Proceedings of the Special Committee on
Illegal Drugs
Issue 18 - Evidence for the afternoon meeting of May 31, 2002
MONTREAL, Friday, May 31, 2002
The Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs met this day at 1:44 p.m. to reassess Canadian anti-drug legislation and policy.
Senator Pierre Claude Nolin (Chairman) in the Chair.
[Translation]
The Chairman: We shall resume the proceedings of the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs. We shall now hear from Yvan Bombardier and Martin Petit, who are here today to represent CACTUS Montréal.
Mr. Martin Petit, Representative, CACTUS Montréal: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to give an overview of CACTUS just to put you in the picture about the work that we do. Then, I do not intend to set out the official position of CACTUS, but rather, to put forward questions and issues arising from drug use.
CACTUS Montréal stands for the Centre d'action communautaire auprès des toxicomanes utilisateurs de seringues. Our mandate is prevention oriented. We work to prevent HIV-AIDS and hepatitis infection among intravenous drug users. In 1989, CACTUS Montréal established the first needle exchange program in North America. CACTUS distributes sterile needles and other protective material, such as condoms. We also do quite a bit of work on the ground with drug addicts and sex workers. We also make referrals to various other types of resources.
When people come in to see us at CACTUS, as a rule of thumb, we listen to what they have to say, we provide support, we educate them about intravenous drug use and we try to raise their awareness about the dangers related to the way they use drugs. CACTUS also organizes various activities and events.
CACTUS has developed a humanistic and holistic approach. In terms of those who have been significantly marginalized in society, we try to rebuild their links with society and we try to make them feel that they are not alone in the world and that they are supported by people who understand their problem, sometimes because they have been through the same situation themselves.
Part of our approach is based on harm reduction. We see on a regular basis that current criminal drug legislation often exacerbates the harm done to people. We have been careful not to adopt a moralizing approach or an approach based on abstinence, and we have attempted to base our approach on responsible drug use.
CACTUS is also working to promote the recognition and protection of the rights of drug users. To this end, we have distributed a copy of our publication Pusher d'info, which is a publication designed by and for drug users, but also for any other people who are interested in this topic. Through this brochure, we feel that we are able effectively to develop a comprehensive understanding of drug use and to promote responsible drug use. CACTUS does not have an official position on the decriminalization of cannabis.
I am aware that some organizations do indeed have a set position and demands. In our case, it would be quite inappropriate this afternoon to tell you that we do have an official position that I have come here to promote it.
It is often said that the criminalization of drugs makes no sense because we see, on a daily basis, the harm done to those people who have taken the decision get into detox or to at least attempt to kick their habit. When these people are not able to kick their habits and are subsequently arrested and criminalized, this whole process puts a break on their attempts to come off drugs. We are well aware that this has a very negative effect on people's lives. What I would like to talk to you about today is the criminalization of cannabis and other drugs.
We would do well to remember that all of us consume several types of drugs on a daily basis. You only have to think about coffee, cigarettes, anti-depressants, Viagra, Ritalin and alcohol, for example. These are all legal drugs that we take on a daily basis. Yesterday evening, when Mr. Colas said that he had never taken drugs, I had to smile. He had said something quite funny without even noticing. Then, he even went on to talk about his bout of poliomyelitis. That was quite unfortunate. However, I imagine that he must have taken legal drugs to ease the pain.
And this, quite rightly, leads us toward an overall, humanistic approach to drugs. The fact is that everyone knows someone who has used or is still using illegal drugs. I think it would be rather hypocritical to say: ``No, I do not know anyone who touches illegal drugs.'' We often hear such comments from our brothers, our sisters, our uncles, our aunts or our father or mother. In other words, many people use drugs, and I know some myself. People use many drugs everyday of the year.
Routine use of some of these drugs is not that dangerous, while others can be fatal in the long-term. Tobacco is a good example of such a drug. We know that cigarette manufacturers include over 100 toxic substances or substances that may be fatal in the long-term in cigarettes. And they do that without breaking any laws.
Why is it that cigarette companies can function in that way, can continue to exist and make staggering profits without breaking any laws? Cannabis, on the other hand, which is produced by individuals, even organic cannabis, contains no additives or toxic or chemical substances which could be harmful to health, like the other substances put into cigarettes. We also wonder about this and so far we have found no logical response to this question.
It is also a known fact that the additives in cigarettes cause smokers to become addicted. Personally, I know some former heroin addicts who are still smoking cigarettes, but who are no longer using heroin. They even call it their ``hard drug''. And I find this quite revealing. Obviously, we all absorb drugs differently. Some people can say: ``I have used heroin, but I stopped. For me, I consider tobacco a hard drug.''
These people simply cannot quit smoking. In light of this problem, the government could very well prohibit cigarette manufacturers from producing their product as long as cigarettes contain all these toxic substances. At the moment, the exact opposite is happening: the government even goes so far as to levy a tax on cigarettes and collect revenues from them, rather than introducing any quality control procedures.
In our view, controlling the quality of drugs is essential. Of course, this is not an official position, as I said earlier, but when we chat among ourselves, we think this would be most desirable.
Let us come back to the issue of legal drugs for a moment. In Canada and the United States, some people have died after taking drugs such as Redux or Zyban. Both of these drugs had been approved by the American and Canadian governments. This also raises issues regarding legal drugs that can be bought with a prescription which have proven to be toxic to some individuals. Why is it that innocuous drugs such as cannabis cannot be bought with a prescription or even as an over-the-counter drug? We have to wonder about that.
When we think about these disturbing examples of drugs like Redux or Zyban, we may wonder why cocaine and heroin are still illegal. It is a well-known fact that pushers sell 90 to 95 per cent pure heroin on the street. There may be some variations in this, but we have heard about such cases. If we think of the case in which an individual injects heroin safely, and has what is known as a good trip, we have to wonder why drugs manufactured by pharmaceutical companies, which can cause death, are legal, while heroin is illegal.
Hospitals use morphine, Demerol, Dilaudid, which are all opium derivatives, as is heroin. Apparently, we agree to quelling people's physical ills with opiates, but we do not agree to use the same substances to lessen psychological or social problems such as stress, anxiety or depression, from which many of our fellow citizens suffer. We are having difficulty finding any answers that would explain this situation.
From the outset, people using injection drugs are not sick. They may have some social problems, but they are not sick. If these people use drugs in conditions that are not safe and give them little control over the injection, then there may be problems. Is that not so?
In addition, as with other drugs, when people abuse heroin, or smoke two packages of cigarettes a day, there may be some very harmful impacts on their health. Some people can control their drug use very well. They will say that it is very pleasant to use drugs — cannabis, heroin or cocaine — once in a while without life necessarily becoming hell.
At CACTUS, we see people like this who talk to us about their experiences and who live completely normal lives. Of course, some of them have less control, but we are trying to get an overview of drugs and see who can manage their consumption and who cannot.
Some people inject heroin once a week or once a month, and they have no addiction problem. They are people like you and me, but these are things that we tend not to talk about often. There are also men and women who use drugs two or three times a day, before, during and after work, and who do not bring their habit home. We know people like this: their boyfriend or their girlfriend does not know that they are drug users. This is quite revealing. This is something that disturbs us a great deal.
In the long run, or in large quantities, heroin and cocaine are potentially harmful to health. Cigarettes are also potentially dangerous, and yet they are legal and sold under certain restrictions. The problem, as we described in the issue of Pusher d'info which we distributed, is that drugs are considered illegal.
If people inject cocaine 50 times a day — or we could say amphetamines, because what is available on the street most of the time is amphetamines with a little cocaine added, prison is not going to help them. That is absolutely clear in our minds. We know many people who had taken steps to get off drugs, and when they were in prison, all their efforts were completely wiped out. When they left prison, their situation was no better. On the contrary, in prison they improved their contacts with organized crime, and they may have been offered a job after their release from prison. We do not think that situations such as these are at all compatible with harm reduction.
I use the example of cocaine, so as not to use the ridiculous example of cannabis. We find it even more ridiculous if someone gets a criminal record for cannabis use. Particularly since we did not hear any of the witnesses last night say: ``I am in favour of keeping the current legislation on cannabis, and for maintaining criminal sanctions''.
The police, who are in a good position to know, often talk about losing the war on drugs, do they not?
Mr. Petit: Mr. Serge Gascon said earlier that the police seize barely 10 per cent of all drugs. Clearly, the war on drugs is a failure. Even the police say so.
Drug addiction is a human problem and we must adopt a humanistic holistic approach, which excludes criminalization and the courts. Some people have very complex lives. It is essential to take this diversity into account when we talk about drug addiction.
Those are the main points I wanted to make. Education and awareness campaigns have proven their worth. At CACTUS, we think we should have an open approach involving awareness and education.
Mr. Yvan Bombardier, Representative, CACTUS Montreal: Mr. Chairman, I have been a case worker at CACTUS, working with injection drug users, for two years. I am not a university graduate, but my expertise stems from using heroin and all sorts of other drugs for 20 years, including marijuana, for about 25 years now. Since I have received some therapy and taken some therapeutic training courses, I now find myself working on the front line.
When I see people come into CACTUS Montreal, they are sometimes very much under the influence of drugs, often in a state of panic or seeking help. Other times, people come in just to pick up what they need to continue the party.
When I have to deal with hard drug users, I have to try to find an alternative for them. To bring them down a bit when they have taken too much cocaine, one of our unofficial recommendations is to smoke a big joint in order to calm down. When people say they need heroin, we suggest that if their pusher is not around, they should smoke a joint to temporarily control the craving. When we do that, we are suggesting that they do something illegal, and we often find ourselves having to make ethical judgments.
Teenagers come to us because they want to try intravenous cocaine for the first time. However, when we confront them and talk with them a little, we realize that they use pot or other drugs, and that they want to try cocaine. We suggest that they stick to smoking pot. But there again, we are recommending something illegal. They are going to use drugs in any case. We will not solve the drug problem through legalization; there will always be abuse. And that is the problem: drug abuse. Whether we are talking about caffeine or cigarettes, abuse cause health problems.
Clearly, there is a problem when marijuana is used by people subject to mental health problems, such as schizophrenics. I worked at Portage for three years as well, in the program for drug addicts with mental health problems, and one of the difficulties we had with schizophrenics is that when they ingest too much caffeine, they become excited and often end up in states of toxic psychosis.
The same thing happens to people with problems of this type when they use marijuana. However, we cannot generalize about this, because these individuals have other health problems. We are not talking about the vast majority of people who can manage their drug use and remain respectable and responsible in society.
I myself used heroin for 20 years. If I had listened to my doctor, I would be on methadone today. I might also be taking anti-depressants. That is what is done now for all those who are getting off hard drugs: they are given anti- depressants to dull their feelings.
I smoke marijuana. Without this drug, I would probably either be in court for the crimes I committed at the time, or I would be using heroin again when life is difficult.
Drug addicts, in my opinion, are hypersensitive. That is why they seek to self-medicate, either with hard drugs if their pain is severe, or with soft drugs, like alcohol in some cases, although I consider alcohol a hard drug. But just as alcohol can be considered a source of stress relief, so can marijuana for ordinary people.
It is also used to help people stay off hard drugs. When someone comes to us and says: ``Listen, I have not used for X amount of time, I have gone through therapy, I am a bit keyed up, I don't know what to do.'' We suggest that it is better to smoke pot than to inject heroin or cocaine, when the person has been off those things for years.
At CACTUS, we often end up working at night. When the bars close, people come to us drunk and they are the ones who are aggressive and violent. But people who are high from smoking marijuana and who come to CACTUS are never violent. People high on heroin are never violent. People high on cocaine may be wound up, may even be in a panic or psychotic state, but they are rarely aggressive.
So alcohol is more dangerous than any of the three drugs that I just mentioned. At least, alcohol is what causes us the most problems at CACTUS' permanent location.
[English]
Senator Banks: I will ask you both the same question, but from a different standpoint — Mr. Petit, from the standpoint of your organization and its experience; and Mr. Bombardier, from your personal experience. For the last 20 months, various witnesses who have testified before our committee have suggested that a good reason to prohibit cannabis is the fact that it is a gateway drug that leads to the use of other, harder drugs. What are your opinions of that view?
Mr. Bombardier: To me that is a myth. Today young 12 and 14-year-olds who have used marijuana come to us at CACTUS, and they are willing to try cocaine or heroin because of peer pressure. We see a lot of street kids, punks or marginal people who hang around together during summertime. The tendency is towards the use of hard drugs right away because it is the cool thing, or the in thing to do. If you are predisposed to heroin, you will use eventually hard drugs. To me, it is all a question of sensibility, how you deal with life and, if you have a hard time dealing with events in your life, you will use a drug that will kill the pain; and if the pain is really deep, you will use a hard drug. If you have a slight pain to alleviate, you will use marijuana or soft drugs. However, one does not lead to the other.
[Translation]
Mr. Petit: Yes, in fact, I also think that it is a myth that marijuana is the gateway to harder drugs. For about the last 15 years, I too have smoked marijuana very occasionally, just to relieve the stress of work and my various responsibilities.
Maybe a hundred times I have heard people say: ``Oh, I smoke pot but I don't touch anything else because what I really like is the relaxed, peaceful feeling pot brings.'' And it is likely that these people will not touch any other drugs. Or they might try them, but it will not be because of having smoked pot. They may be in some situation where they decide to try other drugs.
At CACTUS, when we work at our permanent location distributing syringes and other means of protection, we often have people coming who are very drunk. When they have drunk too much alcohol and they can no longer ``party'' they want to inject cocaine. We see people every day who are very drunk — as Yvan was telling us earlier — who take cocaine in order to continue the party and be in on the party.
So the same question could be asked about legal drugs. I do not think that the issue here is whether a drug is illegal or legal, but rather whether one drug leads to another. In the case of alcohol, which is a legal drug that is accepted and regulated, it very clearly leads to cocaine use.
I believe that it may be true that some people who have used marijuana now take cocaine. But there is no significant or even meaningful link between the two. They may be multiple drug users who are simply attracted to all drugs. We see that as well. There is not necessarily a direct connection, and we see this all the time.
Mr. Bombardier: Twenty years ago, I was studying psychology at McGill University and I had a professor named Ronald Melzack who was a neurosurgeon. He told us that drinking alcohol after work was no worse than smoking a joint after work. And that was 20 years ago. I am talking about a neurosurgeon who was a disciple of Dr. Penfield. Since that time, the situation has been studied a little more in depth, at least I hope it has.
The Chairman: I understand that some of the people who come to CACTUS are there not just to pick up syringes and so on but also to get information?
Mr. Petit: Yes.
The Chairman: What kind of information do you have to hand out to them? Do you design these hand-outs or do you have access to information from other sources, such as the government?
Mr. Petit: Some of the information handouts have been prepared with the help of the Public Health Department, with the regional health authorities. The information simply promotes the use of sterile syringes, safe injection and harm reduction in a drug use context. And that is the philosophy behind our work.
The Chairman: Do you give them little information kits?
Mr. Petit: Yes, we have small kits with information for people.
The Chairman: You talked earlier about cocaine cut with amphetamines. Is that common?
Mr. Petit: Yes, at least, we certainly know that there are people able to do what is called ``binge hitting.'' That is the term that is used, and I am afraid I do not know the French equivalent for it. But we know that there are people who can shoot up 50 times a day for 4, 5 or 6 days. If they were injecting cocaine, they would probably be strung out very quickly. We know that amphetamines can keep people awake for 6 days; amphetamines are very powerful stimulants that can let people stay awake for a number of days.
The Chairman: You certainly deal with the whole gamut in your work. You were talking earlier about 12-year-olds. It is still hard to imagine them going to you for information or at least to see whether you might have what they are looking for.
It is an enormous responsibility to have to inform a 12 year-old of the consequences of buying something on the street that may not at all be what he or she is looking for, as well as the risks involved in combining these things.
Mr. Petit: Very true. That is why, when we were talking about quality control, we would like to see the same kind of quality control as for alcoholic beverages in Quebec. The Société des alcools du Québec, for example, has an international reputation. When an alcoholic beverage receives the SAQ rubber stamp, it is accepted around the world. So it would be a good thing to have quality control for drugs. It would also be appropriate for cigarettes, given the toxic substances contained in them.
We know that there are amphetamines in cocaine and we know that there are various substances used to cut drugs. However, we have no control over that. We can tell someone: ``It may contain this or that.'' But the only information we can give is that we do not know what it actually contains.
The Chairman: I am particularly concerned about the young people who come to you.
Mr. Bombardier: We have ways to help them.
The Chairman: Can you explain to me how these young people end up coming to you? I have an 11-year-old daughter; how could she find herself there asking you questions?
Mr. Bombardier: I will give you an example. A 14-year-old girl decides to run away and come to Montreal, so she leaves her home and arrives at the Voyageur bus station, gets chatted up by some of the people who are there watching passengers get off the buses and looking for lost souls.
One way or another, they get her to leave with them to go have some fun. They give her dope for a few days and she eventually gets hooked. That happens if someone gets hold of her. She may end up in a prostitution ring.
That is why there is a new organization called ``Premier Arrêt,'' which has been located in the bus station for about two years now, checking out teenagers getting off the buses. But there are a lot who get through.
They sometimes get to Berri Square and hang out with young or not-so-young people; they see the older ones taking hard drugs, and they get brought into it. Last year, I saw a 14-year-old girl who was involved in prostitution and was just starting to use injectable drugs; she came to me with track marks all over her arms. A boy just a little older than she was introduced her to CACTUS. In that type of situation, we have to try to provide all the information and make her aware of the risks she is exposing herself to. Of course, we have to do this without preaching to her or criticizing her for her actions.
The Chair: And not be judgemental.
Mr. Bombardier: Yes, and to give her all the alternatives and to open the door for her to communicate with us, but only when she is ready to do so. There are street workers there during the day. We work at night. There is always a way for someone to be able to help her.
We have to do our work anonymously. Of course, the Youth Protection Act and the Health Act say that these people cannot be named in the interest of risk reduction. That puts enormous responsibility on our shoulders. Sometimes, we even have to talk with the parents when they get in touch with us.
We try to find ways of preventing these young people from getting involved in drugs. There are information magazines from the regional health authority, including one called FX, which gives all the details and lays out all the risks. We also have information that we have prepared ourselves, including Pusher d'info. It is a way of helping these young people start on the road back. The drawings inside are done by drug addicts or former addicts. It is a way of helping them build up self esteem.
The Chair: Do you have to report minors to the Youth Protection Services who come to you?
Mr. Bombardier: No.
The Chair: It is because you do not want to or because you are not required to do so?
Mr. Petit: It is an ethical problem, since we work on an anonymous basis.
The Chair: You should be required to do that, but you do not do it?
Mr. Petit: We provide our services anonymously and people are not required to identify themselves.
The Chair: You have weighed the pros and cons?
Mr. Petit: Yes. As we said earlier, if a 14-year-old comes to us with track marks all over her arms, and if we do not give her sterile equipment, she will find a used syringe in an alley way and shoot up with that. So it is a very difficult ethical dilemma for us. I admit that sometimes there may be nothing else we can do. We would like to take other steps, but we cannot.
Mr. Bombardier: That said, there have been extreme cases where decisions have been made by individuals, not endorsed by the CACTUS team, to contact the mother to get an order if the person was really in danger and was causing herself serious harm. So in extreme cases, we do intervene.
The Chair: You use your heads.
Mr. Bombardier: We use our heads.
The Chair: We now welcome Mr. Cloutier, who will give us an individual presentation.
Mr. Pierre Cloutier, Criminal Lawyer, Individual Presentation: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to appear here today. I find the committee's work in this area to be vital.
For the last 33 years, I have been a member of the Bar and have argued hundreds of cases in court. I was the first lawyer in Canada to challenge the Narcotic Control Act under the Charter, in Mingan district, in Lepage. I also argued Hamon before the Quebec Court of Appeal. We have also had two rulings, R v. Clay and R. v. Malmo-Levine, as well as Caine, which will soon be before the Supreme Court of Canada.
I have limited my comments to your report entitled ``Discussion Paper on Cannabis.'' I could have talked for hours about other drugs, but I will stick to cannabis. I have tried to answer your questions.
The first question that you asked is: ``Do you agree with the research conclusions we have received?''
To answer these questions, I go back to page 6 of your document, where you write: ``Scientific research we have examined to date indicates that:''
The first statement is as follows: ``Cannabis is a psychoactive substance and it is therefore better to not use it.''
I think that the main thing for a jurist, in any case, for me, after what I have seen and what seems to be the heart of the problem, is the lack of any legal definition. There has never been a legal definition in the Criminal Code, in the Narcotic Control Act or in the legislation on certain drugs. There is a definition, which is a completely arbitrary legal definition.
In the Narcotic Control Act, a narcotic was defined as a substance listed in the schedule to the act. The Governor in Council was given the power to amend the schedule in the public interest. The Governor in Council could have included apples, oranges, tomatoes, cucumbers or anything at all. Parliament has no control over this because Parliament delegated that authority to the Governor in Council.
I have always used a somewhat more scientific definition: a psychoactive substance. I found that in a 1994 working document from the Health and Social Services department, in which a psychoactive substance is defined as being ``any substance which, because of its chemical composition, has an influence on the activities of the control nervous system.''
From a scientific standpoint, drugs are generally divided into three major categories: stimulants, disrupters and depressants. In a recent document entitled L'usage des drogues et la toxicomanie, steroids are included. So the definition covers both legal and illegal substances. That definition does not work in a legal framework. Why is tobacco not considered a narcotic? Why is cannabis a narcotic? Why not alcohol? Why not caffeine? These questions have never been answered.
Parliament has given a partial response. In 1989, in Hamon, I argued that the classification of cannabis was irrational. I said that it did not make any sense. A narcotic, if one looks back at the scientific history of narcotics, is actually an opiate. In 1923, it was added after a member of Parliament stood up in the House and said: ``In fact, there is a new drug, which is called cannabis.'' One MP even stood up and said: ``In fact, what is cannabis sativa? Is it intra vires?''
That gives you an idea of the level of knowledge. There was no cannabis problem in Canada. It was added to the list in a completely arbitrary way, without any debate, in Canada. That is a recognized historical fact.
I would like to see the committee examine this definition because it is at the very heart of the problem. We cannot start with such a generic definition as the word ``drug'', which has a negative connotation. Most people in our society use alcohol, smoke tobacco, drink coffee but do not consider themselves as drug users. Drug users are the other people. But when you get right down to it, these are legal drug users.
The arbitrary line drawn by the law categorizes good and bad drug users. To the left, you have the good drug users, those people who smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol and caffeine. Then, to the right, you have the bad drug users, those that use drugs that have been classified as illegal. This is fundamentally important: you have the good and the bad. It is completely arbitrary. We cannot see the forest for the trees.
You cannot put cannabis on trial without looking elsewhere. You have to put everything into perspective.
The same thing applies to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. There is no definition. It has been put in an appendix. And it gets even worse. Parliament talks about its Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and yet, just by chance, it forgets to include alcohol and tobacco. It forget about an industry worth several billion of dollars internationally. A small detail forgotten thanks to the tobacco lobby and the alcohol lobby with Mr. Molson and company.
On the left, we have the pushers and, on the right, we have honourable businessmen who receive medals. As far as I know, Mr. Molson does not sell holy water! The British American Tobacco Company, that sponsors car races throughout the world, is not selling hay either, as far as I know.
Can you see how important this arbitrary line that we have drawn is? We can understand this arbitrary line if we go back in history, right? This goes back to the history of opium in 1905, with the Chinese and the devastation of Chinatown. It is very interesting. It is clearly a line separating the North from the South: the wealthy countries against the poor countries.
Let's not tell each other stories. When examine drug legislation, what do we ultimately want to defeat? What keeps cropping up the most? Cannabis, coca and heroin. These are drugs that are produced and consumed in the third world. Meanwhile, eastern white civilizations have been dumping their products, namely tobacco and alcohol, throughout the world. Go for a walk in the airports, in the duty-free shops, and what do you buy? Tobacco and alcohol.
We do not have a unique convention on narcotics, what we have is an unfair convention, one that goes in one direction only. We have no definition and I would invite the committee to examine this issue and come up with a real definition.
When you say that it is preferable not to consume, I would agree with what my predecessors had to say on the issue. We could say that it is preferable not to abuse. As with any other psychotropic substance, it is preferable not to use it in an abusive manner. Because an intelligent policy on psychotropic substances will always make a distinction between use and abuse. But when you prohibit a substance, you do not make this basic distinction between usage and abuse. It is not because you are using a substance that you are necessarily going to abuse it.
As to the question: ``What are your sources of information?'' I would answer that, as a legal expert, all of the scientific information I have discussed can be found in the excellent work done in the cases of Clay, Caine and Malmo- Levine. Everything is there. These cases contain exhaustive evidence. I have done this myself in other cases. I had the privilege of meeting Mr. Kalant. I argued against him two or three times.
The Chairman: Mr. Kalant?
Mr. Cloutier: Mr. Kalant, yes, he would torpedo my case each time by saying: ``Yes, but there is a small risk somewhere, a tiny risk, maybe.'' Of course there is, but life is a risk as well. As soon as you are born, you risk being killed. And then, we die at the end. So life is a risk.
You asked the question: ``Research evidence we have received to date does not appear to support criminalization and penalization of cannabis. Do you share this view?'' Absolutely. First of all, the state has the burden of proof because it is the one that put limitations on its citizens' freedom of choice. I understand that we are living in a constitutional monarchy and that, in theory, persons belong to Her Majesty the Queen. But, in a democracy, it does not work quite like that. In this case, it is the state which, since 1923, given that we are talking about cannabis, has put limitations on Canadian citizens' freedom of choice.
Accordingly, it is the state that should shoulder the burden of proof and tell the people: ``We are doing this for such and such a reason''. We have never known what these reasons were! The law has been around since 1923. The power of the police is constantly increasing. And, ultimately, it is the citizens who find themselves shouldering this burden of proof.
It was not easy for Mr. Caine or Mr. Malmo-Levine, nor was it easy for anyone who challenged this legislation, to go before the courts. They found themselves already accused, already viewed as criminals, and they had to spend money. And they must face a singular antagonist, called the government, with all of its resources. It is not easy for them. They have the burden of proof; there has been a reversal of onus.
Criminalization should be a serious matter, with rigorous and well defined criteria. You do not criminalize citizens, Canadians, the way you would regulate the colour of margarine. We must always make a distinction. The Supreme Court made this distinction between the state as arbitrator and the state as the singular antagonist of the citizen.
When the state is acting as an arbitrator, when it regulates the colour of margarine, it is resolving conflicts that may exist between particular groups. It acts as an arbitrator, establishing standards. But when the state enacts criminal legislation, it becomes the singular antagonist of the citizen, with all of its resources. We must not forget that: at the outset, there is somewhat of an imbalance between the state and the citizen.
So criminalization must be an extremely serious process. When I began practising criminal law, the Criminal Code was a book of normal size whereas now it has become huge. We fill in the gaps, we plug the holes. We over-criminalize to the nth degree!
Take a look at all of the legislation that the federal government sent us after September 11. It was terrible! I am a legal expert with a master's degree in law and I sometimes have difficulty understanding what they mean. It was a veritable tower of Babylon; it was just horrible and unacceptable!
Criminalization is one sector where we should keep things simple so that citizens really understand what it is all about. But that is not what is happening. Furthermore, criminalization should reflect a broad consensus of opinion amongst all citizens. For example, polls would reveal that 99.9 per cent if not 100 per cent of citizens feel that murder, assault, rape, theft and fraud should be criminalized. But, in the case of cannabis, we do not have this consensus. Not even the majority feels this way now and the prohibitionists do not constitute the majority.
So how are we to accept, on moral grounds, in a country that brags about being the best democratic country in the world, that we criminalize citizens when not even a majority of its citizens are in agreement? This is unacceptable!
In addition, when we criminalize something, we have to set the bar high. We must not do as the two judges did in the Malmo-Levine case, nor should we act as the three judges from the Court of Ontario did. The criteria are very. The criterion for criminalizing was established, and this was done in the first part of the exercise, right?
When legislation is challenged under the Charter, initially, the onus is on the citizen to show that there has been an infringement of right. After that, the government reserves the right, under article 1, to justify its legislation. But there is a double padlock because Parliament has reserved the right to enact legislation notwithstanding the Charter. This constitutes an imbalance between the state and the citizen.
In these cases, we did not even make it past the first stage. Why? During the first stage of the procedure, when the principles of fundamental justice were being examined, they started balancing the interests of the state with those of the citizen. The exercise that should have been done under article 1 was in fact carried out under article 7. Consequently, they came up with a minimum criterion to be able to criminalize. According to the British Colombia Court of Appeal and the Ontario Court of Appeal, Parliament must have a well-founded fear of harm that is neither trivial nor benign.
This is completely ridiculous because, with a definition like that, we could criminalize just about anything, you know. Wind surfing, cross-country skiing, because it is dangerous, car racing, mountain climbing, eating hot dogs. When the bar is set as low as that, there are all kinds of behaviours we could criminalize. We have to raise the bar; we have to be talking about harm that is serious.
The government should be able to demonstrate that the behaviour concerned causes harm to others, meaning that it is likely to threaten or violate the integrity of the human being or ownership. These are the two cornerstones of criminal law, namely, that we protect the physical integrity of citizens and that we protect ownership because ownership is an extension of an individual's physical integrity. These two fundamental values constitute the basis of the Canadian Criminal Code.
All drug offences are neutral: possession, producing, possession for the purpose of selling, and selling. When this is done between two consenting adults, it can be likened to what Prime Minister Trudeau had to say in his day: ``The state has no business in the bedrooms...'' The state has no business having a police officer monitor what a citizen puts in his pipe. It is the same logic.
In my opinion, we have to be able to demonstrate that the behaviour concerned will harm somebody else. When I am pleading before the Crown Attorney and the judge, I often say: ``Bring me the victims. How are they your victims? There are no victims as such.'' Unless it is determined that the victim is the victim him or herself. Then we take all responsibility away from the person, we turn citizens into wards of the state. That does not make any sense.
As an escape hatch for the prohibitionists, we say that the harm must also be harm done to the community. We use this argument, namely harm to the community or public interest, to justify anything. In my opinion, this is a cover used by interest groups to maintain the status quo. Because the community and public interest are abstract notions.
A community is composed of human beings. If one type of behaviour does not violate the fundamental rights of human beings, it cannot violate the rights of the community. It is as simple as that. I say this as food for thought.
You asked another question: ``Studies appear to indicate that the current policy approach may cause more harm than good. Do you agree?'' Absolutely. We have been aware, well-aware of the perverse effect of prohibition for many years. Obviously, people do not listen, but these perverse effects have been denounced. It is difficult when there is a war on drugs because all of that is irrational. It is an emotional issue, and people do not listen. It goes in one ear and out the next. But we have known about this for a long time, we have been talking about the effects of prohibition for a long time.
A number of them are found in the Clay decision: excessive criminalization of citizens; disregard for the law; lack of confidence in health and education decision-makers; lack of communication between parents and youths; risk of youth being associated with organized crime; no government control over product quality; creation of a subculture; the staggering costs of prohibition; and the fact that it is impossible, in an enforcement context, to do objective research and truly inform the public. I will add another: the creation of a huge black market.
Government is responsible for the whole biker mess. You know, what really got to me was when the Desrosiers kid was killed by a bomb in Montreal a couple of years ago. The mother was completely distraught. Prohibitionist groups obviously picked up on the mother's suffering, and the police said: ``We need more tools, we need more weapons to fight the bad guys, et cetera.'' I was upset and thought: Poor woman, it is government that is responsible for the mess, government is responsible for this situation because government enacted prohibitionist legislation.
When you prohibit something — it is not rocket science — when you ban a product for which there is a demand, the supply is reduced. So if there is a demand, by affecting the supply, the price goes up. And there are people who get into the business of supplying these substances who are not necessarily users themselves. I do not think they even use, in fact. Because it is profitable, the product is as valuable as gold. Government is responsible for this situation.
And all we have been doing for years — it reminds me of the escalation of the Vietnam war — is give more and more powers to the police. By giving powers to the police, it is very rare when you give people powers that you ever get them back later. They will not want to give up those powers. Because the police have a field day with that. Police officers make a career out of it. It suits them fine. They pride themselves on protecting the public interest, but very often they are protecting their own interests as a lobby group.
I would like to talk to you about organized crime profits. I do not know Mom Boucher, but how do you think he made his money? From drug trafficking, everyone knows that! The government handed the market to him on a silver platter. That is what creates criminal gangs that endanger democracy and undermine a society's democratic values. Look what is happening in Colombia and elsewhere. It is a terrible situation, and they have no way out.
Dispute-related violence is obviously to be expected. They all want a piece of the silver platter. They cannot settle their trade disputes. When Molson sells cases of beer to a corner store, if the store owner does not pay, Molson goes to court and gets its money.
But when you are on the government-created black market, you cannot settle your trade disputes in court. So how do you settle your trade disputes? Through violence. That is precisely what happens.
It is not substance use, or cannabis use, since we are talking about cannabis, that leads to crime; it is the prohibition of cannabis. That is what has to be understood.
And I forget to mention, lastly, police corruption. Look what happened in Toronto. We also have some examples in Montreal. The first example, I recall, is that of Marchesault, who was dipping into the police safe in order to sell quantities of coke and pot on the black market. And that is just the tip of the iceberg, because there is money to be made.
The fourth question is: ``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. Do you think that penal prohibition is the right way to define what is allowed and what is not for youth?''
I am going to answer your question with another question: Should adults be forbidden to drink wine on the basis that it would be dangerous for children to drink wine? It is completely absurd.
I have been giving talks on this topic for 25 years, and people say to me about young people: ``You know, Mr. Cloutier, it is hard for young people.'' Look, quit harping about young people! I am going to tell you up front, I am in favour of legislation banning the sale of cannabis to minors. I cannot say more than that, with tougher penalties, if necessary. But do we really have to criminalize adults in order to protect young people? It does not make sense. It is completely ridiculous!
Rights are being taken away from adults, particularly the right to choose what is good or bad for their health, on the basis that young people need protection. That is going too far. That is casting too broad a net. Adults are being excessively criminalized on the basis that young people need to be protected. That is an absolute crock!
Your next question: ``Should public policies aim to prevent use or minimize the negative consequences of use?'' Any intelligent public policy on psychotropic substances has to distinguish between use and abuse. Otherwise, adult human beings are denied the right to control their own body. The human body does not belong to government. It belongs to its occupant. There is no tattoo on human bodies in Canada that says: ``This body is the property of the Government of Canada.''
Canada should not be a concentration camp with police watching what each individual is putting in his or her pipe. Pleasure seeking through the alteration of consciousness has always been an intimate part of human history. And various human groupings have always known how to manage that responsibly. Otherwise, those groups would have disappeared.
The war on drugs is an American and Canadian war, which just began at the turn of the century. This is nothing new. The only way to manage it is through information and prevention. It is a health matter, not a police matter. And in a prohibition context, there is no room for information, because the issue is too emotional.
I congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, for saying: ``This type of attitude, where people basically say anything and everything, has to stop.'' You and your committee have worked for a year to demonstrate, through analysis and reason, what the truth really is.
Your next question: ``Studies indicate that more liberal policy approaches have little effect on actually increasing or decreasing use patterns of cannabis. Do you agree? Why?'' Absolutely. It is what I call the Berlin wall syndrome.
At first, the East Germans rushed to the West to take advantage of its riches. The excitement has now passed. It will be the same with cannabis, if it is legalized. Perhaps at first, there will be an increase in use. That is possible, it is hard to predict, but it could happen. There is a far greater likelihood that it will subsequently level off and perhaps fall completely out of fashion.
Forbidding something makes it attractive. You know that: if the kids go their uncle's, and he gives them chocolate, which I do not allow, they will be much more keen on visiting their uncle than on staying home. It is to be expected!
The Chairman: I have read your text in its entirety and we have some questions for you right now.
You have no problem with protecting youths, for instance, until the age of majority?
Mr. Cloutier: Of course.
The Chairman: Is the age of majority set at 19, 18 or 20?
Mr. Cloutier: It is at age 18.
The Chairman: You have the choice. Here it is 18 years.
Mr. Cloutier: Yes.
The Chairman: In some provinces, the age of majority is 19 and in others it is 20.
Mr. Cloutier: They will determine that as they wish.
The Chairman: And what about age 16?
Mr. Cloutier: That would not be unreasonable either. But is this not an arbitrary line, Mr. Chairman? You also realize that.
The Chairman: This is why I say that there are three, at least I know about three of them. There might be a fourth, but I know at least three: 20, 19 and 18 years of age.
Mr. Cloutier: I think that 18 years would be fair. At age 16 adolescents are fragile, especially when going to school. Smoking marijuana while going to school may not be necessarily the best thing to do. These cases may be more sensitive.
If there was some law to regulate growth, it could draw distinctions. Some children at age 14, sometimes young women look as old as age 18. It all depends. But we have no other means of controlling this than to set an arbitrary line at the age of majority.
The Chairman: My researcher just made a comment that I must share with everyone: ``Like the senators, at age 35.''
Mr. Cloutier: Exactly.
The Chairman: No one can become a senator before age 30.
Mr. Cloutier: Your next question: ``If Canada tried to adopt a different public policy with regard to cannabis, should it fear reprisals from the United States?'' You did well to ask this question and it is this one that I had the most trouble with: ``What kind of reaction might they have?''
In the United States there are many groups opposed to prohibition. Americans are not all imbeciles. However, there is a possibility of a reaction from the United States government. I am drawing a distinction between the American government and the American people. I fear there might be a reaction, especially with the current administration. Unfortunately, the Canadian government keeps these kinds of dealings with the United States a secret. This information is difficult to access for Canadian citizens. The Canadian government should break the wall of silence and give citizens as much information as possible on American pressure.
I would love to know what will transpire in Mr. Chrétien's office when the United States ambassador barges in to talk about drugs. I think that it would be the Canadian government's responsibility to make the information available to the people, so that we might know where the pressure is coming from. This will not be an easy task because Americans act in an irrational way, they believe that God is always on their side. And then there is the dreaded American moral majority.
The Chairman: Do you know that there was a report on the Global network last week or two weeks ago, when we began our work in Regina? Some people from the Global TV network decided to connect the dots between what we were doing and what the Americans think of it. They took our question number 7 and then they said: ``Now let us look into this issue.'' They went to Washington and they got their answer.
Mr. Cloutier: Was it clear?
The Chairman: They are not happy.
Mr. Cloutier: I know. The American moral majority is dreaded for its religious fundamentalism. I like the word ``fundamentalism,'' because people are always saying that Arabs are fundamentalists. Americans are fundamentalists too.
The Chairman: I will have to stop you very soon, Mr. Cloutier.
Mr. Cloutier: I am almost done. I will now answer your next question: ``Some politicians have already indicated that the present public policy regime would not change 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?'' Keep doing what you are doing now: Build a reasoned argument on the basis of research and analysis. Provide information and data for the public. This is particularly important, because ignorance and fear are the two main sources of nourishment for dictatorships. Provide information, and reveal misinformation, unfounded statements, myths and the manipulative actions of interest groups. That is the work you have to do.
I will conclude with the words of Thomas Jefferson, one of the fathers of the United States Constitution: ``A nation's best defence is an educated citizenry.''
With cannabis criminalized as it is today, no form of reasoned debate is possible. The prohibition breeds fear, the scourge of drugs, as it is called, and ignorance.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Cloutier. Next, we will be hearing from Rick Reimer, who is appearing as an individual witness.
[English]
Mr. Rick Reimer: I am 47 years old and I live in a small town in Ontario. I have used marijuana since I was a teenager. I had a career as a criminal defense lawyer in Pembroke, Ontario for over two decades, and that came to an end when I was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998.
Throughout my life, and especially throughout my career, I have seen cannabis use from both a personal and a professional point of view. The irony of the illness that I developed is that I became one of the first people in Canada to have a medical exemption to use cannabis. A further irony is that, even though that means I can, within limits, have as much cannabis as I want for the rest of my life, fortunately, because of Canada's medical cannabis scheme, it strengthened my resolve to make sure that this drug — I even quarrel about whether you can call it a drug, but let's assume it is that — that this relatively harmless and relatively beneficial plant is decriminalized for all people, and for recreational as well as medicinal use.
Part of the irony is that, once we admit that this is medicine in my hands, then in order for it to be a crime in other hands, it must be extremely dangerous. It has to be proven to be dangerous. The same applies when one considers that our prohibition scheme turns 30,000 Canadians, who are otherwise not affecting anyone else's life, into criminals. Again, for that to be tolerated, one must have a very good reason. There is simply no such good reason.
I am very proud of the interim findings made by this Senate committee and the realistic approach that you have taken towards cannabis use because, in my opinion, the worst travesty surrounding this issue over the last three years, since the LeDain report in 1971, has been the lack of debate. It has been debated amongst activists such as myself. I turned into a marijuana activist midway in my career as a lawyer, and then became more of an activist when I had the platform as a medical marijuana user.
If this were a smoking area, I could light a joint right now in front of all of you with perfect legal impunity, and, it would not harm a single person here. If no one had the notion to call the police, then it would be smoke, and it would provide me with a beneficial effect, unlike a cigarette — which would perhaps offend more people than a joint would and would have no beneficial effect whatsoever, as we have heard time and time again.
The prohibition scheme that we have exacts untold costs on all of us, every day, especially marijuana users and especially those 30,000 people who become criminals for making nothing other than a lifestyle choice, which is declared on a piece of paper to be wrong. Who can justify the conclusion that it is wrong when it is compared with alcohol, with tobacco and even, arguably, with caffeine?
The use of marijuana has never in its history, which predates the existence of any of us on this earth, harmed a single person, unlike legal drugs like Valium, Prozac, and even alcohol, which exacts an awesome toll on every aspect of society: on the highways; in the bedrooms; in the living rooms; in the bars; in the bar parking lots; and so on. Think of the fist fights and the police intervention. The costs exacted by alcohol upon our society are in an entirely different ballpark from those exacted by the use of marijuana.
It is very important that someone continue this debate, and I am proud that the Senate has chosen to do that.
I was most incensed, over the last three years, by the recent quashing of Dr. Keith Martin's private member's bill to support the decriminalization of possession of small amounts of marijuana. The cry has come from many quarters to decriminalize. It has come from the Canadian Medical Association and from the Association of Chiefs of Police of this country. The chiefs of police of all of the police forces in this country say that we should decriminalize cannabis because they do not want to waste their resources by fighting people who are smoking cannabis.
Where does the opposition come from these days? It comes from the pharmaceutical industry, and the pharmaceutical industry via the doctors, via the Canadian Medical Protective Association.
I believe that the committee has heard about the Catch-22 in which medicinal users such as myself find ourselves. After two years of being a legitimate medicinal user, I will soon lose my exemption, and I will soon become a criminal again. Every person in Canada will throw money at fighting my problem and at prosecuting me, instead of conferring a medical benefit, which cannabis is to me — a cost, I must say, which I am prepared to bear completely on my own. Instead of that, they will all pay money to prosecute me. Why? Because the Canadian Medical Protective Association, the doctors' insurance company, has told the doctors, ``If you endorse marijuana use, you will have no coverage.''
Doctors, of course, do not like to work with no insurance coverage. That is very frightening for them. I think it is a shame that the Government of Canada, having ignored this important issue for so long, has now turned around and thrown it into the lap of the doctors, and said, ``Here, you guys take the blame, you make the decision.''
That is not fair, because the government has, via a suppression of real knowledge, and a suppression of legitimate debate, prevented the doctors from knowing enough about cannabis. Our government has abrogated its responsibility to deal with this issue. As I say, it is important that the debate continue.
One question that the Senate poses is: ``What can the Senate do?'' In my opinion, the Senate should continue the debate. I defy any government, having empowered this committee, to ignore the recommendations of the committee. If I can adequately sense the direction which honourable senators have taken from the interim report, I think you have adopted a very laudable and realistic position.
As to the issue of the youth, and what we can do for our youth, I agree that nobody wants 12 or 14 year olds to have unlimited access to any kind of mood altering substance. That is a problem vis-à-vis oral substances. However, why penalize so harshly the safest of those choices that our youth can make?
My last day as a criminal lawyer in Ontario was October 31, 2000, not quite two years ago now. What I did on my last day of work was, I watched a 15-year-old boy, who had never been in trouble with the law in his life, being led away to jail for three days. Despite my pleas before what was supposed to be a compassionate youth court, this 15- year-old boy was led off to jail, albeit only for three days. Why? Because he had had the effrontery to come to school one day with a bag in his knapsack, and in that bag was five grams of marijuana. That five grams of marijuana might have gotten two, three, or ten of his friends a little bit high, but it never could have, in a million years, physically hurt any one of them, except it might have run them afoul of the law.
Had that same boy, at 14 years of age, gone into the school yard and taken a baseball bat, and apropos of nothing, hit some other kid over the head, no judge in this country would dream of sending him to jail for a first offense. Instead of bringing five grams of marijuana, had he brought a big bottle of vodka that could have killed maybe he and two or three of his friends if they had gone out in the parking lot and they chugged it back, what would have happened? The attitutde would have been, ``Oh, boys will be boys,'' and it all would have been forgotten. He might have been charged with something, but no one in a million years would have dreamed of sending him to jail.
This young boy, 15 years old, was incarcerated for three days because he had not learned how to hide how to be a hypocrite the way that his teachers did. He did not have a car in the parking lot where he could hide his five grams in the glove compartment, and leave it there till after school. His teachers could have done that, and they would know that they were safe, within limits, as would 90 per cent of marijuana users in this country. By and large most people — like myself, I went through 30 years of being an illegal marijuana user, and now I am a legal marijuana user — if they are careful, know they can buy the marijuana they need, they know they can smoke it, and if they are careful, they will never run afoul of the law.
Why should those 10 per cent who do get caught be criminals? The speaker before me talked about the harm principle of crime and punishment. That is such a basic principle of democracy. If you are doing no one else harm, you ought not to be harmed yourself. By and large, people who know marijuana users know that, all other things being equal, those people are less judgmental and more likely to care. Granted, they are a little less conservative. They tend to be friendlier, they tend to be all the things that we claim we want our people to be; yet, we turn them into criminals for no good reason.
Why is the pharmaceutical against decriminalization of cannabis? My conjecture is that, if marijuana were decriminalized, and if people in this country had relatively easy access that would not impact on their lives, then a large portion of the current demand for drugs such as Prozac and Valium would evaporate. If people could use marijuana for the various maladies that lead them to prescription drugs, then they would use it.
The pharmaceutical industry would love to get in on that market. Again, this is only my conjecture, but I believe that they would love to be the ones providing marijuana if and when marijuana becomes legal. However, they will fight tooth and nail to stop that happening because, if marijuana becomes legal, then the role of the pharmaceutical industry and of organized crime will more or less evaporate.
I would point out that I sent a letter to the committee wherein I have answered all of the questions put by the committee. I hope that members have an opportunity to read it.
In my submission, organized crime profits from the continued criminalization of marijuana. Take, as an example, farmers in Quebec, who complain that biker gangs plant marijuana in their fields. The bikers threaten the farmers that harm will come to them and their families if they call the police. The farmers claim, that it is a terrible problem; that it is a marijuana problem''. It is not a marijuana problem. That is like saying that the Lindbergh kidnapping was a child problem. The problem is extortion.
How do you stop organized crime from being able to make a profit on drugs other than ensuring that people have liberalized access? Whether it is growing it in their backyard, or whether it is getting it from their neighbour, who perhaps grows some —and it might still be considered a technically illegal act — that could be, in my submission, a step. It might still be considered to be some kind of a provincial crime. I ask you to think about what kind of a problem we now have with bootlegging of alcohol. We have virtually none. Who knows a bootlegger? No one does, and that is because, although alcohol comes under a controlled acquisition regime, it is not a criminal acquisition régime. That is why there is not much money to be made in bootlegging alcohol; and that is why it is not a big problem the way that drug trafficking is now perceived to be.
I am pleased that this Senate committee is meeting in Montreal because, as a friend explained to me yesterday, the Island of Montreal was once the meeting place of Aboriginal elders, and perhaps this Senate committee is the ``board of elders,'' that will guide Canada in its path to deal with illegal drugs.
I hope that the Senate has heard enough from the youth of this country. I am, perhaps, somewhat in touch with the youth in that I have two sons in their early 20s, and I know the youth with whom I dealt in my years as a defense lawyer. I know that the youth of this country relate to what I said earlier about the kind of people who smoke marijuana. Sure, there are bad people who abuse every drug.
As far as marijuana being a gateway drug, let me leave you with this fact: Of the heroin addicts who currently use heroin, 95 per cent tried marijuana in the past. That is the kind of statistic that people quote to demonstrate that marijuana is a gateway drug. Of those 100 heroin users, I would bet that you 98 per cent have used alcohol. Is alcohol, therefore, the gateway drug more than marijuana? No. Throughout history, people have abused drugs, and it will continue to happen. It is a problem that we have to manage. As the gentleman from CACTUS said, it is a problem that we have to manage, not by hunting these people down and criminalizing them, but by reducing the harm, as has been shown in the Netherlands. Once you relax the societal attitude towards a drug, you not only reduce the toll upon the individual user, but you also reduce the toll upon society, generally.
In the Netherlands heroin overdose deaths are now almost unheard of because clean tested heroin is available. In Vancouver, overdoses or death as a result of heroin use occur regularly. Granted, society does not want to encourage any kind of drug use, but it has got to, in my submission, recognize that drug use has always and will always occur, and deal with reducing the harm inherent in the drug use of today.
You have asked what is the likely reaction of the Americans, and how ought we in Canada deal with that? I do not know what the reaction will be, but I would guess that, after a lot of hand-wringing and a lot of posturing, the Americans will finally realize that really there is precious little they can do in the face of a sovereign action by the Government of Canada, except perhaps put border guards on their side of the border. Well, let them do that. If the Americans were to try anything more retaliatory towards Canada, then the rest of the free world would rise up. I am referring to the rest of the world that sees a path other than dependency on the United States. Therefore the United States would stop short and recognize that we have made a sovereign decision about drugs in our country, but they would probably search every man coming from Canada to the United States of America. I say that would be fine.
The Americans might, however, have a more harsh reaction than that — and this is only my opinion — but is there a better time to stand up to the Americans than now? Will it be better a year from now, or a decade from now? Is there a better issue upon which to do it than this? This deals with our own drug policy. What issue has a country more right to take upon itself as a sovereign nation than something like how it treats people who are perceived to be at risk for some reason, or somehow suffering from an illness?
In my submission, a serendipitous byproduct of this country's decriminalization of cannabis could be that the Americas recognize that we are a sovereign nation. Another serendipitous byproduct is that, along with amelioration of attitudes towards cannabis will come a lessening of harsh attitudes towards hemp. While this is a side issue, once this country recognizes the value of hemp, we will gain enormously both fiscally and environmentally, as well as in terms of our own sovereign right.
I do not know what the answers are for the future in terms of how marijuana ought to be treated. All I would submit is that the current process of criminalization is wrong, and it must stop, and now is the best time.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Reimer.
Senator Banks: I am very impressed by everything you said, and to the extent of talking about the Americans' reaction, you are certainly right, it would get their attention. They do not think of us often, but they would think of us that day.
Mr. Reimer, if the pharmaceutical industry is, in fact, opposed to cannabis research and the decriminalization of cannabis, they certainly would not be, as soon as it is decriminalized, averse to finding a way to patent it and put it into a pill, and there's nothing wrong with that, that is the nature of their business.
Mr. Reimer: Then for those people who wish to avail themselves of that pill, God bless them.
Senator Banks: Do we know for a fact that the pharmaceutical industry is opposed to research and to the removal of prohibition?
Mr. Reimer: It is only conjecture on my part, sir. I do not know it for a fact. I certainly believe that is the case because of the pressure that is being brought to bear upon the medical fraternity, and because there has always been a strong connection between the pharmaceutical industry and the medical fraternity. However, it is conjecture on my part, sir.
Senator Banks: Well, yours and many others.
You said that you are about to lose your status?
Mr. Reimer: Yes, sir.
Senator Banks: Why? How?
Mr. Reimer: It is because the CMPA, the Canadian Medical Protective Association, which is a self-insurance company of all the doctors in Canada — they pool their money and they insure themselves — has told its members, ``Should you prescribe marijuana, you will have no coverage because we, as your insurance company, do not know enough about marijuana to permit you to endorse its use.''
Senator Banks: However, you already have the status?
Mr. Reimer: Yes, but I have been told that even if my family doctor, who has known me for 25 years, agreed to give up his insurance and sign on my behalf, that would not be good enough for Health Canada. They want a specialist who has known me for three hours in my entire life to sign it. Of course, that specialist will say, ``I will not sign without insurance.''
Senator Banks: Does that status expire? Does each such authorization have a finite time on it?
Mr. Reimer: Yes, regardless of the condition. My multiple sclerosis will never improve. It never has in any person in all of history, yet, every six months my doctor has to wade through a pile of correspondence. He was told by his insurance company, ``You have no insurance if you do it.'' He did not do it because he did not have the time. There is a perfect Catch-22, which permits the government to divest itself of responsibility and say, ``Well, it's the doctor's fault''.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Reimer.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Our next witness is Mr. Marc-Boris St-Maurice.
[English]
Mr. Marc-Boris St-Maurice, Leader, Marijuana Party: I have been an activist. I gave a copy of my curriculum vitae yesterday to Senator Nolin, but I am not sure if that is on file. For the past 10 years, I have been an activist and I have done everything possible to end marijuana prohibition. I am here to speak on my own behalf, and not on behalf of a party or any organization.
I am passionate about marijuana. It is something I feel very strongly about. I think it is somewhat analogous to the Romeo and Juliet phenomenon, where you have a forbidden love. People have an attraction to marijuana; they enjoy it and have a legitimate love of it; but society forbids its use, so it is terribly heartbreaking.
That has led me to research and try to find out as much as I can about marijuana. In the course of my travels, last year I went to a trade show in Europe called ``The CanaBusiness'', that invites all of the industries that have some connection with cannabis, such as the production of pipes, rolling papers, publishing, hemp clothing, hemp food, hemp construction, hydroponic growing equipment, and anything else related to the cannabis industry.
During that time I made, what I find to be, a revolutionary discovery, and that is what I would like to present to the committee today. I think it is important to note that now is the cutting edge of marijuana use. This is the biggest revolution since the invention of the rolling paper, as far as I am concerned. It is all the more significant because I consider myself somewhat jaded and very sceptical of claims that are made in the marijuana movement and industry, because there are some people who tend to exaggerate either for marketing purposes, or financial reasons. I am highly critical, and my enthusiasm over this discovery leads me to believe that there is something very big here.
In fact, it is a vaporizer. I do have some documents on varorization that I would like to submit to the committee. One is by Dale Gieringer, who is the head of California's Branch of NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. He did a feasibility study a few years ago to at least back up some of the scientific claims that will be made today.
The idea or notion of consuming marijuana without combustion has been around for 15 or 20 years. However, the earlier devices were crude, were often ineffective, and were based on theories. There are a lot of products on the market, which claim to vaporize marijuana, that simply either do not work, or work at such a low percentage of efficiency that it is like breathing air.
The principle behind it is based on the fact that on the buds of marijuana is the resin. That is the cannabis resin from which we can make hashish, which is a tarry sort of gummy substance which adheres to the surface of the plant. This particular substance passes from the solid to the vapour form and is vaporized at a temperature of about a 180 or 190 Celsius, and that permits the extraction of the THC and all the active elements without combustion. Combustion starts to occur around 240 degrees Celsius.
Vaporization reduces so many of the risks, because most of the toxic particles that are in smoke are a result of combustion. They are the result of ``superexcited'' particles because of the heat. At combustion all sorts of other chemicals are released. They are described as a list of huge words that do not sound like substances that would be very appealing to be inhaling. That is avoided at a lower temperature. That is the scientific information we have today. More research remains to be done.
The result is harm reduction. It permits the user to get the THC into the system without about nine-tenths of all the other, for lack of a better word, ``crap'' that ends up in smoke. As far as the law is concerned, and as far as the debates around prohibiting marijuana go, I think this is all the more interesting because of the arguments we hear from the medical community, who say that one of the last seemingly legitimate risks that we are using to justify prohibition is that of the risks involved in smoking, inhaling particulate material.
There is an argument about whether cigarettes are more or less hazardous. I place them pretty much on the same level. They both involve inhaling smoke. Although it is desirable not to inhale smoke, that is not, though, a justification for the prohibition of marijuana. I think the onus should not be on the product. I mean, possession, trafficking and growing are illegal, but smoking is not illegal. Yet, that is the argument we use to justify prohibition.
I think this is the safest way of using marijuana.
There are also problems related to eating marijuana and it going through the gastrointestinal route because different people have different ways of metabolizing ingested material. There are risks and negative impacts as a result of eating it. Vaporization is a way to get the benefits of inhalation while reducing the risks that are inherent with the inhalation of smoke. It is also a fact-acting way of getting it into the system.
However, there is some pulmonary irritation. That is not completely eliminated. The cannabis resin, THC, is by nature a gummy sort of tarry substance which is probably not completely healthy to be inhaling. I think there is a need for more studies on that. I am merely speculating at this point, for all I know it could be safe as drinking a glass of water. We need more research in this area.
By way of what might be called, ``poetic justice,'' this testifies to the ingenuity of the people from the marijuana community. This was not done with government funding, this was done because of another passionate pothead, in this case actually a man from Germany who did not like smoking, came across the idea of vaporizing. He said, ``I want to build a better mousetrap,'' and, by golly, he did.
As far as the cannabis industry is concerned, the production of an effective vaporizer is like the race to the moon. The first one who comes up with it will revolutionize the whole industry. As to the safety factor, I believe this will be to cannabis in general what the airbag was to the automotive industry — a safer way to administer cannabis, getting the maximum effects without the harm.
It shows that people who use marijuana are not apathetic and idiotic. They are quite brilliant. In fact we are probably locking up and treating as criminals some of the brightest minds in our society.
A lot of research needs to be done. One of the problems with prohibition is that it is hampering research. It is difficult for a legitimate researcher to get access to the product, even to get a protocol approved, because of all this panic around the question of illegal drugs. That is bad for science and that is bad for our collective knowledge. It is completely unacceptable.
The government should be on-board. The government should be welcoming these people, and working with them to find ways to reduce harms, to make things more accessible, safer, more effective, particularly now that we have medical marijuana regulations, this being so significant an improvement, in my opinion, of what we already have.
Every ``exemptee'' I think, in Canada, should have access to one of these vaporizers, and it should either be paid for, or there should be some financial assistance because these are in the prototype stage, and they are quite expensive. They are made out of stainless steel, and the parts are all custom made. The investors invested about $50,000.00 of their own money, and they have yet to recoup it. Unfortunately that means they sell for about $1,000.00 retail. I think it would be fair if recreational users paid that price because it would be easier to subsidize the medical users who need them now, and who cannot wait.
What is interesting is the fact that the device has other applications. This device cannot only serve to vaporize the THC off of marijuana, it can also be used for tobacco. Nicotine, and a list of legal and illegal drugs, will vaporize at a lower temperature than with combustion, and that reduces all the harms from combustion. Many drugs are smoked, including tobacco, marijuana and cocaine, heroin, and they all could, theoretically, be vaporized. Morphine could be vaporized. A lot of prescription drugs could be vaporized. With regard to tobacco, it could be used as a potential stop smoking aide, where the smoker would get the inhalation effect, which is something that smokers might have a time getting over, but a significant amount of tar and radioactive particles would be eliminated.
There is tremendous potential, the only problem is that we are not tapping into it because everyone is paranoid about the marijuana issue.
One of these papers is written by the inventor and he mentions numerous times that his problem in Germany is that he is not allowed to use the word ``marijuana.'' This is a shame, because he would like to educate the smokers who are already doing it about how to reduce the risk. He is also in a Catch-22 situation.
I would hope that five or ten years from now when this is more available, people who want to use marijuana will benefit from not smoking it.
I can demonstrate it with tobacco if anyone would care to see.
The Chairman: I would be interested in seeing that.
Senator Banks: Are we allowed to operate machines that smoke in this building?
Mr. St-Maurice: In fact, because there is no combustion, it is arguable as to whether or not this is smoke.
Mr. Reimer: I can legally offer some marijuana, and I can even smoke it.
Mr. St-Maurice: I would suggest doing it with tobacco first, because perhaps one of the senators may be able to enjoy it. However, after that I will gladly illegally test it with marijuana.
Senator Banks: If Mr. Reimer does it, it will not be illegal.
Mr. Reimer: That is correct.
Senator Banks: Mr. Reimer might be due for a little shot right now.
Mr. St-Maurice: Well, we'll actually have —
Senator Banks: Let's start with marijuana.
Mr. St-Maurice: Do I have any takers for tobacco on the panel before that? If not, then I guess I will go ahead.
Senator Banks: I can hold off. and I would much rather Mr. Reimer get the benefit of this.
Mr. St-Maurice: I will hook you up.
Mr. Reimer: This is what I mean when I say that marijuana users are sharing people.
Mr. St-Maurice: We can talk about Judeo-Christian values, that is, to help our brothers and to forgive. God put this plant on the earth, he must have been thinking of something when he did, if in fact this is how it worked out.
We have the filling chamber, which has a screen on the bottom as well as a second screen which fits on top, the small washer. You have marijuana trapped between two fine screens. This device, which is a major innovation, has two or three heating elements and a double chamber. It is a sort bain-marie, a double boiler, phenomenon, so you get a very constant temperature. Part of the trick is to get the exact temperature at which to vaporize the specific product. You only have about a 20 ratio on the dial here, so you can dial the exact temperature you want. It is a simple aquarium pump that pumps air through the metal chambers, which have several holes because you want to increase the surface area to get the air to the right temperature. Air comes out very slowly at 180 and it is passed through both of the screens. A balloon with a valve system is designed to capture the vapour. There is probably about half a joint in this right now. You only get three or four puffs or inhalations off the balloon, but it is a much higher concentration. Preliminary research indicates that you get a much higher THC to other particle ratio; in other words, the percentage of THC in this gas is much higher than in smoking or in any other forms of use.
In the course of doing this, they discovered that water pipes are counterproductive. When you turn off the pump, there is a valve system which prevents the balloon from emptying. There is a mouthpiece which goes on this.
Senator Banks: I notice that you grabbed a little before.
Mr. St-Maurice: I'll have a little after too! Out of safety for the people around, I think it is important that I first test the product on myself to make sure that everything is in order. I would not want to stand by anything that I have not tested.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. St-Maurice, you say that this device makes it possible to find THC?
Mr. St-Maurice: To extract THC.
The Chairman: It makes it possible to extract THC and take advantage of its benefits, while avoiding the negative effects of combustion?
Mr. St-Maurice: Yes. I think that we can compare this to distillation. Let us say that our purpose was to extract 100 per cent of the alcohol content of a given substance for a specific purpose. Distillation takes place at a temperature where alcohol will vaporize, and can then be recovered as the distillate. We want to recover alcohol in liquid form, because that is the form in which it is consumed. In this case, however, THC is evaporated and remains in the gaseous state. I myself have used a microscope to look at the recondensed vapours.
[English]
Mr. St-Maurice: I used a microscope to look at these vapours that were recondensed, and I could tell that it was constituted of the same resin particles. It looked like hashish, which is extracted resin, when examined under a microscope. I think the potential for science is enormous.
The elimination of combustion is by far the most interesting aspect. The balloon is revolutionary. With other vaporizers that have a tube that spits out the vapour, there is no way of controlling the rhythm, the speed, the amount.
Scientifically speaking, if you use the same kind of marijuana, in the same amount, with the same size bag, the same temperature air, and for the same amount of time, you will get a consistency that you will be able to use scientifically. If you want to double it, well then you just double the amount. It is a factor of the surface area of the air on the marijuana. It is a factor of the amount of time of air exposure. The temperature of the air is also a factor as is the amount of resin. Marijuana of a lower quality, weight for weight, will have less resin. What we are concerned with is the amount of resin.
You can also vaporize hashish.
I spoke with Dr. Mark Ware, who I believe you heard from this morning, and he has expressed an interest in doing research on this, and in looking into its potential. He has actually agreed. We have prepared an invoice, and he will be purchasing one. This is manufactured by a man in Germany, in the town of Tuttlingen, which is known worldwide for its fabrication of precision surgical instruments. All of the material used is of a high grade, medical quality. I expect my unit to last a lifetime. I am not here to sell it to anyone, because I do not think there are any buyers, except Rick, perhaps.
``Exemptees'' and medical users should have access to this, and the purchase of it should be subsidized. To not allow medical users access is to compromise their health. I think the government's responsibility is to, at the very least, look into this and explore the options.
We have not been able to get an inch in the door. This presentation might help to do that. I appreciate your time and understanding, and if anyone wants to try this, they can come to my house any time.
Senator Banks: Mr. Reimer, do you have a comment on the efficacy of what you just tasted?
Mr. Reimer: It is very good, sir. I do not enjoy smoking, and if I had the wherewithal to provide myself with enough marijuana, I would prefer to eat it. However, that would require me to have access to vast amounts of it, and that is beyond my means. This is a very nice compromise. I have never used a machine like this before, but it seems to deliver the results.
This is a demonstration, ladies and gentlemen, that marijuana should not be treated like alcohol. I have had what would be, in terms of an equivalent amount of alcohol, enough to get me drunk. However, I am not going to go out and hit somebody; and I am not going to go out and cause a car accident. I am still able to articulate my thoughts. It is very important to me that marijuana not be treated as some different kind of alcohol, because it is not.
Mr. St-Maurice: You will notice that we run the same substance through the balloon several times. That is just a question of time and surface air. Should the balloon have been five times bigger, it would have been possible to run five times more air through it. There is a limit. As far as the efficiency of it goes, I have noticed that a smaller amount of marijuana will actually have, subjectively speaking, a more noticeable effect on me. You reduce the amount required because it is more efficient.
I will take this opportunity to give you what I have as documentation. It is self-explanatory.
Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. St-Maurice: Thank you. It has been an honour and a privilege.
Senator Banks: Is the man you mentioned selling these in Holland, for example?
Mr. St-Maurice: This was on the market two years ago at the first trade show. Unfortunarely, I was not there. Since that time he has sold about 400. In Europe it has been certified by the European Community. It is available. It is marketed in Germany but the pamphlets make no mention of marijuana. It is marketed as ``An aromatherapy vaporizer to liberate the essential oils and aromas from plants.'' You can put mint in it, and leave the balloon off, and it will smell wonderful in your house.
I am proud to say I have sold the first one in Canada. I do have a gentleman's agreement with the inventor. We see eye-to-eye. I will be doing everything possible to make this available and to get it on the market. Mr. Mark Ware has committed to buying one. That will be the first sale. I think it is symbolically fine because it will be used in a medical case, and he has a problem in having this recognized as a medical device in Germany.
The inventor's dream is to have it authorized as a medical device, but that has been difficult considering where he is from and the culture of his town, so I have taken it upon myself to do everything I can to achieve that. I think the potential is there. The recreational aspect, I think, is secondary, and if it is sold for that purpose, the proceeds should be used as a way of financing its use for medical purposes.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. St-Maurice. We will now be hearing Mr. Serge Granger, Historian, who is appearing as an individual witness.
Mr. Serge Granger, Historian: Mr. Chairman, thank you for coming here to Montreal and making it possible for us to put forward our views on such an important issue.
I wrote a PhD thesis on Quebec-China relations in the early 20th century, and came across the prohibition issue purely accidentally. I also did post-doctorate work on Quebec-India relations at Gujerãt University in Baroda, India, and also did a PhD at Concordia University. I will be explaining my view point on cannabis on the basis of eastern sources.
I presume that you know cannabis originated in Asia. Specifically, it originated in China and Kashmir. In the Veda texts of India, which are 3,000 years old, the Yajur Veda sets out the therapeutic uses of cannabis and opium. In India and China, cannabis and opium have been used for therapeutic purposes for at least 2,500 years. Official evidence is provided by Chinese physicians, particularly in the Encyclopaedic Pharmacopoeia established by Ge Hong in the 3rd century. Some Tibetan and Indian medical books describe cannabis sweat lodges in the 10th century, which provided a means to inhale cannabis smoke for therapeutic purposes.
According to historical sources, there does not seem to have been any cannabis in Quebec before the arrival of the Europeans. I discussed the issue with many historians specializing in Quebec and New France. Cannabis tended to be imported from the South. The first cannabis plant in Quebec City's Haute ville was planted by Louis Hébert, the first apothecary to become a colonist in Quebec. It should also be noted that the Jean-Talon market used to be a hemp field, as did Hampstead in New Hampshire.
According to the Quebec government, cannabis — which it does not consider therapeutic — was brought here by soldiers during the Napoleonic wars.
But there is no real evidence of this. There is no evidence either to indicate that Asians brought opium and cannabis to Canada. There are still books and other evidence showing that cannabis and opium already existed on the country's West Coast, having probably been imported by British ships trafficking in opium in the 19th century.
Available documents on the 19th century do mention cannabis. I have noted such mentions in many documents. I have not brought them with me, because I did not have the time to prepare for this. I only learned you were coming here yesterday. However, I do plan to submit the documents to you before June 10.
The 1876 Presbyterian Record considered alcohol to be more harmful than cannabis. I repeat: the Presbyterian Record — certainly not some left-leaning rag — is published by the YMCA. It stipulates that alcohol is more harmful than cannabis.
The prohibition on cannabis was imposed particularly by missionaries here — I believe you know this — who were opposed to the use of cannabis and other psychotropic drugs. The same attitude applied in other parts of the world. Even Gandhi was opposed to the distribution of cannabis, and particularly of alcohol. In India, alcohol was perceived as an English psychotropic drug that would undermine the Indians' economic capacity, or ability to manage their own affairs. India's Swadeshi Movement, which urged a boycott of English products, even proposed that English alcohol be boycotted.
This approach to prohibition was seen more as an economic boycott. The same circumstances emerged during the Quebec 1837 rebellion, where the ``ceinture fléchée'', which we see as a patriotic artefact, basically symbolizes a boycott of English woolens. Just like Gandhi's Swadeshi Movement.
At the time, prohibition was first and foremost a means of gaining economic monopoly over the psychotropic substances used by given cultures. A striking example of this is the alcohol prohibition on Indian and Amerindian reserves. Today, the thought of prohibiting alcohol seems absurd, but we know full well the devastation that alcohol wrought on Amerindian reserves.
I do not want to go over Canada's prohibition years in the 1920s, with the links that could be drawn. I would like you to think very seriously about this kind of approach. Is it not really just a means of ensuring an economic monopoly over the sale of psychotropic substances?
In the same way, would a tax on Chinese laundries in Montreal be viewed as a measure to clean up the environment, or as a measure that attacks a specific group?
As you know, cannabis was prohibited in the 1920s, and has been banned even more rigorously since then. Its use emerged strongly in the 1960s, or, if you prefer, during the Quiet Revolution, by a generation that wanted to underscore the importance of the individual, and which popularized recreational cannabis use. Unfortunately, the laws enacted by that generation now are not consistent with the words it spoke 30 years ago.
Nothing could highlight the absurdity of the current approach more than the dreadful death of a young man last year. He was engaged in a drinking competition in a bar in Quebec. He sat in a chair, and alcohol was poured into his mouth. The young people around him yelled: ``Drink! Drink! Drink!'' They were stamping their feet and clapping their hands. The young man died. The media's and society's response was extremely discouraging. To tell you the truth, the competition is still going on, and it is just as funny as it was that day.
It is quite inconsistent to let people die drunk in bars and give bar owners licences to make this kind of spectacle possible, and at the same time to penalize pot smokers. I have never yet met a judge or lawyer who could clearly explain why alcohol would be legalized but cannabis prohibited.
For two years, I have been helping Claude Messier get his exemption 56 so that he has the right to smoke pot. Claude Messier has generalized dystonia, and experiences about 15 cramps about every 15 minutes. At present, the only means available to him to alleviate the cramps is cannabis. Health Canada refused Mr. Messier's request after he submitted five forms and five signatures. I would like to point out that this decision was a first. Since April 5, Mr. Messier is committing an illegal act. He is also engaging in what we would call civil disobedience, since the use of cannabis is still considered a criminal act.
This is one of the reasons that interested me in the issue. As an advanced society, we are still victims of our own inconsistency and our lack of realistic, rational perceptions regarding cannabis.
Those brief comments may be considered my introduction. I will now try to answer the more specific questions you pose.
``Do the effects of cannabis justify its criminalization and penalization under the Criminal Code?'' Well, I have to say no, since alcohol is legal.
Then there is the question: ``Do you believe that the current policy approach does more harm than good?'' I have trouble in finding any good that it may do, but I have no trouble finding the harm. Some of it has been pointed out by the media, and I believe they obtained the information from you.
There are already 600,000 cases on record. With 30,000 arrests each year, your estimated legal costs are, I believe, $500 million. If we follow the prohibitionist line of reasoning, there are 30,000 arrests a year, each imprisoned individual costs $50,000 a year, so a total cost of $1.5 billion a year. As the number of arrests increase, costs rise exponentially.
What worries me most about the harm caused by current policy are the disastrous consequences of criminalization, particularly here, where there are many cannabis growers. Innocent people have been murdered. Homes have been burned to settle accounts. Farmers have been terrorized, and a climate of fear is being established.
I do not want to name any members of my family, but one summer, near a cottage in my area, some cannabis plants were found, and a member of the family pulled them up. When he returned to his cottage the weekend after, he found his sink and windows shattered, and the whole cottage trashed.
We see fraud, money laundering and terrorism. So how can a government that means what it says control the substance that it has made illegal?
The most worrying thing is the growing gulf between the government and society as it is today. The lack of real democracy we are seeing today is very worrying. Politicians are close to becoming a laughing stock, promising lower taxes while expanding jails. They are becoming ridiculous, incoherent and laughable. Canadians are having trouble understanding and continuing to believe in politicians. They do not see politicians as visionaries. There is a fundamental contradiction here: if we expand our prison, it is to fill them up.
A significant economic deficit is becoming established. Even today, the police lobby is requesting more money to fight organized crime. They organized a press conference on the issue at lunch time today. The shortfall in their budgets restricts what the government can do, particularly in implementing a harm reduction policy.
``Should public policies on marijuana aim to prevent use or minimize the negative consequences of use?'' Social workers have more trouble with people who drink alcohol; I think that this should be envisaged as a harm-reduction policy. And according to the figures of the UNDP, the United Nations Drug Program, there may be 144 million cannabis smokers the world over and 144 million cannabis smokers in jail. This is expensive.
``Should Ottawa fear a reaction from the Americans if it changes its approach with regard to cannabis?'' It is hard to see into the future. Certainly, there is a groundswell in the United States to put an end to the drug prohibition, and especially cannabis.
In the United States, several groups are promoting an end to the prohibition. On the other hand, we can also see that the United States have applied their drug policy not necessarily to improve the lot of their own country but rather to gain control over international conflicts. There is a very long list of heroin and cannabis trafficking operations that go through American agencies. Or, at least, they are turning a blind eye to this. I could name several instances, like the Guomindang in Yunnan in the 1950s, Laos in the 1960s, and more recently in Afghanistan or if you prefer with the Pakistani Secret Services and the CIA. Besides, you have no doubt read Mr. Cooley's book ``CIA and Jihad'', that clearly shows how terrorism is financed through drug trafficking.
Taking drug control as a pretext to intervene almost anywhere in the world is one thing, but prohibition is something else.
If there ever were an end to the prohibition in Canada, it might be preferable for the country to redeploy its police forces, especially the drug squads, to block the export of cannabis to the United States and to strengthen the border in order to avoid diplomatic run ins with the United States, if they are determined to continue this counter-productive prohibition. This might also soften the approach of those who lobby for drug squads and police forces, because putting an end to prohibition will not put an end to organized crime overnight. That will not happen. It will be preferable to redeploy these forces gradually to have them more focussed on finding ways to stopping the illegal drug trade.
As Canada is a satellite within the continental context, strengthening the border would not hurt the Americans. In fact, perhaps they would actually agree with this kind of approach. Focussing police operations on the American border could help to foster the security that the United States are so eager to see. And given that 30 per cent of Americans believe that Canada is a part of the United States, we could be viewed as a big pilot project.
If you ask me whether tolerance will bring about an increase in use, I think that perhaps, for a while, there might be a slight increase. Maybe a few who wanted to smoke a joint but did not dare and who will finally smoke one. But we should rather expect that the consumption will become stable once the prohibition has ended, just as alcohol consumption became stable.
I have been dealing with this from a historical point of view, but I would also like to quote, with regard to a holistic approach to the cannabis issue, the first proverb of Confucius that was published in Quebec in 1835, in the newspaper L'Écho du pays, a liberal newspaper at the time; this was actually the liberal movement that was trying to secularize the Quebec education system. But listen carefully to this proverb. Mr. Boris St-Maurice could perhaps use it as a political slogan.
If the prince wants to lead his people solely through decrees and control them through punishment, they will know how to avoid but they will not be ashamed of vice.
Confucius in L'Écho du pays, October 15, 1835.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Granger.
[English]
The Chairman: Do you have questions?
Senator Banks: No, but I hope that you will please follow through and send those materials to us.
[Translation]
The Chairman: I recently saw a documentary, I believe it was on the American ABC network about the relations between the CIA and the Afghan terrorists.
Mr. Granger: I have just come back from a conference of the Canadian Association for Asian Studies held in Toronto, and we learned that several books have just been published about this.
The Chairman: About the relation between terrorism and drug trafficking?
Mr. Granger: About heroin trafficking and about the uses of heroin trafficking which, at the bottom line, generate criminality and terrorism.
The Chairman: It goes without saying that, after September, this question has been raised again and some witnesses were called back to try to look further into the issue of funding the terrorist movement. And if you have any added information, we are interested in it.
I thank my colleagues who agreed to travel to Montreal for this sitting of the committee, I thank the committee staff, as well as the Montrealers and the people from Ontario who came to share their comments and suggestions here with us.
The committee is adjourned.