Proceedings of the Special Committee on
Illegal Drugs

Issue 11 - Evidence (afternoon session)

The Special Senate committee on Illegal Drugs met this day at 1:30 p.m. to reassess Canada's anti-drug legislation and policies.

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin (Chairman) is in the Chair.

[Translation]

The Chairman: We will hear this afternoon Dr. Tim Boekhout Van Solinge. He is professor and researcher in criminology at the University of Utrecht. I am going to let him elaborate somewhat further on his academic background so that he can adequately inform the committee regarding his research, and then let him make his presentation. After that, we will have a question period.

Dr. Tim Boekhout Van Solinge, Researcher in criminology, University of Utrecht: I am a geographer by training. I studied at the University of Amsterdam and at the Sorbonne, in Paris, in social sciences. Then, I started doing research in the field of drugs, particularly on public policies relating to drugs. I'm also studying drug use and drug trafficking. All my works are carried out in an international context, mostly in Europe but in other countries too.

[English]

Modern drug use appeared in the 1960s and 1970s, and it is in this period that modern, official drug policies have their basis. In the 1960s and 1970s, drug use was new and governments did not know how to respond to it. They did not know what to do and so many governments installed commissions, including Canada with the LeDain commission, and in the Netherlands. In the early 1970s, there were two governmental commissions to study the drug problem.

These commissions found that most drug use was cannabis and that most of the people who used cannabis were normal. They were not deviant and were most likely students at school or university. Other people were using more dangerous drugs like heroin, so one of the recommendations was that a distinction should be made between those different types of drugs.

This later became an official measure and the law was changed in 1976. There were many other countries that also had commissions that produced similar recommendations. They stated that most illicit drug use involves cannabis, which is not a big problem because people's lives are not dominated by cannabis use. With the exception of the Netherlands, these recommenda tions were followed by policy measures.

During the testimony of the other witnesses, I realized that it is difficult for others to grasp the Dutch drug policy. Where does it come from? In Dutch society, there is a strong, long-standing libertarian tradition and a strong notion of individual freedom. People are allowed to do what they want, as long as it does not bother others. This is very important, but there is not much morality around this tradition.

There is also a critical attitude toward the use of the penal role to solve social issues and problems. The law should only be used as the last resort if there is no other option. This attitude was especially strong in the 1970s when the drug policy was developed.

Dutch society is a pragmatic society. It is a nation of traders, going back to the 17th century. Traders are more pragmatic than other people. The pragmatism finds its roots in Dutch history, which is characterized by its fight against the sea, the natural enemy of the Netherlands since the Middle Ages. The Nether lands is roughly the size of Vancouver Island, and today one half of the country is at sea level.

A system of dikes was built to protect the country. Centuries ago, everyone in Dutch society, from the aristocracy to the farmers, worked together to prevent seawater from flowing into the country. The pragmatic attitude comes from that. It is impossible to completely eliminate the problem of the water. It is better to control it with canals.

This partly explains the attitude towards many other societal problems, which many societies do not want to solve or to address. The Dutch have learned how to deal with difficult issues and to control them or canalize them.

Social scientists were very important in the Dutch commis sions, which I mentioned. Since the early 1970s, a social-scien tific way of examining the drug problem has developed. At the time, the labelling theory, in sociological or criminological theory, was important in those commissions. It states that if you label certain behaviour as deviant it becomes more deviant. Since many of the cannabis users were normal people, not criminals, the idea was to integrate this deviant behaviour to control it and to not push these people away into the margins of society. From this we have the model of normalization. Drug problems should be regarded as a normal social issue, especially if it is a unique social problem.

Another principle of Dutch drug policy is the strong public health tradition. Combined with the strong welfare state and a tradition of local health services, which goes back to the 1920s, these local health services at the city level, were created for people who did not have access to the normal health care system or people who could not be reached by the normal health care system, such as alcoholics and prostitutes. In the bigger cities you will find these local health services.

In the 1970s, drug addicts presented a problem, so they were added as a new category to these local health services. It is these local health services, especially in the city of Amsterdam, that started the needle exchange programs. The local level has always been very important. This explains why the Netherlands has, since the 1970s, developed a harm reduction policy.

Dutch pragmatism, at the level of drug policy, has been developed in a way that drugs are considered inevitable. In an open economy, in an internationally oriented society, for young people growing up, drugs are inevitable. Many will encounter them or will have friends who will encounter them. For the government, the task is to live with it, to control it and to canalize it like the water problem. The pragmatic attitude also means that drug use is not considered, per se, as a problem. It is not a moral issue.

In practice, all this translates into harm reduction, with the emphasis on prevention, information and normalization. The fact that there is not a moral issue means, in practice, that information is spread about gambling, alcohol, tobacco and drugs. It is all put together as risky behaviour.

For cannabis, the drug policy has been discussed, that is, the coffee shop system and decriminalization. For heroin and cocaine, it is a harm reduction policy, also a decriminalization of small quantities. Guidelines of the prosecutors prescribe that people are allowed to have half a gram of heroin or cocaine.

Of course, there are needle exchange and methadone programs, but part of what makes the Dutch case unusual is that the large majority of heroin users do not inject it but smoke it. It is called "chasing the dragon." That has been promoted, especially by the local health authorities, because it decreases significantly the risk of overdoses. Smoking heroin allows control. The effects are slower in the body; therefore users have better ways to control or to prevent overdoses.

For the new drugs, such as ecstasy and amphetamines, there is a policy of harm reduction. The guidelines prescribe that people are allowed to have one tablet or one pill if they go to a party. It is considered personal use.

Most drug policies in Europe were developed in the 1960s and 1970s. Every drug law system says it is a combination of repression and law enforcement on the one hand, and care and treatment on the other hand. In practice, in almost all countries, law enforcement and repression were most dominant until roughly the mid-1980s.

In the mid-1980s there was a big change in European drug policy because of AIDS, which radically changed the whole picture. AIDS meant a public health threat. Many people who were injecting drugs were HIV-positive, and they had infected other people as well. Authorities were obliged to be more pragmatic. They had to do something.

In all the European countries, there were many debates about what to do. Some people wanted needle exchange to curb the spread of AIDS. Many voices wanted methadone as a way to establish contact with the risk groups, or the addict population. In other countries, there is much opposition from the police or the professionals, psychiatrists, to this more pragmatic attitude. They say if you have needles, then you facilitate drug use. If you have methadone, you keep people addicted because it is still an opiate.

One sees this debate in all the countries, but the outcome, because it was such a big public health threat, was that countries gradually accepted these new measures. There is a general change in the hard drugs issue in the 1980s and 1990s from a law enforcement and a criminal problem, into a social and health problem. There was less ideology and more pragmatism.

In the 1990s, there was another trend. In all the western countries, recreational drug use was going up. What does one do with these people? They are not sick. They are not criminals. The pragmatism that developed for the hard drugs influenced the debate on soft drugs. The annual reports of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction clearly state that the trend in the 15 countries of the European Union is the decriminalization of cannabis.

In the late 1990s, harm reduction has become the new drug policy model in Europe. It is quite a big change because harm reduction means that drug use is accepted as a fact. The whole underlying concept has changed. Instead of fighting drugs, drugs have now become accepted, and we have to live with it against the lowest medical and social costs.

For cannabis, this means decriminalization. For the new synthetic drugs, such as ecstasy and amphetamines, one can see more pill testing to prevent dangers and fatal accidents with these drugs. For hard drugs, especially heroin, one can see heroin prescription programs, new methods and new substitution programs. In a growing number of countries, there are user rooms, places where people are allowed to use heroin and cocaine, which makes interventions easier and keeps the problem off the streets.

Dutch drug policies in the European context have been criticized a great deal over the last decades. With all these changes in mind, how does the Dutch drug policy now fit into this larger European picture?

Until the mid-1980s, the Netherlands was the only country that had a clear harm reduction policy. It was the only country where cannabis was openly sold since the mid-1970s. Denmark is one exception. In the capital of Denmark, Copenhagen, a special section of the town, an old army or marine base, was quartered in the early 1970s. It is called Christiania, and there, since the early 1970s, cannabis has been openly sold. In Denmark it is not sold in as many places as in the Netherlands. The Netherlands and Denmark were the only countries that were allowing that.

Dutch drug policy received constant criticism from the United States and Sweden. The Swedish model is almost opposite to the Dutch drug policy model. Since 1977, the official goal of the Swedish authorities is to have a drug-free society. In practice, they put the most emphasis on cannabis because the Swedes believe in the stepping-stone hypothesis. They think it is where drug use starts, and therefore most of the intervention and prevention is focused on cannabis.

They emphasize the dangers of cannabis. One can say they exaggerate the dangers of cannabis. For example, it is very normal among Swedes to think of the cannabis psychosis, an increased risk of suicides, and second and third generation effects of cannabis.

Their message loses credibility because in the Netherlands cannabis is openly sold. That is why there is constant pressure on Sweden. Most of the Swedish criticism actually goes to Denmark, which is close and where cannabis is also openly sold.

As I said, the United States and Sweden are countries that put constant critical pressure on the Dutch drug policy. For other countries, the response is dependent on the time period. For example, in the 1980s, we had a big problem with German heroin addicts in Amsterdam. They numbered more than 1,000 and they were in Amsterdam because the drug was cheaper and the climate was more liberal.

That led to a diplomatic row between Germany and the Netherlands. The Germans were saying that the Netherlands was too liberal, while the Dutch complained about the Germans using heroin in the Netherlands. What explains the phenomenon of Germans moving to the Netherlands? Was it a push factor or a pull factor? The Germans said the Dutch were pulling in the addicts, but what about the German policy that was pushing them away from Germany?

Cooperation began between Germany and the Netherlands when the German authorities realized that they must do something about their own system. They increased substitution programs, treatment facilities and introduced a less repressive climate. The German addicts stopped migrating to the Netherlands.

Germany is also interesting as one of the first countries to change its policy toward cannabis. In 1993, the German constitutional court decided it was unconstitutional to arrest people for possessing small quantities of cannabis. From that time, the different states in Germany set guidelines of how much people are allowed to have in their possession. In practice, it varies from the politically progressive states in the north where people are allowed to have 30 grams, to the south, in Bavaria, where people are only allowed to have 3 grams.

In 1995, France was heavily criticizing the Dutch drug policy. President Chirac was elected in that year and he started an almost personal crusade against Dutch drug policy because of some events in his family. For a few years, the drug issue dominated the Dutch-French relations. A few years later he called an election and lost, after which the whole conflict between the Dutch and the French calmed down.

The two countries started working together, exchanging government officials, researchers and so on. The French drug policy has changed a lot over the last few years. France now has an official harm reduction policy.

Belgium has had a long debate over several years, especially around cannabis. A parliamentary commission studied the question that last year translated into policy measures. Belgium has decriminalized. People are allowed to possess small quantities of cannabis. The exact quantity has not been defined, so it is up to the police or the prosecutor, but there is a policy of decriminaliz ation of small quantities.

Switzerland is one of the most innovative countries with regard to drug policies. They had a heroin prescription program for quite a few years now. In the last few years, they have debated cannabis. Hemp stores in Switzerland were already openly selling cannabis because of a gap in the law there. Cannabis could be sold for purposes other than smoking, although the buyers bought it for smoking. Now the Swiss want to regulate more. Next year their parliament will debate cannabis regulation. They want to go further than the Dutch, to regulate cultivation and distribution.

Portugal has also debated drugs and has decriminalized the use and small-amount possession of all drugs including heroin, cocaine and amphetamines.

United Kingdom has recently debated especially around cannabis. Last summer, a small pilot project begun in Brixton, South London, where personal possession and use would no longer be prosecuted. Two weeks ago, the Home Secretary decided to reschedule cannabis as a class C drug.

Spain and Italy have not formally changed their laws, but, in practice, the general trend is to give cannabis a lower priority in law enforcement. People are arrested less often for smoking or possessing small quantities of cannabis.

Change is happening everywhere in Europe, as it is in Australia and New Zealand. New Zealand has a parliamentary commission looking into the question of cannabis.

Jamaica has just completed a governmental commission report. Jamaica is an important country to study because it has a150-year history of cannabis use. Cannabis is culturally integrated there.

The European Union consists of 15 countries that must work together in commissions on issues including drug use. Five or ten years ago, the Netherlands was still the exception in the European Union. For the past two years, Sweden has become the exception in the European Union as the only country that still believes in a drug-free society. The others have accepted drug use and are trying to live with it.

Countries are now experimenting. They do not want to criminalize users of cannabis or people possessing small quantities of cannabis. It is difficult to legalize even though countries like Switzerland and the U.K. are discussing it. Countries are trying new things, not only at the lower level with cannabis, but also with heroin and cocaine. The scene is moving a lot and it is unclear where it will go. It depends on the local experiments and also on the way countries are going to work together.

Senator Banks: You said that methadone is an addictive opiate. Aside from the fact that it can be legally prescribed and obtained as part of a treatment program, what is the difference between methadone and heroin?

Dr. Boekhout Van Solinge: Heroin gives you a nice feeling and, according to the users, it gives a flash. Methadone does not. Methadone is an opiate. An opiate-dependent or heroin-dependent addict needs heroin every day. Methadone takes away the craving, but without the positive effect or feeling.

Senator Banks: It makes stopping easier because it removes the difficult physiological symptoms that are attendant upon withdrawal; is that correct?

Dr. Boekhout Van Solinge: Yes. If you take methadone, you do not have withdrawal symptoms. You can you take other opiates as well. You can also take morphine or codeine. They also serve as a kind of buffer against overdoses, because if you take methadone you have more opiates in your body. It allows people to lead a normal life.

Senator Banks: The view of many witnesses on developing a drug policy is that we need to do more research, particularly with respect to the putative, harmful effects of cannabis and other drugs. The European Union countries have made decisions that are practical, pragmatic and face seemingly irrefutable facts. As you have noted, Netherlands and several other countries have been at the forefront of that.

Do you think that there is enough research to base rational, reasonable decisions as to policy, or is more research needed? For the purposes of the answer, exclude the question of research as to the medicinal properties of cannabis, which I think everyone accepts has not been sufficiently researched. With respect to the physiological cost and the criminal connections, do we have enough research?

Dr. Boekhout Van Solinge: Yes, there is enough information to have a basic idea. However, more can be researched in detail. There is much research for cannabis, which is the most widely used illicit drugs. Britain, in the late 19th century, had a report on cannabis use in India. In the 20th century, much has been invested into research, especially in trying to show the dangers of cannabis.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Dr. Boekhout Van Solinge, in the document you submitted to us, dated summer 1999 and entitled "Dutch Drug Policy in European context," you compare Netherlands and Sweden policies. Both countries have diametrically opposed views concerning the values underlying such policies. They both claim that their policies proved to be successful judging by their relatively low drug prevalence and addiction rates.

Could you tell us which one of them is telling the truth and what would be the best criteria to establish the effectiveness of a drug policy?

Dr. Boekhout Van Solinge: It is true that both the Netherlands and Sweden maintain that they have effective drug policies. They both have a relatively small number of addicts in comparison with other European countries. Ironically, both countries hold that their success is the fruit of their policy with regards to cannabis. The Dutch say they have only a small number of addicts thanks to their market segregation policy, their "coffee shops" and their pragmatic approach of hard drugs. The Swedish maintain they owe their success to their restrictive policy, particularly vis-à-vis cannabis. The Swedish say that since few people are using cannabis in their country, few people will go beyond the law or use hard drugs.

The example of those two countries shows that there is no relationship between a cannabis policy and the number of hard drug addicts. The fact that both countries have only a relatively small number of addicts is due their welfare state scheme. That's what they have most in common. Essentially, their school system is good and their citizens have a broad range of opportunities. Relatively few people are socially excluded or marginalized. That's what explains their small number of addicts.

The Chairman: The Dutch maintain that if their policy has beneficial effects, it's because soft drugs and hard drugs markets are segregated, which is a good thing for the users, because they don't have as many opportunities to experiment hard drugs. What do you think about that assertion?

Dr. Boekhout Van Solinge: It's not the sole explanation. For the youngsters who have grown up in the Netherlands, it is clear that cannabis is a drug different from heroin, but the whole issue is more complex than that. The Netherlands do not have a repressive policy even vis-à-vis heroin addicts. In the Netherlands, heroin is relatively visible in the streets, particularly in Amster dam; downtown Amsterdam, an area that is more popular with tourists, one can see more drug addicts than in downtown Paris, Stockholm or London. Maybe they are not more numerous in Amsterdam, but they are more visible. Their visibility has a kind of prevention effect. Young people know it is better not to touch heroin. Prevention is important.

In Sweden, looking at the way preventive information is presented, it can really be said that young people are not actually feeling that heroin is more dangerous than cannabis. Everything is dangerous. Then, a young person is more likely to use cannabis first and heroin after.

[English]

Senator Finestone: Where would you situate the preventive educational tools that are being used in Holland in juxtaposition with alcohol and cigarettes, and the damage each could cause if you are using preventive medicine?

Dr. Boekhout Van Solinge: The damage?

Senator Finestone: Do not focus on damage.

Dr. Boekhout Van Solinge: As I said in my introduction, drugs are not really a moral issue. In the drug policy with which many young people growing up, they will encounter things. Teenagers will encounter new things in life. It is part of being a teenager. They will see tobacco and drugs, and they will discover sex. You have to inform people.

Senator Finestone: I do not think that sex will hurt as much as drugs, alcohol and cigarettes.

Dr. Boekhout Van Solinge: You must talk about the diseases and pregnancies in an open way. The Dutch drug policies have emphasized for a long time both the positive and negative aspects of drug use.

Much of the prevention, especially that aimed towards young children, talks only about problems and dangers, but the experience of youth is the opposite. It is very important to talk about the positive things as well. The Dutch prevention program is trying to do that. We point out that when someone does drugs, they will feel something that they may find pleasant, but there is also another side to that. We talk about both those sides.

The message is not that it is bad, but rather to stimulate young people to think about why they do it. Is it because they have a problem? Is it only because they are curious and want to experiment? Is it because they want to belong to a group?

Senator Finestone:How does drinking and driving fit into this?

Dr. Boekhout Van Solinge: Drinking and driving is never allowed.

Senator Finestone: Imbibing a drug of any nature has a deleterious effect on one's ability to function. I like to smoke and I also have the odd drink. Please do not think that I do not think people should drink or smoke. However, there is a time and place for it.

The Chairman: The question is abuse of the substance.

Senator Finestone: Your presentation sounded like pie in the sky to me. You say that kids should be able to partake in all these things, as long as they stick to cocaine because it is not as bad as heroin, as long as they are careful with alcohol, and as long as they partake of nicotine only moderately in order to avoid cancer. What constructive advice can you give this committee on public policy in this area?

Dr. Boekhout Van Solinge: You described Dutch prevention policy in your words, not as I would describe it.

Senator Finestone: Are you saying that it is much more effective than I have said?

Dr. Boekhout Van Solinge: No, I would say the content is different from how you described it. Drug use is always discouraged. The message always is that it is better not to, but the reality is that many will. There is the second phase, which is, "If you do drugs, you should know this and this and this." When people are better informed, they make more responsible decisions.

That is the task of the government. The government should supply reliable information, so that people can make responsible decisions, as in many other things.

Many young people, even teenagers, are very responsible. As part of my fieldwork, I attend rave parties where drugs are used. I speak to teenagers and sometimes I am shocked when I hear how much they have used. However, at the same time I find most of them very responsible. They know what they are doing. There is excess and abuse and some go too far, but that is a small minority.

Growing up in the 21st century, you have to be very responsible. You have to make many decisions. Drugs are a part of the life of teenagers. There is a generational difference. Young people do not distinguish between alcohol, cannabis and ecstasy. It is all there; it is just the reality.

Senator Finestone: Should we be sending the message, both through the schools and through advertising on television, that, although there is no law saying you cannot, you would be better off if you did not?

In Holland, rather than imposing such laws, do you say that good judgment should indicate personal conduct?

Dr. Boekhout Van Solinge: I would say that the Dutch prevention policy is characterized by trying to move from external control to internal control, to making people more responsible. People are allowed, to a certain extent, to do what they want. Freedom is limited when it affects other people. If you are drinking and driving or creating a nuisance on the street, that is a problem. However, in your house you are allowed to drink many bottles of beer.

Senator Finestone: I do think that the criminalization of young people is stupid and ineffective. It may be that, due to the small size of the Dutch and Belgian territory, you have a more cohesive society. Our country is too large, with too many regional differences, to have that kind of cohesiveness.

That is why I asked you what we can learn from the Dutch drug policy. Although we can consider your policy, we would have to adapt it to our environment. In Canada, at this time, what works in Quebec will not necessarily work in Ontario. They are very different. It certainly would not fit at all in the West.

You are saying that in a democratic society, once people are properly educated about all the pros and cons, they should be allowed to make their choices without being legislated; is that correct?

Dr. Boekhout Van Solinge: In the Netherlands, for a long time we have invested heavily in social and scientific research. We have interviewed drug users to follow drug careers. In many ways, the Netherlands is a social laboratory. It is very interesting to see these phenomena.

The experience is that most young people who use illicit drugs do so for only a very short period of time. Most do it only once. A very large group does it only a few times or for only a few years. Only a small percentage continue to use cannabis, cocaine or ecstasy.

The task of the government is to ensure that in that short period of time there are the least problems, be they medical, social or whatever. By supplying people with information, you enable them to make good decisions. If you do not criminalize them, you will not punish them for their behaviour, which will affect their career later.

Some people will develop problems, but life is all about choices. Many teenagers use ecstasy only during the holidays, in order that their school work will not suffer.

If I have a beer on weeknight, I will go home at twelve o'clock because the next day I want to be fresh at work. That is true with drug use as well. For most people who use drugs, drugs do not dominate their life. It is only one part of their life; they do other things as well. If one has enough positive things in life, one will ensure that drug use does not dominate one's life.

On the other hand, if one is in a marginalized position, has no future, is unemployed, or even if one is living on the streets, then one has more reason to intoxicate oneself. The next day is not a positive incentive for that person.

It is always important to look at the function of drug use. For any substance use, there is a function. People abuse substances for a particular reason. If people have more things in life, then substance use will not easily develop into a problematic pattern.

Senator Finestone: Does the price of drugs have an impact on use? You have been in this sociological study unit. Have you tested whether the cost of the drug to the individual, high or low, has an impact on use?

Dr. Boekhout Van Solinge: I do not study that, but I do not think so.

Senator Finestone: We keep raising the price of cigarettes, thinking that will stop people from smoking.

Dr. Boekhout Van Solinge: Many people are already addicted to smoking.

What is interesting about the Dutch experience is that many drugs are easily available for a cheap price. Heroin is relatively cheap; a gram costs maybe $30 Canadian dollars. However, young people do not feel attracted to it, so there are other factors as well. There are cultural elements as well as the negative image of heroin that leads young people to not use heroin.

For a young person who wants to go to a rave, the ticket in will be more expensive than the ecstasy pill he or she may purchase.

The Chairman: Was your question focused more on cannabis?

Senator Finestone: My question was in regard to any accessible drugs, cannabis being the favourite.

Dr. Boekhout Van Solinge: I do not think so. Most young people have money. Look at what they spend on sneakers and jeans. Cannabis is cheap, even when compared to alcohol and tobacco. In Canada, one gram costs about Can. $10.

Senator Finestone: How many smokes do you get from one gram? I have a 12-year-old grandson, and one who is 14. You think $10 is not expensive. They do not live in your world, I can tell you.

Dr. Boekhout Van Solinge: A more likely age to start cannabis use is 16, 18, when teenagers have more money.

Senator Banks: I found something that you said interesting and illuminating. It had never occurred to me that it might be a good idea to tell the truth to young people. In North America, at least so far as I have seen, the information, education and admonitions that we have tried to give young people, when we are telling them about drugs in general, including tobacco and alcohol, addresses the bad stuff. Those in authority never admit that this stuff really does make you feel good for a while. That is so simple a concept that it never occurred to me until you said it here today. Thank you for that.

That leads me to a question: Does the old distinction of liquor and tobacco cigarettes on the one hand being somehow acceptable in certain circumstances and cocaine, ecstasy and cannabis on the other not being acceptable for some reason cause young people to regard what is said with less credibility because they are told half the truth? Can you elucidate further? Was it ever the case in the Netherlands that half of the story was given and the other half was ignored?

Dr. Boekhout Van Solinge: I cannot fully answer your question. I am not sure when those in authority started to be realistic. However, it is especially important to be realistic with young people. Teenagers today must make all kinds of decisions about their future and education. Teenagers feel much older than they are, and it is very important to them to be taken seriously. In order for the state to be credible, it is important to provide good information and to have a good connection with young people.

[Translation]

The Chairman: According to what you observed regarding the evolution of policies in Europe, how would you assess the weight of the following allegation?

Driving a vehicle or handling heavy machinery under the influence of cannabis may put at risk first the life of that driver or operator, but also the life and health of others.

We hear that assertion in Canada and we do not intend to dismiss it with the back of our hand, because we think it is credible. Are we right to give some credit to that allegation? How would European people assess it? They must surely be concerned by that risk also.

Dr. Boekhout Van Solinge: Yes, this is a concern in Europe too, and European countries are working together on that issue. First, there is a technical problem which prevents the detection of cannabis in the blood of a driver. Cannabis is the drug that remains the longest time in the blood. It can be detected up to one month after being used. If traces of cannabis are found in the blood of a driver while he is still on the road, one cannot conclude that the person involved was then under the influence of the drug. That driver might have absorbed it the night before or even a few days before. So, there is a technical problem when the time comes to prove that a person was under the influence of cannabis.

Generally speaking, concerning the dangerousness of driving under the influence of cannabis, it can be said that the use of a psychotropic substance may influence someone's way of driving and cause accidents. But compared with alcohol and other psychotropic substances, I would think that cannabis is the less dangerous one. There have been studies which arrived at that same conclusion.

The Chairman: Would you have some serious data upon which we could rely to get some information about that?

Dr. Boekhout Van Solinge: As far as I know, two studies, one of them being a doctorate thesis, were carried out on that subject. One of those studies included people who had taken a cannabis placebo. It's a good study from the University of Maestricht in the Netherlands. It compares alcohol with cannabis.

There is no question that both influence performance, but a big difference between alcohol and cannabis is that after drinking alcohol one feels more secure and tends to drive faster, while with cannabis, one feels less secure and tends to drive slower. Generally speaking, one is more careful under the influence of cannabis than under the influence of alcohol.

This year, a second study was made in England - I do not remember from which university - which led to the same conclusions.

The Chairman: That very legitimate concern tends to dwindle, if I understood your answer correctly? Is that argument now less striking in public debates?

Dr. Boekhout Van Solinge: I would say yes.

[English]

Senator Finestone: Do I understand that cannabis is illegal? Has it been legalized?

Dr. Boekhout Van Solinge: No, it has not been legalized in the Netherlands.

Senator Finestone: Has it been legalized anywhere in Europe?

Dr. Boekhout Van Solinge: No. Switzerland is thinking about it.

Senator Finestone: Does drug money finance wars and, if so, is this a concern?

Dr. Boekhout Van Solinge: Yes, this has been a concern for a long time. Drug money finances all kinds of independence movements and wars, especially since the end of the Cold War. In the Cold War, organizations could get money from one of the big powers. Since that is no longer possible, drugs have been the answer for many movements. Every organization, as well as individuals, is looking for a lot of money in a short time. Drugs is the answer: There is low risk in getting caught and the profits are high.

Senator Finestone: Is it pie in the sky and unrealistic to suggest that people of good conscience should be a little bit more concerned about the killing fields than the smoking fields? As we progress, according to what you say and the research that has been done, it is inevitable that young people will experiment with drugs of various kings - whether it is marijuana or alcohol or nicotine or heroin - and that we should educate them to decrease dependence and to better understand the impact or the effect of the drug on one's ability to think, one's ability to act, and one's ability to perform.

At the same time, we are dealing with terrorism and saying how bad that is.

We do not live in this world isolated with walls around us. We have to concern ourselves with what is happening anywhere and everywhere in the world. One of the things that is happening anywhere and everywhere is access to money to buy guns. If we stop buying some of the poppies that grow in the fields, perhaps we would have a little more of an impact. Even when I say this, I sound so "pie in the sky" myself that I wonder what planet I am living on.

The Chairman: We raised that question with another witness on another day, and the problem was prohibition itself.

Senator Finestone: The problem is prohibition. Will that allow me to smoke without feeling guilty?

Senator Banks: Nothing will allow that.

Senator Finestone: Forget the question. I think it is irrelevant.

The Chairman: I think it is very relevant. We raised that question with one witness who studied, at our request, the relationship between drugs and terrorism in light of the recent events in New York and Washington and Pennsylvania, and the answer was not black and white, but prohibition is probably the primary cause of the problem, and it is not easy to reach a solution. That is probably the answer that the witness would have given.

Senator Finestone: You just referred to the World Trade Center and Washington. In 1972 or 1973, on the exact same date, Pinochet bombed and destroyed much of the capital of Chile, and the world did not say very much at that time because it was not in the world's interest. That is a pretty sad commentary. Drugs play a big part in that part of the world. If we were to remove prohibition, how would that affect the whole question of use?

I do not know how that can be an effective answer.

The Chairman: That is the theme of our discussion today. The witness can probably give the answer. In the Netherlands, they built their policy on a different principle: Drug use exists, so let us accept that and work on the harm caused by the use or abuse. That is the basis of their policy. That is exactly what we are studying today. I understand that in Sweden it is totally the opposite.

Senator Finestone: In Sweden, I saw kids putting quarters in a machine. Just like buying Coca-Cola out of a machine, they could buy a bottle of beer. They did not have to be 16 to go into a beer store and buy strong beer.

That was a long time ago, but I gathered from what the witness said that Sweden is far more prudent than the Netherlands in their approach - "repressive" is a better word.

The Chairman: A much better word. Do you have an answer to that?

Dr. Boekhout Van Solinge: Prohibition and terrorism. That is one more reason to address the question of international prohibition, because for international organizations that want money it is so easy to go into drugs. We should address the problem of Afghanistan became so important. It has to do with the Cold War.

Senator Finestone: Would you just put the softer drugs into your prohibition scheme, or would you put heroin in there as well? Would you include that whole range of what we consider in this country to be detrimental to the well-being of society, the no-no's?

Dr. Boekhout Van Solinge: I think we should have a debate on that.

The strange situation we have now is that on the one hand the Netherlands is an interesting example because the drugs are available. On the other hand, the United States is also an interesting example because it shows what results from prohib ition or a repressive system.

For example, in many states American teenagers have to be 21 to buy alcohol. Many American teenagers find it much easier to find illicit drugs than illicit drugs like alcohol. In that case, prohibition really does not work. We have the situation now that we leave it to criminals and to the black markets. Teenagers can find illegal drugs easier than legal drugs.

I think the situation has got out of hand and we had better regulate it ourselves to get more control in order to prevent problems with drugs.

Mr. Steven Van Hoogstraten, Director for International Criminal Affairs and Drugs Policy, Ministry of Justice, Netherlands: I want to speak to this matter of terrorism and prohibition, as this was a matter of debate with our administration as well.

I think it is quite obvious - it was said at your table - that prohibition leads to a situation where illegal production makes lots of money and lots of money goes into the wrong hands. If we wanted to avoid that, we should treat cocaine as if it were coffee or tea, that is, make it an agricultural product, do away with prohibition and let market forces work.

However, we will not do that because we have an international system that tells us that we should stage a strong fight against these substances. It is either one or the other. Either we have an international prohibition that we try to enforce, and we take the consequence that money is made by people we do not like, or we go the other way and stop with prohibition.

It is time for a full and informed debate on these matters, more than anything else. Clearly, it is difficult to change policies from one day to the next, and since we have now had a terrorist attack we want to have another drug policy. To varying degrees, drug policies have been forced upon us by previous generations and by forces that were strong at those times. We have been living according to those rules until now, including with respect to cannabis. According to my sources, cannabis was simply added to the list of prohibited substances one day because it suited the negotiators to have another substance on the list. It was not the original intention to ban cannabis. Opiates and a few substances were to be banned in the original instance.

From this position, I would plead for a more open debate on these matters so that we can see all the consequences. Prohibition makes incredible sums of money and those sums go to movements that we despise.

Senator Finestone: Would you do a policy that is one step at a time? Would you decriminalize first?

Mr. Van Hoogstraten: I think the terrorist argument has come into the debate that has been ongoing for a long time. As you know, and as has been explained, our government follows a policy of decriminalization for the good of the user and for the good of the non-criminalization of groups that should not be in jail but in school. That is why we follow the policy. It has nothing to do with the money that is made by drugs.

However, now that the point was raised, I felt it was good to make that statement and plead for a renewed debate, as was stated in The Economist. I do not know whether you have seen that article. This magazine made a strong case for reviewing the whole situation.

Senator Finestone: I thought it was only for cannabis?

Mr. Van Hoogstraten: No, the article was across the board.

The Chairman: I think the important word is "informed" debate. Reading through Mr. Boekhout Van Solinge's papers, I think we can conclude that the debate in Europe was enlightened with a lot of research and a more rigorous look by the various countries, and that is probably for the better of Europe. Would you agree to that?

Dr. Boekhout Van Solinge: Absolutely.

The Chairman: The word "informed" is the important word because to have a debate with misconceptions creates a misinformed population. Of course, everyone will be behind you saying "no." I think what we need is an informed debate.

Senator Finestone: That is a good point you raise. To change public sentiment, public morality and a public approach is no small task. It took Mothers Against Drunken Driving, MADD, to effect a good debate, the impact of which is much more stringent laws on drunk driving.

The impact of the anti-smoking campaigns has been incredible. It has changed the mindset of many people, starting with pregnant women, who were really sensitized to the fact that if you smoke you do damage to the foetus and, therefore, you are harming your unborn child. I think it moved from there to a far more sensitive and good conscience undertaking, and the public was ready to accept the move.

Has there been any research that would indicate how long it took for the public attitude toward use of drugs to be a choice?

Dr. Boekhout Van Solinge: Even though drug use is decriminalized in the Netherlands, it does not mean it is totally accepted. People will not say to their colleagues at work, for example, "I had a good smoke last night," or "I had a nice line of cocaine last night." It is not that liberal; it is not that open and accepted in the Netherlands.

When one looks for support of a drug policy there are surveys, and I would say it is half and half. Most surveys showed that a little bit more than half of the people interviewed support the decriminalization policy, and younger people especially. There is also a generational effect. I think this is also true in other countries. I have seen surveys in Canada and I believe there is a majority that supports decriminalization.

The Chairman: I believe 47 per cent of Canadians support decriminalization.

Dr. Boekhout Van Solinge: In the U.K., the percentage is much higher. It is changing with time, especially with the younger generations who are getting older, of course, and cannabis is more becoming a part of life.

The Chairman: That is the question. Why is it changing? Is it changing because people are properly informed or is it changing because it is culturally acceptable to indulge?

Dr. Boekhout Van Solinge: I think it is both. People are better informed. Young people nowadays see that cannabis does not lead to what many governments claim.

Senator Finestone: We keep talking about cannabis. Is the same policy being recommended with respect to all the other amphetamines, heroin and all the opiates? Do you put them all in the same bag?

Dr. Boekhout Van Solinge: If you want a different regulation model, I think you should look at how you will regulate every substance. Alcohol is regulated in a different manner from tobacco. Morphine and opiates, which are very close to heroin as well, are legal but not easily available. They are only available through a prescription from a doctor. For every substance, you have to find the most suitable model. Cannabis can be put in the same category as alcohol, but heroin, I would say no. You have to look at experiences of other countries and at the history as well.

I would make a recommendation if you have witnesses from Britain. There is an important book entitled "Opium and the People," a study about 19th century opium use in Britain. It is written by Virginia Berridge, a professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. It is a beautiful book that describes opium use in the 19th century. In the working class areas of Britain - the industrialized areas - there was a great deal of legal use of both alcohol and opium. People could buy these products in shops. At that time, alcohol was always regarded as a bigger problem than opium.

We should look at the historical examples of these drugs. As well as Britain, the French had a regime of cannabis in Northern Africa, and the Dutch had a regime of legal opium outlets in Indonesia. Prohibition has only been around for one century, but the use of psychoactive substances is much longer than that. We must learn from our history.

Senator Banks: We have time for something on a slightly lighter note. Earlier, Mr. Chairman, you spoke to the effect of cannabis use on drivers, and Mr. Boekhout Van Solinge said the effect generally was the opposite of that of alcohol. I first learned that many years ago when a friend of mine, in the 1960s, was driving home from a recording session in Los Angeles where some cannabis had been consumed. It was during the morning rush hour that they left the studio, after being up all night, around 6:30 or 7:00. They were driving to Los Angeles along the Pacific Coast Highway, from Santa Monica. Before they reached Los Angeles, a motorcycle policeman pulled them over. My friend said he had never seen a policeman in such apoplectic rage - he was purple with rage. Looking back behind his car, my friend saw that there was a line of traffic going back for miles. The policeman said, "Do you have any idea how fast you were going?" The driver said, "60 or 70, I do not know." The policeman said, "No, 6." That is a true story.

The Chairman: I have one final question.

[Translation]

In that effort to inform people in order to improve the public debate on drugs in Europe, what role did the European Monitoring Centre play?

Dr. Boekhout Van Solinge: Its role was to compare all data provided by the European countries and try to make the different methods of survey more consistent so that the numbers can be comparable.

The Chairman: Did that monitoring centre the mandate of which you just described help to improve the quality of the debate?

Dr. Boekhout Van Solinge: Absolutely. For example, it is now becoming more and more evident that problematic use of drugs, particularly heroin and cocaine, is closely related to social marginalization. It is quite clear - not only in one but in several countries - that heroin addicts are mostly found in disadvantaged neighbourhoods where there are many other socio-economic problems. That is also true in other countries like the United States where the Latino-American or Afro-American ghettos are facing a much larger number of those problems than the middle-class neighbourhoods.

The Chairman: That issue is certainly going to be raised by other witnesses. Are you saying that in Europe, problematic use of heroin is found only within the population of disadvantaged neighbourhoods?

Dr. Boekhout Van Solinge: Not only there.

The Chairman: Is it the most visible part of the problem?

Dr. Boekhout Van Solinge: Indeed, the problem is much more pronounced in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. You have examples of that in Scotland or Northern England, where the unemployment rate is very high. Many teenagers are on heroin. That takes a terrible toll on villages and small towns. It's not something that can be seen in areas where people are educated and have in their lives other choices than drugs.

Senator Finestone: What is the crime rate in those areas? In underprivileged areas, you still need money for that. I personally think that 10 $ is already quite an amount of money for young people. In the areas where people have no money and no promising future, the crime rate must be rather high since you have to find money somewhere to meet your needs.

The Chairman: Prices are raising too.

Dr. Boekhout Van Solinge: People living in underprivileged neighbourhoods are indeed more vulnerable to use drugs excessively. It can also be said that the habit of using drugs develops more rapidly among those people because they have more reasons than others to take drugs. When one is marginal ized, it becomes more difficult for him to get through because he has no job or educational background to compensate. Such persons are more at risk of staying within the world of drugs.

[English]

Senator Finestone: I am totally confused. We are using the terms "marijuana" and "cannabis." Why do you call it "cannabis" and not "marijuana"?

The Chairman: Marijuana is a product; cannabis is the generic name. We will have some lectures for you, so that you will learn.

Senator Finestone: This analysis is important for our study. I appreciate this witness testifying before our committee.

[Translation]

The Chairman: It was a great pleasure for us to have you here, Dr. Boekhout Van Solinge, and thank you for your presentation. My colleagues will certainly have questions for you, so I am going to feel free to write to you hoping that you will have a chance to send us an answer. Those questions and answers are going to be posted on the committee's Website.

Before closing this meeting, I want to remind all those who have an interest in our committee's works that they can read and get information about illegal drugs on our Website at: www.parl.gc.ca. You will find on that site all the presentations made by our witnesses, as well as some biographical notes on them and all the papers they felt appropriate to provide us in support of their argumentation. In addition, you'll find over 150 Internet links relating to illegal drugs. You can also use that same address to send us your e-mail messages.

On behalf of the Special Committee on Illegal Drugs, I want to thank you for your interest in our important study.

The committee adjourned.