Ms. Heather Lank
Clerk
Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Victoria Building
130 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON
Dear Mrs. Lank:
At the Committee's April 25 hearing on Bill C-8, it became clear
that Committee
members might want further information on several issues -- among
them, Canada's
international obligations, the impact of decriminalizing
marijuana on rates of cannabis
use, and the deterrent effect of the criminal law on use.
Accordingly, we have
assembled reference materials dealing with these and related
issues and are pleased to
provide them to the Committee. The reference materials are
contained in a binder
accompanying this letter. This letter summarizes some of the
highlights of the
material.
When Mr. Glenn Gilmour appeared before the Committee on April 25,
he addressed
Canada's international obligations and argued that they did not
require the
criminalization of possession of cannabis.
What Mr. Gilmour did not stress was that 11 American states have
already
decriminalized possession of marijuana. Most did so between 1973
and 1981. The
most recent analysis of U.S. drug laws that we have (1994) shows
that those states
have retained these policies. I understand from the U.S.
National Organization for
the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) that these states cover
about one-third of
the American population.
In light of this situation in the United States,
decriminalization would seem not to be
a particularly radical step for Canada. Nor should this step
draw any justifiable
criticism from the United States on grounds that Canada was
violating international
law.
We note as well that the Premier's Drug Advisory Council in the
state of Victoria,
Australia, recommended three weeks ago that citizens of that
state be permitted to (a)
possess and use small quantities of marijuana -- 25 grams -- and
(b) grow up to five
plants at home. (Australian Associated Press, Melbourne, April
10, 1996).
Just two days ago, the same press service reported that
Australian Health Minister,
Michael Wooldridge, would back any state moving to decriminalize
marijuana (AAP,
Sydney, May 4, 1996).
Some of the salient points from Dr. Riley's 1992 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
[U.S.] 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 [in
the U.S.], 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 at the end of the 1980s
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 at the end of the 1980s were lower than
those of
adolescents in two countries that had strict laws against
possession
* use within the last month is also
considerably lower in The Netherlands at
the end of the 1980s-- 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
(Riley, p. 15)
Drug Policy home page
(This is the text of a letter sent by the CFDP to the Standing
Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to clarify
some issues that had been raised during hearings on Bill C-8.
These issues included Canada's international obligations, the
impact of
decriminalization of cannabis on rates of 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.)
May 6, 1996
Ms. Heather Lank
Clerk
Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Victoria Building
130 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON
Dear Mrs. Lank:
At the Committee's April 25 hearing on Bill C-8, it became clear
that Committee
members might want further information on several issues -- among
them, Canada's
international obligations, the impact of decriminalizing
marijuana on rates of cannabis
use, and the deterrent effect of the criminal law on use.
Accordingly, we have
assembled reference materials dealing with these and related
issues and are pleased to
provide them to the Committee. The reference materials are
contained in a binder
accompanying this letter. This letter summarizes some of the
highlights of the
material.
1. Canada's international obligations
When Mr. Glenn Gilmour appeared before the Committee on April 25,
he addressed
Canada's international obligations and argued that they did not
require the
criminalization of possession of cannabis.
What Mr. Gilmour did not stress was that 11 American states have
already
decriminalized possession of marijuana. Most did so between 1973
and 1981. The
most recent analysis of U.S. drug laws that we have (1994) shows
that those states
have retained these policies. I understand from the U.S.
National Organization for
the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) that these states cover
about one-third of
the American population.
In light of this situation in the United States,
decriminalization would seem not to be
a particularly radical step for Canada. Nor should this step
draw any justifiable
criticism from the United States on grounds that Canada was
violating international
law.
We note as well that the Premier's Drug Advisory Council in the
state of Victoria,
Australia, recommended three weeks ago that citizens of that
state be permitted to (a)
possess and use small quantities of marijuana -- 25 grams -- and
(b) grow up to five
plants at home. (Australian Associated Press, Melbourne, April
10, 1996).
Just two days ago, the same press service reported that
Australian Health Minister,
Michael Wooldridge, would back any state moving to decriminalize
marijuana (AAP,
Sydney, May 4, 1996).
2. The impact of decriminalization on rates of use
We enclose copies of several analyses of the impact of
decriminalization:
J. Morgan, D. Riley and G.
Chesher, "Cannabis: Legal Reform, Medicinal Use
and Harm Reduction", in N. Heather, ed., Psychoactive
Drugs and Harm
Reduction: From Faith to Science
Diane Riley, "Decriminalization of
Marijuana Use: Effects on Consumption
and Harm" (paper presented at the Third International
Conference on the
Reduction of Drug Related Harm, Melbourne, 1992)
E. Single, "The Impact of Marijuana
Decriminalization", in Y. Israel, Research
Advances in Alcohol and Drug Problems, (Vol. 6, 1981)
The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse,
"The Impact of Marijuana
Decriminalization -- An Update" (this is an updated version
of Dr. Single's
earlier paper)
The Lindesmith Center, Exposing
Marijuana Myths: A Review of the Scientific
Evidence (1995).
A. Trebach, "Their Spirit of
Moderation and Experimentation is Unmatched",
in A. Trebach and K. Zeese, ed., Drug Prohibition and the
Conscience of Nations
(1990).
Some of the salient points from Dr. Riley's 1992 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
[U.S.] 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 [in
the U.S.], 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 at the end of the 1980s
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 at the end of the 1980s were lower than
those of
adolescents in two countries that had strict laws against
possession
* use within the last month is also
considerably lower in The Netherlands at
the end of the 1980s-- 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
(Riley, p. 15)
The Morgan, Riley and Chesher chapter in Psychoactive Drugs
and Harm Reduction:
From Faith to Science, 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. 226; see also pp. 219-222)
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. 217)
The Trebach article, "Their Spirit of Moderation and
Experimentation is Unmatched",
in Drug Prohibition and the Conscience of Nations, shows
comparative 1989 survey
results of drug use rates among Dutch and American adolescents.
The figures differ
somewhat from the figures mentioned in the reports we cited
above. However, the
trends identified by the figures are the same: Drug use rates --
marijuana, heroin,
cocaine, stimulants, hallucinogens -- were generally
substantially lower among
adolescents in The Netherlands at the end of the 1980s than in
the United States,
despite the more relaxed Dutch laws.
The authors of the more recent (1995) Lindesmith Center report,
Exposing Marijuana
Myths: A Review of the Scientific Evidence, review several
studies comparing use of
marijuana by Dutch adolescents and American adolescents. They
conclude (at page
15):
Since liberalization [in The
Netherlands], marijuana use has increased in the
Netherlands, although rates remain similar to those in
neighbouring European
countries, and are generally lower than those in the United
States.
Although rates of use have increased in The Netherlands, it is
important to note that
rates of use have also increased in other countries that have
criminal prohibitions on
possession. This finding is similar to the finding about
rates of use in those American
states that decriminalized; rates of use went up and down over
time, just as they did
in neighbouring states that kept strict criminal prohibitions on
possession. Therefore,
one cannot attribute the increase in use to decriminalization,
since other countries or states
with very strict criminal prohibitions witnessed similar
increases.
The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse article, "The Impact
of Marijuana
Decriminalization -- An Update", concludes as follows about
the American experience
with decriminalization:
The so-called
"decriminalization" of marijuana does not appear to
have had a
major impact on rates of use, as many feared that it might have.
On the other
hand, it has resulted in substantial savings to drug enforcement
with resources
generally redirected to the enforcement of laws regarding other
drugs.
Although it cannot be claimed that "decriminalization"
has eliminated the social
costs and adverse individual consequences associated with
marijuana
prohibition, it would appear that "decriminalization"
has succeeding in reducing
the costs without increasing the health and safety risks. (at 5)
As mentioned earlier, the Premier's Drug Advisory Council in the
state of Victoria,
Australia, has just last month recommended that citizens of that
state be permitted to
possess and use small quantities of marijuana and that growing up
to five plants at
home would no longer be an offence.
Several days later, the Australian Associated Press reported that
Australian Health
Minister, Michael Wooldridge, would support any state if it moved
to decriminalize
the drug. The report quotes Mr. Wooldridge as saying:
"South Australia and the
ACT [Australian Capital Territory] have decriminalized already
and the evidence from
those two places would suggest that decriminalisation does not
lead to increased
usage." (AAP, Sydney, May 4, 1996)
3. The deterrent effect of the criminal law
The studies cited above all concluded that decriminalization does
not significantly
affect rates of use of cannabis. The corollary is that the
criminal law does not
significantly deter cannabis use. In fact, this is what
the Addiction Research
Foundation concluded when it appeared in May 1994 before the
House of Commons
subcommittee examining Bill C-7. The President of the Addiction
Research
Foundation noted:
Canada is already one of the
world's leaders in per capita drug arrests. About
two-thirds of the convictions are for cannabis possession.
However, they have
very little deterrent value. A study has shown that only a year
after their court
appearances, 92% of cannabis users were again using the drug.
Older, regular
cannabis users have continued using it for years with little
regard to the legal
consequences. Users of any drug, in fact, tend to regard threats
to their health by
drug use as a greater deterrent than the risks of getting
caught. [our emphasis]
[Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Sub-Committee on Bill
C-7, May
10, 1994, at 2:23.]
4. Commissions on drug policy
Over the past century, dozens of studies of drug policy around
the world have
recommended a move away from criminal prohibition. We enclose a
list of about 20
of the principal studies, along with an analysis of their
recommendations done by one
American drug policy reformer (we do not have the resources to be
able to review and
verify every statement made in his analysis, but we include the
analysis in any event,
since it may be instructive).
5. The harms of drug policies relating to other drugs
A move to decriminalize marijuana possession would represent a
significant step
forward in Canadian drug policy. However, such a move does not
touch some of the
most serious harms caused by our drug policies -- AIDS,
hepatitis, the violence
associated with the trade in opiates and cocaine, and the
acquisitive crime associated
with the need for those dependent on heroin or cocaine to
maintain their
dependencies at black market prices.
We urge this Committee to recognize these issues as among the
most pressing in its
review of Bill C-8. The toll in human life is simply too great
for these harms of our
current drug policies to be ignored. We need only refer the
members of the
Committee to yet another story of the devastation -- and that is
not too strong a term
-- related to drugs, this time in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside
(Globe and Mail, May
4, 1996: copy enclosed). Much of this devastation can be
attributed to our failure as
a country to look to social and health policy alternatives to the
blunt, wasteful, and
frequently counterproductive application of the criminal law. We
urge the members
of the Committee to speak out strongly against a status quo based
on criminal
prohibition, a status quo that is doing and will continue to do
this country immense
damage.
If you wish to discuss any of the points raised in this letter,
we will be pleased to do
so. In the meantime, thank you again for your interest in these
important drug policy
issues.
Yours truly,
Eugene Oscapella
for the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy
Converted by Andrew Scriven
