation calls federal drug control bill a grave
mistake
Ottawa (December 14, 1995) -- Representatives from the
Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy today harshly criticized
Bill C-7, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act passed by
the House of Commons on October 30, 1995. They were preparing
to appear before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and
Constitutional Affairs, which is now reviewing the Bill.
Bill C-7 is intended to replace Canada's Narcotic
Control Act and parts of the Food and Drugs Act. It
significantly expands the reach of Canada's drug laws and
continues Canada's heavy reliance on criminal prohibition.
Foundation representative and Ottawa lawyer Eugene
Oscapella argued that the Bill's continuing reliance on
criminal prohibition "will foster increased violence by
supporting a powerful, vicious and corrupting global black
market in drugs. The Bill will generate the very violence
about which the government pretends to express such concern.
At the same time, it will not stop the flow of drugs into
Canada. As much as 90 per cent of the illegal drugs destined
for Canada make it across our borders. On this measure alone,
prohibition is a colossal failure."
Furthermore, he argued, prohibitionist drug policies
are directly responsible for the alarming spread of HIV infection and Hepatitis B and C among
growing numbers of Canadians and for the high rate of
drug overdose deaths. Canadians should not become complacent
that HIV and hepatitis will affect only the drug-using
community, he said. These infections will spread rapidly into
communities far removed from the drug trade and drug users
unless effective "harm-reduction" measures are
introduced to prevent drug users from becoming infected in
the first place. Bill C-7, he argued, is a serious impediment
to such measures.
Dr. Diane Riley, also a founding member of the
Foundation, stressed the dramatic increase in HIV infection
and other blood- borne diseases that flow from current drug
laws and policies. "It is time to look honestly at the
alternatives to prohibition being used in many other
democratic Western countries, to prevent a further escalation
of this tragedy," she said.
Foundation representative Glenn Gilmour argued that,
contrary to the government's position, Canada's international
treaty obligations do not oblige it to
rely exclusively on criminal sanctions to regulate drugs.
Furthermore, by emphasizing Canada's purported obligations
under international drug control treaties, Canada was
ignoring the frequent violations of international and
constitutional human rights protections flowing from drug law
enforcement and drug policies.
The Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy 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 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.
The Foundation does not encourage harmful drug use.
For further information, please contact:
Eugene Oscapella
Ottawa
(613) 238-5909
Further details about Bill C-7 and the concerns of the
Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy can be found at the
Foundation's Internet Web site:
http://fox.nstn.ca/~eoscapel/cfdp/cfdp.html
Return to list of press releases and
statements
Return to CFDP home page
Foundation praises humane and
pragmatic thrust of B.C. Chief Coroner's report on
drug-related deaths
(Ottawa -- February 9, 1995) The Canadian Foundation for
Drug Policy today expressed strong support for several key
recommendations of the Report of the Task Force into Illicit
Narcotic Overdose Deaths in British Columbia. The report,
released late last month by British Columbia's Chief Coroner,
Vince Cain, argues that currently illegal drugs should be
treated as a health and social problem rather than as one to
be dealt with primarily through the criminal justice system.
The Foundation called the report "an honest and
responsible approach to an issue that is often clouded by
political rhetoric and driven by misunderstanding. Within a
public health framework the report proposes many humane
alternatives to the present punitive system of drug control.
These alternatives can significantly reduce many of the harms
associated with drugs in Canadian society."
The report is particularly timely, the Foundation noted,
since Parliament is now considering controversial amendments
to Canada's drug laws. The amendments were introduced in
February 1994 as Bill C-7, the Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act. The Bill perpetuates Canada's heavy emphasis
on criminal punishment to deal with drugs and stands sharply
at odds with many of Mr. Cain's recommendations.
The Foundation agrees with Mr. Cain that turning Canadians
who use drugs into criminals and incarcerating them is not
the answer. The criminal law has not been shown to deter drug
use. Foundation members note further that the criminal law
and associated drug policies, rather than drugs themselves,
have caused many of the harms traditionally associated with
drugs. Accordingly, it strongly supports Mr. Cain's call for
an inquiry into non-criminal alternatives for the possession
and use of specified substances.
In May 1994, appearing before a Parliamentary subcommittee
examining Bill C-7, Foundation representatives made a similar
recommendation, calling for an independent review of Canada's
drug laws and policies. The Foundation also stresses that
there is already abundant evidence and research available
about the damaging effects of current drug control laws and
policies.
Foundation members, however, express their concern about
one suggestion contained in the B.C. Coroner's report -- a
consideration of mandatory life sentences, without parole,
for importing and trafficking large quantities of narcotics.
They argue that heavy criminal penalties elsewhere have
failed to deter trafficking and importing. Mandatory minimum
penalties in Canada will prove equally unproductive and
continue to waste valuable police and government resources,
as the U.S. experience has shown.
The Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy 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 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.
The Foundation does not encourage harmful drug use.
Return to list of press releases
and statements
Return to CFDP home page
Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy
Supports Ottawa Police Chief Brian Ford's Call to Re-examine
Drug Laws
(Ottawa) March 16, 1994: The Canadian Foundation for Drug
Policy today announced its support for the position taken by
Ottawa Police Chief Brian Ford that Parliament reconsider its
approach to the issue of "soft" drugs like
marijuana and hashish.
The Foundation members praise Chief Ford for taking a
position publicly that he knows will draw criticism from some
police colleagues and some members of the public. Chief
Ford's statement is a clear recognition of the limits of the
law in dealing with drugs, and an equally clear signal that
Canada must look for other means of dealing with the health
and social consequences of drugs in society. Foundation
members encourage others interested in changing the harmful
features of Canada's drug laws to speak out in support of
Chief Ford.
The Foundation members agree that Canadians must look
beyond traditional law enforcement approaches to dealing with
the harms caused by drugs. Excessive reliance on the criminal
law to resolve what should often be considered health and
social issues may cause more harm than good and place the
police in situations of unnecessary risk. Canada should
instead be looking to alternative programs being adopted in
other countries.
"Our experience with Canada's drug laws over the last
several decades has shown time and again that a focus on law
enforcement does not address the real issues relating to
drugs", said a Foundation spokesperson. "At the
very least, it makes little sense to criminalize and
sometimes imprison people for drug possession, as this often
merely compounds the problems that may have led them to use
drugs in the first place. Twentieth century law and policy
makers should be able to devise more pragmatic and humane
policies than this."
Foundation members agree that it is time for an open and
honest dialogue on how to reduce the harms of drug use to
society, including the harms that can be caused by excessive
reliance on the criminal law as a means of discouraging drug
use. Foundation members are particularly concerned about Bill
C-7, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act now before
Parliament.
The Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy (CFDP) was formed
in 1993 by several of Canada's leading experts in drug
policy. It seeks to promote public discussion on how to deal
with drugs in society. It also seeks to share the experiences
of other countries with innovative drug policies that reduce
the harms associated with drugs. It does not condone or
encourage the use of drugs.
Return to list of press releases
and statements
Return to CFDP home page
Text of a letter to Ms. Paddy
Torsney, MP, in response to claims that decriminalization of
marijuana leads to a major increase in consumption
June 15, 1994
Dear Ms. Torsney:
At the hearing held on June 14 to discuss Bill C-7 and the
National Drug Strategy, one of your Parliamentary colleagues
suggested that decriminalization of marijuana in eleven
American states had led to major increases in consumption. I
believe that her statement was based on a letter sent to MPs
by Lambton Families in Action. That letter states, without
supporting documentation, that "In the 11 states (U.S.)
that decriminalized marijuana, drug use tripled among
adolescents, doubled among young adults and quadrupled among
older adults."
I was very much concerned about the Member's statement and
about the statements contained in the Lambton Families
letter. If they were true, of course, they would represent a
strong argument against moving away from the application of
the criminal law to drugs in Canada. However, there is
substantial evidence to show that the letter from Lambton
Families, and the Member's statement, are patently wrong.
I enclose copies of three reports on the impact of
decriminalization. Two deal specifically with marijuana; the
third is a comparative analysis of drug use rates among Dutch
adolescents (who face no penalty for possession of drugs for
personal use) and American adolescents (who generally face
substantial potential criminal penalties for possession of
drugs).
The first report is that of Dr. Diane Riley, of the
Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, also a member of this
Foundation. Some of the salient points from her paper:
* there is very little evidence . . . that marijuana laws
exert a strong deterrent effect on use (Riley, p. 1)
* in surveys, most nonusers cite potential health hazards
as the main reason for not using marijuana (Riley, pp. 2,7;
see also the testimony of the Addiction Research Foundation
before the Health Subcommittee on Bill C-7)
* while decriminalization (in this case, replacement of
the criminal law with a non-criminal ticketing scheme, like a
parking ticket) may have led to modest increases in use in
the short term, long term rates were not higher than in
states that did not decriminalize (Riley, pp. 5-6)
* in his 1989 review of decriminalization in the United
States, Dr. Eric Single concluded, "In the decade prior
to the enactment of decriminalization laws, with the risk of
arrests very low and marijuana readily available, trends in
use appear to have been relatively unaffected by the existing
criminal laws against possession. . . . Decriminalization
measures have had little or no impact on rates of use but
they have substantially reduced the social costs associated
with the enforcement of marijuana laws" (Riley, p. 8)
* in The Netherlands, where possession of small amounts of
marijuana is not subject to prosecution, one survey indicated
that 12% of Dutch high-school students had used marijuana at
least once in their lifetime -- far less than the 59% for the
same age group in the United States, where marijuana
possession is generally prohibited (Riley, p. 14)(the
lifetime marijuana use rate for Canadians 15-19 is 23.2%:
Health and Welfare Canada, Alcohol and Other Drug Use by
Canadians: A National Alcohol and Other Drugs Survey (1989):
Technical Report, at 83); in short, Dutch lifetime use rates
among adolescents are lower than those of adolescents in two
countries that have strict laws against possession
* use within the last month is also considerably lower in
The Netherlands -- 5.4% versus 29% in the United States
(Riley, p. 14) (there are no comparable figures for Canada)
* in South Australia, which introduced a ticketing system
for possession of small amounts of marijuana in 1987, rates
of use did not change after that (Riley, p. 15)
The second document is a chapter by Dr. Riley, Professor
John Morgan (City University of New York) and Gregory Chesher
(Honourary Research Fellow, University of New South Wales)
from a forthcoming (it may have been published since) book,
Psychoactive Drugs and Harm Reduction. The chapter concludes:
"The data from several countries indicate that
cannabis reform is unlikely to be followed by an explosion of
use. Such reform would result in significant cost savings in
the criminal justice system and a profound reduction in the
harmful criminalization of most users." (p. 224; see
also pp. 217-220)
Furthermore, the authors challenge the conventional wisdom
that marijuana is a "gateway" drug, leading to
heroin or cocaine use:
"Perhaps 60 million Americans have tried marijuana
yet slightly more than two thirds have never tried another
illegal drug. Cannabis seems more often to be a closed gate
than a gateway in that its use signals the terminus of
illegal drug experimentation." (p. 215)
I also enclose a comparative 1989 survey of drug use rates
among Dutch and American adolescents. The figures differ
somewhat from the figures mentioned in the reports I cited
above. However, the trends identified by the figures are the
same: Drug use rates -- marijuana, heroin, cocaine,
stimulants, hallucinogens -- are generally substantially
lower among adolescents in The Netherlands than in the United
States, despite the more relaxed Dutch laws.
The Lambton Families letter also notes -- correctly, in
this case -- that Alaska recriminalized possession of
marijuana. What the letter did not say was that in the autumn
of 1993, an Alaskan court declared this law unconstitutional.
I hope that this information helps to dispel the myths
surrounding the impact of decriminalization. If you have any
questions or wish to speak to the authors of these studies,
please give me a call. I would also appreciate it if you
would circulate this letter among your Parliamentary
colleagues.
Thank you for your interest in these issues.
Yours truly,
Eugene Oscapella
cc. Paul Genest, Liberal Caucus Research Bureau
Bill Farrell, Clerk, Health Subcommittee
Return to list of press releases
and statements
Return to CFDP home page
Text of a letter sent to Liberal
MPs in November 1994 about the impact of drug policies on the
spread of HIV infection among drug users and their contacts
"Attached is a statement passed by the overwhelming
majority of the delegates at the final plenary of the 8th
Annual B.C. AIDS conference earlier this month. The statement
focusses on the contribution of present drug laws and, if it
is enacted, Bill C- 7, to the spread of HIV infection and
AIDS. The need to deal with the impact of drug laws on the
spread of HIV infection has become all the more urgent
because of the large increase of HIV infection among
injection drug users in British Columbia over the past two
years.
Representatives of our Foundation appeared earlier this
year before the Health Subcommittee examining Bill C-7, the
proposed Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. We raised our
concern about how our drug laws may contribute to the spread
of HIV infection. We stated, "The bill will continue to
foster conditions that will lead to thousands of entirely
preventable deaths from drug-related HIV infection and from
other potentially lethal diseases such as hepatitis and
multiple-drug-resistant tuberculosis." Further, we
stated, "infected [drug users] will infect other people
who may be far removed from the drug trade. . . It is very
important that Canadians realize that these diseases are not
simply a problem that will die with the drug users."
We urge you -- before you vote on Bill C-7 -- to consider
how to prevent our current drug laws and Bill C-7 from
contributing to the otherwise preventable spread of HIV
infection and other blood-borne diseases. Our Foundation may
not agree with every statement made in the B.C. document.
However, we certainly agree that Parliamentarians must focus
on how our drug laws can be reshaped to reduce these tragic
consequences."
Return to list of press releases and
statements
Return to CFDP home page
Statement on drug policy and HIV
infection passed at the plenary meeting of the 8th Annual
B.C. AIDS Conference, Vancouver, B.C., November 8, 1994
Reducing the risk of HIV infection among drug users, and
among other Canadians with whom they come into contact, will
require many changes to current drug laws and policies. Among
the most important are changes to laws that treat drug users
as criminals, foster unsafe drug use practices, marginalize
users from mainstream Canadian society, drive them to commit
crimes or high- risk unprotected sex to maintain their
habits, and increasingly place them in prisons where there is
an extremely high risk of acquiring HIV infection. Failing to
take measures to prevent drug-related HIV infections will
cause unnecessary death and impose an enormous economic
burden on Canada's health care and social security system.
Our current drug laws do not help drug users, nor do they
serve Canadian society. We call for the withdrawal of Bill
C-7, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act now being
considered by Parliament. We also strongly urge governments
across Canada to promote the following changes:
(a) removing possible legal impediments to access to clean
injection equipment, including in institutional settings such
as prisons and hospitals
(b) amending drug laws to reduce the number of non-violent
drug users placed in high risk prison environments
(c) amending policies to allow for the introduction of
measures that will prevent the spread of HIV among prison
inmates and, ultimately, among Canadians in open society
(d) amending the law to reduce the ramifications of
carrying syringes
(e) helping, through honest public education about the
causes and nature of drug use, to reshape public attitudes
about drug users
(f) in general, adopting laws and policies that seek to
reduce the global harms associated with drug use, rather than
focussing solely on interdiction and punishment
(g) complying with constitutional and international human
rights obligations that apply to drug users and non-users
alike.
Return to list of press releases
and statements
Return to CFDP home page
Letter to Liberal Members of
Parliament about Bill C-7, the proposed Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act
June 10, 1994
"Re: Bill C-7, the Controlled Drugs and Substances
Act
I am writing to express the concern of this Foundation
about the proposed Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. As
you know, a Health subcommittee has been examining the Bill
over the past several weeks.
Bill C-7 is intended to replace the Narcotic Control Act
and parts of the Food and Drugs Act with legislation that
makes even more extensive use of the criminal law in dealing
with drugs. In so doing, the Bill perpetuates some of the
very worst excesses of Canadian drug policy. It completely
ignores workable and humane alternatives being developed in
other countries to reduce the harms caused by drugs to
individuals and to society.
Many respected organizations and individuals have told the
subcommittee that the Bill is seriously flawed. These include
the Canadian Bar Association, the Addiction Research
Foundation, the Anti-prohibitionist League of Quebec, the
Criminal Lawyers Association, our Foundation and several
prominent drug policy experts. Many witnesses called for the
Bill to be withdrawn entirely. They called for a
re-examination of the whole basis for Canada's drug policy.
Just last week the Canadian Criminal Justice Association
added its voice, calling for consideration of Bill C-7 to be
delayed until a thorough, honest and objective evaluation of
all options for reducing the harms associated with drugs is
undertaken. The Canadian Police Association has stated
serious reservations about the Bill. Only the RCMP and the
Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police seem to support the
philosophy behind the Bill.
We remind you as well that a resolution on drug policy was
passed by an overwhelming majority of delegates at the
Liberal Party of Canada 1994 Biennial Convention. That
resolution read in part:
"Be it further resolved that the Government of Canada
study and review the legislation on illicit drugs and base
its position on the precedents, studies, experience and
statistics obtained in other countries where illicit/illegal
drugs are considered as a social health problem rather than
as a criminal activity."
In the face of extensive and reasoned opposition to this
flawed Bill -- and to the whole philosophy of using
Prohibition to suppress drugs in society -- why is the
Government proceeding with this Bill?
Here are just some of the specific problems associated
with Bill C-7:
* the Bill will perpetuate the violence associated with
the drug trade; the Bill, meant to protect Canadians from
drug- related violence, will in fact be the major cause of
such violence by supporting the enormously profitable,
corrupting and vicious black market in drugs and by
increasing the use of guns as a means of regulating the
market
* despite the claims of traditional law enforcement
officials to the contrary, increased police powers and more
police will do little to reduce drug-related violence; during
the U.S. Bush administration -- one characterized by
ever-increasing law enforcement activities aimed at drugs --
the murder rate in Washington D.C. rose each year, reaching
489 in 1991; between one-third and one-half of those murders
related to the illegal trade in drugs, not to drug use; in
short, the most powerful nation on earth has failed to
suppress drug-related violence by using the criminal law
* the Bill will not stop -- or even seriously dent -- the
flow of drugs into Canada; probably less than 10 per cent of
the drugs destined for Canada are apprehended by police now;
even a massive increase in law enforcement activities would
not substantially reduce this flow, as the experience of
other countries, particularly the United States, has shown
* the Bill will continue to turn those who use drugs and
who have become dependent on drugs into criminals by the
thousands; dependent users may be forced to commit crimes to
pay the greatly inflated black market price of their drugs;
the Bill will place thousands of drug users in prisons, where
truly harmful forms of drug use are rampant
* the Bill will continue to foster conditions that will
lead to thousands of preventable deaths from drug-related HIV
infection and from other potentially lethal diseases such as
hepatitis and multiple-drug-resistant TB; these conditions
will kill not only drug users, but those far removed from the
drug-using community
* the Bill seriously threatens fundamental human rights;
in the guise of complying with international drug control
conventions, the Bill violates international human rights
conventions
* the criminal prohibitions in the Bill will not stop, or
perhaps even decrease, drug use; they will make drug use that
continues more dangerous, and will lead to more deaths from
adulterated drugs or drugs of unknown potency
* the Bill will do nothing to address the multiple causes
of harmful drug use, and will instead attack the symptoms,
leaving the causes intact
* Canada will continue to waste hundreds of millions of
dollars annually for drug law enforcement -- the cost of
police, prosecutors, judges, court administrative structures
and buildings, prisons and post-release programs for inmates,
and the costs to families who lose breadwinners to
incarceration
* the Bill will distract attention from the much more
serious health problems caused by alcohol and tobacco
* the Bill will ignore innovative and effective programs
in other countries -- Australia, the UK, The Netherlands,
Germany and Switzerland among them -- to reduce the harms
associated with drugs; it will also ignore the growing chorus
of voices from around the world calling for an end to a
futile policy of Prohibition that causes far more harm than
it prevents.
We urge you to reconsider this Bill. It should be
withdrawn, and a committee independent of government
established to report to Parliament within one year on
alternatives to the use of the criminal law to prevent
drug-related harm. Such a committee would cost less than what
it now costs to imprison just 20 drug offenders for one year.
Please listen to the voices of experienced drug policy
experts. Please listen to calls from within your own Party.
Please reconsider Bill C-7. This legislation does a great
disservice to Canada.
Yours truly,
Eugene Oscapella
Founding Member
Return to list of press releases
and statements
Return to CFDP home page
| 