Proceedings of the Special Committee on
Illegal Drugs

Issue 3 - Evidence for May 28 - Afternoon Session

The Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs met this day at 1:34 p.m. to reassess Canada's anti-drug legislation and policies.

Senator Colin Kenny (Deputy Chair) in the Chair.

[English]

The Deputy Chairman: Honourable senators, I see a quorum.

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to welcome you here this afternoon to a meeting of the Special Committee on Illegal Drugs, whether you are here physically, watching on television, or listening on the Internet.

Senator Nolin is unavoidably absent today. He is presiding over the committee of science and technology at a meeting of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. He sends his regrets to the witnesses and the members of the committee.

Our witnesses this afternoon are from the Canadian Police Association. Welcome and thank you for appearing today. We look forward to hearing your presentation. If you could give us a bit of your background and experience prior to giving your presentation, we would be appreciative. Please proceed.

Mr. David Griffin, Executive Officer, Canadian Police Association: Honourable senators, I am a former police officer who works for our association at our Ottawa office. With me today are two members of our national advisory committee on illicit drugs. I will allow them to introduce themselves at their portion of our presentation.

A third member of our committee, Mr. Benoît Bélanger, could not be here today due to circumstances beyond his control. That does limit our presentation to English, unfortunately. However, we will try to address all questions and we have provided translated copies of our written submissions.

The Canadian Police Association welcomes the opportunity to appear today before the Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs. As the national voice for 30,000 front line police personnel across Canada, the Canadian Police Association promotes community safety by raising awareness on law enforcement and justice issues.

As respected professionals responsible for law enforcement and crime prevention in their communities, Canada's front line police officers bring forward a unique and important perspective on the issue of illicit drug use in Canada and its impact on community safety.

Police officers are not simply law enforcement officials. They share an active interest in the well being of their communities outside their working hours as parents, volunteers, coaches, big sisters and brothers, and community leaders.

We are motivated by a strong desire to enhance the safety and quality of life of the citizens of our communities and share the valuable experiences of those who are working on the front lines. We promote public policies that reflect the needs and expectations of law-abiding Canadians and we work to ensure that Canada's children and young people are protected from the danger and destruction associated with illicit drug use.

We expect that those critical of Canada's existing laws and strategies to deter the use of illegal drugs will attempt to marginalize our input in these discussions. We have heard suggestions that our contribution to these discussions is somehow tied to a desire to sustain the allocation of police resources to drug enforcement programs. We will demonstrate by our submissions that nothing could be further from the truth. We will also demonstrate that Canada must resist the seductive temptations being advanced by a sophisticated drug lobby. We will prove that while far from perfect, current strategies have been effective in controlling the scope of illicit drug use in Canada. We will show that the most effective long-term strategy is to reinforce the balanced approach that reduces demand and supply and includes opportunities for rehabilitation and treatment.

Mr. Dale Orban, Detective Sergeant, Regina Police Service: Honourable Senators, I am currently assigned to the major crimes unit, which investigates homicides and armed robberies. I have been with the police force in Regina for 20 years. I was with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for two years prior to that. I have a 15-year-old daughter and a wife of 22 years. I am presently the secretary of the Regina Police Association.

I begin this presentation by focussing on the dangers of illicit drugs. Drugs are not dangerous because they are illegal; drugs are illegal because drugs are dangerous. There is no such thing as soft drugs or hard drags. Nor are there bona fide criteria to differentiate between these terms. People who refer to hard drugs or soft drugs generally either do not understand much about drugs or they are seeking to soften attitudes toward the use of certain illicit drugs.

Generally, marijuana and its derivative products are described in this context to distance the drug from the recognized harm associated with other illegal drugs. This has been a successful yet dangerous approach and contributes to the misinformation, misunderstanding and increasing tolerance associated with marijuana use. Marijuana is a powerful drug with a variety of effects. Marijuana users are subject to a variety of adverse health consequences that include respiratory damage, impaired physical coordination, problem pregnancy and postnatal deficits, impaired memory and cognition, and psychiatric effects.

Marijuana use is associated with poor work and school performance and learning problems for younger users. Marijuana is internationally recognized as a gateway drug for other drug use. Risk factors for marijuana dependence are similar to those of other forms of drug abuse.

Driving while intoxicated by drugs impairs judgment and motor coordination. In one study involving aircraft 10 licensed pilots were given one marijuana joint containing 19 milligrams of THC - a relatively small amount. Twenty-four hours after smoking the joint, they were tested in a flight simulator. All 10 of the pilots made errors in landing and one missed the runway completely.

It was the consensus of the international community to put marijuana and other substances under international control. That decision was based on evidence of its harmfulness to human health and its dependence potential.

Weakening perceptions of risk of harm in drug use, weakening moral disapproval of drug use, combined with increased perceived availability of drugs have resulted in increasing rates of use among secondary school students. Increased drug dependency and substance abuse problems are also being reported among young people. Marijuana remains the most widely used illicit drug in Canada. Even though alcohol use is more common, problem use and frequent use are much less common with alcohol than with illicit drugs.

Students who use drugs are more likely to use drugs repeatedly, more frequently, and to rapidly make drugs a significant part of their lives. Students using drugs are far more likely to go to school while intoxicated, play sports while intoxicated, or use drugs in the morning.

Mr. Glen Hayden, Detective, Drug Control Section, Edmonton Police Service; Vice-President, Canadian Police Association: Honourable senators, I have been a drug investigator for the past seven years. I have been a member of the canine section at Edmonton and the general patrol duties and criminal investigation section. I am the vice-president of the Alberta Federation of Police Associations. I am a director with the Edmonton Police Association and I am on the Board of Directors as vice-president of the Canadian Police Association.

This section of our presentation will focus on drug investigations and enforcement issues. There is an indisputable relationship between organized crime and the illicit drug trade in Canada and abroad. Canada has earned a reputation internationally as both a consumer and a leading supplier of marijuana and methamphetamine products to the United States.

Increasingly potent cannabis - having a high THC content - is appearing on the illicit market. Drug trafficking continues to increase in Canada. Aside from the cannabis and cocaine smuggled into Canada out of countries such as Mexico, there is also an increase in the amount of heroin smuggled into Canada.

As organized crime flourishes with little deterrence, members of crime gangs become more brazen and confrontational. In Quebec, gangsters have murdered 150 people, including an innocent child and two prison guards. Reporter Michel Auger was shot six times in an assassination attempt and farmers who have refused to grow marijuana and politicians who have exposed the activities have been the subject of threats. Violence and intimidation tactics have spread across Canada, including threats and acts of violence against police investigators other justice officials.

Canada is not, nor have we ever been, engaged in a war on drugs. Statistics reveal that less than one drug possession charge per Canadian police officer is laid per year in Canada. While enforcement efforts focus on drug production, trafficking and importation, possession-only charges are generally laid only as a consequence of investigations into other crimes and complaints.

Police officers and justice officials often resort, within our existing legislative framework, to alternative measures indealing with young offenders, first-time offenders, and minor possession-only offences. Young people who are found to be in possession of small amounts of cannabis as first-time offenders are frequently the subject of warnings, alternative measures or diversion programs. The new Youth Criminal Justice bill reinforces this approach.

Prosecutions for minor crime - including marijuana possession charges - are by way of summary conviction and are often the subject of absolute or conditional discharges, community service, conditional sentences and/or fines.

Such offenders are rarely, if ever, incarcerated. Convicted offenders are eligible to apply for a pardon if they remain free of criminal convictions. Jail is reserved for only the most serious and chronic offenders.

Canada's approach to such crime is far from severe and many young people view our current practices as insignificant. This reinforces the need to instill meaningful consequences that deter drug use. The impact of efforts by the Canadian Law Enforce ment Agency has been limited by our judicial system. Serious offenders - such as drug traffickers, importers and manufacturers - receive little or no punishment. It has been difficult to deter them from their illicit activity. Police resources have been subject to fiscal constraints over the past decade and enforcement efforts have been limited as a consequence. Perceived tolerance of drug consumption by community leaders, including members of Parliament, senators, editorial writers, and even some chiefs of police have all contributed to the elevation of thresholds for drug investigation, arrest, prosecution, conviction and sentencing. Ultimately, the effectiveness of enforcement programs and drug prevention strategies will be proportionate to the level of resources and commitment.

Mr. Orban: We will now review the drug liberalization efforts outside of Canada. The facts proving that liberalization experiments in different countries produce negative consequences are overwhelming. In many Western European countries, decriminalizing possession of small quantities of cannabis for personal use has either occurred or has been de facto implemented. In examining these experiences we can quickly learn, however, that permissive drug policies fuel the appetite and consumption of illicit drugs. Not surprisingly, tolerance of drug use has had a proportionate impact in increasing demand and supply. The availability of drugs in Europe has increased. In many countries, the prevalence and rise of amphetamine-type stimulants is second only to that of cannabis abuse.

In countries that have adopted permissive policies toward drug use, violent crime and organized criminal activity has increased proportionately to the drug trade. Countries that have liberalized drugs have the highest rate of illicit drug use per capita in Europe. Conversely, Sweden, which has adopted a policy of social refusal and the interdiction of drugs, has the lowest incidence of drug abuse in the European Union. Having unsuccessfully experimented with varying permissive drug policies in the1960s and 1970s, Sweden subsequently concluded drug use is dependent on supply and demand.

According to Swedish authorities, if drugs are readily available and society takes a permissive attitude, the number of persons trying drugs will increase. If drugs are very difficult to come by and there is a danger of being arrested, the number of people trying drugs will be reduced.

Alaska is also an example of failed drug liberalization. From 1980 to 1990, hashish consumption and possession was not a criminal offence there. During this time hashish abuse, especially among adolescents, increased drastically. In 1988, the proportion of adolescent hashish smokers in Alaska was double that of all other states in United States. As a consequence, a public vote in 1990 repealed the decriminalization measure.

Harm reduction has become the focus of drug strategies in some Western European countries and this has spread to countries. Unbeknownst to most Canadians, Canada has also shifted from the goal of a drug-free approach towards the harm reduction approach. This policy shift has occurred quietly over time with little, if any input from the majority of Canadians. Of serious concern to the Canadian Police Association are the confusing and often conflicting messages that are being delivered to young people who are the primary target of the illicit drug trade. Governments fulfil a legitimate and critical role in establishing laws and policies that define behavioural standards and societal attitudes. Legislation and enforcement are the required proactive strategies to deter behaviour that places individuals at risk.

The success of seatbelt legislation suggests that legislative strategies are effective in supporting behavioural change. Prior to seatbelt legislation in Canada, an estimated 15 to 30 per cent of Canadians wore seatbelts. Today, more than 90 per cent of drivers wear seatbelts.

These results reflect the influence that legislative action outside of the health sector can have on the health of Canadians. Risk of apprehension and meaningful consequences have been also been integral components of successful strategies to reduce impaired driving in Canada.

While the fight to eliminate impaired driving may never be won, there is no disputing the fact that strategies have been effective in changing behaviour and reducing the risk. Examples of similar initiatives to increase public safety include bicycle and motorcycle helmet laws, school bus stopping laws and boat safety. We determine success by a level of sustained commitment to programs that combine public awareness, education, legislation, enforcement and treatment.

Mr. Hayden: We would like to alert you to our concerns regarding the cost of drug liberalization. Canadian statistics clearly demonstrate that the costs of alcohol and tobacco use in Canada are more than 13 times that of illicit drugs. Enforcement for alcohol-related crime costs more than three times that of illicit drugs. Direct health care costs for alcohol and cigarettes are nearly 50 times greater than are those for illicit drugs. Law enforcement costs for illicit drugs, including courts, corrections and border protection, represent only 2 per cent of the total cost to Canadians of alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs combined.

Costs relating to illicit drugs are lower because usage is lower. Legalization and permissiveness will increase drug use and abuse substantially and the costs of health care, prevention, productivity loss and enforcement will increase proportionately. While a balanced drug strategy will not completely eradicate drug use, it is both cost-effective and beneficial to society to prevent and deter drug use. Resources for prevention, treatment and rehabilitation should be focussed on those members of the population who have the greatest risks and needs.

Mr. Griffin: There is abundant proof that proponents of drug legalization seek to normalize illicit drug use through the promotion of decriminalization, legalization and philosophies such as harm reduction, rather than devise strategies to reduce demand and supply. Yet, Canada's balanced approach to drug use continues to have a significant positive effect. We should not lose sight of the fact that the overwhelming majority of Canadians have not used illicit drugs in their lifetime. Unfortunately, our youngest and most vulnerable members of society are at greatest risk. Organized criminals continue to target young Canadians as the primary market for the sale of illegal drugs in Canada.

The United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention suggested a five-prong approach to prevent drug use: One, raise awareness; two, reduce demand; three, provide accurate information; four, limit supply; and five, strengthen controls.

Prevention is at the core of demand reduction. Sending a message to our young people that marijuana use is not harmful, or can be used safely when there is an abundance of scientific proof to the contrary, is not consistent with any of these approaches. At successive annual general meetings of the Canadian Police Association, our national delegates have unanimously adopted resolutions in support of a balanced approach to illicit drug use in Canada.

The Canadian Police Association will actively oppose efforts to decriminalize or legalize the possession of illicit drugs, except in those approved instances where drugs are legally prescribed for bona fide medical purposes. Treatment and rehabilitation should be available to those who have drug dependencies.

The time has arrived for leaders to enter into the debate. These leaders should be persons of stature in the community present who will positive role models for our young people, raise public awareness about the harms associated with illicit drug use, and put an end to the erosion of public opinion through misinformation and self-interest. We need to reinforce a balanced approach that instils meaningful and proportionate consequences for serious crime, combined with measures to reinforce desired behaviour with our young people.

We appreciate the time and attention you have afforded to our presentation, and we welcome the opportunity for questions.

The Deputy Chairman: Before going to the question list, I must observe that we did not receive a copy of your brief in advance. This puts the committee at a bit of a disadvantage in terms of having a good dialogue with you, so I hope you will excuse us if we appear to be feeling our way. The custom here is for us to receive briefs in writing sufficiently in advance so that all committee members can be properly briefed and we can have the briefs translated so that members of the committee will have some understanding in advance.

We also have not received information relating to our request for data on police practices and experiences, including methods of investigation and services. Are you familiar with these requests?

Mr. Griffin: Not specifically, no.

The Deputy Chairman: Is there someone here who can elaborate on what requests went forward and what information we are still missing?

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Sansfaçon, Researcher: As research director for the Special Committee on Illegal Drugs, I have had contacts with the representatives of communications of the Canadian Police Association.

The specific request made to the association was for information from police experience on the methods of investigation, on the resources devoted to illicit drugs and for other data pertaining to police experience in the field in Canada. That request was made to have an understanding of the nature of the issues around illicit drugs faced by police organizations.

[English]

The Deputy Chairman: Is it possible for us to be provided with the information at some subsequent time?

Mr. Griffin: I think you will find that the information we have provided in our brief does provide information concerning law enforcement practices currently in Canada. I appreciate the concern that our brief was not available to the committee in advance. Unfortunately that was a logistical problem - we could not meet and we regret that. We hope it does not limit discussion; if our submissions lack information, we would be happy to follow up with any further requests.

The Deputy Chairman: That would be helpful, Mr. Griffin. If possible, the committee may write you and ask you for more information. I take it you are the person we should approach. In the event that we would like more information, perhaps you would be available to appear before us again in the future?

Mr. Griffin: Certainly.

Senator Kinsella: I wish to thank the witnesses. The work that your association and, of course, your members do throughout the country 24 hours a day, seven days of the week, is appreciated by all Canadians.

You used the phrase "war on drugs" in your presentation. In your opinion, should there be a Canadian war on drugs?

Mr. Hayden: First, we - and I believe I speak for most of our members - do not consider ourselves warriors. We are not warriors, we are not soldiers; we are peace officers, and we stress the word "peace." None of our elected officials have ever declared a "war on drugs." I have heard "war on impaired driving," "war on illiteracy" and "war on poverty." I never heard "war on drugs." I think that came out of the United States and perhaps has overflowed somewhat into Canada. It is our position that there has never been an absolute all-out war on drugs.

Senator Kinsella: From your association's point of view should there be a war on drugs?

Mr. Griffin: We believe it is not a matter of war because I think that term can convey confusing messages. We must have a balanced, combined approach. It is not just about law enforcement, but it also integrates prevention, education, public awareness and a clear denunciation by our policy-makers about the harms of illicit drug use in Canada. In certain areas we believe that enforcement should be strengthened; yet enforcement alone will not solve this problem.

Mr. Hayden: When a war is declared, it is my belief, there must be a war budget that accompanies that declaration. To get into the war like that of the United States - and they are fighting the war outside beyond their borders, the budget would need to be astronomical. I would not make that suggestion.

Senator Kinsella: To give us a sense as to how much money we are talking about here, what would be your approximation of the value of the illicit drugs circulating in Canada today?

Mr. Orban: I would say billions of dollars. There is no doubt about that. Sixty-six per cent of the world's drugs are consumed in North America. We are a drug-using society. Costs to North America have been estimated anywhere around $350 billion. There is no way of knowing. The value of drugs in Canada is one thing, the cost to Canadians is another.

In English on page 62 and in French on page 45 of the brief is a graph showing the costs of alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs in Canada. In 1992, alcohol cost $7.5 billion, tobacco $9.6 billion, and illicit drugs $1.4 billion. This shows us that keeping that as an illicit drug is keeping the cost down. Availability is the number one reason for abuse.

Senator Kinsella: In understanding that graph on page 62, the $1.4 billion, is that an estimate of the amount of money that is spent buying illicit drugs?

Mr. Griffin: This is not our data and we should qualify that this is data that is in a report from the Canadian Centre of Substance Abuse. It is a little dated, it is from 1992. A table on the following pages - 63 and 64 in English and 46 and 47 in French - shows a breakdown of these totals. It shows direct health care costs, work place costs, social welfare costs, prevention and research, direct law enforcement costs, and productivity costs.

Senator Kinsella: These are not the purchase costs? You are referring to the social costs?

Mr. Griffin: This is the cost to Canadians, the social costs, exactly.

Senator Kinsella: The social costs to Canada are $1.4 billion. Do you have any idea as to the value of the drugs that are consumed? If our social costs are $1.4 billion for treatment care, health, et cetera, how much money is spent in Canada to purchase drugs?

Mr. Orban: We do not have any data on that and I do not know who would because the price fluctuates from area to area. It is supply and demand. If there is a lot of demand for drugs and the supply is there, the price will drop; if the drug is harder to get, it will go up.

Senator Kinsella: In your association's media release dated today, a copy of which is on the table behind me, in the third paragraph is the following statement attributed to Mr. Orban:

The social experiment of countries with drug liberalization policies demonstrates that crime, violence and drug use, go hand in hand.

I would like you to explicate that further. I know you alluded to it in your presentation.

The media release also states:

When illicit drugs are legalized, drug usage increases; the demand for chemical drugs increases, and crime increases.

I am curious from a research standpoint what is the database for that statement?

Mr. Orban: We have the social experiment speaking on where it has been legalized and the rates of use. The experiment in Sweden is probably the best example we have. When it was legalized, the country experienced devastating effects: higher use came with the liberalization and crime rates rose. The crime rates dropped significantly when they re-criminalized the use of marijuana and the country sustained a far more restrictive policy.

In the United Kingdom there are reports from Susan Kaplin, who was a research officer in Liverpool - I do not believe that is in our brief - where there was a marked crime increase in areas where all drugs were prescribed and available to users.

Also recently coming out of Holland some members of their own government were complaining; they called their country Europe's "Columbia." The party leader for the Dutch Christian Democrat Party said that Holland is attracting drug tourists and becoming one of the top countries in the world when it comes to the trade and production of illicit drugs.

In May 1999, Foreign Affairs Magazine, an American publication, published an article by Larry Collins entitled "Holland's Half-baked Drug Experiment." In this piece, the author addresses the not-so-successful use of this policy.

Senator Kinsella: With reference to any of the European cases that you have cited, is there a distinction to be made between decriminalizing the possession or use of certain drugs and legalizing?

Mr. Orban: There is tolerance in Holland but not legalization.

Senator Kinsella: Therefore, the statement, when illicit drugs are legalized -

Mr. Orban: That could have been when laws are liberalized.

Mr. Griffin: In our brief at page 45 in the English section and page 32 in the French, we have included references from a variety of different sources that have looked at the experience in Sweden, Holland, Switzerland, Italy and western Europe in general. It does support the statement made both in terms of legalization as a concern but also this concept of decriminalization.

Senator Kinsella: Would it be fair to say that as you review the literature, this is one of those social policy areas in which the science behind it - whether social science or the harder science, pharmacological and others - there is a fair margin of debate that it is not categorical.

We heard testimony that, as I understood it this morning, is at least contrary to the argument that you are making. Our task will be to glean the best information from all the witnesses that help us in this inquiry, such that we would be able to make very prudent and wise recommendations for Canadian policy-making. Is there a debate here?

Mr. Orban: Yes, there is a debate and there are going to be conflicting stories and data. In my research, I looked at the most accurate data, the most recent data and who was publishing it. I also questioned who was funding these studies, what was the reason for their doing the research. For example, I was interested in material from a department studying the effects of marijuana on the immune system.

In this whole debate you will find a lot of conflict. Scientists have told us that tobacco was not a concern and that we should not be concerned with the ill health effects of tobacco. There were scientists who told us nicotine was not addictive. No matter what the debate, there will always be many different views. Tobacco is probably the best example of studies driven by industry. Statistics can be made to show what you want them to show.

Senator Kinsella: I accept our witnesses as experts in law enforcement within the Canadian context. Members of this committee would appreciate illustrations of the nature of crime and the criminal organizations in Canada that are making bundles of money out of drugs. Senator Stollery alluded to this issue in a question this morning.

Are there a limited number of big bosses in Canada behind the scenes? Do big bosses outside of Canada drive the drug trade, with the smaller players here? Across the country, what is the criminal dynamic either in relation to distribution or to importation? Could you speak to the magnitude of production vis-à-vis importation, to help us understand the nature of the crime element in Canada?

Mr. Griffin: We have included as well in our submissions, page 38 in English and page 27 in French, a brief discussion of the issue of drugs and organized crime in Canada.

Certainly, the drug trade is profitable for the organized criminal. It would be difficult for us to qualify just how much money is made or how much money is being spent on illicit drugs. There are sources where such information can be retrieved.

Certainly, we have provided some examples that demonstrate that not only is Canada a country known as a consumer of drugs, as we said earlier, but also as a manufacturer of drugs. A major issue in British Columbia and in southern Ontario is marijuana grow-houses, where marijuana is being grown for exportation into the United States. Another issue involves methamphetamine products. We are quickly gaining a reputation as people who consume drugs. There is also concern south of the border that drugs are being produced in Canada for export into other countries.

I would like to come back to Europe. There is a quote in our brief from Sweden. It is particularly interesting that one of the greatest concerns in Sweden is the effect that policy in other parts of Western Europe is having on the drug experience in their own country and their efforts to restrict drug use. It is on page 50 of our brief in English, and page 35 in French.

They say that as a culture they have been successful in promoting zero tolerance of drugs. One of the difficult things for them is:

The growth of international drug trafficking and the prospect of Europe without frontiers - as well as tendencies toward a liberalization of drug policy in other countries - are subjecting Swedish drug policy to increased pressure.

When we posted our press release this morning on the wire service, one of the first calls we received today was from an organization in Sweden that is monitoring the hearings here. They indicated that they are interested in what is happening here in Canada because they perceive Canada to be a weak link in terms of the issue of decriminalization and of adopting polices that will bring pressure upon other countries.

Senator Kinsella: I was looking at page 50 as well. If our friends in Sweden are particularly concerned about the growth of international drug trafficking as it affects their circumstance, ought we be more concerned or less concerned? Would the international trafficking that Sweden is concerned about impact more adversely in Sweden than in Canada?

Mr. Griffin: Every international organized crime group is established here in Canada. There is no doubt that international crime is of concern to Canadians. To some degree, crime groups see Canada as a place of refuge.

In terms of policy, we do not have the issue of dealing with neighbouring countries that are currently adopting softer drug laws. That is contrary to the position south of the border.

We have the challenge of a long, unprotected border and certainly our maritime borders as well. However, as a society we do not have the influences of other countries immediately on our frontiers that are taking a more liberalized approach to drugs.

Senator Banks: Following up on the chairman's comments, we have to deal with opinions and direct experience, anecdotal and empirical knowledge on the part of experts. We also have to deal with statistics, even though, as you know, one can make statistics prove anything one wants. Perhaps we could remind you, through the Chair, to send us the science and the studies upon which you base the statements on page nine and 10 in the section "Lessons learned from other countries." Perhaps you would let us have the paper or the references on which those are based. I apologize to you if they are contained in other parts of your report, which I have not had a chance to read.

I would appreciate having copies of the actual studies or a reference as to how we may obtain them.

Mr. Griffin: I think you will find that those are in the section to which I have made reference. The beginning section, the summary including pages nine and 10, provided a summary of the materials we have gathered in other parts of the brief. Those statements are supported by the references to other reports and to other organizations.

Certainly if there is a challenge in terms of obtaining any of those, we would be happy to assist.

Senator Banks: Any of you can answer this question but I will ask Mr. Hayden because he is from my hometown and his specialty is illegal drugs.

You have written in this report - and I think everyone understands - that perhaps the worst aspect of the drug trade, outside of the human cost, is its boon to organized crime. They are raking it in. Because drugs are illegal, and because one assumes - and I make this assumption - that the cost of drugs is therefore higher than it would otherwise be, would you as policeman not like to see the proceeds of the drug trade removed from the clutches of organized crime?

Mr. Hayden: Page 67 may address that. We are pointing at figures again. We got these statistics from the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, and we are confident that this graph would be inverse, with the illicit drugs going to the top if they were more available.

You know the situation in Edmonton now, where there is a private liquor store on every second corner. The number of stores increased from roughly 10 liquor stores to something over 200. Liquor is available in every private store every time one turns the corner.

Senator Banks: Has liquor consumption gone up as a result?

Mr. Hayden: I have not seen any studies since the deregulation, but I know the availability is there.

Senator Banks: I am asking you this question based on your own personal experience. Undoubtedly, you have had to arrest some person who has an insatiable habit. To feed it, he has had to break into a drugstore, smash in windows and steal radios out of half a dozen cars. If he could get whatever it is he is stupid enough to want to shoot in his arm, smoke, or whatever, for 10 bucks rather than a thousand bucks - I am exaggerating, but you know my point - would that not remove an enormous amount of this drug-related crime?

I am not talking about cannabis in particular. Generally, would it not be a good idea to remove this from being a business to which organized crime has access? The reference I make is to prohibition. The United States tried prohibition from 1920 to 1933. It did not work. What it did was make a lot of bad guys rich. It also made criminals out of a lot of people who just wanted to have a drink.

Would it not be a good idea to do something that at least makes it harder for organized crime to profit from the illicit drug trade?

Mr. Hayden: First, I think organized crime would still profit. There would still be the underground market.

Senator Banks: Why?

Mr. Hayden: Because there would still be competition. If it is anything like cigarettes, the governments will tax it obscenely. There would still be room for plenty of black market activity. For organized crime, that is their number one income source.

To answer Senator Kinsella's question relating to money, that is something intangible. I do not know how anyone other than a forensic accountant could figure it out. Such a person could try to figure out lifestyles and how much money this person may have made over the years and secreted away. Those figures are intangible.

We do know that organized crime has an absolutely unlimited budget when it comes to drugs. We cannot touch them whenit comes to budget money. It does not matter if we get an extra $1 million, or an extra $5 million, they still have more money in their budget.

Mr. Orban touched on the opinion of the researcher in Liverpool where drugs were available legally to those people. The crime around those centres went up proportionally. They still need the money for the drugs, whether it is $10 or $50. They will still commit the crime to obtain the drug.

Senator Banks: We could argue about that because it depends on the cost. You may be right. Legal drugs may cost more than illegal drugs, in which case there would be a black market.

Mr. Hayden: They are not expensive right now. Just to quote some Edmonton figures, and they are probably fairly consistent across the country, you can get one-half of a gram of cocaine - crack cocaine or powdered cocaine - for $40. Depending on the addiction, of course, that might last an addict a half a day or a couple of hours. Although they are not terribly expensive, the profit margin is still huge.

Senator Banks: My next question has to do with the fact that there are statistics, there are statistics and then there are damned lies. We can all prove whatever we want with statistics. I am an alcohol user. I happen to be an extremely moderate one because when I was 16 years old I tried a few glasses of whiskey and decided nothing could convince me that it tasted good. I know some people believe that it does. However, I am a consistent alcohol user. Two or three times a week I have a glass of wine with dinner. I am an alcohol user. There are alcohol users and there are alcohol users. There are drug users and there are drug users. Is that not so?

Mr. Hayden: Absolutely. There are alcohol users and there are alcoholics. There are drug users and there are drug addicts. There is a difference. There are recreational users, some of whom do not become addicted.

Senator Banks: Why should we put them in jail?

Mr. Hayden: My last seven years have been spent specifically in drug enforcement. In my 21 years of police experience, I know of no person who has been incarcerated for simple possession of marijuana. They may have been incarcerated because they were in violation of probation or parole by possessing a gram of marijuana. However, I know of no police force that has the time or budget to seek out a marijuana user to try to incarcerate him.

Senator Banks: You made reference to Sweden. We heard reference to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, which is based in Lisbon, earlier this morning. They have apparently said - and this is thirdhand so I cannot refer to a specific report - that Sweden, which has a strong anti-drug program, has the highest rate of drug deaths in Europe. I cannot substantiate that, but I heard it this morning. I am wondering if you have heard any such thing or have any comment on that?

Mr. Griffin: We certainly have not seen it in the material that we have been through and we went through an exhaustive review of material to formulate this presentation. I would think that the best source is to have some witnesses from Sweden. I know they are interested in what is happening here.

Senator Rossiter: The witnesses from whom we have heard up to now do not support the gateway theory. However, you seem to support it.

Mr. Orban: Personally, I am a firm believer in it. It is not just my personal opinion; I have also sought out research on the gateway theory. It has always been said that cannabis use does not lead to other drug use.

The Centre on Addiction and Substance Abuse out of Columbia University did a study in 1994. Their report was entitled, "Cigarettes, Alcohol, Marijuana: Gateways to Illicit Drug Use." Their study concluded that a 12-year-old to 17-year-old who used marijuana is 85 times more likely to use cocaine than one who does not use marijuana. On the strength of that statistical information, the correlation is eight times stronger than the link between smoking and lung cancer. It is 17 times stronger than the link between exposure to asbestos and lung cancer, which are dramatic results.

No doubt, if you have someone who wants marijuana legalized, they will not tell you that because it is obviously not a very good piece of information for the legalization issue. Someone recently said to me: "I have smoked marijuana, and I have never taken cocaine." I said, "Good for you." Some people drink alcohol and never turn into alcoholics, but many do. This study was based on scientific research and not my opinion or anyone else's. That is research from Columbia University.

Senator Rossiter: The other witnesses who did not support the gateway theory felt the same, too.

Mr. Orban: I am looking the research. As a police officer, as someone who has worked in the schools with children, and as the father of a 15-year-old daughter, I want to ensure that if this government is to put another easily accessible substance out, that I know what the dangers are.

In the tobacco industry, there were many scientists who said that there was nothing wrong with tobacco. We are now reaping the benefits of their research. I have to say that either this research was conducted improperly - I am no scientist - or something did not come out in the report.

Senator Kinsella: Has your association changed its views on this question over the years? In 1994, Jim Kingston, your then executive officer, was quoted as saying that getting busted for simple pot possession should be the legal equivalent of getting a speeding ticket.

Is that still the position of your association?

Mr. Griffin: I would say that that was never the position of our association. That is not consistent with any resolution or position that has been adopted by the members of the Canadian Police Association.

Mr. Hayden: If I might address decriminalization before we move on, it has been suggested that decriminalization may be the way to go for simple possession of cannabis marijuana. The position of the Canadian Police Association is that that argument is invalid for a number of reasons.

At present, a typical drug investigation begins as any investigation does. Notes are taken, reports are made, and there is an apprehension or an arrest. The arrested person is processed one way or another. Exhibits must be seized, securely stored, processed and sent for analysis. In Edmonton, all drugs that are seized are sent to the Health Canada lab in Burnaby, B.C. for analysis. Certificates are sent back with the exhibit stating what it is. Notices of intention accompany each exhibit.

The peace officer must then serve the accused or his or her lawyer with the notice of intention to produce the document in court on behalf of prosecution. Once the notice is served, the federal Department of Justice carries out the prosecution.

I do not see how making possession of pot equivalent to speeding would be an advantage. It would not save money because the steps I have just listed still have to be taken and the prosecution would still have to be carried out by a federal Department of Justice lawyer.

Senator Kinsella: You testified earlier that you can not think of anyone who has gone to jail for simple possession of pot.

Mr. Hayden: That is true, but they are still prosecuted. Young offenders are dealt with in other ways such as alternative measures programs and community service. First-time adult offenders are quite often dealt with in the same way and repeat offenders in adult court are still quite often fined.

Senator Kinsella: Either the Crown prosecutor or the judge makes the decision?

Mr. Hayden: That is right.

Senator Kinsella: That process is what guarantees equal treatment across the land. Is it your testimony that Canadians can be assured that there is fairness in the system, that the penalty for those caught possessing pot will not depend upon which officer arrests them?

Mr. Griffin: Our organization has at times been among the strongest critics of our current system, but it is probably the best system that we know. We have the same dilemma with breaking and entering and impaired driving. I am sure that none of the police officers sitting here before you have ever seen someone sent to jail for a first conviction on impaired driving, breaking and entering or common assault. However, we do not believe that that is an indication that those offences should not be included in the criminal law.

As we said in our presentation, the criminal justice system serves as an effective deterrent for illegal drug use. We included a chart in our presentation that compares alcohol use and illicit drug use. Less than 25 per cent of the population abstains from alcohol, while nearly 93 per cent of the population abstains from marijuana. Certainly many people have experimented with marijuana at some point, primarily in their youth, and certainly some people have used marijuana for a period of time and then decided to no longer do so. We believe that society must send a clear and unequivocal message to young people that this is a dangerous drug.

Health Canada, the Canadian Medical Association and the Institute of Health in the United States all say that marijuana is a dangerous drug. They are all concerned about dependency issues. They all say that marijuana is a greater problem for young people than is alcohol, that there are more risks associated with its use. Since 93 per cent of our population is not dependent on marijuana, why would we allow young people to increase their use of this dangerous drug?

Senator Banks: I am sorry to interrupt, but the graph does not indicate dependence; it indicates use.

Mr. Griffin: That is correct.

Senator Kinsella: You said dependence, and there is a difference.

Mr. Griffin: The reality is that the proportion of people who use drugs and are dependent on them is higher than the proportion of people who use alcohol and are dependent on it.

Senator Banks: I agree. I just wanted to ensure that the record is clear. You said that 93.6 per cent of people are not dependent on marijuana. That does not mean that 76.8 per cent of people who use alcohol are dependent on alcohol.

Mr. Griffin: That is correct.

Senator Kinsella: I find your last set of observations very interesting, particularly with reference to our system. Is it your view that, although we may have some warts in our system, it is not sufficiently broken that we should fix it?

Mr. Griffin: We are hopeful that this process will clarify once and for all the dangers of these drugs, in particular marijuana; resolve these issues; and establish national policy focussed on reducing the use of illicit drugs, particularly among young people.

We think there is more than can be done. As we said in our presentation, we think that drug usage among young people has increased in the last decade. We believe that is partly due to the fact that they are not getting a clear message from leaders in the community that this is a dangerous drug they should not be using.

They are hearing that it should be decriminalized, that it should be viewed as equivalent to a traffic offence it, that it should be considered a health problem. In the minds of young people these messages mean that this is not a big deal. Although parents do not want their children to take these drugs, our leaders are saying that it is not that big of a problem, that everyone tries it. That is not the message we think should be sent to the young people of Canada.

Mr. Orban: I coach my daughter's softball team. I have15- and 16-year-olds on the team. They were curious as to why I was coming down here, so I explained to them what this was all about. One who goes to a separate school in Regina said to me, "What do they think will happen if they make marijuana more available to us?" I said, "I don't know what they think will happen. What do you think will happen?" She said, "More teenagers will smoke dope." That came from a 16-year-old. That frightens me terribly because the message they are getting is that if the government sanctions it, it must be okay. If the government decriminalizes it, it cannot be that bad.

Impaired driving is a recent example where we said, "No, we will not tolerate this." Alcohol is the number one killer of kids in Canada. We cannot afford to have people being lost to impaired driving, so we enforce this law and give penalties and make it a tough issue; and drinking and driving will not be tolerated.

In the last 10 years, we have seen society's whole attitude changing. If we are going to send out this message that marijuana is okay and it is safe to do, I do not understand why we spent so much time finding out that tobacco was such an evil thing.

Mr. Griffin: I would like to add something about impaired driving, because I spent a part of my police career dealing with impaired driving. It was not just about enforcement. People had to be concerned that when they drove home, having had drinks, that there was a higher chance of getting stopped than in the past. The biggest part was public awareness, public education, information about the risk, information about both the dangers and the consequences of impaired driving.

We make the same analogy for drug use. People have to believe that there will be meaningful consequences and there are risks. If given the right information and the right messages, they will make the right decisions.

Senator Kinsella: I have been a university professor and I still teach at one of our universities in Canada. It is my impression that drug use on the campuses has diminished significantly from years gone by.

In the 1960s and the early 1970s, it was hard to come out sober at the other end if you walked through a dorm hall or residence at any Canadian campus. I do not find that today. Is it your experience that the chronological age group of marijuana users has changed?

Mr. Orban: I do not think so. The average age of experimentation with alcohol in Saskatchewan was 12. The group most studied in relation to gateway drugs and tobacco and alcohol comprises 12- to 17-year-olds, and they the young people targeted. We got rid of Joe Camel, but we allow Budweiser to have their three frogs out there advertising alcohol. Those are the people who are going to experiment with it. Those are the people who do not know any better. I do not hang around with many 22-year-old university students, so I cannot say what they are doing on campus. However, I would be very confident in saying that the kids will experiment with it. You will find that the 12-to-17 age group is using. My experience as a police officer is that there is a lot of drug use on campus. I think raves and the increased use of ecstasy in Canada are perfect examples of how drugs are widely used.

Mr. Hayden: A possible reason for your lack of seeing any of this on campus -- and this is an assumption of mine - is that people of similar age in this room can safely say that when they went through school, there was no drug prevention program. I had none, and I know three people at the table had none. I know that most of you did not have any such programs when you went through high school.

In the early 1980s to mid-1980s most police services, church groups and other social groups started such programs. DARE was employed in the late 1980s out west, and it is now all over the country. The parents are more aware today of the risks of drugs. I never had a drug lecture from either of my parents. I do not recall any of my friends having a lecture on drugs. We were lectured on alcohol, yes, but not drugs. Today's parent is better informed. I hope that is a reason you are not seeing what you used to see back in the 1960s and 1970s, because there were no programs then.

Mr. Griffin: Over the last three or four decades, we can see that it has been somewhat cyclical, with peaks and valleys. On page 25 of our brief, we talk about some of the trends. We are concerned with reports showing that use among secondary school age children or even junior school age children has increased over the last decade. Maybe I am contradicting Mr. Hayden's comment, but that demographic group will reach university age in the next few years, and certainly their trends are of concern. That is where we have seen the greatest increase in drug use.

Senator Banks: No one in their right mind would ever argue with the contention that we need better programs and better funded programs to that inform people of all ages, particularly young people, about the adverse effects of the misuse of drugs.

In the questions that I am asking now, Mr. Griffin, I am talking about enforcement and efforts towards prohibition. I think you would agree that the principle advocate in the world for prohibition and aiming at drug-free, or as close to that as possible, is the United States. They are the proprietors of the war on drugs, as they call it.

In 1997-98, they seized 1.7 tonnes of illegal drugs, but the number of admissions to drug treatment centres in the United States, which was 20,000 in 1992, rose to 70,000 in 1997 despite those horribly expensive efforts that had been made on enforcement.

I would also like you to comment on the recent study "Psychotropes," which came out in May 2001. This was a Montreal-based study that examined police and court statistics. It showed that simple possession of cannabis - not about jail terms, but charges - continues to be the principal drug related offence, accounting for 50 per cent of all such offences.

I am assuming that the police agencies in Canada would spend the bulk of their efforts, their money and their resources, on trying to find the people at the very least who distribute these drugs, if not the people who import them and for whom those other people merely work. Half the arrests are for simple possession, never mind what the penalty has been, traffic ticket, jail, whatever. Is that not a funny statistic, if we are spending our efforts in the right places as far as enforcement is concerned?

Mr. Hayden: From my experience, when an accused is charged for possession for the purpose of trafficking, he goes to court and some kind of plea bargain is arranged. That possession for the purpose of trafficking is often dropped to possession only and would show up in those figures as a possession only.

Off the top of my head, in my experience, I am fairly comfortable in saying that probably 30 to 40 per cent of possessions for the purpose of trafficking are reduced to possession only charges in court. Again, these figures are off the top of my head and they reflect only my experience.

Mr. Griffin: We looked at the numbers in that study and the number of possession charges suggested was in the neighbourhood of 30,000 to 35,000 per year. My understanding is that those numbers reflect a registered conviction. We have about 65,000 police officers in Canada; conservatively, that is far less than one charge per police officer per year.

Our finding is that police officers are not out looking for people to charge with possession of marijuana. They simply do not have the time or resources to do that now. We do not see that there will be great savings in relieving police officers from some fashion of that burden. We do believe there is still a deterrent factor: there is a consequence to possessing illicit drugs.

The other half of those charges do relate to the enforcement end. Certainly, in the battle against organized crime, drug enforcement is seen as one of the strongest weapons in terms of prosecuting drug offenders and seizing ill-gotten gains.

I was interested by your comment on the treatment centres. The focus in the United States is not as great on treatment and rehabilitation of offenders. My sense - and it is purely anecdotal - is that they probably have more people in prison for drug use than other countries.

We believe that treatment and rehabilitation is an important component of the program, and is part of that five-prong approach. You cannot just look at supply. There will always be supply from some source if there is demand. Our position is that you must also combine that with reducing the demand for those drugs. We have to let people know that there are consequences to using drugs and that the drugs are dangerous and we have to enforce that to some degree, otherwise we will never be successful on the supply side of that equation.

Senator Banks: Do you believe that, notwithstanding that it never seems to have worked anywhere previously, that to at least a degree, prohibition would have a salutary effect on our society?

Mr. Griffin: We go back to the usage numbers in terms of the number of people that use illicit drugs at this point.

Senator Banks: Are you certain that that small number is attributable in some significant way to our enforcement efforts.

Mr. Griffin: Yes. That is why we point to the countries that have loosened their drug laws. We believe that that results in increased use and the ancillary problems that go with that.

Senator Banks: We heard evidence that the attitudes and policies of governments and the laws of governments have no significant effect on drug use. That was the case in the United States between 1920 and 1933; if people want to drink, they will drink and the criminals will find a way to get alcohol to the drinkers. That public policy, regardless of what kind of public support it had, had no real effect on the number of people who drank. It affected adversely the quality of what it was that they drank. It increased the prices paid for the product and that lined the pockets of criminals. These are positions that we have heard that the efforts of prohibition do not have a serious effect. The lines are still about the same. Do you disagree with that?

Mr. Griffin: We disagree wholeheartedly.

Mr. Orban: Especially when you are talking about alcohol, we look at prohibition as a complete failure. Yet, there is research that shows it was not such a big failure. Mark Moore wrote a book that said that prohibition was a success.

If you look at alcohol in a purely scientific form and say that it is an anaesthetic depressant, and if it were examined in a purely medical and scientific way, it would be illegal.

Moore's work shows that prohibition - as it existed in the United States, not in Canada - shows that prohibition did work. He cites studies on the measurable phenomena of the time, including every index, every variable such as death rates, sclerosis of the liver, divorce, car accidents, time lost at work, domestic violence, arrests, heart disease, and so forth, all showed marked declines during the time of prohibition.

The political will did not exist to continue prohibition. The people said, "We want liquor." The president of the United States said, "Then we are going to have it."

If you look at the vast majority of the population, prohibition was a success. To say that making something illegal and keeping it illegal does not work, I cannot buy into that.

The Deputy Chairman: How dependent are you on public support for enforcing the law?

Mr. Griffin: It is extremely important to have the support of the public.

The Deputy Chairman: If the public does not broadly agree with the law, and essentially think it is right, you are faced with a much more difficult problem; is that correct?

Mr. Griffin: Certainly.

The Deputy Chairman: How would you then apply that to the growing number of people in the country who do not agree with the current law as it relates to cannabis?

Mr. Griffin: From my perspective it is a combination of factors. It is a combination of the way those questions are being posed to those people. Are they being asked about decriminalization? Are there different views on what that means? What information do they have in terms of how they are formulating those opinions? Is it being presented to them as an enforcement alternative to what they perceive our current system to be?

We think that to have public opinion in support of limiting drug use, the biggest issue is public awareness, understanding and education in regard to the truth about these drugs and what this means in personal terms.

Let us look at impaired driving. In the last 15 or 20 years, undoubtedly most of us in this room have changed our own behaviour as a result of a combination of public awareness, public education, stronger legislation and certainly perceptions and in most cases real changes in enforcement practice. Those measures have had a significant impact on impaired driving.

We think public opinion is important. That is why we are also advocating a strategy that increases public awareness, focusses on education and prevention and addresses not only the issue of supply but also the issue of demand.

Mr. Orban: As a police officer in the mid-1980s, I was involved in drug enforcement. After drug enforcement, I went to crime prevention where I was in the school resource section. At that time, it was evident that enforcement of laws is one thing, education of the public is another.

We are sadly lacking in education about drugs of any kind, not just marijuana or illegal drugs but on tobacco and alcohol use. It is in the school curricula and the teachers do their best but they do not have enough time and they are not trained properly in what these drugs can do.

As police officers, we had experience. We could go in and tell the kids what can happen as a result of taking drugs: "Here is what drugs are all about and here is how they work." In Regina, we had a school-based, police-delivered, life skills education in grades 4, 5, and 6. Again, because of cutbacks and because of different directions, the officers in the schools now are doing more law enforcement, taking complaints of violence, investigating school break-ins and complaints of car vandalizing, rather than doing the education. That part of the curriculum tends to be weak. It has not been taught properly to the youth of this country and it certainly has not been taught properly to the adults of this country.

We always hear the good side of things. We never hear the bad. If you talk to most people about alcohol, they will be somewhat familiar with its effects. But if you ask a child to look at a television commercial for beer or any other spirit and tell you about the good points or the bad points or the points that are missing altogether, the child will not know.

We lack in rehabilitation facilities. We say to someone who has been addicted to any substance, "You are on your own." We collect taxes on alcohol yet we do not use them to build rehab facilities. The bottom line from my perspective is an extreme lack of knowledge out there on these subjects.

Mr. Hayden: As a parent and as a friend of other parents, I have yet to meet anyone who would encourage a child to try marijuana or to smoke it regularly. Nor would they encourage their children to drive while impaired, to drive a car without a seatbelt or to ride a motorcycle without wearing a helmet.

I do not think that the small fraction of Canadian society that is lobbying for liberalization amounts to a majority at all. I do not think it is close. I have yet to meet one such person.

The Deputy Chairman: On that subject, have you ever heard of a parent who has encouraged a child to have a drink at home? "If you are going to drink, drink with us. It is Sunday lunch. We would like you to have a glass of wine."

Mr. Hayden: Absolutely, but I have never heard of a parent encouraging their child to drive drunk.

The Deputy Chairman: I hear you, but is that a good idea?

Mr. Hayden: I suppose it is socially acceptable right now.

The Deputy Chairman: We have heard witnesses who have told us that a case can be made on any side of the issue and that we will hear from most people about their own values. If we strip away the arguments, we will hear about competing values. Some people will say that all drugs are bad, no matter what sort, with a firmly felt conviction, as opposed to an opinion based on proof one way or another.

Is that a reasonable point of view for us as we address this issue? Are we having an argument about values? Are we trying to precipitate that argument in Canada?

Mr. Griffin: Certainly, there is a value issue here. As a society, as a community, what do Canadians want? What do they want for their children?

I also think the science on this one will support our position. When we look to Health Canada, to the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, to the evidence of doctors and other experts on marijuana, we hear that this is not something that we should be encouraging Canadians to do.

The Deputy Chairman: The question has come forward - I think, Mr. Orban, you raised it - about communicating and educating young people in particular. Some members of this committee have spent a fair amount of time examining the question of tobacco and nicotine and how it relates to young people.

It has become clear to us that some people are not well equipped to deliver the message. They are almost invariably authority figures like parents. By your profession, you likely qualify as being authority figures. Perhaps we as politicians do as well. The idea of sending a message to young people from teachers, from police or from politicians is likely to get just the opposite response from adolescents who are going through a period of rebellion. What is your response to that?

Mr. Orban: I would say it depends on how the message is sent. It depends on the honesty and the knowledge base of the person delivering the message. If a person goes into a classroom of teenagers and does not give them alternatives, or simply tells them war stories, or gives information that they are unsure of, then the teens will not buy it. Teenagers can tell when you are lying; that is the bottom line.

However, you can share what you have seen and experienced in your life and you can share what you know to be the real effects of marijuana or alcohol and they will listen. Will it change their attitudes? I guess if you take a shot at it and it changes the attitudes of some teens, then that is a good thing. You will not get everyone, but if you can convince 10 out of 30 or even 1 outof 30 that marijuana is a dangerous thing or that it could have adverse effects, then that is not a bad thing.

The key is to use people who believe in what they are doing and who have a high knowledge factor about drugs and on how to deal with peer pressure without using drugs. How should we deal with the pressures of life, with the risks and consequences of many daily activities, or with a history of drug abuse? People will hold out a model and say how well it has worked. That can be done with anything. If I am selling my used vehicle and I tell you how well it has worked but I will not tell you about the breakdowns or the faults, then you will not buy it. When you talk to the teens, you have to address the different arguments and tell them they can make up their minds for themselves.

As a parent, I have done this with my daughter for years. I feel sorry for her sometimes because I use her as a guinea pig on much of the information I get. I have to say that I do the best job I possibly can. I make sure I do not send her a mixed message that the way to deal with certain issues as a teenager is to escape through intoxication. You have to face issues sober and head-on, or they will just get worse. I try to be a good role model because I want her to have a good way of life. Then I cross my fingers and hope to God that things work out for her. Someone else can come along and influence her in a different direction.

I am giving her an ability to look back and remember something I said. She may remember advice from a teacher or some other adult in a position of authority. She may think twice. She may decide to get a little more information. We need to set good examples and we need people out there providing that advice.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Hayden, earlier Senator Banks was trying to put a question to you. You dismissed his thesis on trying to take the profit motive out of drugs. You suggested that in the event drugs were legalized the government would be greedy and they would push the price up sufficiently so that there was still a profit motive for illegal trade.

Let us assume for a minute - and it may require some suspension of belief - that governments were not greedy about taxes like they are with alcohol and tobacco. Under such a circumstance, imagine a policy coming forward that in fact provided marijuana only at cost and without the profit incentive, would you expect to see the ancillary crime that is related to acquisition of drugs diminished?

I believe Senator Banks was trying to put that proposition to you and you answered him by saying no, government would push up the price by taxing the drug. Assume for a minute the government will not do that and then may we have your answer, please?

Mr. Hayden: I believe I alluded to the experiment in Liverpool where they have seen crime increase exponentially around centres in Liverpool where drugs are available to addicts.

The Deputy Chairman: Why has it gone up if the drugs are available at no cost?

Mr. Hayden: Are you now talking about free drugs?

The Deputy Chairman: I am talking about at cost of production.

Mr. Hayden: There is still a cost and those people who use the drugs still must have money to buy them. Whether it is $15 for a gram of marijuana or $5 for a gram of marijuana, they still require that money to buy the marijuana.

The Deputy Chairman: Let us go the distance then. If the drug were free, would the crime dissipate? We can work up from there.

Mr. Hayden: If you are talking about property related crime, it is directly attributable to people who are committing these crimes to obtain money to get drugs. That crime will probably be non-existent if the drugs were free, but I would suggest, and I have no hesitation in assuming, that other crime will go up, like impaired driving for instance. I have no doubt in my mind about that.

The Deputy Chairman: In terms of the organized crime that you see in the country, if marijuana was brought forward without additional taxes do you see a breakdown in organized crime?

Mr. Griffin: It is a dangerous spiral because we will then get into issues about the potency. Will we be competing for stronger, harder, better marijuana?

The Deputy Chairman: A range of marijuana.

Mr. Griffin: That is right. There will always be that illicit demand. What we see within the current system is new products coming onto the market, such as designer drugs and other drugs. There will always be a market there for the organized criminal.

When we stopped taxing tobacco in some of our provinces where tobacco smuggling was an issue, it did not put organized criminals out of business. They just focused their efforts on other markets. We do not see that as a panacea. We think it will increase use of other drugs. People who have not to date tried marijuana will be inclined to use marijuana and progress to other drugs.

The Deputy Chairman: You are back at gateway theory again. The committee would appreciate it if we could have whatever studies you have available to support this theory. You referred to one I believe. If you could make it available to the clerk, we would welcome receiving those. We are in possession of a number of studies to the contrary. Obviously, we do not yet have a complete set of information. If you have studies that do demonstrate that the gateway theory is in fact there, it would be helpful to the committee if we could have that.

Mr. Griffin: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The Deputy Chairman: You also made a statement, Mr. Griffin, that I believe was to the effect that organized crime saw Canada as a country of refuge.

Mr. Griffin: Yes.

The Deputy Chairman: Do you have studies that support that statement?

Mr. Griffin: We made a presentation to the House of Commons subcommittee on organized crime. We cited a number of different sources. We can certainly provide a copy of those submissions to you.

First, there is the statement from our national authorities that those organized crime groups do exist in Canada. There is also anecdotal evidence through wiretaps, interviews with authors and others who believe that Canada - our correction system, our court system, and the consequences of conviction - is not a harsh on organized crime.

I should qualify that by saying we are strongly supportive of the bill on organized crime that hopefully will be coming to the Senate in the weeks ahead, which has been brought forward by the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General. We see some positive steps being made there.

The Deputy Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Orban, we took the liberty of quoting from your press release, which was issued today, to a witness who appeared before the committee this morning. The quote we used was from the third paragraph. The response we had from Professor Cohen was that he was of the view that it was not a supportable argument. You are here now and you are in a position to speak to this quotation. Could you take us through it, perhaps phrase by phrase, and indicate to the committee where your support is for each part of it so we can have that on the record?

Mr. Orban: When I was speaking about the social experiment of countries with drug liberalization policies, it demonstrates that crime, violence and drug use go hand in hand. I am referring to page 45 in our report - page 32 in the French.

I am basing this comment on information from the reports, as noted all the way through, lessons learned from other countries, which goes to page 53.

In regard to my comment: "the cost of drug liberalization will be astronomical, not only in terms of human and social services but in true human terms," I would refer you back the use of alcohol as the number one abused substance in Canada. The availability of alcohol has made it that number one most abused drug in Canada.

The Deputy Chairman: Are you saying that alcohol is more abused than nicotine?

Mr. Orban: No, tobacco is abused more, according to our chart. These are the costs. Using alcohol as the most psychoactive substance, if you put marijuana into that same category and make it available to people it will be more widely abused. There is research to indicate that a drug's availability does make it more abused.

The Deputy Chairman: To what research do you refer?

Mr. Orban: That is from the Swedish experience, and we do have some other reports that were mentioned in here. The Dutch experience in Holland is on page 48 of our brief. The Swedish experience is on pages 49 and 50.

The Deputy Chairman: Your media release states that when illicit drugs are legalized drug usage increases. Are there any countries where illicit drugs have been legalized?

Mr. Griffin: On page 52 of our brief, we show the example of what happened in Alaska when hashish possession was legal from 1980 to 1990. In that case, consumption, particularly among the young people, increased dramatically. Following a public referendum in 1990, the decriminalization measures were repealed.

The Deputy Chairman: What study is this based on?

Mr. Griffin: It is quoted here from the Argumentum Against Drug Legalization: A Contribution in Support of the Swiss People's Referendum for a "Youth without Drugs."

The Deputy Chairman: Regarding your statement that "demand for chemical drugs increases," can you give us the study for that, please?

Mr. Griffin: This is a combination of factors, a number of different reports. The reports of the International Narcotics Control Board for 1999 and 2000, the report, a document produced by the Swedish National Institute of Public Health -

The Deputy Chairman: All of this took place in Alaska? That was the one example you gave of legalization and all of the words that follow beyond that are related to legalization.

Senator Kinsella: I think that the witness earlier stated that "liberalization" would be a better term than "legalized."

The Deputy Chairman: Are you going to qualify the statement in that respect?

Mr. Orban: In Holland there are still laws against certain drug offences. So "liberalization" in Holland, "legalization" in Alaska.

The Deputy Chairman: In Holland, with liberalization, there has been a chemical drug increase?

Mr. Orban: That comes from the Argumentum.

The Deputy Chairman: You have cited Holland. Are you telling us that in Holland there has been a chemical drug increase that can be tied to the liberalization and the use of marijuana and, if so, what is the study?

Mr. Orban: Page 48, quote No. 35.

The Deputy Chairman: Could you give us the title of that, please?

Mr. Griffin: It may be beneficial, senator, if I referred to each of the quotes as we go through the document.

The conclusions drawn in the statements on the media release are consistent with the position that we are bringing forward and, we believe, consistent with the experience that is demonstrated in this section of our brief. The reports of the International Narcotics Control Board for the years 1999 and 2000 look at the legislative experience and the impact on drug use. In their report, they say - and we have quoted this on page 47 in our brief - that there was an increase in use and availability and abuse of synthetic drugs and cocaine in Europe.

This report also raises concerns related to the switch in policies from the demand reduction philosophies to safe use and the harm reduction type programs.

The Deputy Chairman: Where are you now, please?

Mr. Griffin: Page 47.

The Deputy Chairman: I mean in terms of the statement that we are analyzing? The reason I am taking the time on this, Mr. Griffin, is because we put your statement to a witness and the witness went through it clause by clause or phrase by phrase. This witness concluded that the paragraph was not right or did not make sense and disagreed with what you stated, saying there was no evidence to support your statements.

In fairness, I wish you to have every opportunity to put your position on the record so the committee will have an opportunity to compare apples with apples, as it were.

Mr. Griffin: I am trying to do that. What we have done in this section of our brief is look to sources in published reports from other organizations. I think you will find that the conclusion is inescapable: Where drug liberalization policies have taken place - including drug legalization as mentioned in these reports - that there has been an increase in the use of other drugs.

The Deputy Chairman: Just so I understand you, you are talking about legalization in Alaska and liberalization in Holland. What you are saying is that in Alaska and in Holland that you have studies that demonstrate there was an increase in demand for and use of chemical drugs and of crime as a result of that liberalization.

Mr. Griffin: Yes.

The Deputy Chairman: Those studies you are citing here now for us?

Mr. Griffin: Yes, and they are in the report.

There is also reference to other Western European countries, including Switzerland, Italy and Spain.

The Deputy Chairman: In what context are Switzerland, Italy and Spain referred to? As countries that have liberalized -

Mr. Griffin: Liberalized. Different authorities have used different terminology. In discussing these in some cases what is referred to as legalization may not be what we would consider to be legalization because the term is used in the context of the drug laws that are no longer being enforced, although the laws are still on the books.

Perhaps we should use the term liberalization, or legalization, or decriminalization. In our view, the consequences of all three of those strategies will be the same, and that is that drug use will increase. If you permit drug use for certain drugs such as marijuana, that will lead to increased use for other illicit drugs and that there is a relationship with crime in those countries that experimented with that as well.

The Deputy Chairman: To understand what you mean by "liberalization," earlier in your testimony you commented that you had never heard of a situation where someone received anything other than an absolute discharge or a conditional discharge for simple possession.

Mr. Griffin: No, we stated that we had not seen people go to jail.

The Deputy Chairman: Is that in your view liberalization?

Mr. Griffin: No.

The Deputy Chairman: In the countries to which you refer, are you talking about that or are you are talking about a step beyond that?

Mr. Griffin: A step beyond that. In Holland the laws are not enforced. We have heard anecdotal experiences from police officers who have visited Holland. They tell us that although the enforcement changes are theoretically being applied to their marijuana laws and hashish in particular, that people are openly trading in other drugs on the streets and that there is an increased tolerance for the use of other illegal drugs.

The Deputy Chairman: You have heard that anecdotally?

Mr. Griffin: Yes.

The Deputy Chairman: Have you seen any studies to that effect?

Mr. Griffin: We do reference Holland in some of the materials.

Senator Kinsella: On the point about Holland, on page 48 of your brief the study that is footnoted is Argumentum Against Drug Legislation: A Contribution in Support of the Swiss People's Referendum for a Youth Without Drugs, dated 1994. It states on page 48 of the study:

In Holland, studies conducted in the early 1990s reflect the negative impact of illicit drug tolerance.

Are we speaking of the same time frame? When were the coffee shops opened up in Holland? Was it in the mid-1990s? Do we not usually associate the liberalization in the Netherlands from 1995?

Mr. Sansfaçon: It is most unfortunate, senator, that Professor Cohen is not in the room. He would be in a better position to answer the question. I understand the coffee shops were initially created in the Netherlands in the early 1980s.

Senator Kinsella: Then this supports your position.

The Deputy Chairman: If you would like to continue, Mr. Orban, I think we got as far as crime increases and we are on to the costs of drug liberalization, which would be astronomical.

Mr. Orban: I would refer back to our two graphs on page 62 and page 37 of the brief.

That would be assuming that if a liberalization took place in Canada and the enforcement of drug laws was changed to make the use of marijuana or illicit drugs more liberal, that drug use would in fact rise. The cost of substance usage would, of course, increase as well. That is based on a 1992 report of the Canadian Centre of Substance Abuse.

The Deputy Chairman: Those reports you are saying demonstrate that drug liberalization will have an impact in terms of health care and social services.

Mr. Orban: Yes.

Mr. Hayden: I would like to comment on that particular graph, the one with substance usage and percentage of population in regard to the different substances, alcohol, marijuana, LSD, speed or heroin, which appears page 37 in English and 26 in French. We could not find recent figures, but I know from my own experience - at least locally in Edmonton - and from speaking to other investigators across this country, that these figures have only gone up since 1992. I assure you with the advent of raves, especially in the larger metropolitan area, the use of marijuana, LSD, and speed - not so much heroin and cocaine as far as raves go - have skyrocketed, in my experience in my area. I know that is true in other metropolitan areas.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Orban, would you like to finish?

Mr. Orban: I refer you to page 49 in our brief. In less than three years, Sweden found such a devastating effect on all the communities that it measured that it moved to total eradication of drugs. It concentrated on health care, treatment rehab, law enforcement, and dealing with the peoples' addictions, to make Sweden the type of country it wanted to be - which was drug free. It set a goal of no adverse effects on society of all drug use. Sweden has a zero tolerance with regard to that.

People from Sweden have told us that they do not know if they will get there but that is the goal they have set and that is the one they feel is best for their country.

The Deputy Chairman: Is there anything else you would like to say regarding this statement?

Mr. Orban: No.

Senator Kinsella: Earlier on, I gleaned that one of your arguments was that changing the Code and decriminalizing possession of marijuana would have a very bad educational or public sensitivity impact. Moreover, with all the monies that you would have to gather and spend on sensitizing the population against using these substances, it would be far more cost-efficient to have a law outlawing their possession and use. Did I understand that to be your basic position?

Mr. Orban: Yes.

Mr. Griffin: We believe it is a public policy issue in terms of denunciation. We will never eliminate crimes such as impaired driving, spousal abuse and homicide. Yet we have seen time after time examples where programs combined with public awareness and education, perceived increases in enforcement, meaningful consequences, alternatives strictly to incarceration that may involve community education, all have a desired effect. There are opportunities within our existing laws to improve the way that we respond to these crimes.

Our concern is whether being seen to reduce the consequences of drug use will have a significant negative impact on drug use.

Senator Kinsella: As far as decriminalizing the use of drugs that currently are illicit, if the individual in the exercise of free choice decides that he or she wants to use these drugs, what is the case against interfering with his or her freedom of choice? What is the common good or the public interest to use the power of the state to interfere with the freedom of that individual?

Mr. Griffin: We can draw all sorts of examples, whether it is seat belt use, motorcycle helmet use, or child pornography. In each of those situations one can say, "who cares"? There are risks not only to that individual but also to the community, and there are tremendous costs.

Senator Kinsella: There are costs and risks to others. It is not simply a case of prohibiting it for their own good, but it is also, in your view, for the good of others and society.

Mr. Griffin: It is certainly for their own good. Some people resist that approach, but it is certainly for the benefit of the individual and particularly young people, who may not be equipped to make the best decisions. We have all learned lessons when we were younger. We think that our justice system and the new Justice Act reinforce an approach for meaningfulintervention. It does not mean we lock up somebody in jail or they have the stigma of a criminal record for the rest of their life, but there is meaningful intervention in an effort to help that individual make a better choice the next time.

Senator Kinsella: So in terms of police work, the issue would be the harming of others. You encounter such incidents as the driving of automobiles where a person taking drugs would injure another person?

Mr. Griffin: Is there not also a harm that if drug use is seen to be socially acceptable, that there is harm to future generations or younger Canadians who will learn by the mistakes of others?

We believe the science demonstrates the harms of marijuana use. The first issue one should focus on is what the scientific evidence is. We think it is strongly conclusive that marijuana is a dangerous drug and we should not be encouraging people to use it. That is the basis for the public policy decisions on what is the best way to reduce demand, reduce the supply, educate and inform the public about the consequences, and provide treatment and rehabilitation to those who develop dependencies.

Mr. Orban: I have been told that it is not as though people are robbing banks to get money for marijuana. I have said that that is very far from the truth. Yes, we do have heroin and cocaine addicts committing armed robbery. People tend to use those examples because they are associated with violence.

A recent case of armed robbery in Regina involved a young offender and a 20-year-old adult who robbed a service station and a convenience store at knifepoint. They knew the police were coming because they left enough evidence behind that we are on their trail. They were so worried that the only thing they did was to buy a bag of grass and smoke it until they were out of it. They did not use coke or heroin. They do not use alcohol because it is a "dangerous drug." They were going out to get money for marijuana. To say that marijuana is a nicely packaged substance that does not harm anyone is a false statement. I am sure that is not the only case out there like that.

The Deputy Chairman: I would like to thank the panel for appearing before us today. I believe the committee will have further questions for you. If we may, we will put them to you, initially at least, in writing. You will recall I also asked for some other information at the beginning, and if we could have that, we would appreciate it very much. We will consider carefully and put to good use the information you have given us today.

The committee adjourned.