Proceedings of the Special Committee on
Illegal Drugs
Issue 16 - Evidence
REGINA, Monday, May 13, 2002
The Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs met this day at 8:30 a.m. to reassess Canada's anti-drug legislation and policies.
Senator Pierre Claude Nolin (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: On behalf of the committee, I would thank the Mayor of Regina for allowing us to use the council chamber for this hearing. We are grateful to you and your staff for managing everything to ensure that our day in Regina will be a success.
Mr. Pat Fiacco, Mayor, City of Regina: It is a pleasure for me to be here on behalf of my colleagues on city council and members of the Regina Crime Prevention Commission. It is a very serious topic we are discussing today and we are thankful for this opportunity to share our views, our initiatives and our challenges with you. I would personally thank each of you for taking the time to be here, to listen and to learn and, ultimately, to address the issue by examining the Canadian government's current laws and policies.
As Mayor and as the Chair of the city's Crime Prevention Commission, I have come to learn just how significant the issue of drug addictions in any community is. The Regina Crime Prevention Commission was established in 1995. A board was appointed by city council. There are 12 members on the commission which is chaired by the mayor. It includes the chief of the Regina Police Service and 10 members of the community who bring knowledge and experience from many different perspectives. The role of the commission is to coordinate and articulate a comprehensive strategy for crime prevention in our city.
The Regina Crime Prevention Commission has identified addictions as one of our five priorities for the next year and, because of the complexity of this issue, I believe this work will continue well into the future. Drug addiction is a major and complex issue that impacts many areas: health, crime, youth, family, social, welfare, and the list goes on. It is an issue that affects almost everyone in some way, directly or indirectly. That is why the Regina Crime Prevention Commission and its community partners have been studying this issue in depth. We are working to develop a drug strategy that addresses the issues, a strategy that responds to all citizens and, in particular, the needs of our Aboriginal community.
Before going into detail, I would say that the city, as a corporation, is certainly not an expert in this area. We are the facilitators. We bring people, agencies and organizations together to address the issue as a community. There are already effective programs in place in our city that deal with the issue of drug addiction. Today you will have the opportunity to speak to those who work directly in this field. They are the experts. They are the champions who are dedicated to working towards solutions and constructing change.
Earlier this year, the Regina Health District, the Regina Crime Prevention Commission and the Regina Intersectoral Committee, with assistance from other organizations, hosted the Regional Forum on Alcohol and Other Drug Addictions. Over 75 people who are involved in various aspects of preventing, reducing or treating addictions were in attendance. The forum gave us the opportunity to look at the extent of the problem in Regina, to examine the current resources in place to address the problem, and to consider how we could tackle this problem by working together as a community and coordinating our efforts.
At the forum, participants completed a questionnaire designed to determine the level of interest in developing and implementing a coordinated drug strategy here in Regina. Of those participants who completed the survey, 98 per cent indicated support for developing a drug strategy based upon a four-pillar approach. This approach includes prevention, treatment, enforcement and harm reduction based on drug strategies which have proven successful in Canada, the United States and Europe. In addition, 80 per cent of those asked, indicated that they would be prepared to review literature on addictions and drug strategies and discuss its relevance for Regina. The majority of respondents were prepared to be part of a speakers' bureau.
It is evident, it is obvious, that the will and the desire to move ahead is there. The next step is to develop a local drug strategy, understanding that the key to making it work is cooperation, coordinated efforts, local participation and a commitment from our stakeholders to create a safer and healthier community for everyone.
In order to accomplish this, we must secure the support and cooperation of stakeholders in developing a strategy, foster widespread input from the community, engage the community in dialogue about the harmful use of substances and effective problem solving, and encourage a commitment for action as part of strategy development.
As of the end of March, the following actions have been taken to develop a drug strategy. Key stakeholders, including the Regina Health District, the City of Regina, the Regina Crime Prevention Commission, the Regina Police Service, Social Services and the Regina Intersectoral Committee, are concerned about the extent of the harmful use of substances in Regina and have agreed to participate in a coordinated response.
Leadership and other organizational structures related to developing a coordinated response to the harmful use of substances has been addressed by the appointment of a committee. The key stakeholders have identified over 80 key community partners. Key community partners include representatives of organizations mandated to deliver addictions services, community-based organizations delivering programs regarding the use and abuse of substances or referring individuals with addictions, and senior managers of federal and provincial governments who have a job-related interest in addiction issues.
The key community partners include representatives from the four pillars associated with addictions, as I mentioned earlier, prevention, treatment, enforcement and harm reduction, and we have met with the community.
It is expected that the drug strategy project will deliver a framework for action, developed and supported by the community, which will effectively deal with the harmful use of substances in Regina and the surrounding area. It is estimated that this project will be completed early in 2003.
Some of the funding for the initiative will come from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, specifically, the municipal drug strategy. Under the FCM strategy, Regina was one of nine municipalities that has been awarded a grant of $13,500 to develop and implement a local drug strategy. You may hear about these grants from other communities you visit, as they have also been awarded the FCM grants.
The city also provides ongoing financial support to numerous organizations that provide programs and services to people affected directly or indirectly by addictions. We do that by offering funding through the Social Development Grants Board, the Saskatchewan Lotteries Community Grant Program and the Regina Civic Arts Fund. Groups that have received grants include AMAN House, Circle Project, the South Saskatchewan Harm Reduction Initiative, the Street Workers Advocacy Project, Kids Help Phone, Common Weal, Student Karma Independent Troupe SKIT, and Mobile Crisis Services. Each of these organizations and others we support work at different levels to tackle the addictions issue.
As we all know, this problem is not exclusive to our city. In many communities all across Canada drug abuse is a major concern, the root cause of numerous social issues. The key in dealing with this issue is coming together as a community. We must come together to be as effective and efficient as possible.
I commend the Regina Health District and the Regina Crime Prevention Commission, Regina Intersectoral Committee and all of the other organizations in our city that are committed to helping us come together on this major issue. Through this process we know that the community itself will help us come up with some answers. The process of developing a drug strategy is only step one.
We hope that the federal government will support the recommendations and the strategies developed by the communities by listening and by following though by providing the resources identified as important by the community.
Senator Wiebe: Local, municipal, provincial and federal governments are investing a tremendous amount of money in drug awareness. We also spend a lot of money in trying to police the use of drugs. I am lost for a solution. My question is: Do you know of anything that we are not doing that we should be doing?
We hear talk today that possibly some drugs should be legalized. I notice in the report that the greatest problem drug in Saskatchewan is alcohol, and alcohol is a drug that we have made legal. If we did that with some of the other drugs would we have the same problems? We are just like everyone else grasping for answers.
Mr. Fiacco: As a municipality, we do not have a stated policy respecting the legalization of any type of drug. We have asked the Regina Crime Prevention Commission to consider that and to get back to us on that eventually.
Speaking personally on this issue, I am not sure that making some drugs legal is the right thing to do. I am thinking of the discussion paper on cannabis. I can only speak to the situation in Regina and part of Saskatchewan. For us, it is more of an issue of looking at the symptoms, that is, assessing why alcohol abuse and addictions happen.
It is a vicious cycle. Abuse is passed on from generation to generation in a very small portion of our community. Until we are able to break that cycle, which ends in substance abuse, we will be in trouble. That is where the money and research should be concentrated. Some families are living in absolutely horrible conditions. They have poor housing and they do not have the necessary life skills to succeed. Consequently, they turn to alcohol or drugs. There is more to this issue than enforcement.
A couple of weeks ago in Regina there was a drug bust involving major suppliers. The drugs in question were Ritalin and Talwin. That may alleviate with some of our problems. We will see a decrease in break and enters as a result of that drug bust because many users do not have money to buy drugs, consequently, the drug houses were taking stolen property as trade-offs.
As I said, I am not an expert, but I question whether we should legalizing these drugs? I am not sure that is the right way to go. I think we need to focus on why people turn to alcohol and drugs.
Senator Wiebe: It is certainly good to hear about drug seizures, but they create shortages and, as a result, the price goes up. Then we have more break-ins and so on. Has anyone in Regina or in this province ever done a study to determine exactly how much this costs society, including the resources that are devoted to enforcement by the police, and the losses that take place as a result of break-ins?
Mr. Fiacco: Chief Cal Johnston will be here later today, and he will certainly have that information.
Senator Kenny: I am looking at the figures that were provided to us by the Regina Police Service and the figures for reported violations for possession of cannabis: In 1995, 60 people; in 1996,106 people; in 1997, 87 people; in 1998, 93 people; in 1999, 113 people. The figures for possession for the purpose of trafficking are about one-third of that, and those for trafficking are about two-thirds of that. Importation is very small, almost nil, as is cultivation. Is this a priority in your city? Do you spend any time focusing on this issue?
Mr. Fiacco: The Regina Crime Prevention Commission focuses on that issue. Is it something that the council focuses on? When we review our crime stats we talk about those issues and we receive reports from not only the Board of Police Commissioners but also from the Regina Crime Prevention Commission. There have been major drug busts in the city involving people who were growing marijuana plants. However, I am not sure that those numbers reflect the actual number of charges. Chief Cal Johnston is the best person to ask for details about that.
Senator Kenny: As the individual responsible for local administration here, how does drug abuse come to your attention? Do you notice it because there are more cases of break-ins or petty theft? How does it become an issue? Do constituents tell you that they cannot use a particular park because a bunch of people are using marijuana there and it is a bad influence on their kids? How does this come across your bow as the mayor of the city?
Mr. Fiacco: There are certain parts of the city where we know that that activity is taking place. Those who live in those areas do call me on two fronts, not only as the mayor but also as the Chair of the Board of Police Commissioners. That information, of course, is given to our chief and it is his responsibility to deal with it.
We want our city cleaned up. Ideally, we would, first, be able to ensure that the providers of these illegal drugs would be taken care of. As I said earlier, it gets back to the question of why the users are using drugs.
In Regina I think we have a different drug problem from that found in Vancouver where there are many injection users. That is not to say that does not occur in our city. It does happen here, but it is not widespread. It occurs more frequently in a certain, isolated part of the city.
We are trying to clean that up. It is a major concern. I hope that the experts who attend the drug strategy meetings next year will come to us with recommendations. Then we can discuss possible solutions with the federal government. We must ensure that all communities, not just Regina, have a better understanding of the extent of the problem.
There have been some major marijuana busts in our city, but the abuse of Ritalin and Talwin is our biggest problem.
Senator Kenny: How does it rate compared to alcohol abuse? I am trying to put myself in your shoes and I am asking: In the course of a day or in the course of a week, how many calls do you get about people abusing alcohol; how many do you get about people abusing marijuana; and how many calls do you get complaining about garbage pickup or potholes in the roads? On your scale of issues can you give me some flavour of how important drug abuse is?
Mr. Fiacco: Not many people call the office. Most calls are directed to Social Services. We do get some calls, but I believe the general public understands that this not to be a municipality's responsibility and that we are limited as to what we can do, other than report the matter to the police. It is a social service issue, and that is a result of the downloading that has been taking place over a number of years. I may get four calls a month about a disturbance that is alcohol related.
Senator Kenny: In terms of your role on the Board of Police Commissioners, is it the policy here to focus on possession of cannabis? Is that something that is worth dispatching a police car for, or having a police officer spend time on?
Mr. Fiacco: I think the chief will give you more details on that. The reality is that possession of marijuana is illegal.
Senator Kenny: I understand that.
Mr. Fiacco: If there is a report or complaint from someone that that is taking place, then we have to dispatch a car.
Senator Kenny: Where would that fit on the scale of priorities for police calls?
Mr. Fiacco: It depends on how busy that particular evening may be and the resources that are available. The chief of police will be able to give you details on that.
The Chairman: I note that you have access to our discussion paper. I will try to merge your testimony with some of our findings to see how our findings fit into your reality, into your environment.
I want to be clear on your definition of certain words. You use the words ``addiction'' and ``abuse.'' The word ``abuse'' was used in the forum that you organized last year. Just to make sure that we do understand each other properly, we have decided in the discussion paper to define the word ``abuse'' so that we all understand the real meaning of that word. As you see on page 2, in our basic terminology lexicon, ``abuse'' is a vague term. We have, therefore, decided to distinguish between use, risk behaviour, addictive behaviour and abuse.
Am I right in my deduction that your concern in terms of a drug problem is focused on abuse and addiction?
Mr. Fiacco: That is correct.
The Chairman: Your focus is on abuse and addiction rather than on use. We all recognize that use is illegal. Your concern is related to abuse and addiction, which is what we call in our documentation ``risk behaviour leading to abuse.''
Mr. Fiacco: That is right.
The Chairman: We have come to the conclusion that one out of 10 Canadians used marijuana last year, the year prior to the survey. That is 10 per cent of the population. In the youth population, age 14 to 24, between three and five out of 10 used marijuana in the year before the survey.
Do you have access to local numbers that would or would not confirm the national numbers?
Mr. Fiacco: No, we do not have those numbers now, but that is the type of information that, over the next year, through our drug strategy meetings, we will have.
The Chairman: Is that to ensure that you are working with real numbers?
Mr. Fiacco: Yes.
The Chairman: We found that it was not very easy to come up with those numbers. In the documentation to which we have access, there are some numbers related to drug use in Grades 6 to 12 in school. I will discuss that more thoroughly with the health department authorities.
Let me describe a certain scenario and then, perhaps, you can tell me if you agree or disagree with it. The population is concerned. The FMC talks about implementing a local strategy and you decide to take on that challenge. However, at the outset you find that there are no solid or valid surveys or longitudinal evaluations of the attitude of the youth population towards consumption. Therefore, your basic need, before defining any good strategy, is to understand if it is accurate that roughly 20,000 people living in the Regina community are using marijuana at least once a year. Then you must determine the proportion of those users who are at risk, those at the end of the scale — the real concern of your challenge — who are addicted to the substance.
Am I describing the scenario that you are experiencing?
Mr. Fiacco: Yes. However, I must tell you that our discussions at the Crime Prevention Commission level focuses more on injection drugs as opposed to cannabis.
The Chairman: The first mandate of our committee was to look into all drugs. That was a three-year mandate. When we came back after the election we had discussions amongst ourselves and agreed to shorten the time of the study to 18 months and to focus on cannabis, because it was a highly popular substance, knowing that we would gather information on the other drugs, but that would be information we would use at another time.
Of course, we tend to see marijuana as causing less of a problem as compared to injection drugs, with all of the consequences resulting from the use of those. They are much more troubling. Nevertheless, cannabis is still an illegal substance and that is why we are asking certain questions. Please do not be shy. We are hearing answers similar to yours from other mayors. Mayor Owen in Vancouver told us roughly the same thing. I am sure you are familiar with the challenge Mayor Owen faces.
Mr. Fiacco: We have had many discussions about it.
The Chairman: Knowing your population is key to your strategy. Is it part of your thinking, as a mayor or as a member of various forums and committees, to give a mandate to an independent body to monitor the situation, or do you want to keep that to yourself, or give it to someone similar to the auditor general who would be totally independent and would give you the real picture?
Mr. Fiacco: We hope to have a real picture from the studies that are currently taking place, and by bringing the groups together. I believe that information will be ready for us within the next year. At that point, we will probably look at council making a decision as to where we want to go from there, whether it be by way of an independent body or part of the Crime Prevention Commission.
At this point there is no direction. We are waiting for the civic information and then we will take some direction.
The Chairman: Senator Wiebe alluded to the cost question and your answer was centred on the cost of policing the prohibition. Your drug strategy will be built on four pillars and all those four pillars will cost money. Do you have in mind numbers or the proportion of cost, understanding that this involves not only a municipal jurisdiction but also a global jurisdiction?
Mr. Fiacco: The whole idea of bringing the different service providers together is to have a clear understanding of how many users we have in this community and the extent of the problem. We want to know whether it is isolated to one part of the city or spread throughout. Once we have all that information, I am sure that there will be a cost breakdown of what we believe will have to be dedicated to each of the different parts of the four pillars. I do not have that information now.
The Chairman: Let us talk for a moment about the relationship between the other jurisdictions that have a say in your community, that is, the federal jurisdiction and the provincial jurisdiction. How do they relate to each other? Do you see a problem? Do you think the way it is already shaped is fine, or would you like to see changes?
Mr. Fiacco: The service providers are the people who can better answer that question. Once these studies are completed, all the bodies will come together to discuss the complexity of the problems.
The Chairman: Just by saying that you have probably just answered my question.
Mr. Fiacco: When municipalities have partnered with both the provincial and federal governments there are often success stories. In addressing this particular issue, it is really important that all three levels of government work together.
The Chairman: That is very important, fundamental testimony you are giving.
What type of prevention approach do you take with youth and school kids?
Mr. Fiacco: It is an education process. Within the schools, police resource officers are available. Can more be done? Absolutely. Again, it comes down to what you alluded to earlier, that is, dollars and cents and how much can be dedicated to this. To me, prevention is about education and the sooner we get into the schools, the sooner we can start the process. I have three young children. You do your best to ensure that they understand the consequences of their actions. Some might say that the consequence is that you will be charged. That is not a good thing.
The Chairman: Some might look upon that as a challenge.
Mr. Fiacco: The major consequence is the after-effects, that is, the possibility of addiction. We need to focus more on the consequences of what could happen, as opposed to the user being charged.
The Chairman: The discussion paper we tabled two weeks ago was about trying to find that information. Of course, some findings are not pleasant, but they are what we found from reading material and listening to many experts.
Do you think the level of information in the general population is satisfactory in your area? When you read that discussion paper, were you of the opinion that the population already knew what was in that document, or should know that?
Mr. Fiacco: When it comes to these types of discussions, those who are directly affected are the people who are concerned. The majority believe that this does not apply to them. They take the attitude, ``not in my house.'' In this particular community most people affected by this are located in one part of the city. Only a small number across the city are affected by it. Consequently, we have a neighbourhood that is well-aware of the situation, but the balance of the city is totally unaware. It is an uncomfortable topic for many people.
The Chairman: When I use the word ``problem'' I am referring to abuse and addiction.
You are probably anxious to know the attitude of the general population of Regina towards the use and consumption of illegal substances. You are probably anxious to have numbers to see if they confirm the national numbers. You want to know if it is true that roughly 20,000 people in your community are using an illegal substance at least once a year.
We will have some questions for your other partners in the city.
Senator Wiebe: My question may be better addressed to the last witness we will have this morning.
Mayor Fiacco, you talk about certain parts of the city where the problem is more severe than others. We have a tendency to think that those who do not have a job, those who are poor, or those who lack education are the ones who are more prone to this kind of use.
Have there been, to your knowledge, any studies done that go even deeper than that, studies to ascertain why the is individual poor, and why the individual is in this particular position? That may, in itself, be an area where we should be directing our resources.
Mr. Fiacco: That is the point I was trying to make earlier. When we talk about prevention I think some of the socio- economic conditions in which some families are living leads to the abuse of drugs and alcohol. A vicious cycle needs to be broken in parts of this community, and we are attempting to do that. It is easier for those who are providing the illegal substances to prey on individuals who do not have a job or who have no sense of self-worth.
We are also aware that there are those who come from very affluent families who decide, as a lifestyle, that getting high is what they want to do.
Senator Wiebe: Will there be some studies on that?
Mr. Fiacco: Part of the reason for bringing all of the service providers together is to collect concrete information, which is what we lack right now. I believe that those who deal with this on a daily basis will have that information, so we want them to share that information with us. The intent of the drug strategy is to try to deal knowledgeably with whatever information we get.
The Chairman: From reading the briefing notes, I see that you surprised some people when you stated that you were personally supportive of establishing safe injection rooms in the city. Would you talk to us a little bit more about that?
Mr. Fiacco: Having had the opportunity to speak to a number of individuals who are in that program today, they tell me that it has changed their lives. It has taken them from the gutter to being contributors to society. If that is a gradual step to getting them off the path to destruction, death, then I think it is working. We need to study that further and assess if it is, indeed, the thing to do. It is certainly a step in the recovery process. The people in the program have realized that they have a major problem and they want to correct it, and this is a way of correcting it.
The Chairman: Are you familiar with some of the programs established in other countries or jurisdictions?
Mr. Fiacco: I have heard of some, but I am not familiar with the details. When I was being briefed on the programs here in the city, they alluded to the European model, yes.
The Chairman: Thank you. I have no other questions. If our researchers have questions, which they always do, I will write to you later this week.
Mr. Fiacco: Thank you very much for being here. This is a great education opportunity for all of us in the city. I have no doubt that there will be some positive results from your study.
The Chairman: We hope the discussion paper will be of some assistance to you.
Mr. Fiacco: We will pleased to provide any further information we gather.
The Chairman: Our next witness is the chief of the Regina Police Service, Mr. Cal Johnston.
Mr. Cal Johnston, Chief of Police, Regina Police Service: Good morning, and thank you for this opportunity to participate in your exploration of this important issue.
I currently serve as President of the Saskatchewan Association of Chiefs of Police, SACP, which, in turn, is affiliated with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police CACP. Therefore, some of my comments this morning will be a reiteration of elements of the CACP presentation to your committee on March 11, 2002. The CACP maintains a standing committee focused on the issue of drug abuse. This committee has broad membership of which the police are only a part.
I will also be referencing the Joint Statement on Illegal Drugs issued in March, 2002 by the Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. It is highly significant that these two national-in-scope police associations, representing in combination virtually every police officer in Canada, worked together to assemble a thoughtful, coherent position on the illegal drug issue.
I will also endeavour to provide you with insight into local circumstances and comment on other drugs of abuse besides cannabis.
For the most part, I have structured my remarks around the eight questions posed in your committee's discussion paper. I will begin by stating that, in some areas, the discussion paper reads presumptive. I am uncertain as to whether this indicates a preliminary expression of opinion by your committee, or whether this was purposefully done to promote debate.
Before addressing the questions, however, I would like to provide you with a brief summary of recent work done in Southern Saskatchewan by the Regina Integrated Drug Unit, comprising members from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, RCMP, and the Regina Police Service. Over the past 18 months the Regina Integrated Drug Unit has been involved in nine projects that involved both undercover operators and six agents.
The unit assisted RCMP F Division highway patrol with several large cocaine, marijuana and cash seizures on the highway, including a one-tonne hashish seizure. An investigation, started in Regina, resulted in the arrests of three people from Saskatchewan with 17 kilograms of hashish being imported into Saskatchewan via Winnipeg and Estevan.
In addition to the above, the street team worked on lower-level dealers in Regina, generating in excess of 240 investigative files. The unit took down 26 marijuana grow operations, ranging from small dirt grows to nine large commercial hydroponic operations; 2,300 plants were seized with a potential street value of $1,000 per plant, or $2.3 million. The number of grow operations is steadily increasing and a second business has opened in Regina selling hydroponic equipment used mainly for the cultivation of marijuana.
An investigation resulting from a highway seizure of 2 kilograms of cocaine revealed that the cocaine was obtained from a USA source and it was traded for 28 pounds of Canadian marijuana. The latest information is that this type of trade for Canadian marijuana is ongoing and increasing.
A year-long project into the Talwin-Ritalin trade in Regina, and involving Winnipeg, is currently being concluded. The investigation will result in the arrest of approximately 35 people and 200 Controlled Drug and Substance Act, CDSA, charges will be laid.
A project dealing with cocaine, marijuana and ecstasy dealers located in Moose Jaw and Regina concluded in January of this year and resulted in the laying of 98 CDSA charges.
Not including the charges stemming from the above-mentioned Talwin-Ritalin and Regina-Moose Jaw cocaine, marijuana and ecstasy projects, the unit has laid the following CDSA charges: marijuana, including possession for the purpose of trafficking, trafficking and production, 71; cocaine, including possession for the purpose of trafficking and trafficking, 67; Talwin-Ritalin and morphine, 38; heroin, 1; and importing, 2.
Each locality has, to a degree, its own unique problems associated with substance abuse. In Vancouver, for example, heroin use remains a serious problem.
In Regina, perhaps our most serious substance abuse issue, next to alcohol abuse, is the intravenous injection of two prescription drugs together, Talwin and Ritalin. This combination, sometimes referred to as ``poor man's heroin'' or ``Ts&Rs,'' is highly addictive and has effects similar to that of heroin and morphine. A ``set'' comprising one tablet of Talwin, a strong pain killer, and one tablet of Ritalin, a nervous system stimulant, sells for $25. Often users will share a set, as well as the needle used to inject.
Recently the Regina Fire Department responded to a house fire in an inner city neighbourhood. Inside they found discarded throughout 500 used needles. The dwelling is located in a neighbourhood having, on a percentage basis, the largest number of children and youth in our city. It is not the only house of its kind in Regina.
It remains uncertain whether methadone provides an effective medical treatment to reduce withdrawal symptoms and assist with addiction management for Talwin-Ritalin users.
The usage of this drug combination is predominantly among marginalized and impoverished residents of our inner city neighbourhoods, often of Aboriginal heritage. Intravenous drug use within this sector of our community can and has been documented to start as early as 10 years of age. It is not uncommon to find 13-year-old girls injecting Ts&Rs and working in the street sex trade to support their addictions. In many cases, the addiction is multi-generational within families and it is invariably tied to some form of criminal conduct to acquire the necessary funds to support the addiction.
Ritalin is obtained both locally and from other provinces through theft, prescription fraud, double doctoring and illicit drug diversion. Talwin is obtain from other provinces, most often Quebec, through the same means as Ritalin.
I will move on now to the questions posed in your discussion paper. You ask: Do you agree with the research conclusions we have received? What are your reasons and sources of information?
I would respond by saying that the question of cannabis being a so-called gateway drug is complex and the Canadian data weak. It has been stated that data from population surveys show that, out of 100 cannabis users in adolescence, about 10 will become regular users and five will move to using other drugs. This suggests that only 5 per cent of cannabis users will move on to become users of other drugs. It does not, however, necessarily follow that this represents a small number of people. As part of this analysis there should be the recognition that current attitudes increasingly casting cannabis as a soft drug, as well as other factors, have led to a substantial increase in its use by young people.
Cannabis use is on the rise and approaching levels not seen since the 1970s. We make the point that our current prevention efforts are insufficient to counter the factors driving the escalation in use seen in the late 1980s. A student survey conducted in Ontario by the Addiction Research Foundation, now known as the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, in 1995 found that 23 per cent of students reported use in the past year, up from 13 per cent in 1993. The centre did a more recent study in 1999 and found the percentage was up to 29 per cent.
Rates of use can vary in different parts of the country. For example, reported rates of cannabis use are particularly high in street youth, ranging from 66 per cent in Halifax to 92 per cent in Toronto.
This information was part of the CACP presentation made on March 11, 2002.
Following the logic of this study, as the number of first-time cannabis users increases the number of users who move on to use other drugs will increase as well.
Is cannabis a gateway to further drug use? Perhaps. If so, to what degree? We do not have a definitive answer to that question. If even a small percentage of cannabis users move on to use other drugs, what is the plan to deal with the attendant harm that accrues to and from what could be a large number of people in our community afflicted with addictions to these other drugs? We currently do not have a national drug strategy, although the federal government has committed to its development.
Would adopting more liberal policies in respect of cannabis lead to a reduction in the number of users and concomitantly the number of users moving on to other drugs? From materials presented in the discussion paper, it would not appear so.
It is important to note that the 1999 Ontario Student Drug Use Survey also showed increases in the use of ecstasy, from 2.9 per cent in 1997 to 7.3 per cent in 1999. There were increases in the use of cocaine, from 2.7 per cent in 1997 to 6.4 per cent in 1999. There was an increase in methamphetamine use, from 2.1 per cent in 1997 to 7.2 per cent in 1999. Treatment counsellors reported increasing trends among youthful clients of use of cocaine and heroin.
The Addiction Foundation of Manitoba released the results of a study known as the Manitoba Student Survey. That study indicated 81 per cent drank alcohol and 40 per cent reported using drugs in the past year. Of those students reporting their use of drugs, 58 per cent indicated that they do so in cars, and 48 per cent reported using drugs during regular school hours.
You also state in your discussion paper that the research evidence you have received to date does not appear to support criminalization and penalization of cannabis, and you ask: Do you share this view?
In Canada it is currently a criminal offence to possess cannabis. In practice, simple possession rarely leads to incarceration. Is this what is meant by penalization? Simple possession is a summary conviction offence.
The CACP and CPA in their joint statement point out that alternative justice measures are required to efficiently and effectively address summary conviction offences. The CACP and the CPA advocate the adoption of alternative justice measures that instil meaningful, appropriate and graduated consequences, focusing on preventing and deterring drug use amongst all Canadians.
Boundaries are part of social living. The maintenance of boundaries through enforcement or other methods will be an essential component of any effective strategy seeking to deal with substance use.
Today in Canada alcohol and tobacco, both psychoactive substances, are legally available. The use of these substances has had, and continues to have, serious debilitating effects on the Canadian public. Our government finds itself in the difficult position of having, for years, tacitly endorsed the use of these products and now having to invest heavily in prescribing limits for their use and mitigating against their negative effects.
Limitations, many directed specifically at youth, are expressed and enforced through different regulations and laws. Our struggle as a society with the negative effects of these legal substances is far from over and is costing tremendous sums, and those not just financial.
A relevant question, then, is: How many people have chosen not to use cannabis because of its illegal status? How much has the illegal status of cannabis contained its use? Would this change if it were decriminalized?
The discussion paper suggests that prohibitionist public policies have little impact on use levels and patterns. Yet, with the exception of the U.S.A. in the countries cited, those with liberal policies have a higher prevalence of use.
It is suggested that levels and patterns of use vary according to other factors. What are these factors? What has been done in Canada to lower the prevalence of use, if these factors have been identified?
Decriminalization would deal with the matter of criminal records; would it deal with anything else? How would the government establish meaningful boundaries if not through enforcement? Is the government prepared to endorse, tacitly or otherwise, further use of psychoactive substances? If not, does an equivocal position help rectify any of the current issues surrounding healthy lifestyles, over-representation of users in marginalized and impoverished segments of society, and collateral risk behaviour, for example, impaired driving?
The discussion paper makes the point that overall traffic and importation offences have diminished during the 1990s. Has the analysis behind this statement taken into account the significant reduction in police resources which occurred throughout this same decade and the effect this had on the capacity of police to investigate and document this activity?
Drug offence data is almost entirely a product of police activity. If the police are unable or choose not to direct resources in this area, the number of offences reported will diminish. This is not the same thing as the number of offences diminishing.
In your discussion paper you state that studies appear to indicate that the current policy approach may cause more harm than good, and you ask: Do you agree? You also ask: Why?
I do not agree. There is nothing in the discussion paper that supports the assertion implicit in this question. It is at times presented in a presumptive manner, but there is no analysis in the discussion paper which establishes that the current policy approach causes more harm than good. This could be viewed as an opinion, equivocated by the phrases ``appear to indicate'' and ``may cause.'' What this really suggests is that, in Canada, we truly do not know whether our public policy is working in our best interests.
It is worthwhile to note in the findings of a 2000 study undertaken with support from the Correctional Service of Canada, the Department of the Solicitor General, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Health Canada, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Crime Prevention Centre, Justice Canada, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the United Nations International Drug Control Programme that:
A great proportion of inmates in both federal and provincial prisons reported using illicit drugs while free. Slightly more than half of the federal inmates (53 per cent in the CSC study and 52 per cent in the FII study) reported the use of illicit drugs during the six months immediately prior to their last arrest. Many used frequently, with 30 per cent reporting the use of illicit drugs at least a few times a week. Cannabis was most widely used during the six months (43 per cent of the inmates in the CSC sample), while 28 per cent had used cocaine and 7 per cent had used heroin...
The report goes on to say:
Alcohol and drug users, particularly dependent users, reported higher volumes of crimes committed. In the more detailed interviews with federal inmates, information was obtained using a monthly calendar on all crimes committed during the 36 months prior to the last arrest. Several of the inmates reported committing thousands of crimes during that time. Most were of a relatively non-serious nature, such as drug possession and trafficking, shoplifting and minor thefts, as well as prostitution among the female prisoners. Federal inmates who reported having used neither drugs nor alcohol during a six-month period in freedom reported an average of 1.7 crimes a week, while those who used one or more substances without being dependent on any had committed 3.3 crimes a week. The inmates who were dependent on drugs and/or alcohol had committed the most crimes — averaging about 7.1 crimes in a one-week period...
Alcohol intoxication dominated in the various violent crimes committed by the federal inmates. Among assault offenders 39 per cent reported being under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime, 9 per cent illicit drugs, and 24 per cent both drugs and alcohol. The corresponding proportions for homicides were 34 per cent only alcohol, 7 per cent only illicit drugs, and 21 per cent both alcohol and illicit drugs. Among those convicted of attempted murder, 30 per cent reported alcohol intoxication, 9 per cent drug intoxication and 24 per cent intoxication from both alcohol and drugs at the time of the crime. Thefts (32 per cent), robberies (25 per cent) and breaking and entering (24 per cent) were crimes in which drug intoxication predominated, but alcohol intoxication was also relatively high (between 16 per cent and 22 per cent of these crimes), as was the combined intoxication from illicit drugs and alcohol (between 13 per cent and 19 per cent for these crimes).
Where illicit drugs were involved, cocaine and cannabis [emphasis added] were the drugs most frequently mentioned by male inmates. Twelve per cent of federal inmates and 16 per cent of provincial inmates reported being intoxicated by cocaine when they had committed their most serious offence, while 7 per cent of federal inmates and 21 per cent of provincial inmates reported they had been intoxicated with cannabis [emphasis added].
This is from a study called, ``Proportions of Crimes Associated with Alcohol and Other Drugs in Canada.''
In your discussion paper you also state: It is better for youth not to use cannabis or to smoke tobacco, yet we also know that youth have and will do so if only because of the rebellion and soul searching of adolescence. You ask: Do you think that penal prohibition is the right way to define what is allowed and what is not for youth?
In response, I would say that it bears repeating that incarceration is rarely a consequence of summary conviction for simple possession of cannabis. The prohibition is in our current law, but the phrase ``penal prohibition'' suggests a response more extreme than our current reality. I would ask you to refer to our response to your second question.
There may be other ways in which our society can establish boundaries of usage, but the discussion paper does not set them out. It would be an error to lift current restrictions without a clear plan setting out how this country will reduce the use of cannabis by young people. Alternatively, is it our thinking that we can resolve this issue after a change to current policy? That does not seem to be a wise course of action, nor does it provide the Canadian public with the opportunity to view and debate alternatives, measured against the current policy and practice.
You also ask: Should public policies aim to prevent use or minimize the negative consequences of use?
I would respond to that by saying that they should do both. These are not mutually exclusive objectives. To position the argument in this fashion is to limit unnecessarily the range of responses. The CACP identifies four key target areas in which to focus efforts: Prevention, enforcement, rehabilitation and research. The CACP believes that:
The legislation currently in place has both a preventive and a deterrent effect. Due, however, to the lack of strategies, resources and programs, the present prevention phase is not adequately addressing the escalating number of young people starting or continuing the use of illicit drugs. The existing Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is necessary in its current form to support prevention and deterrence as experienced with laws used to support behaviour changes for Impaired Driving/Seat Belt use and Infant Car Seats.
The charges laid for possession of cannabis average less than one for each police officer in Canada on an annual basis. A significant number are laid, incidental to an arrest on another charge under the Criminal Code.
The legislation must convey the right message to the public, which is that there is no tolerance of illicit drugs, including cannabis. We need to work on the problems that arise from perceptions about the likelihood of offenders getting caught or the lack of consequences when they are. We also need to put our priority on the potential of prevention, because stopping illicit drug use before it starts is the best point in the continuum at which to intervene.
We need to improve our efforts to warn of the harm caused by using illicit drugs, including cannabis. It is important to advise of the harm to individuals, families, communities and society at large.
We need to develop and communicate more powerful messages with the kind of impact seen in the drinking and driving and anti-smoking campaigns, and explore the use of effective vehicles of communication that reach our target audiences. We need to implement the lessons learned from recent research conducted by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, advising our educators about what works and what does not when it comes to the design and delivery of effective drug education. We need to ensure that we are not wasting valuable resources on programs that are ineffective.
We need to explore ways to encourage people abusing illicit drugs to get treatment without relying on police enforcement to apprehend and stream abusers into programs of alternative measures. These programs need to be properly resourced and treatment needs to be timely.
We need to implement more programs such as the drug court in Toronto to divert offenders who are suitable candidates for treatment and other forms of rehabilitation. We need to achieve better outcomes in the areas of adequately funded diversion programs and post-treatment integration and support.
We need to enhance treatment programs for incarcerated offenders, complemented by a strong community reintegration strategy. This is necessary to prevent offenders from returning to a life of crime, forcing the criminal justice system to repeat the cycle. Further studies need to be conducted in areas not yet sufficiently explored to identify best practices for diversion programs.
We need to find ways to offer training to people in enforcement and rehabilitation when new techniques, such as the drug recognition expertise, are identified. These are just some areas where we can be even more effective.
All of these suggestions were part of the CACP presentation on March 11, 2002.
Your discussion paper also states that studies indicate that more liberal policy approaches have little effect on actually increasing or decreasing use patterns of cannabis, and you ask: Do you agree? Why?
The discussion paper does not contain any explicit analysis which supports the assertion contained in the question above. Do we know to what extent Canada's current prohibitionist policy has had an impact, either positive or negative, on the use of cannabis?
The discussion paper does state: ``...that the vast majority [emphasis added] of cannabis smokers never progress to other drugs.'' This obscures the question of what actual number of Canadians, having used cannabis, do go on to use other drugs. The paper goes on to say that:
This finding remains constant despite policy differences between these countries. While it is true that most users of hard drugs have also used cannabis before these other drugs, they are also likely to have used alcohol and tobacco at a younger age [emphasis added].
Does this imply, then, that although there may be a correlation between cannabis, alcohol and tobacco use and those who go on to use other drugs, because the latter are currently legal, we should then do likewise with cannabis? To what purpose and effect?
The discussion paper posits that, ``...other factors, mainly psychosocial, would better explain progression to other drugs.'' This may be true, but an explicit delineation of these psychosocial factors would be helpful in understanding the validity of this assertion.
The CACP and the CPA in their Joint Statement on Illegal Drug Use point out that:
The December 2001 Auditor General's Report states: ``The government should ensure that Canada's drug strategy receives the profile and dedicated resources necessary to deal with the illicit drug problem in Canada.''
Will it be our approach to answer this call for sufficiency and capacity by reducing the scope of the problem? Are we in a legitimate tried-and-failed situation, or have we never properly developed and resourced a national drug strategy?
In your discussion paper you also ask: If Canada were to adopt a different, more liberal approach to cannabis, should it take into account the reaction of the USA? What would the reaction likely be?
The Government of Canada should do what Canadians have determined to be the best for Canadian people. Part of that thinking may be the impact on relations with the U.S.A. The degree to which that should influence the chosen direction of Canada should be factored against the weight of the implications. Canadians do not live in isolation from the rest of the world, but neither should external opinion predetermine our policies.
Of relevance, as reported above, there is a current trend being seen by local investigations that has Canadian- produced marijuana being traded for cocaine from the U.S.A.
You also ask: Whatever the conclusions of this committee or others, what, if anything, should be done to advance this kind of debate? What role should the Senate play?
This discourse should be informed and guided by, as mentioned in the introduction to the discussion paper, ``...what Canadians think ought to be done.'' The challenge will be to decipher the broad-based Canadian thinking from the multitude of voices on this issue.
The sharing of comprehensive information that explores all facets of this subject should assist Canadians in setting the right direction. Scientific and other studies that elucidate aspects of this matter will be helpful when viewed in the context of the entire issue, and the choices to be made around the circumscription of psychoactive substances.
Before closing, on behalf of the Regina Police Service and the Saskatchewan Association of Chiefs of Police, I would thank you for undertaking this process of inquiry and providing the opportunity for our thoughts on this important matter to be heard. We support your efforts in this regard.
I will close by restating the three recommendations made to this committee by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police on March 11, 2002:
Recommendation number 1: The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police recommends that the Government of Canada retain cannabis as an illegal substance. We do not support the legalization of any currently illicit drugs.
Recommendation number 2: The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police strongly urges and recommends that the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs demonstrates a partnership with the House of Commons Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs to set the foundation for a revitalized Canada drug strategy, CDS, bringing together federal, provincial, territorial and municipal levels of government as ``partners for a safer and healthier Canada,'' championed through federal leadership.
Recommendation number 3: The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police strongly recommends that a new Canada drug strategy receives the profile and dedicated resources necessary to deal with the illicit drug problem in Canada, reflecting a balance of reducing the demand for and supply of drugs based on the four pillars of prevention, enforcement, treatment/rehabilitation, and research.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Johnston, and thank you for reading our discussion paper. I am sure you also read all the source documentation which is posted on the committee's website. Many of the assertions made in the discussion paper relate to affirmations made to us by witnesses, or to documents that we have had access to and that are referenced in the sources page at the end of the discussion paper. Some of your comments in answering the various questions needed more information, and that information is in the sources.
Mr. Johnston: Just as a point of accuracy, sir, I did not read the source documents. My first awareness of this presentation was six days ago and, due to time constraints, I was unable to read the source documents. I read the discussion paper only.
The Chairman: Nevertheless, I thank you very much for reading that document. If more people do the same we will have an informed discussion and, of course, an informed report at the end of August.
Senator Wiebe: At the start of your presentation you mentioned a very impressive list of charges and arrests that have been undertaken. Has that, in itself, been any deterrent? What is the percentage of repeat offenders? Perhaps you could answer that to start with.
Mr. Johnston: Within the illicit drug trade, traffickers tend to follow a continuum of experience progression. They will often enter the trade working for someone else, and they learn the business. They may be arrested, charged and convicted at some point. They will emerge, usually from incarceration, and some will move on into a higher level of organization and carry on along that line.
Some of the more senior people involved in the illicit drug trade may have very little criminal history, very little criminal involvement and, to a degree, that obscurity from police helps them do their business. However, for the most part, people involved in trafficking do progress along the continuum and often have only one conviction for trafficking.
The consequence of police investigations and police work is probably nothing better than containment. It is not a case of eradication. We do not, by making arrests and conducting investigations, do away with the trade. What we do is contain the trade and keep the trade at a certain level.
At different times in this community and in other communities, we have experienced occasions when the police were unable to focus attention on drug trafficking. What often happens, especially in the inner city areas where the trafficking is heaviest, is that the trafficking and other criminal activity increases, and it tends to take on an upward trend and stay on that trend until the drug enforcement is reinstituted. At the point that it is reinstituted and is relatively effective, the crime rate will come down. It is never totally done away with, but it does come down to what perhaps, in the eyes of some, may be a more acceptable level, certainly a less harmful level.
That would be the case especially with the Ts&Rs. The year-long investigation involved a group of people who are the most active in that trade in Regina. They are not the only people. My information is that some of them who have been released on bail are currently back trafficking as we speak. That will be curtailed when they are incarcerated. The period of their incarceration will keep them from their business. Whether they choose to continue with it after they get out will be a different matter.
Senator Wiebe: How big a drain — although that is not the proper term to use — is that surveillance on the human and financial resources in your department?
Mr. Johnston: It is a large pull on resources, due to the nature of the work. The work is complex and, as you point out, it involves surveillance. It will sometimes involve wiretap surveillance as well. It requires a network of people who work in a clandestine fashion. It takes the police a long time to assemble credible evidence to reveal the network, make the connections, and then to correlate all of that for the court. It is a very resource-intensive aspect of policing, therefore, it is very expensive to the police department.
Senator Wiebe: What percentage of those who you charge are in it for the business and are non-users, and what percentage would be users?
Mr. Johnston: Are you referring to those charged with trafficking?
Senator Kenny: Yes.
Mr. Johnston: I cannot offer you a definitive number. I can offer you my experience as a drug investigator in Calgary and as a chief here in Regina.
On the harder drugs, on the Ts&Rs, heroin and, to a lesser degree, cocaine, the senior-level traffickers are probably not using because they know the harmful effects. With cannabis perhaps less so — there may be more using on a casual basis at the senior level. At the street level or the immediate transaction level, with the so-called softer drugs, probably many of those traffickers are using. At the street level with the harder drugs, heroin, morphine, Talwin-Ritalin — this is not a number you should rely strongly on — probably 50 per cent are using.
Senator Kenny: I would draw your attention to your statement at the bottom of page 5 and as it runs through page 6. You give a series of statistics. Perhaps I lost track, but I am not sure what point you are making on page 6 and concluding on page 7 with the statistics that you provided.
Mr. Johnston: The point there is that in question 3, whether our current approach — that is, cannabis is an illegal substance — causes more harm than good. The report, as it sets out, describes cannabis in the context of people incarcerated and offender behaviour. I offer it as reference in relation to that question.
Senator Kenny: It is there in reference to it but you probably could have come up with similar statistics if you had asked how many people drink coffee.
Mr. Johnston: I do not quite understand the question, sir.
Senator Kenny: It seems to me that you are listing percentages of people who were using illicit drugs at the time just prior to their conviction and incarceration.
Mr. Johnston: Right.
Senator Kenny: Those people probably also drank coffee.
Mr. Johnston: I understand. The question then becomes one of relevance, whether this issue of drug use before incarceration is important.
Senator Kenny: Exactly. Is it a cause that encourages people to commit these acts or is it something that people who commit these acts do because that is how they are inclined?
Mr. Johnston: That is a very good question, I would submit, and a question to which we may not know the answer at this time. While we debate and have discourse on the issue of legalization or decriminalization of cannabis, it is a question that remains unanswered during our discourse and our deliberations on that question. My suggestion is that we should try to answer that question beforehand.
The Chairman: Specifically on that question, we are quite aware of that study. We have also read the analysis of that study and questioned the writers. I am referring to the report of Mr. Brochu. You can read his testimony on our website and probably have access to a written report on the study that he undertook.
Alcohol, over all other substances, is the definite stimulant substance to commit crime. That was the testimony of Brochu. That is the outcome of all the studies that have analyzed that fundamental and very important report. When we questioned Mr. Brochu, we were trying to determine what was the trigger, what was the real reason, and alcohol was the substance mentioned, mixed with, of course, other substances, mainly cocaine as opposed to marijuana. These drugs have two different effects on the mindsets of the users.
Senator Kenny: Could you walk the committee through how you allocate the resources that you have available to you, and how marijuana use and, if necessary, the broader question of drug use, fits into it? When you sit down at the start of a year to plan your budget, how do you decide what money goes where and which money goes into dealing with drugs?
Mr. Johnston: I will speak specifically to our police service. We have an ongoing committee made up of operational managers who determine our commitment to our service delivery, how we will respond.
In our police service we have set out four key priorities for ourselves, the number one being emergency response, that is, responses to calls from the public: 911 calls, somebody injured, crime in progress, those kinds of things.
Our next priority below is non-emergent calls for service and investigations, the traditional expectation of the police that we will investigate criminal offences and do our best to bring evidence and enforce the law.
Our third priority is traffic safety, which involves traffic education, traffic enforcement and traffic engineering in partnership with others.
Our fourth priority is community building and crime prevention, where we work on the issue of making the community stronger so that it can resist the effects of crime.
Drug enforcement, because it does not involve necessarily any emergency call for service, would not be at the top. Drug enforcement would come in the next level down, non-emergent investigations. Drug enforcement would also involve the fourth level, that is, community resiliency and community building. In those two areas we determine how we will allocate people.
Cannabis use is, except as it is incidental to an encounter with a police officer, not a target of police investigation at this time, at least not in this community. We do not go out and seek people who are simply using cannabis. We do encounter them, however, as we go about our business in many other circumstances. We encounter them as one part of the drug investigation into trafficking, so we see the users there and some charges arise. We see them in domestic disputes. We see users in drinking establishment investigations and sometimes in traffic-infraction situations. Their presence is incidental to the investigation.
As far as targeting cannabis trafficking and cannabis cultivation, that is a mainstream of the drug investigations. The money from cannabis cultivation and cannabis trafficking does flow into other aspects of crime. In some communities it is most definitely formal, organized crime; in other communities it is groups of affiliated criminals who are involved for profit only. We direct our activity to those areas.
As I previously mentioned, and this is not specific to cannabis alone, when we do not do drug enforcement, when we do not focus activities in that area, we will see increases in crime in communities. We will see a higher prevalence of street prostitution, we will see a higher prevalence of theft, theft from vehicles and housebreaking. This is because the trade flourishes when the police are not present, and the criminal activity that goes to acquiring money to participate in the trade increases.
Senator Kenny: I do not follow your reasoning on that last point. When your people are active on drug enforcement issues you are taking drugs off the street; is that right?
Mr. Johnston: Some drugs off the street, yes.
Senator Kenny: Therefore the price of drugs goes up.
Mr. Johnston: No, that is not necessarily the case. When focusing on those kinds of investigations, you are taking the people who traffic in the drugs off the street. The actual amount of drug that you take off may or may not be significant. Sometimes in port communities where large seizures are made, it has a significant impact. What is more important is the impact that you have on the network of dealers and traffickers, as opposed to the quantity of the product you remove.
Senator Kenny: The dealers and traffickers are not the people who are committing the break-ins, it is the users who are committing the break-ins.
Mr. Johnston: That is true.
Senator Kenny: Connect the dots for me here, please.
Mr. Johnston: It is a matter of availability, accessibility. If $10 from my wallet is lying on the corner of that table, if someone is so inclined they can take it. If $10 is in my wallet in my back pocket and I am sitting on it, if they are so inclined, it is not available for them to take. It is the same kind of thing with drugs. If the networks and the people who traffic in drugs are not present or are not effective, the drugs are not there to be had.
Senator Kenny: Drugs are always there to be had. It just depends on the price, does it not?
Mr. Johnston: It is not just the price, no, it is prevalence as well. If you have to travel 50 miles to buy a bottle of beer, or you can walk a mile to buy a bottle of beer, there is a difference; there is an impact. It is the same in communities. If we have 10 drug houses operating within a small, inner city community as opposed to two, there is a difference to that community. It is not just about price.
Senator Kenny: When you have active operations in the city, do you see a decrease in, for example, break and enters?
Mr. Johnston: Generally, we do, yes.
Senator Kenny: How do you know that a drug operation is not working? You are also active with people who are of a mind to support themselves by breaking and entering?
Mr. Johnston: I guess I do not know that in any empirical sense. I can tell you that, based on my entire career, which tracks back many years in Calgary where one of my roles was as a crime analyst, one of the functions that I did was analyze neighbourhood crime, where it occurred and what happened. I cannot tell you the number of times that I drew pictures, maps of the neighbourhoods and a circle. I drew the circle of house break-ins and then I located the house of the trafficker. I did that time and time again.
When we did away with that availability, the number of offences that created that circle diminished and the circle was diminished as well. I saw that pattern repeated and repeated, and I see the same pattern being repeated in Regina. I cannot empirically give you the cause-and-effect relationship. I do know that people steal to acquire funds to purchase illicit drugs.
Senator Kenny: You said that the incidence of domestic disputes increased as a result of cannabis use.
Mr. Johnston: No, I did not say that.
Senator Kenny: I misheard you. What did you say?
Mr. Johnston: What I said is that we do not actively investigate or pursue, seek out people for simple possession of cannabis. We encounter cannabis as we do other investigations. One of the other investigations that I cited was domestic disturbances.
Senator Kenny: When an officer is attending at a domestic dispute, does he or she frequently find cannabis at the scene?
Mr. Johnston: I would not say frequently.
Senator Kenny: Occasionally?
Mr. Johnston: Yes, occasionally.
Senator Kenny: What are you telling us when you say that, is that there is a connection.
Mr. Johnston: I am not drawing a connection there. I am telling you that we do not actively investigate simple possession of cannabis. We do not assign police officers to go out and find people who are in simple possession of cannabis, for that purpose alone. I am trying to describe to the committee the wide range of police investigations that occur in which we do encounter cannabis, and cannabis is present at the same time. Thus, I hope, offering some insight into why, or wherefrom, the simple possession charges arise.
Senator Kenny: My difficulty with the comment was that, when you said that you encounter cannabis when you are dealing with domestic disputes, it just seemed a bit presumptive, because I am sure you encounter alcohol and coffee.
Mr. Johnston: Most definitely, yes.
The Chairman: My question relates to the use of cannabis and driving. The research is not conclusive, it is indefinite, and that is why I am asking you the question. I am sure your people have encountered and testified on the effect of the use of cannabis on a person's ability to drive. Let me read a sentence from page 5 of our discussion paper on cannabis and driving:
Available epidemiological studies do not lead to definitive conclusions on the effects of cannabis on driving abilities;
However, studies tend to indicate that at high doses or combined with alcohol, cannabis use increases risks significantly;
Cannabis use impairs motor coordination as well as straight line control and continued attention;
However, cannabis use decreases average speed, and diminishes risk-taking behaviour.
Can you give us some insight on the findings you have from the operation of your department to support that or to give us more information? If you wish, you can send that to us by courier or mail, or whatever means. You probably need more than three minutes to answer that question. We know that it is a concern in the police community. What is the extend of your expertise on that?
Mr. Johnston: I can provide some observations, some of which will support what is stated here and some will, I think, give rise to further considerations for this committee.
Up until this past November, that is, some six to eight months ago, the Province of British Columbia was, as far as I am aware, the only province in this country that was actively training and using techniques from the United States with respect to field sobriety testing. This is testing conducted in the field by police officers, not relying on equipment, not a roadside screening device, but relying on people's motor capacities and behaviours as tested and directed by a police officer on the scene when they are operating a motor vehicle.
Currently, this is one of the ways we have in Canada of determining whether somebody is impaired by a substance other than alcohol. If the driver is impaired by alcohol, we can use a roadside screening device. If he or she is impaired by reason of the use of another substance, whatever that substance might be, at this time it remains difficult to make that determination in a way that provides evidence of the offence.
We watched and learned from what was happening in British Columbia. We also learned that the legal community and the courts in British Columbia responded well to this kind of evidence, that it was welcomed and, if done properly and properly documented, it could be very useful in those types of investigations.
In November we brought that experience to Saskatchewan, and we have repeated that, I believe it was in February and March of this year. We are training our officers in those kinds of techniques. It is taking some time, but there are now 80 police officers who are well-versed and experienced in these techniques and will be using them here in Saskatchewan. This gives us some capacity to perform field tests on people who may be impaired by something other than alcohol, for example, some illicit drug.
The issue is the combination of effects that would seem to come from the use of alcohol with cannabis, and those kinds of things, which reduces the ability of people to perceive what is happening around them and respond and react in a timely way.
I am not prepared to speak to the effect of, specifically, cannabis on aggression. However, I can speak to the effects of alcohol and what we have found increasingly to be some of the dangers in driving with alcohol. This may provide support for what is asserted in point number four.
Some of the most dangerous people who drive while impaired are those who drank just a little. When people have drunk just a little, they experience the first lifting of inhibitions without the attendant feelings of impairment and it is in that group where we have found the highest rates of speeding. The most aggressive styles of driving are not by somebody who is significantly impaired by alcohol, falling-down-drunk, so to speak, but somebody who has just enough to drink to lift inhibitions.
If that is not the case with cannabis, if that kind of lifting of inhibitions or some other thing is not in place, it could very well be that you will not see the aggressive kind of behaviour that does lead to serious-injury accidents.
The Chairman: Thank you, again, for reading our material and answering our questions. It was a great pleasure to hear your remarks.
We will now hear Mr. Timothy Hampton from NORML Saskatechewan.
Mr. Timothy Hampton, President, National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws: I would like to say how much we welcome the opportunity to address this committee. It has been a long time coming. The NORML Steering Committee specifically want me to thank you on their behalf.
I am speaking here today on behalf of millions of Canadian cannabis users who are tired of being pursued, prosecuted and proclaimed criminals for their recreational use of a mild herbal euphoric. This is not some esoteric extract manufactured through proscribed alchemy, but a plant that grows worldwide. Cannabis has been used on a medicinal and social basis from time immemorial and, in itself, is neither good nor evil — a status shared by other items common in our society.
Assignment of moral characteristics to an object is neither logical nor acceptable. Sex, shopping, alcohol and food can be used or misused and, when dealing with compulsive or addictive behaviour, anything could be a medical or social problem. Compulsive eaters risk high cholesterol, obesity, diabetes and heart disease, but the ill effects of their personal choices are treated as a medical problem, not as a clarion call for the criminalization of chocolate.
Irresponsible alcohol use kills, sometimes the user, sometimes innocent bystanders, but I hear no calls for a liquor prohibition.
Addicted gamblers regularly steal hundreds of thousands of dollars to feed their need, but I see no appeals to stop the lotteries or close the casinos.
Devotees of tobacco are enslaved to this horribly addictive, deadly and stinky drug. Do we ban it? No, we regulate its sale, provide quality control and tax the crap out of it. In an attempt to grab a bigger piece of the nicotine pie Quebec raised tobacco taxes to such a degree that the residents of the Akwesasne Reserve began smuggling Canadian cigarettes back into Canada from the United States. Their motivation was the margin of profitability conferred by prohibition. The attendant violence that was visited upon that community and others was rooted in profit and not in the tobacco fields of Tillsonburg.
The profits associated with prohibition or extreme taxation breed organized crime and violence, as we have seen with the illicit alcohol, tobacco and drug trade. It makes little difference what the substance is, as the primary motivation of organized criminal gangs is profit.
It is really quite simple, if a large group of people all want an item that is in short supply, profiteers quickly appear. If they cannot or will not fulfill the demand, the price remains artificially high. How do you bring the price down and drive the smugglers out of the market? Increase supply. The size of the market remains static.
When supply and demand have found their levels, the qualities that attract the profiteers are no more. Fair taxation and adequate regulation leave the shadows in which smugglers hide that much smaller.
We have a tremendous problem with alcohol abuse in Canada, but I hear nothing of the mob taking over the homemade beer industry, or that illicit trade in 12-year-old rhubarb wine has resulted in numerous gangland slayings. Why not? It is because there is no substantial profit to be made due to extreme taxation or prohibition.
The Saskatchewan Liquor and Gaming Commission tell me that there is no limit to how much wine I can make for my own use. By the way, I think they were wrong, I think it is 500 gallons a year. Anyway, they tell me I can make 10,000 litres a year, invite all my friends over and drink ourselves into insensibility, if we are so inclined. Alternatively, I can make 10 litres and have a glass with dinner. It is all legal, as long as I do not take it public. If I want to make it for distribution, I must apply for a permit, follow the rigorous rules and open my doors for inspection on demand.
Let us face facts: alcohol, tobacco and cannabis are here to stay. Their use can be regulated and reduced by education, but not eliminated by prosecution. Eighty years of prohibition have done nothing to decrease the popularity of cannabis, and where there is demand there will be supply.
I do not want to waste the committee's time by repeating testimony that has already been heard, but let me say that study after study shows that the detrimental social and medical effects from cannabis use are, at worst, minor. Certainly, none that might warrant the huge allocation of justice system resources that cannabis prohibition currently claims. Let us use our courts and police for real criminals and real problems.
Police departments in Canada are quick to drag out the ``drug problem'' and use it to justify requests for increased funding for equipment and staff. In reality, cannabis prohibition laws are enforced erratically and arbitrarily, with only a percentage of those found in possession of cannabis making their way to court. One of the major determinative factors in the follow-through of criminal charges is the demeanour of the accused. Criminal law enforcement in Canada cannot be inconsistent or contingent on the whims of an individual officer.
At noon on May 5, 2001, 300 ``criminals'' gathered on the street in front of the Saskatoon City Police station and demanded to be arrested for the criminal acts they were openly committing and admitting to. Saskatoon City Police refused to arrest them. Why? The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act finds cannabis trafficking to be such a serious criminal act that it provides for life imprisonment.
If the members of the Canadian Police Association really practiced the position that they took in their brief to this committee, they would not have to hide behind the lame excuses proffered to the Saskatchewan Police Complaint Investigator when called to task for their failure to abide by their sworn oaths.
Let me tell you about one of the people present that day. Her name is Lorie Johnson. She is married to a man named Ernest Rogalsky. They were arrested for breach of Canada's cannabis prohibition laws. Although Mr. Rogalsky felt that the actions of the peace officer involved were not in keeping with the basic precepts of the rule of law, he pled guilty and was incarcerated. He did this for two reasons: The price of an adequate defence started at $50,000, more than the sum of his net worth; and he was unwilling to let his wife face the possibility of also being jailed. As a result of this ``bargain'' the charges against Ms Johnson were dropped.
Two months later, Ms Johnson stood on the steps of the police station of the very force that had been responsible for her arrest and her husband's incarceration, and committed the very same crime for which she had been brought before the court. She did so without molestation then or later.
The absolute bedrock on which we base our legal system is the rule of law. It is the benchmark that Aristotle worked from, and it is the first line of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. One of the basic precepts of the rule of law is that it must be applied equally. This is not to say that Canadian jurisprudence does not allow for some regional disparities. Given that, the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics for 1999 shows that 17 per cent of cannabis prohibition offences in British Columbia were pursued through to the courts; while in Saskatchewan 76 per cent suffered the same fate. This disparity of numbers is not attributable to regional differences in standards of prosecutorial discretion but has an identifiable cause.
The arbitrary application of Canadian criminal law is not in keeping with the spirit of the Charter, not the specifics contained in section 15.
While I am speaking of equality, I would point out the lack of it when you look at the punishments set out in the Criminal Code for various criminal offences. Section 163.1 of the Criminal Code demands that anyone who makes and sells child pornography be jailed for a maximum of 10 years. Breach Canada's cannabis prohibition laws and you can go to jail for life. Section 160(3) states that if you commit bestiality in the presence of a child or force a child to participate, you can go to jail for a maximum of 14 years. Breach Canada's cannabis prohibition laws and you can go to jail for life. Section 151 states that if you sexually molest a child you can go to jail for a maximum of 10 years. Breach Canada's cannabis prohibition laws and you can go to jail for life.
There is something wrong with a justice system that provides for these obviously unacceptable differences in sentencing parameters. To suggest, even by inference, that participation in Canada's cannabis culture is a crime worthy of greater sanction than the previously mentioned criminal acts is an affront to common sense and to cannabis users everywhere.
It is plain that the time has come for a new approach to the interaction between Canadian cannabis culture and our government. Clearly, prohibition is not an effective tool for regulating access and a new, mutually agreeable contract must be forged between afficianadoes and the state.
In doing so, we must take into account a few crucial factors. Proposed regulations must address status, access, profiteering, quality control and American reaction.
Do we decriminalize? Substitute one law for another with what amounts to an across-the-board reduction in penalties? If we were to take that approach, the fundamental problems with the influence of profiteers and organized crime, with its associated violence and lack of regulation, would remain unaddressed, not to mention the continued drain on our police departments, justice system and correctional facilities.
Do we legalize? Do we follow the existing guidelines for the production and sale of alcohol and tobacco and hand regulation over to the provincial jurisdiction? Do we look to the Excise Act for guidance? One point that must be included in any proposed contract is the opportunity for the recreational user to legally participate in Canada's cannabis culture. Do we meld the two and make recreational cannabis permitted under a licencing system?
At this point in time, only those exempt under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act can legally possess cannabis. The truth is that, every day, millions of Canadians buy, sell and smoke cannabis. Some do it for medical reasons, most for recreational purposes.
People buy it on the street or in a pub. They sometimes phone a service and have it delivered. They might stop by a friend's house and bum a jay or two. If they are brave and prepared to risk incarceration, they can just step into their garden and cut a couple of buds. They are plumbers, social workers, teachers, farmers, mothers, miners, fathers and fishermen. We smoke pot and we are not about to stop. As humans on this planet, we have the unalienable right to enjoy the fruits of it. Canadian citizens will continue to use cannabis, period.
Currently, the Canadian market is supplied by domestic production, with a small amount of specialty cannabis products coming in from offshore. Most domestically produced cannabis is destined for the Canadian market, but a portion is cultivated strictly for export.
Seventy-five per cent of the cannabis found in the marketplace will have been grown indoors by individuals or organized groups. The remaining 25 per cent is grown outdoors, mainly in B.C., Ontario and Quebec. Their production ranges from a few pounds a year that flows into the local market, to hundreds of pounds that move through the market by way of long-established distribution networks.
The small grower, by far the most common, working with one or two lights, may produce a kilo every two or three months. More intensive methods will, of course, increase that. His gross would be about $6,000 and his expenses — house, power, growing supplies and pot smoked — would leave a small net profit, at the most $2,000.
His product would be purchased by a salesperson who probably buys from half-a-dozen small growers who are in the same position as Mr. X. These people are not entirely motivated by profit, seeking instead to promote a substance they believe should be legally available. This homegrown is of good quality and provides the grower with a personal supply that he does not have to purchase. In essence, he is growing to supply his own needs but releasing his surplus into the market.
Once in the salesperson's hands it is sold directly to the consumer at $30 or $40 for an eighth-of-an-ounce or multiples of. Among younger people or on the street you will see it sold in single grams for $10 to $20. Ounces are sold for $250 to $300; a pound selling for $2,600 to $3,600. Ounces and quarter-pounds may be resold in smaller amounts. The only control is the distributor's conscience.
If one wishes to purchase some cannabis, most smokers are happy to oblige. Trafficking is part and parcel of cannabis use and one is placed at substantial legal risk each time a transaction is engaged in, as the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act provides for life imprisonment for trafficking in cannabis. It helps to have a good reputation within the community, although, for the most part, people are very trusting.
It is at this level that youth come into contact with cannabis. A 25-year-old has no problem selling a bag to a 20- year-old, but he would never sell one to a 16-year-old. The 20-year-old would never sell a bag to a 15-year-old but would sell one to a 17-year-old, and so on. Regulation may not totally eliminate this problem, but it is a good start.
The larger facilities that are producing on a commercial basis tend to be operated by well-established groups who are confident in their cohorts and lines of distribution. While some of these groups may be specifically aligned by cultural or social parameters, at least 50 per cent of the market share belongs to loose-knit confederacies of like-minded individuals who all need each other to function productively. They may or may not be friends, but their bona fides must be in order.
These groups do not fit the traditional definition of organized crime, as they are really non-structured, with participation left to each individual. Even thought they are not organized crime, these people are very capable of producing large amounts of high-quality cannabis on a regular basis, with 30 pounds in a 10- to 12-week crop not unheard of. This product is mostly destined for the domestic market.
This translates as $75,000 net, which would then be cut up between the principals. Given the large amounts of money that are being generated and the general air of paranoia that permeates any illegal business, it is here where contractual disputes take place. Violence is not predominant within these groups, but it does exist. The most common form of punishment for breach of contract, or ratting out, is ostracization.
These groups make money from pot, but they are partially motivated by a belief that cannabis should be available to anyone who wants it. This group is split on legalization.
The other 50 per cent of the larger growing groups fall squarely in the organized crime category. They are rigid and powerful hierarchies that are strictly profit orientated and have no allegiance to anything but themselves. It is within these groups that we find day-to-day violence to be an accepted way of doing business.
A large portion of this market share is destined for export, where it is sometimes traded for cocaine and heroin or, at the very least, American dollars. There is a huge demand for Canadian cannabis in the U.S. and they are prepared to pay a premium for the best, delivered across the line.
Increased security in the wake of September 11, 2001 has led to an increase in the cost of transport of $1,000 per pound, but this has not reduced the traffic across the border. Legalizing cannabis would not hamstring these groups, as they have their fingers in many pies, but it would eliminate from the marketplace an untraceable medium of exchange. These groups do not want cannabis or any other drug legalized, as there is far too much money to be made in profiteering.
It is very clear that the United States of America, on a federal level, is firmly prohibitionist and would oppose any plans to fully legalize cannabis in Canada. Let us face facts, the border is a sieve and it drives the Americans nuts. If you are so inclined, a professional approach will see you across the line with minimal risk.
Pardon me for flogging a dead horse, but the problem that is faced in the States is the same one faced here — profiteering motivated by prohibition. The Government of America has to shake off the moral minority and face reality. They have lost the war on drugs. Calling us terrorists for smoking pot will not inspire a resurgence. Regulating the growing and distribution of cannabis will quickly unmask the profiteers and provide a focus for law enforcement. No matter what we do, the U.S. will always complain anyway. Keep in mind you are living down the street from a big, dumb bully. We are a sovereign country and we should act like it, not like lapdogs.
Keeping these points all in mind, and although we would like to see full legalization, that is unrealistic at this point, therefore, the mandate given to me by the membership of NORML for reconsidering Canada's cannabis prohibition law is to propose as follows:
Cannabis possession, cultivation and trafficking will remain under the jurisdiction of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, that is, the existing law will remain as it is, but section 56 of the CDSA should be interpreted to permit an exemption to be made available to an applicant which would allow the applicant to cultivate, possess, distribute or use cannabis on a recreational or medicinal basis. This program and supervision of it would be paid for by an outrageous tax upon the issuing of the licence.
A licence for personal cultivation and use would permit one to have no more than six budding plants at any point, and a maximum of one kilo of dried buds for personal use within the home.
Cafés, similar to bars and under the same authority, would be allowed to purchase cannabis from licensed growers and make it available on a per-gram basis for in-house use.
Growers would be licensed to produce medicinal or recreational cannabis which would be distributed through approved outlets.
Current laws, such as sections 249 or 253 of the Criminal Code are more than adequate to deal with the effects of public intoxication due to cannabis use.
A breach of license conditions would result in temporary forfeiture of privilege.
We have unanimous agreement that we, as licencees, would work towards full compliance by all members of the cannabis community with the regulations and with an eye toward self-policing.
We also ask that alcohol and tobacco be subject to the provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and subject to the same conditions of manufacture, use and possession as cannabis.
My people want you to know that they are not criminals, and they are tired of being treated as such. There is a vast difference between use and abuse. There has to be a social contract that we can live with, or the situation will continue on as is.
We are willing to compromise and work with law enforcement, but there must be some real, serious movement on this issue. Speak firmly to the government and remind them that the state has no business in the bedrooms of our nation. Let us put this matter to rest once and for all. Thank you.
The Chairman: Just to make one correction. When Mr. Hampton says that a breach of Canadian cannabis prohibition laws can result in a life jail sentence, I think it must be explained that, if you are charged with possessing less than five grams or trafficking in less than three kilograms, the maximum penalty is five years.
Mr. Hampton: Yes. I could get the Criminal Code out and read it exactly, but you are correct. The life imprisonment for cannabis trafficking is for exceeding three kilograms, which is only seven pounds, not an excessive amount.
The Chairman: I just wanted to put that in perspective. A life sentence is not always applicable.
Mr. Hampton, since you are more of an expert in this area than we are, would you talk to us about the level of THC? I do not know if there is an ongoing debate on that subject here, but I know that in Quebec there is serious debate on the level of THC in certain substances.
Mr. Hampton: When cannabis first became popular in Canada, most of it was imported from Mexico, and the THC levels in that substance would range from between 4 per cent and 8 per cent. Through the course of the 1970s and through the 1980s we saw some specialty cannabis products imported from Hawaii, from Afghanistan and from around the world, and they had greater levels of THC in them. Those drugs have been available. Cannabis has been available with higher levels of THC through the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s in Canada.
When we saw the increase in people growing marijuana indoors in Canada, we saw an increase in the levels of active ingredients within cannabis.
The Chairman: Can you be a bit more specific on the levels and what other substances are added during in-house growing?
Mr. Hampton: Nothing is added. It is a matter of different strains. One kind of apple tree might only produce a very few apples, but another variety of apple tree may produce a whole lot of apples. It is a different breed, a different variety. A plant of one variety, if it only produces a quarter-ounce on the plant, will have basically the same THC level as the plant that produces a pound.
The Chairman: What would that level be?
Mr. Hampton: Right now I would say that for home-grown marijuana it is between 15 and 25 per cent. There is a top limit of about 27 per cent. You cannot go higher than that. That is a very potent substance, and if you smoke cannabis that only contains 10 per cent or 15 per cent THC on a regular basis and then pick up a joint that is 25 or 30 per cent, it certainly is different.
Cannabis smokers are well aware of these things. They are not neophytes. They know. They can tell when they pick up a bud, for the most part, if it is very potent or if it is not quite so potent.
We have the same classification with beer. The concentration of active ingredients in whiskey is higher than in beer, and people who are users of alcohol are well aware of that.
The Chairman: Does the consumer want a lower, medium, or higher level?
Mr. Hampton: Different consumers want each of those. There is a market for very low levels, under 10 per cent. The biggest market, two-thirds, is for between low and medium.
The Chairman: The numbers that you are giving us tend to demonstrate that Canada's cannabis production, at least in the THC content, is different from the that of the rest of the world. Canadian-grown cannabis is more potent than that cultivated in Europe, or even in the U.S. or Australia. The research that we have access to tells us that the potency, the THC content, in large marijuana seizures, in Europe, the U.S. and Australia, ranges between 7 per cent and 15 per cent.
Mr. Hampton: We have better pot, yes. We have won the cannabis cup repeatedly here.
The Chairman: Is that an exception, to reach 25, or is that the norm?
Mr. Hampton: Yes. You do not see it at 25.
The Chairman: What is normal for cannabis in Canada?
Mr. Hampton: If you just go down to the bar and buy a bag of pot, it will be about 15 per cent to 18 per cent.
The Chairman: Is that the average?
Mr. Hampton: Yes. Specialty marijuanas take a long time to grow. The period of fruition can be very short, six weeks, or it can be four or five months. If you want pot with a high level of THC, the period to fruition has to be extended.
The Chairman: Most of the concerns we have heard this morning from the Mayor and the Chief of Police, and we will probably hear the same from the local health authority, relates to the abuse of the substance so, as a user and knowing the attitudes of users, what can you tell us about the proportionality between straight users, occasional recreational users, and abusers of the substance? Can you give us an estimate?
Mr. Hampton: Those numbers are very controversial.
The Chairman: Do not mention numbers, if you do not have the numbers, tell us about attitudes.
Mr. Hampton: First of all, I will speak about the average pot smoker. He has a job and smokes twice or three times a week. He may smoke six or eight joints in the course of a week. He has an annual income of under $60,000, but over $30,000. He is just a normal guy, a regular person. The majority of cannabis users in Canada are just regular folks.
It is difficult to abuse cannabis. You can only get so high. Continued smoking does not increase intoxication once you reach a certain point. If you are talking about neophyte users, yes, it can have some very disconcerting effects. However, anything can be abused, although it is not a drug that lends itself to abuse. Once you are high, you do not get any higher.
The Chairman: As I understand it, abuse is not related to the amount of intake in a short period of time, it is related to repeated use. The researchers that we have questioned and the papers that we have read — correct me if I am wrong — set the bar at 30 grams per month; more than that, there is abuse or risk of abuse.
Mr. Hampton: I would say that is right on the money — 30 grams a month.
Mr. Chairman: A person using less than that is who you would call normal user; is that correct?
Mr. Hampton: Most users do not use 30 grams a month. Most users, I would say, use 10 grams a month. That would be an average amount. Some people smoke more. Some people smoke a lot more than 30 grams a month.
The Chairman: Is the concern of the health authority, the Mayor and the Chief of Police valid when they speak of concerns about abuse?
Mr. Hampton: There is a concern about abuse. Again, anything can be abused, just because it is cannabis does not single it out for particular abuse.
It is like a bridge across the river. If 10,000 cars drive across that bridge everyday and one person jumps off the bridge, you do not blame the bridge for being there, you blame the person for being unstable. You cannot blame an object because it has no sense of right or wrong. You must look at how a person uses it.
In Saskatchewan, on the Prairies, we have a lot of guns on farms. Most farmers consider the gun a tool. It only becomes a weapon if they use it in such a manner that it becomes a weapon. It is only a ``thing'' until it is used, and if it is used responsibly, there is no concept of abuse.
The number of people who would abuse or do abuse marijuana is a very small percentage. Whether its status is legal or illegal, it is being used, and it will still be used. Those are the issues that have to be addressed. Abuse will still exist.
The Chairman: Our research indicates that 10 per cent of users are chronic users. Would they be in the 30-gram-a- month area?
Mr. Hampton: That is close.
The Chairman: Therefore, 10 per cent are crossing that line?
Mr. Hampton: Yes.
The Chairman: Our research also indicates that 5 per cent to 10 per cent of all users will become addicted to cannabis. Do you have anything to say to that?
Mr. Hampton: It would be a psychological addiction. I do not think there is any evidence that shows that there is a physical addiction.
The Chairman: You are right. We do not have evidence to support that.
Mr. Hampton: Anything can be psychologically addictive. It certainly exists, and I would agree with that number. Probably about 5 per cent of users are addicted. It is an addiction that is not based in changes in physiology, it is probably more rooted in mental disease than it is in a physical addiction.
Yes, it exists, but there are a lot of people addicted to bingo, too. I suspect that probably more than 5 per cent of the people who frequent bingo halls have a need to return.
The Chairman: Can you confirm the health effects of cannabis use? I want to confirm some scientific findings now that we have someone who can testify to the reality.
The acute effects — acute being the short-term effects — include reduction of attention and concentration, reduction of motor abilities, including reflex and coordination, and reduction of short-term memory. Can you confirm that those are the acute effects; or what do you have to say about that?
Mr. Hampton: In neophyte users you will see some short-term inattention.
The Chairman: Do you mean by ``neophyte,'' a young user, someone who has never used before?
Mr. Hampton: My sister-in-law did not smoke a joint until she was 35, and she giggled like a 12-year-old girl. She is a neophyte user. She is not a youngster, but she had never smoked cannabis before. Her reaction was to suffer a short attention span.
An inexperienced user is what I would call a neophyte, people who have only used a very few times, that is, under six. They would suffer a short attention span, a loss of concentration and, to some degree, reduced motor skills.
The frequent user, a person who smokes once a week or twice a week, does not suffer from those. As I recall, the latest study done in England showed that the motor skills of people who smoked a joint actually went up a notch.
The Chairman: We are aware of the studies. I was asking you to share your personal experience.
Mr. Hampton: Neophyte users may experience some reduced motor skills, but not experienced users. If I smoke marijuana, I have no concern about operating heavy equipment or driving a tractor, or getting on stage and playing my guitar and doing a good job, or going into the studio and recording. I know that my motor skills are the same, one way or another.
I will not smoke a big quarter-ounce joint; I will smoke a joint that weighs half a gram, or maybe slightly more. It does exist, but it is not the whipping post that it is made out to be. The effects are not as severe as they are made out to be, although there are some.
The Chairman: Let us look at the chronic effects, the long-term effects.
Mr. Hampton: You are looking at it.
The Chairman: Those are more likely to be found in heavy users, that is, people who use more than 30 grams a month. The chronic effect include increased risk of lung cancer and other respiratory diseases; the possibility of cannabinoid psychosis among persons predisposed to psychosis; and the possibility of amotivational syndrome, meaning apathy, indifference and loss of interest and ambition. Do you have any comments on that?
Mr. Hampton: I will start with lung cancer, first of all. Any smoking is detrimental. Any time you inhale a substance into your lungs it will cause some harm.
The Chairman: Do you know people who smoke only cannabis and do not smoke tobacco?
Mr. Hampton: Yes, I do.
The Chairman: Do they have the same risk of lung cancer?
Mr. Hampton: No, they have a lot less risk. The risk of lung cancer from just smoking cannabis is fractional compared with the risk from tobacco use.
The Chairman: Do you have any comments about psychosis?
Mr. Hampton: That is a difficult one for me to comment on because I have little personal experience of it. My oldest son is an epileptic and a schizophrenic, and he has never smoked marijuana in his life. His doctors have suggested that it might help his epilepsy, which is very severe, but he does not want to participate.
Psychosis and mental disease occur in our society. They are horrible diseases, but they are not caused by marijuana. Marijuana might have a small effect on an pre-existing condition but, in itself, it does not cause psychosis. It is only a contributory factor.
As to the effects on general overall health, I have smoked for over 30 years. I am a singer and a musician. I can sing for three or four hours, and I sing hard. As I became a older my doctor put me through lung capacity tests, heart rate tests, and he has put me in the smallest percentile of risk. He said my physical health — lung capacity and heart rate — is as good as it gets. It could not be any better; and I have smoked for over 30 years.
I am not psychotic. I have never been to a psychiatrist in my life. I have had one speeding ticket. I have never had an impaired charge. I have never been arrested for anything to do with alcohol. I drink, but I drink in a responsible way. I smoke cannabis, but I smoke in a responsible way.
The Chairman: Have you ever tried other drugs?
Mr. Hampton: Oh, yes, I have.
The Chairman: For what reason?
Mr. Hampton: When I was young there was a big anti-drug push in the late 1960s. We heard all about this as kids. On the Prairies, when you come into a big city, if you are offered a joint, you smoke it all up and, well, you think that is pretty cool. You think, ``Well, they lied to us about this, so what else did they lie about?'' Then, if somebody comes along with something else, you try it. Out of curiosity, I worked my way through the whole genre. Not on a regular basis. I did not go out and buy one of everything and sit down and do it, but I worked my way through them over the course of 20 years. As a writer, one must experience. You cannot write about something you do not know about.
The only drug that I have never done is heroin. I have been given morphine in the hospital, so I figure I pretty much know what happens with that, too. I have done cocaine. I do not do it now, but I did it a few times over the course of a few years. I ingested LSD quite a few times through the 1970s, but I don't eat it any more. I have never been to drug rehabilitation or any kind of 12-step program.
Some things, at some points in your life, are acceptable; and at other points they are not. I do not tell people not to do it, but I make sure that they are well-aware of the dangers. I have never done Ecstasy, I don't intend to do it. My word on it is it causes liver damage. That is what I tell my people. People come to me for advice.
The Chairman: As an information centre?
Mr. Hampton: I always lean on the side of safety. I always say, ``If you don't know; don't do it.''
I promote legalized cannabis in Canada. That is my mandate with NORML. I have an opinion about what we should try to do about the drug problem, overall, in Canada. It is a serious problem that floats into my area of expertise. It is a difficult problem all the way around. Its status will not make people quit smoking pot.
The Chairman: In testifying here, you seem to be quite aware of what parliamentary privilege means.
Mr. Hampton: Yes, I understand.
The Chairman: Nothing that you have said can be used against you.
Mr. Hampton: I am retired. I retired five years ago. I will be blunt. I was a professional smuggler for over 20 years. There is no part of the cannabis business that I was not involved in. I retired voluntary five years ago. Nobody threw me out of the business. I quit broke, but that's life. I know it inside and out and I know where the dangers lie. I have been there. We went from being a bunch of people getting together to ``show the finger to the man,'' and then how it changed to a whole different ball game. I watched it all. I participated in it. I have a pretty good understanding about what happened.
I don't like it, and I would like to see changes. There are a lot of bad things and a lot of violence that happens in the drug culture. I am not talking just about cannabis, but it is part and parcel of the whole thing — alcohol, cocaine, heroin and so on. I have seen horrible things happen, and we have to do something about it.
The Chairman: When you say ``horrible'' do you mean the trafficking, the criminality around the substance, or the abuse of the substance?
Mr. Hampton: The abuse of some substances is horrible, that is, the wreckage of families and individuals. I know of some horrible stories. Death and destruction is left in the wake of this horrible situation. There are no two ways about it. We have to deal with it, but by making it illegal and randomly picking people up and putting them in jail does not solve the problem.
The Chairman: I will read your first recommendation. It is:
Cannabis possession, cultivation and trafficking will remain under the jurisdiction of the CDSA with the existing remaining as it is but section 56...
There is an exemption scheme under section 56. That, by the way, has been ruled out by the Appeal Court of Ontario. That is why the new regulations were introduced last July.
Mr. Hampton: I know that there was an extension of that. I know what you are talking about.
The Chairman: Are you saying that you want to expand the meaning?
Mr. Hampton: Yes, expand the meaning.
The Chairman: Then the minister would have the authority, presumably under a regulation scheme similar to the one that is in place for the therapeutic use of marijuana, after following a series of guidelines, reasons, authorities and permissions. You would use the scheme under section 56 to allow permission to cultivate and use. Is that basically it?
Mr. Hampton: Yes.
The Chairman: What criteria would be used to issue such an exemption? I want you to be a little bit more precise.
Mr. Hampton: That is a big question.
The Chairman: Do you want to give the minister the sole authority to decide?
Mr. Hampton: No, you cannot give the minister the sole authority.
The Chairman: That was the problem in the court.
Mr. Hampton: I know. It would be a give-and-take situation. We are willing to compromise. We are willing to sit down and work out a set of regulations that would be acceptable to both. I am referring to a new contract.
There would have to be a provision that there can be no use outside of the home unless the user is in a cannabis cafe. In a cannabis cafe you could be allowed to purchase a single gram and smoke it at your table. You would not be allowed to take it home with you.
The café would be supplied by either growing its own supply or purchasing it from an approved grower. The grower would have his product available and it would be sold through approved systems, as is the case with tobacco or alcohol. It would be subject to the same guidelines.
In terms of the issuance of licences, I do not think we can apply the old guidelines. You would be given licence to grow six plants in your house. You would be allowed to smoke it in your house, and your friends could come over and smoke it in your house.
If you sell it, you lose your licence. If you are caught smoking in a car driving down the road, you lose your licence. If you are caught smoking in a park or at a rock-and-roll concert, you lose your licence.
We have to make it wide open and allow anybody who wants to, to apply for a licence, unless there is some overriding reason, such as a finding of a psychosis where someone is under ongoing medical care for a psychiatric disorder. I do not think there will be much of a line-up.
What we have to do is stop it from going across the border. I will be really blunt here. There is lots of pot grown in B.C. that is going across the border, and it is causing a lot of trouble. There are a lot of guns and a lot of big money. The Yankees are not happy, and it is dangerous. Americans are bringing big money to Canada. They are bringing guns. They are bringing cocaine and heroin and trading it for our pot. That has to be stopped.
You have to get people in line. You need a contract that we, as cannabis users, agree with, because you need our help to stop that traffic. Without us, you will never stop it. To get our help, there has to be a mutually agreeable contract.
Once we are on side, I will be the first guy to stand up and take a marijuana policeman's badge, and I will be out there policing my people. We have said to our people that we have to be prepared to police our own folks.
The Chairman: My last question relates to school children.
Mr. Hampton: They are getting it now.
The Chairman: Already in some provinces almost the majority of young people between the ages of 14 and 20 are using marijuana. Who is selling the marijuana to them?
Mr. Hampton: As I said in my paper, it starts with, I would say, a 17-year-old to 25-year-old salesman. He regularly sells ounces and quarter-pounds of pot.
The Chairman: From whom is he getting the marijuana?
Mr. Hampton: From a guy who has maybe a one- or two-light grow, and he is producing maybe a couple of kilograms every month. A salesman would have a half-a-dozen of those kinds of people, and he would buy from each of them in turn. He would then be retailing his product. He would be selling ounces and quarter-pounds.
The Chairman: Is he selling ounces to kids?
Mr. Hampton: No, let me finish. He is 25 years old. He is selling ounces and quarter-pounds. He sells a quarter- pound to a 20-year-old. He has no problem with that because he is very close in age. He would never sell to a 16-year- old because of the age difference. It is up to each individual's conscience.
The 20-year-old has no problem selling to a 17-year-old, whereas he would not sell to a 14-year-old. The 17-year-old will sell to a 12-year-old, whereas he would not sell to someone younger than that. It gets shorter and shorter as you work your way down the line. I would never sit down with somebody who is 16 years old and smoke a joint with him or her. Somebody who is 20 might not have that same problem.
It comes back to profit. When people are profit-orientated, they don't care if it is a kid who gets it. They care about nothing. All they care about is the money in their pockets. The real problems in the cannabis industry are profit- orientated. They centre around profits. When there is prohibition, the price goes up. When big money is involved, people get nasty, and they will sell to kids. They don't care.
The Chairman: In your paper you deal with the price of the substance. What is the real cost of cultivation?
Mr. Hampton: To cultivate good-quality marijuana on a proper basis runs about $100 an ounce, all in.
The Chairman: The actual black-market sales price is what?
Mr. Hampton: Between $250 and $320.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for your testimony. As I told you, everything you said here will remain here.
Mr. Hampton: I will speak my mind on the street corner. I am not worried about it. I am not engaged in what I consider to be illegal activity. I may smoke a little pot, but I am a good grandfather, and I bake a good blueberry pie.
The Chairman: We are now joined by witnesses from the Regina Health District, Alcohol and Drug Services. Good morning.
Mr. Jerry Fitzgerald, Manager, Alcohol and Drug Services, Regina Health District: We are just starting a debate about drug use in the City of Regina. We are a little hampered in that we have not had a chance, as a district, to discuss, debate and develop the policies that we will probably end up with here.
We consider that alcohol and drug problems present serious implications, not only for individuals but also for families and society as a whole. We view chemical dependency as a disease, and its consequences may arise from a multitude of sources.
We recognize that dependency on alcohol and drugs may be caused by a number of individual and social factors, alone or in combination. These factors, and the seriousness of the dependency, will vary from individual to individual.
Chemical dependency is a disease characterized by changes in behaviour, feelings and physical functioning. Some of the primary symptoms are an impaired control of the consumption of the chemical and tolerance to the chemical used. Not every individual who experiences problems related to the consumption of chemical substances is or will become dependant.
We also recognize that people who do not use mood-altering substances themselves may be affected by another person's use.
We are focusing on problems of individual chemical abuse and dependency, and the effect on others. In order to prevent or reduce the social, legal and economic consequences which affect individuals, families and society, a range of program responses needs to be offered: treatment, prevention, education and advocacy work.
We provide treatment intervention services. Until 1993, we were a provincial agency similar to the Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission or the Addiction Foundation of Manitoba. In 1995, the clinical services of what was the Saskatchewan Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission were moved to health districts. In effect, we ended up with 30 separate little organizations, each working on issues of alcohol and drug abuse in its own area of the province. We lost our provincial focus. We also stopped doing our research activities, and we lost the prevention programming and training component that was part of SADAC's mandate.
The services we offer are a mix of directly-delivered district services and services provided through community-based organizations. For adults, we have outpatient counselling and referral, adult day-patient services. We have a youth counselling component. We provide counselling and assistance to family members, friends and relatives of people affected by substance abuse.
Alcohol and Drug Services is involved with the Saskatchewan Government Insurance Safe Driving Program, which is aimed at intervening with unsafe drivers, the majority of whom would have been convicted for impaired driving or a similar offence.
Services provided through contract agencies are a 25-bed detox unit and a 12-bed long-term residence for men. In Regina, the provincial government also funds outpatient and residential services through the Metis Addiction Council of Saskatchewan. In Regina approximately 3,900 clients enter the treatment system each year. Approximately 50 per cent of our clients are Aboriginal or First Nations; 45 per cent are clients 29 years of age or younger; and 16 per cent are younger than 15.
On intake, our clients are asked about the drugs they are using and whether or not this drug use is problematic. Most clients identify alcohol as the drug which is causing them the most problems. The second most commonly used drug is cannabis, and three-quarters of our clients state that it causes them problems.
This is the client's self-evaluation of their drug use; this is not the counsellor's opinion, or that of some other professional. We ask the client, ``How do you perceive your use of the drug?'' and 75 per cent perceive their cannabis use to be a problem for them.
It should also be noted that, because of the effects of the drug and the dependency, it is often people who are close to the addicted person who see the problem first. The drug-affected person only realizes the extent of the problem later, usually because they are in some sort of trouble.
As a provincial organization, SADAC has a policy to oppose actions that may increase the availability or consumption of illicit substances. The policy endorses strict control measures to limit the availability of illicit substances, promote prevention efforts to reduce demand, and provide treatment services to those individuals who require them. The reduction of demand for illicit substances through education, prevention and treatment is critical to the long-term success of efforts to reduce the negative effects of drug abuse.
The inherent harmfulness of substances and the benefits of alternatives to drug taking should be the basis of efforts directed towards at-risk populations to prevent, curtail or reduce consumption.
The Special Committee on Illegal Drugs has identified as one of the questions in the discussion paper whether or not cannabis is a gateway drug that leads to other, harder drugs, such as cocaine or heroin. Debating whether or not marijuana is a gateway drug trivializes the fact that marijuana is a mood-altering substance that has addictive potential.
In our treatment of young people with substance-use disorders, we have never seen anyone whose life has been enhanced by his or her use of marijuana. There is also a problem with the concept of hard versus soft drugs. For the susceptible person there is no real distinction.
We know that the marijuana sold today is different from what was available 20, 30 or 40 years ago. It is more potent and more available. In preparing for this, we reviewed some articles that indicated that Canadian marijuana has a reputation throughout the United States as being good stuff. It gets top dollar. Apparently, marijuana grown in Manitoba rivals that produced in Columbia and Mexico. We understand one of the Manitoba products has been named the ``Winnipeg Wheelchair Weed'' because of its disabling effect on the users.
All mood-altering substances disrupt the functioning of the central nervous system, resulting in changes in mood, impaired judgment, impaired impulse control, mood instability, and impaired stress tolerance and physical coordination. They also affect social relationships, both within the family and in society as a whole. Marijuana is no exception to this.
We know that 8 per cent to 10 per cent of the people who use cannabis become dependent. We have identified in our clients a trend where experimentation with marijuana use leads to habitual use, and then to abuse or dependence. Admittedly, we are dealing with the treatment population, not necessarily the general population.
Traditionally, we have recognized that there is a psychological and a physical dependence syndrome. Users may acquire a persistent craving for the drug, and the drug takes on a central role in the person's life. Those who develop a physical dependence on cannabis often have a withdrawal syndrome which may last up to a week, although some aspects, such as the sleep disturbance, may persist for a longer period. This is typical of the physical dependence syndrome we see with other drugs of abuse.
The psychological symptoms usually last quite a bit longer and it is often these symptoms — the cravings, the preoccupation with using, the irrational thoughts and unmanageable feelings — that lead the person back into a cycle of active drug use.
This is the traditional view, which may have to be rethought in light of new scientific evidence. The new evidence suggests that addiction is a brain disease that develops over time as a result of the initial, voluntary use of mood- altering substances. Research is continuing to reveal to us the mechanisms through which drugs modify mood, memory, perception, and emotional state. We do not have all the answers yet, but the evidence seems to indicate that these drugs, over time, hijack the brain's natural motivational systems.
We know that cannabis contains a large number of compounds. Delta 9 THC is the leading active compound and the one that has been most researched, but we know that it contains 400 other compounds. The number of chemical compounds increases when cannabis is smoked.
It has been only within the last 10 to 15 years that scientists have discovered the receptor in the brain to which THC binds. They have also isolated anandamide, a naturally occurring brain chemical which binds to the same receptor. Some of these receptors are found in the hippocampus, which is the area of the brain pivotal for learning, memory and emotions. They are also found in the areas of the brain involved with motor activity, and the part of the brain where we know that other drugs, heroin, cocaine, cause a high effect.
In 1998, the National Institute of Drug Abuse, an American organization, reported that some of their research suggests that marijuana may alter the brain in ways that increase the susceptibility to other drugs.
We also know that there are effects similar to tobacco and that there is some risk to women who are carrying babies. There may be an increased risk of delivering a baby with low birth weight or other health problems. We know that THC can pass from the mother's breast milk to the baby, which may bring some risk to the infant's motor development. There is evidence that second-hand smoke, passive marijuana smoking, may affect children as well.
Addiction must be seen for what it is, a bio-psychosocial disease. This disease is complex, and the strategies used to treat it and reduce its effect have to take this into account. If one looks at the traditional public health model for stemming the spread of disease three factors must be addressed comprehensively. We must address the drug, the agent; the addict/abuser, the host; and the drug supplier or dealer, the vector.
The issue of decriminalization of cannabis is an area where much more debate is required. I think there will be a lot more debate, and I think that will be a good thing.
We do not have a good picture of how many youth in Saskatchewan use cannabis, although some surveys indicate the percentage is as high as 30 per cent or even 50 per cent. I have spoken to kids who say everybody is using it. Needless to say, a large portion of our youth is using it.
The prospect of potentially criminalizing such a large sector of our youth seems undesirable. At the same time, current legal sanctions may make cannabis use undesirable to many and provide a way of intervening, that is, getting people into treatment.
When we are debating decriminalization we must look at it in terms of minimizing the risk of increasing the use of drugs in our society. We must be careful that we do not give youth the message that this is permission to use and that there are no consequences to that, that it is, in fact, a safe drug, because do not think that it is. We do not think the evidence demonstrates that it is.
We do not want to add cannabis to the endorsed substance list, along with tobacco and alcohol because it would seem to fly in the face of some of our efforts with tobacco. We are putting a massive effort into stopping children from starting to use tobacco, and encouraging people who are using tobacco to quit. We have a whole host of mechanisms set up to do that prevention and enforcement. If we are considering cannabis, we need to put similar strategies into place.
As a society, we should not appear to condone the non-medical or recreational use of drugs. We should do everything we can to optimize each person's potential. We should be assisting people to successfully meet the challenges of life: relationships, work, family, et cetera. The foundation for this success is laid as our children grow up and interact with the larger world. Drug use, including cannabis, is often disruptive to this development.
We see prevention as the key to demand reduction. We need to send our children the message, based on scientific evidence, that cannabis is not a drug that can be used safely. This must be backed up with supporting activities and programs.
In summary, we believe the research shows that cannabis is not a safe drug. It causes brain damage, and continued use may result in addiction. It affects the most vulnerable in our society, our youth. As well, we do not believe that youth who use cannabis should have to carry the penalty of a criminal record their whole lives.
Dr. Ross Findlater, Deputy Medical Health Officer, City of Regina: As a public health doctor, I am certainly not an expert in addictions.
We do not have a defined policy in our health district regarding marijuana, so in the last week or 10 days a lot of chatting has been going on. I believe it is clear to all of us that the increase in youth marijuana use in the last 10 or 15 years, is important to note.
The legal framework is only one of the tools that can deal with that. The Criminal Code inclusion of marijuana has been in place since that increase has occurred. As a society, we are all clear that the use of marijuana is undesirable.
To develop an overall approach to marijuana use, you must look at the components that Mr. Fitzgerald talked about. Prevention, doing something to help people stop using, really working with youth to denormalize marijuana use, as we do with tobacco, are important components. The legal framework is only one of the tools.
In our chats this week it was clear that we are concerned that there are some negative consequences of potentially criminalizing 30 per cent of our youth. Any step that is taken in that direction must also take into account the balance of trying not to increase use.
You have a very difficult job in coming up with a recommendation. From a planning point of view, the legal framework is only one issue, and it does seem to be a problem, but the overall strategy of what to do about the drug is also very important.
Mr. Donald Fitzsimmons, Youth and Family Coordinator, Alcohol and Drug Services, Regina Health District: My function here today is as a specialist in the treatment of youth and families who are harmfully involved with drugs and alcohol. I did not prepare a formal presentation, but I am prepared to entertain any questions, at the wishes of the committee.
Senator Kenny: I am interested in your reaction to the discussion paper that was circulated. Was it useful? Was it biased? Is it something that you would use in the community?
Mr. Fitzgerald: I think it was useful. However, it is just that — a discussion paper. Certainly, some of the particulars in the paper we would not necessarily agree with, but that is the basis for discussion, is it not? People with different points of view sit down and try to reach common ground.
A number of items caught our attention, one of being the gateway drug issue. We know that the majority of people who use marijuana do not go on to other drugs. Yet, for people who use other drugs, it is often one of the drugs that they started with. It may not be the gateway, in that it opens the floodgates, but it certainly is a factor to consider early on in somebody's use.
There is a lot of information out there to suggest that marijuana is a fairly benign drug. Certainly, in the kids that we see, marijuana has not been a benign drug.
I heard a marijuana activist in B.C. talk to a group of eight or nine-year-old school children. One of the points he was making was that, as teenagers, they would be under a lot of stress and they would be looking for something to relieve that stress. He told them that organically-grown cannabis was safe for them to use.
We would certainly take the opposite view. In our view, it really shuts off the learning process in children who do not learn to cope as teenagers. Don can speak to that better than I.
The Chairman: Do you have the name of the speaker who made that comment, the date he made it, and was it taped or broadcast? I am not asking because I am a lawyer, but I hate hearsay, and you are making some strong allegations.
Mr. Fitzgerald: I understand that. It was recorded on Global TV on May 2, 2002.
The Chairman: Perhaps you could give that information to the clerk later.
Senator Kenny: On the gateway issue, is that a question of whether it is a symptom, or behavioural characteristics that lead to the use of marijuana? Is it a symptom that you notice in a child who is moving on to use other drugs, or is it a cause of that child moving on to use other drugs? There is a big difference between the two. There may be a behavioural pattern, of which the use of marijuana is a part, which is common to many people who move on to use other drugs.
Mr. Fitzgerald: Are you asking if it is something within the person that causes him or her to use drugs?
Senator Kenny: No. I think you could isolate a group of characteristics common to people who tend to use drugs, or tend to use drugs in a way that is inappropriate, and clearly marijuana pops up frequently. The question is: Does marijuana cause people to go through the gateway, if you will, or is that just another flag which indicates that, if a child is using marijuana, that may be a sign. They may be exhibiting other behaviour that could affect how they relate to their peers. It may be sexual activity or substance abuse. It is just another signal.
Dr. Findlater: You can tell from the studies that there is an association.
Senator Kenny: Is it causal?
Dr. Findlater: You would have to do a pretty unusual study to tell the difference — randomly select people to use marijuana. From a public health point of view, you cannot tell what leads to what.
Senator Kenny: In the brief you state:
In our treatment of young people with substance use disorders, we have never seen anyone whose life has been enhanced by his or her use of marijuana.
Have you ever seen anyone whose life has been enhanced by alcohol?
Mr. Fitzsimmons: Honestly, no.
Senator Kenny: Do any of you drink?
Mr. Fitzsimmons: No.
Dr. Findlater: I do.
Senator Kenny: Maybe once in a while? What about the messages we get from time to time that suggest that a glass of red wine with a meal at night will do everything from extend your life to decrease heart disease, and so on and so forth? Do you believe that abstinence in every case gives people a fuller life? That seems to be what you are saying here.
Mr. Fitzsimmons: Respectfully, that population, the public with whom we deal, are people whose lives have been impacted in one way or another negatively as a result of their involvement with both alcohol and other drugs.
Keeping that in mind, my comments is that, for youth — I am an addictions counsellor for youth — their involvement with substances tends to be part of a package of curiosities that triggers, if you like, a set of behaviours, which, if they continue, will resulting in increasingly more complex problems.
Senator Kenny: The qualifier you are putting on it is that for children or young people who already have disorders, marijuana is clearly problematic. You are not necessarily applying that to the entire population.
Mr. Fitzsimmons: No, because I do not have contact with the entire population.
Senator Kenny: I understand. I was focusing on the last part of your sentence, not the first part that qualified it. I follow what you are saying now.
Mr. Fitzsimmons: I just want to add that, the quote you read was actually mine, in discussions with Jerry about the presentation. In my experience of 25 years working with kids with addiction problems, I have not yet met one whose life has been enhanced.
Senator Kenny: You qualified that by saying, ``with addiction problems.'' Thank you.
I found the comparisons with tobacco interesting. The question of ``permission to use,'' is a phrase that you use, Mr. Fitzgerald. Although it appears that parts of this brief may have been written by people other than you. The ``permission to use'' concept is an interesting one. Certainly, one of the four motivators to use tobacco is precisely that — it is kids not looking for permission from old folks like us to use something. In fact, if it requires permission from you or from me to do something the answer would be, ``Well, I will give you the bird and I will do it anyway.''
Is it a concern, if you are trying to motivate people, to put it into the same ballpark as tobacco? I would never use ``permission to use'' in the context of tobacco. I worry, for example, about the federal ads that are running that have ``Government of Canada'' at the end. I think that the ad looked good up to that point. I cannot think of a worse motivator of young people than to get the approval of big government.
Mr. Fitzsimmons: I want to clarify the implication of needing permission. I am certainly not implying that we would endorse this by signing off, as parents, to allow or encourage our children to begin using any substance.
Senator Kenny: What you are suggesting is that the prohibition needs to be in place. I am asking you if you think the prohibition is, in fact, a motivator?
Mr. Fitzsimmons: I guess that is up for debate. That was not the intention of the statement with regards to permission. It was simply a set of behaviours that is modelled by acceptability and a sense of normalizing certain substance-using behaviour in the population. Kids view that as permissive. It is frequent in my experience that children who are using substances have parents who are using the substance as well, and that sort of effect is the context in which we used ``permission.''
Senator Kenny: Let me come at it in a different way. In terms of a public health problem, which is the worse problem, smoking cigarettes or using marijuana?
Dr. Findlater: Tobacco has well-documented health consequences. People have used it heavily for many years. In Saskatchewan 1,600 people die each year from tobacco-related illnesses. Many of these illnesses, the heart and lung problems, will also be associated with breathing in hot smoke from almost anything, including marijuana.
Those same illnesses apply to marijuana use. It is just that the use has not been as extensive for as many years. Relative to the number of people who die every year in Saskatchewan, very few will die from marijuana use. Nevertheless, we are in an undesirable situation now where 30 per cent of our youth smoke marijuana. That is just a rough number. Fifteen years ago the number was a lot smaller.
Although from a public health point of view it does not kill very many people, the fact that 30 per cent or more of our youth are currently using a psychoactive drug is an undesirable thing.
I should like to add a comment. You mentioned denormalization and how you would achieve that in youth. That is a good question. Certainly, government ads conveying the message that young people should not use marijuana are a pretty blunt tool. The rise in marijuana use in youth, which is up to over 30 per cent, has occurred despite having Criminal Code sanctions in place. Within a good segment of our youth it has become an accepted practice. Trying to denormalize marijuana use in our youth would take a very targeted approach.
Senator Kenny: The question that has to run through ones mind is: Has the increase come about despite or because of the prohibition that we have in Canadian law?
In Alberta a member introduced a private bill to make possession and use of tobacco illegal by minors. It was a very troublesome piece of proposed legislation for those who were concerned about tobacco control. We immediately saw this as being another sort of phoney challenge to adolescents and that it might encourage them to say, ``Well, I'm macho, and I will take a run at that law and we will see whether I get arrested or not.''
Conceivably, the same would apply to marijuana use. Usage figures tell you that a lot of people do not think it is too serious a problem or they would not be using it. A lot of people also think it is kind of nice, or they would not be using it. You say that, in the population you have been studying, people's lives have not been enhanced, but there are a fair number of people out there who think it is okay or they would not be using it. Let the record show eyebrows went up when I said, ``...think it is okay or they would not be using it.''
The question then arises: If you are trying to motivate people not to use it, do you do it with the sort of blunt instrument that we are using?
Mr. Fitzsimmons: As we said in the presentation, we view involvement with substances as part of a disease in process that actually impairs the individual's ability to recognize the negative consequences of the use. It is a voluntary behaviour in the beginning. As it carries on, kids become increasingly unaware of the consequences created by their use until some point later when an intervention in some form happens. They do not recognize it to be a particular problem.
Senator Kenny: Are you describing tobacco right now?
Mr. Fitzsimmons: That would apply to tobacco, but I was thinking of marijuana.
Senator Kenny: There are interesting parallels, are there not?
Mr. Fitzsimmons: The parallels are there.
Senator Kenny: Only it is not as addictive, and the morbidity level is not there either.
Mr. Fitzsimmons: The clientele I work with are young people, and it is interesting to note that their first use of a substance is tobacco as part of their sort of training ground toward other mood-altering substances, all of which tend not to be a problem in the beginning. However, there is a clear and distinct progression, starting with nicotine, then cannabis and then alcohol, in that order. The consequences never show up until much later, maybe a year or two of continued use.
In the beginning the drug is very seductive. It is very pleasing. It is very satisfying. Kids tend not to have boundaries and limits, and their use quickly grows out of hand. Then we see the increasing complications of their choices and that is often when people like myself become involved as a result of an intervention.
Senator Kenny: Are these symptoms of a lifestyle that they have chosen, or are these causative?
Mr. Fitzsimmons: These would be symptoms of the choices they made around using, and its effect on their lives.
Senator Kenny: You have given us a basket of behaviours that you could have added to if you had chosen. A basket of behaviours is associated with kids who are not fitting in somehow. Are we talking about symptoms or are we talking about causes?
Mr. Fitzsimmons: I think that becomes a moot point, in the sense that what we see are kids who are having problems. Whether it is a cause or an effect, the problem that is happening in their families and their lives is the issue.
Senator Kenny: With respect, if it is not a cause then you are wasting a lot of time on it. If it is just a symptom, then the problem lies somewhere else.
Mr. Fitzsimmons: From my personal point of view and in my work, I see that drug use and its involvement in a child's life has an impairing effect as a result of the interaction between the individual and the drug. Its effects, then, are felt in the families and in the communities.
I do not know which is the cause and which is the effect; I just know that there are problems and that drug use is not helping them. In helping an individual and family intervene at a level that might start to change things, it has been my experience that stopping the drug use is an integral part of that intervention.
The Chairman: How many people, who are of school age, come under the responsibility of the health authority of Regina? Out of a population of 190,000, how many are school kids?
Dr. Findlater: I will take a guess and say 25,000.
The Chairman: Is the segment of the population at risk, Mr. Fitzsimmons, that is, your group, your cohort of subjects, from a global youth population of 25,000?
Dr. Findlater: I can give you a more accurate number.
The Chairman: I am trying to isolate use by youth.
Dr. Findlater: What you are concerned about is high-school-age students. About 13,000 or 14,000 kids are born every year in Saskatchewan. Let us assume that in the Regina Health District 2,500 a year are born. It takes four or five years to get through high school, so that is only 12,500 or 10,000, of high school age.
The Chairman: Your subjects are from a base of 10,000. I am trying to understand the discussion you had with my colleague. No one is suggesting that there is no negative effect of abuse, quite the contrary. Out of a population of 10,000, it may be that 30 per cent of that cohort of high school kids use marijuana. That is a conservative number compared to Ontario and Quebec where the numbers reach 47 per cent, 48 per cent and 50 per cent. However, we do not know the numbers for Saskatchewan because no longitudinal survey has been done here. Do you have those numbers?
Mr. Fitzsimmons: No.
The Chairman: Let's say the number lies between the two. Let's assume that 40 per cent are users, so we arrive at a number of 4,000. The number of substance abusers who come to you is what, 3 per cent, 4 per cent, 5 per cent?
Mr. Fitzsimmons: Each year we see between 400 to 600 people because of the effects.
The Chairman: Are you referring to the effects of cannabis abuse?
Mr. Fitzsimmons: I am referring to all kinds of abuse, including alcohol and other drugs.
The Chairman: Can we isolate the number of cannabis abusers?
Mr. Fitzsimmons: It is very difficult to isolate number that from the population because they do not represent themselves accurately. Generally, I think the truth is that most kids seldom use one drug in the absence of the others.
The Chairman: In the treatment that you give to those subjects, you must learn more about their behaviour or attitudes. I am sure you can define what kind of abuse they are getting into. Is it alcohol? Is it a mix of alcohol and marijuana? I tend to separate tobacco from those others. Was the last number 30 per cent?
Dr. Findlater: It is going down.
The Chairman: It is going down? I am trying to isolate cannabis to see what the long-term effects are of abuse of marijuana in that group of young people. I am attempting to see if the research results we have match with what you mention in your brief.
Mr. Fitzsimmons: I do not think I can do that, and I am not sure that it is possible to do because of the multi-use aspect.
Mr. Fitzgerald: That is an area of real concern to us in this province, in that the research has not been done. The studies are not there. We are handicapped by that. We need to try to develop services, and we are missing good, solid research.
I know that a number of years ago, our sister city, Saskatoon, did a comprehensive survey of high school students. The same opportunity was presented in Regina, but it did not happen. I believe cost was a major factor.
We are scrambling to come up with some figures. Ross found a figure of 30 per cent or 33 per cent, and I found one that was about 40 per cent, but none of those were Regina figures. If you can prevail upon our provincial government or the federal government to put some money into that type of research, it would be good.
The Chairman: That is going to be an easy recommendation: Access to valid and rigorous numbers.
You have to rely on the research and findings of others; is that correct?
Mr. Fitzgerald: Yes. As Don says, when we admit clients we take a history and we ask what chemicals they are using. Our under-19 population is no different from the adults in that they are using alcohol, marijuana, a small amount of cocaine, LSD and things like that. These are polydrugs. It would be interesting to do some work around isolating the effect of one drug over another.
The Chairman: Yes, I see those numbers. You have to rely on others' findings and research.
You cite in your document the NIDA research on brain damage. We are trying to be rigorous in our work. In your conclusion, you say that research shows that cannabis causes brain damage. I just want to alert you to inflationary words. ``Brain damage'' is a term we should avoid unless we are convinced cannabis creates brain damage. You have to rely on the NIDA research.
Have you looked at that research yourself or have you had someone study the results of that research and determine how the data was collected? We did that, so I want to know if you did that too?
Mr. Fitzgerald: No, we have not.
The Chairman: Did you know if the NIDA research in 1998 was done on human beings or not?
Mr. Fitzgerald: I do not know.
The Chairman: Rats were used. Do you know how many shots of what we call ``joints'' a day were used to prove that point? It was 580 per day, and they came to a conclusion that it ``may alter the brain.''
That is why I want everybody to be very cautious of the literature you are using. We did that, and the work that we did led us to set aside some research. That is one study that we set aside.
The National Institute of Medicine in the U.S. did the same in 1999. They were seeking a conclusion before starting the research.
Mr. Fitzgerald: I am happy to hear that.
The Chairman: I thought you would be, and that is why I mentioned it.
Mr. Fitzgerald: Our point, more than anything else, is that we do know that drugs are causing problems for some kids.
The Chairman: We all agree.
Mr. Fitzgerald: Whatever we do in Canada, we must ensure that there is a balance, and we need to make sure that we do not promote things that may be harmful. We were given short notice of this hearing, so we kind of scrambled to get our brief together. It sounds as if your committee is, in fact, taking the time and doing the research. I feel positive about that.
The Chairman: We know that you are embarking on a strategy discussion. That is one of the reasons we came to Regina. We want to help you. It is almost like forcing you to read our documentation.
Senator Kenny: I feel obliged to say be careful when you hear someone say, ``I am from Ottawa and I am here to help you.''
Mr. Fitzgerald: The thought never crossed my mind.
The Chairman: On the subject of the chronic effects of marijuana, recent research from Carleton University in Ottawa dealt with the effects on IQ. Unfortunately, we did not have time to review it, but you may have noticed articles about it in newspapers about a month and a half ago.
You may want to contact Carleton University and the three authors of the research. It was peer-reviewed and the findings appear to be based on well-documented research. The conclusions are quite contrary to the findings that we have about the effect on memory caused by the use of marijuana.
Our researchers may have some questions, and I will write to you if they do. Thank you very much for taking the time to appear before our committee.
The committee adjourned.