Senate Committee to Reassess Canada’s Anti-Drug Legislation and Policies
Final Report
An Exploratory Study Among Canadians About the Use of Cannabis
June 2002
Research Findings
1. The Main Concerns of Canadians
2. Overall Perception of Cannabis and Cannabis Use
3. Attitudes and Behaviour Toward the Use of Cannabis
4. Challenges and Concerns Related to Cannabis
5. Options for the Future
Introduction
Study Context and
Objectives
The
Senate Committee to Reassess Canada’s Anti-Drug Legislation and Policies has
commissioned Leger Marketing to conduct an
exploratory study among Canadians, as per the terms presented in the service
proposal of February 2002.
The main objective of this research project is to identify and validate the opinion trends with regard to a public policy that could serve as the basis of a social consensus on the use of cannabis in Canada.
More
specifically, the exploratory research must enable the following to be
evaluated:
1.
The overall perception of drug use in general, and cannabis in
particular;
2.
The social image (values) associated with the use of cannabis
(tradition/openness, constraints/freedom, etc.);
3.
Attitudes and social behaviour toward the use of cannabis for
recreational purposes;
4.
Fears, prejudices and taboos that still exist regarding cannabis
(perceived effects, relationship with crime, social cost, impact on young
people, etc.);
5.
Knowledge and perception of the legislative framework governing the use
of cannabis;
6.
Expectations of citizens with regard to a public policy on the use of
cannabis for recreational purposes.
Methodology
To fulfill the study's objectives Léger Marketing held 16 focus groups
across various regions of the country (Montréal, Trois-Rivières, Halifax,
Winnipeg, Vancouver, Toronto, London) and conducted a total of 14 in-depth
interviews in Montréal and Toronto.
A
total of more than 130 Canadians took part in this study conducted during the
last two weeks of February and the first week of March 2002.
In each region, participants were selected and invited so as to ensure a
representative balance of the different demographic and socioprofessional
categories of the population. However, gender and age were the two main
criteria that determined the group composition and the distribution of the
in-depth interviews. The chart below details the number of participants per
region, per gender and age group.
Groups |
Regions and cities |
Total number of participants |
Gender distribution |
Age groups |
||||
FF |
M |
15-18 yrs |
19-24 yrs |
26-35 yrs |
35 yrs & + |
|||
Group 1 |
Montréal |
7 |
4 |
3 |
7 |
|
|
|
Group 2 |
Montréal |
8 |
4 |
4 |
|
4 |
4 |
|
Group 3 |
Montréal |
6 |
2 |
4 |
|
|
|
6 |
Group 4 |
Trois-Riv. |
7 |
3 |
4 |
|
3 |
4 |
|
Group 5 |
Trois-Riv |
6 |
4 |
2 |
|
|
|
6 |
Group 6 |
Toronto |
8 |
3 |
5 |
8 |
|
|
|
Group 7 |
Toronto |
8 |
4 |
4 |
|
4 |
4 |
|
Group 8 |
Toronto |
7 |
3 |
4 |
|
|
|
7 |
Group 9 |
Halifax |
8 |
4 |
4 |
|
4 |
4 |
|
Group 10 |
Halifax |
8 |
4 |
4 |
|
|
|
8 |
Group 11 |
London |
8 |
5 |
3 |
|
4 |
4 |
|
Group 12 |
London |
8 |
3 |
5 |
|
|
|
8 |
Group 13 |
Vancouver |
7 |
3 |
4 |
|
4 |
3 |
|
Group 14 |
Vancouver |
7 |
4 |
3 |
|
|
|
7 |
Group 15 |
Winnipeg |
8 |
4 |
4 |
|
4 |
4 |
|
Group 16 |
Winnipeg |
8 |
4 |
4 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
119
|
58
|
61
|
15 |
27 |
27 |
50 |
Interview distribution in Montréal and Toronto |
||||||||
|
Montréal |
8 |
5 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
|
2 |
|
Toronto |
6 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
2 |
Also, during the selection
process, participants were invited to answer questions pertaining to major
social issues namely abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia, etc.
Focus
groups lasted two hours and the in-depth interviews one hour. These sessions
were held in either French or English depending on the location.
The
present document contains the detailed results of the qualitative research
project.
Note to readers
§
This document exposes the opinions and views of respondents as expressed
during the focus groups. It therefore has its limits and must not be taken as
an end in itself. The findings reflect the opinions of specific people to
specific questions at a given point in time. They are trends and must not be
taken to represent the opinions of all citizens, groups or sub-groups of the
population being studied. In an effort to make reading easier, the document
may contain references to Canadians or residents of a given region or city
involved in the study.
Study
Highlights
Research
Findings
1.
The Main Concerns of Canadians
Ø
The recreational use of cannabis does not constitute an
everyday concern for Canadians. The
moderator of the focus groups had to directly question the participants on the
subject of illegal drugs in order to get them to discuss the topic. This shows
the subject is not a topical one among Canadians. Once the subject was broached,
the participants were more concerned with related criminal activities such as
drug trafficking and smuggling than in personal use by Canadians. In addition,
participants in various cities were also concerned with the effect the presence
of illegal drugs would have on the quality of life and safety in certain
neighbourhoods (Gastown in Vancouver or Montreal North in Montreal, for
example).
Ø
Canadians are mostly preoccupied with issues related to
health, education and poverty.
Health, education and
jobs are the key issues on the minds of Canadians |
|
?
Generally speaking,
the Canadians who took part in the focus groups were not overly concerned
with issues surrounding the recreational use of cannabis, regardless of
their province of residence. When asked to name the issues that preoccupy
them most as citizens, health, education, the future of young people, jobs
and poverty were spontaneously mentioned. “health, it’s urgent!…”
(translation) “the quality of the education
for today’s young people…” (translation) “the gap between the rich and
the poor…in the eighties, this gap was not as wide. But today it’s
like there are either really rich people and really poor people. There’s
nothing in between anymore…” (translation) “tuition fees and cost of education…“ “health care…“ “cost of living… change in
lifestyle…“ None of the participants
spontaneously mentioned drugs in general or cannabis in particular. |
Violence is a
preoccupation related to the events of 9/11. |
?
Violence constitutes
another important concern for Canadians. This concern has, however, been
exacerbated by the events of September 11, 2001. Five months after the
events, we therefore see that Canadians are questioning Canada’s ability
to defend itself from terrorist attacks. Some doubt that the Canadian
Armed Forces are adequately prepared to face this type of situation. “All this business of war is
depressing me. What do you get out of it? Nothing… I just don’t see
the purpose of it” “we should have better
military equipment…” “increase in terrorism…” “there is too much violence:
terrorism, the war in Afghanistan…“ (translation) “the Canadians Forces have
good ads but they are not well equipped …“ (translation) “life just seemed to stop in
the United States after 9/11” (translation) |
2. Overall Perception of Cannabis and Cannabis Use
Ø
Given the fact that it is natural and that it is not
associated with any harmful side effects for users, Canadians see
cannabis as a “soft” drug and distinguish it from “hard” drugs
Drugs are divided in
two main categories |
|
?
Participants
proceeded to an almost systematic ranking of the various drugs when they
were asked to give their opinion in this respect. They therefore
categorize drugs in two, clearly defined groups, namely “hard” drugs
and “soft” drugs. “First, we need to have a
clear definition of what a drug is” (translation) “there are hard and soft
drugs…” “drugs are everything that
lead to addiction…beer, work, cigarettes, coffee can be considered
drugs” (translation)
|
Cannabis is a
“soft” drug |
?
With
the exception of a few people who believe that regardless of the name, “drugs are drugs,” the majority of participants placed
cannabis in the “soft” drug category. In many cases, the word
“drug” was deemed inadequate to describe cannabis. Participants,
particularly those in Montreal, Halifax, Toronto and Vancouver, were more
likely to compare cannabis to alcohol, since alcohol does not have the
same negative connotation as the word “drug”, even though its effects
are perceived as the same if not greater than those of marijuana. “In my view, there are no soft
or hard drugs, there are only drugs…” (translation) “There are some drugs that are
not as strong as others…” (translation) “Marijuana is considered
soft…“ “Heroin is hard, marijuana is
soft…” “Smoking marijuana is like
having a cigarette and a scotch after work…”
|
|
The difference between “soft” and “hard”
drugs |
Generally speaking,
participants included cannabis, ecstasy, hashish, magic mushrooms and
alcohol in the “soft” drug category while crack, cocaine, LSD, heroin
and opium were defined as “hard” drugs. ?
The
difference between “hard” and “soft” drugs can be explained by two
major factors, namely the composition of the product and its effects.
“Soft” drugs are made of natural substances and have “controlled”
effects. “Hard” drugs are chemically based and have “destructive”
effects. Several respondents also mentioned the addictiveness of certain
drugs as a further differentiating factor. So-called “chemical” drugs
were thought to create an almost immediate dependency compared to
marijuana that has practically no risk of dependency according to a very
large number of respondents. A
large number of participants felt that marijuana as such does not cause
dependency when used for recreational purposes, but that it can induce
dependency in those with a psychological propensity toward dependency.
Once again the comparison with alcohol seemed obvious to the participants:
although the great majority
of the population can drink alcohol in reasonable quantities, a proportion
of the population does develop a dependency.
The same can be said for marijuana. “Soft drugs are more likely to
be natural products while hard drugs are made of chemicals and are cut
with other substances …” (translation) “The way hard drugs are cut is
so unpredictable… You don’t know what you’re getting. Marijuana is a
little harder to mess with, so it’s more predictable…“
|
|
The colour green is spontaneously associated to
cannabis |
“Smoking a joint doesn’t
make you an addict…” “Chances of od’ing on pot
are less…“ “You can become addicted to
cocaine more easily than to marijuana…” “Marijuana won’t fry your
brain cells…” “Those who get hooked on pot
have dependent personalities. That
same person could get hooked on gambling, booze or anything else.” |
|
“It makes me think of the ogre in Le
Petit Poucet” |
?
The
term cannabis is not often used
by Canadians regardless of the region in which they live. They are more
likely to use words like marijuana,
pot, joint or weed to talk
about cannabis. In English, in particular, people seemed less familiar
with the term cannabis. ?
The fact that cannabis
is plant-based greatly influences the perception of Canadians when it
comes to this substance. Asked to describe a character that could be
associated to cannabis, participants mentioned the following images: “A plant…” “A small green man…” “Green and hairy…” ?
Some participants
eventually associated cannabis to criminal activity and biker gangs. This
was mostly the case in Quebec. Outside of Quebec the association with
criminal activity is linked more to environment. In other words, marijuana
is associated with certain neighbourhoods where other illegal activities
connected to hard drugs take place. Few
of the participants felt that occasional marijuana users would be likely
to rob or commit other crimes in order to obtain their drug of choice. “I see a scarecrow, in a field
with straw hair…It makes me think of organized criminal groups that
plant cannabis in farmer’s fields and terrorize them after…”
(translation) “There are people making too
much money from it…” (translation) “This is a man who hangs
around bikers…” (translation) “It’s an evil little
elf…” (translation) “I can’t picture a guy
robbing the corner store to buy himself a joint.
This is something heroin addicts would do. First, pot is cheap, second it doesn’t make you want it
desperately.” |
3. Attitudes and Behaviour Toward the Use of Cannabis
Ø
There is an element of pleasure and conviviality
generally associated with cannabis use, while “hard” drugs are normally
associated to moral and physical distress and social degradation. Cannabis is
almost always used on social occasions, a little like alcohol.
Marijuana users present in the groups, as well as those who had
previously experimented with it, admitted that it was used to “enhance ”
their pleasure during the evening.
Ø
No real generation cleavage was noted in terms of the
opinion regarding the recreational use of cannabis, at least among “baby
boomers” and the generation after them. However, there is a slight difference
as to how the issue is introduced: the comments expressed by the younger
generation reflect banality while the older generations have a more reserved
attitude. Commitment to more conservative beliefs and values, generally more
present among older population groups, do not seem to have a decisive impact on
the opinion and attitude toward the recreational use of cannabis.
Ø
If a cleavage does exist, it lies in socio-professional
characteristics, those with lower levels of education and residing in rural
regions demonstrating greater resistance to its use. This finding is critical
and must be validated through a quantitative study.
However, the qualitative study demonstrated that participants, especially
those who had attended university, had often been in contact with or used
marijuana. This familiarity with
marijuana enabled them to discuss the subject without making reference to the
stereotypes often associated with illegal drug users.
Another cleavage could be found among women with school age children.
Several among them said they were very worried about the availability of
marijuana in schools (mostly high schools, but elementary schools as well) and
about the fact that individuals older than their children hung around the
schools.
Ø
The pockets of resistance to the recreational use of
cannabis are often related to moral and religious reasons.
Those opposed to its use often used arguments with a strong sense of
right and wrong. These types of reactions were expressed by older participants
as well as young adults (20-25 years), particularly in Trois-Rivières and
Winnipeg. Various opponents asked why we should question something that “had
always been considered wrong”, since this questioning only served to deny
established morality and the validity of their own principles.
A socially acceptable
drug Cannabis: “A party
drug” (translation) |
|
?
The
recreational use of cannabis is generally well accepted. For that reason,
many participants in every group spontaneously referred to their own past
or present experience with cannabis.
This “admission” was not made as the result of a moderator’s
direct question, but was made spontaneously and voluntarily in order to
show that “anyone can do marijuana”. “Everyone does it, everyone
has done it…” (translation) “It almost seems normal when
you see someone smoking a joint…” (translation) “I sometimes smoke with
friends…” (translation) “It doesn’t bother me that
people do marijuana. As long as they are aware of their decision, what
they are doing, I respect it…“ “Some drugs are socially
acceptable, the same alcohol…” “I sometimes smoke pot and it
doesn’t keep me from being a productive guy at work or a good family
man.” “Doctors, lawyers, accountants
and pot heads do it. It
doesn’t matter what you have in your bank account or what you do for a
living.” “It’s a choice, just like
anything else.” |
A character with a thousand faces |
?
From
a moral point of view, using cannabis is often compared to drinking
alcohol. As is the case with alcohol, the idea of abuse and social
responsibility make the difference. Some of the participants were much
harder on alcohol abuse resulting in either domestic violence or random
fights in a bar. “You can smoke it at a party.
Instead of drinking, you smoke a joint…” “Marijuana is more like
alcohol for the level of buzz…“ “Some types of alcoholic
beverages are more harmful than cannabis…” “It’s very pleasant, it’s
like beer. You get the same sensation except that you don’t have any
problems after…” “I used to go out to bars a
lot. Every night there would
be a fight. A guy gets drunk
and then starts insulting somebody else or feels another guy is flirting
with his girlfriend. At one
point, punches get thrown around. But
you know what? I have never
seen a guy stoned on pot go nuts and want to knock somebody out.” “People on pot just feel
mellow and want to relax and have a few laughs.
I’d rather have that at a party than a bunch of drunks.”
|
|
The fact that there is cannabis in schools makes
parents feel powerless |
?
The recreational use
of cannabis is not limited to a single segment of the population. The use
of cannabis is associated to young high school or college students just as
much as to professionals, artists and anyone working under pressure. “It’s a person who begs for
a quarter on the street corner…” (translation) “He doesn’t do anything in
life…” (translation) “It makes me think of high
school or college students more…They like trying new things…”
(translation) “Fine for people to light up
and go about their normal duties…“ “A gentleman with a shirt,
carrying a briefcase. He makes $125,000 a year…” (translation) “He’s a writer, an
artist…marijuana makes people relax…” (translation) “Everyone smokes it regardless
of social status… CEOs, lawyers…“ ?
The fact that access
to marijuana is seen as easy and dangerous is a major concern,
particularly for mothers. This concern influences the opinion of this
segment of the population which wavers between a need for tolerance and
openness and a deep concern about the consequences of the liberalization
of the use of cannabis. “Whether or not it’s legal
doesn’t change a thing. The only thing I want is that young people not
have access to drugs…The fact that drugs are sold in elementary schools
makes me furious since youngsters become addicted…” (translation) “If cannabis is to become
legal, I’m afraid that young people who would not have touched the
stuff, now will want to…” (translation) “I completely stopped using it
once I had children…” “I think it should stay
illegal. Think of the
kids.” |
4.
Challenges and Concerns Related to Cannabis
Ø
Legalizing
cannabis for medical purposes raises a need among citizens to obtain information
by participating in a reflection on the topic.
Ø
Moderate use of cannabis apparently does not have a
harmful impact on human health, as opposed to tobacco.
Ø
The risk of becoming addicted and moving to harder
drugs is, for most participants, associated to the user’s environment and
personality rather than to cannabis itself. However, many participants worry
that using at a younger age may lead to more dangerous experimentation in the
future.
Ø
Based on the knowledge and the information they
possess, the moderate use of cannabis does not lead to behavioural problems.
While alcohol may lead to violent behaviour, using cannabis leads rather to a
feeling of relaxation. However, a question remains about driving under the
influence of cannabis. Without talking about dangerous driving, most
participants feel that the risk is real because the driver’s reflexes are
slower.
The use of cannabis
for medical purposes obtains the approval of participants “It’s a plant that
is seen as being harmful yet it is less so than tobacco…”
(translation) The occasional use of cannabis rarely causes
addiction Addiction to cannabis stems from using it too
often “It always depends on the individual”
|
|
?
Generally,
participants are not opposed to the legalization of cannabis for medical
purposes. However, before giving their unconditional support to such an
endeavour, some participants would like a clear distribution network to be
established in health institutions and adequate doses to be precisely
determined according to the intensity of the pain experienced by users.
This form of legalization seems to have had an impact on the perception of
some of the participants towards marijuana.
The fact that the medical community is accepting marijuana made the
participants question some of their prejudices towards the substance.
In particular, it altered their perceptions as to its danger and
toxicity. In addition, the
fact that marijuana could have beneficial effects was given a certain
degree of credibility. “If it works to help relieve
pain… If they approve of Tylenol [as a painkiller], they should approve
of marijuana as well…“ “If we decide to legalize it
for medical purposes, the infrastructures must be fine tuned. We can’t
start reacting to problems only after they occur…” (translation) “If the government wants to
make marijuana legal for medical purposes, then they should be able to
control its distribution…” “We may find out someday that
it helps relieve stress. What
if it also helped with certain types of mental illnesses?” ?
In general,
participants feel that occasionally smoking cannabis is not harmful for
human health. Many participants spontaneously compared it to tobacco and
alcohol and often reached the conclusion that cannabis is the least
harmful of the three substances. “Given what we currently know
about cannabis, I don’t think we should be afraid of it…” “I have never heard of pot
related cancer. Nor have I ever heard of somebody od’ing on pot.” “I wonder what the smoke from
marijuana does to your lungs. But
if it’s only occasional, I guess it’s not bad.” “It’s not worst than having
a beer. Smoking [a joint], it’s not like using needles…As long as
it’s reasonable…” (translation) ?
The majority of
participants do not worry about addiction in the case of cannabis. In
their view, only frequent use of a soft drug could lead to addiction. “Someone who smokes a joint
once in awhile, I don’t think that really changes very much…” (translation) “Each person is different. A
person must be able to determine the dose that will not lead to addiction.
He or she must be mature enough to do this…” (translation) “Some people may gradually go
toward harder drugs. But often, those who do this are younger people who
are with their peers…” (translation) “This is the key question. I
don’t think you can get hooked on it really.
Not as much as booze or nicotine for sure. But that’s the kind of proof or medical evidence I would
like to have it you want me to make up my mind on it.” ?
For most participants,
addiction to cannabis is strongly related to frequency of use and to the
quantity used. Occasional and moderate use of marijuana can hardly lead to
addiction. “I don’t think marijuana is
necessarily addictive…“ “Some people may not get
addicted and some may… People react differently to it…“ |
“A guy who’s always smiling but who doesn’t
know why” |
?
The use of cannabis
does not inevitably lead the user to try harder drugs. According to the
majority of participants, taking “hard” drugs is related more to the
personality and maturity of the user and to his or her environment rather
than to cannabis itself. Participants
seemed to disassociate the fact that marijuana was often the first drug
done by those who went on to use harder drugs from the drug itself.
In other words, they didn’t feel that marijuana contained any
toxic agent or ingredient that pushed users towards harder drugs, but
rather that hard drug users simply started out with marijuana because it
was more readily available, cheaper and had less of a stigma attached to
it. “Teenagers
are the most vulnerable to this…” (translation) “It often
starts with soft drugs, but because of the environment they’re in, some
will move to harder drugs to experience stronger effects…” (translation) “It would be easier for young
people to be interested in trying one drug and another out of curiosity
and based on the cost…” (translation) |
|
“A joint has a relaxing effect” (translation)
|
“I would guess that people
that do harder drugs started with pot, yet others have never done anything
but pot…“ ?
The majority of
participants, including those who are not very favourable to the
recreational use of cannabis, agree to say that cannabis does not lead to
violent behaviour among users. Although users will often seem happy
and relaxed, they can
sometimes cry or feel sad. According to some participants, the active
component of cannabis accentuates feelings of joy and sadness among users
but does not lead to violence. “It’s more the violence
associated to the production and distribution of cannabis that scares
people…” (translation) “Marijuana has a calming
effect…” (translation) “I use it every night to go to
sleep…“ “Some people like to smoke it
before they go out. It helps to calm them down…“ |
|
“This data is out of date” |
?
Cannabis, as opposed
to alcohol, does not push users to violence. However, in terms of driving
a car while under the influence of cannabis, it is just as dangerous as
doing so after having had a drink. According to some participants, this is
even more of a concern since no cannabis-test
exists yet. “The effects are the opposite
of those associated with alcohol: you smile, you are in your own
world…” (translation) “One beer can create more
violence than cannabis…” (translation) |
|
“It’s like taking a hammer to kill a fly and
a needle to kill a lion”
|
“In and of itself, cannabis is
not dangerous, but it’s impossible to function while under its
influence…” (translation) “I think that marijuana puts
you on the couch more than out to steal…“ |
|
“I find the system slightly hypocritical and incoherent” |
“Your perception changes, your
reflexes are going to be slower…” (translation) ?
There was unanimous
consent regarding some of the findings presented to participants: §
Disbelief upon hearing
that 10 percent of Canadians use cannabis. According to participants, this
figure is grossly underestimated. It is more likely to be 50 percent. “I’m surprised that only 10
percent of the population uses it. I was expecting 50 to 60 percent…”
(translation) “It’s not our generation
that is using…” (translation) “My parents have friends who
use it…” (translation) §
30,000 arrests for
possession of cannabis. Participants find that the attitude of police is
disproportionate. They have the feeling that efforts and resources should
go toward the fight against criminal distribution networks. One of the
most important objectives is to prevent all types of drugs from entering
the schoolyard. “30,000 people charged per
year seems like a waste of taxpayers money if it’s just for possession.
It’s a lot of money to prosecute and they all get thrown out
anyway…“ “I didn’t know you could get
arrested for possession. It’s not like you have the intention of selling
it…” (translation) “When we think of other crimes
that are much worse, when we think of the backlog in the courts, I find it
ridiculous…” “If you have a kilo of
cannabis, then I understand. Maybe you want to cut it and sell it. But
it’s ridiculous to arrest someone who has three joints…”
(translation) “For me the problem is with
the organized groups that produce and sell these drugs. When they are
arrested, they are out in six months…” “Why would you spend my tax
money to go after pot smokers, while the hard drug dealers involved in
organized crime go about their business without being bothered.
Let’s get our priorities straight here.” |
5.
Options for the Future
Ø
Based on the
trends that could be seen through the opinions expressed, Canadian society
seems to be ready for the decriminalization of the use of cannabis. Ø
The need to proceed gradually can be perceived in the
attitudes of Canadians. In the long term, this could lead to controlled
legalization.
Ø
The
prerequisites, the modes and complex mechanisms made necessary by controlled
legalization constitute an obstacle to this option for the near future. Ø
Maintaining the status quo is considered “collective
hypocrisy.” It is a kind of wait-and-see policy that leads to a waste of
public monies. Ø
The public
consultation must be part of an exercise aimed at educating and informing the
public. |
1.
The need to protect young people and children is at the
centre of all reflections about a public policy on the use of cannabis.
2.
There seems to be a consensus surrounding an
intermediary solution that would involve decriminalizing the social use of
cannabis.
3.
The decriminalization of cannabis would sanction an
already existing social practise and would allow the authorities to concentrate
on “real problems” related to the distribution of illegal substances.
4.
Some participants, namely in Montreal and Vancouver,
were in favour of liberalization. However, they wondered about the nature of the
methods of controls that authorities could put in place in terms of:
ò
Producing
cannabis and the quality standards required;
ò
Distributing and
commercializing cannabis (references to coffee shops like those found in some
European countries is an option. However, the option of selling marijuana in the
same way as cigarettes is rejected);
ò
Setting up
“quotas” to avoid abuse: some suggested using a smart card to control the
use and a “cannabis-test” for drivers.
5.
Rather than just
a consultation on the basic elements of a public policy on the use of cannabis,
citizens would like to be informed and “educated” about the use of cannabis.
The information needs pertain to:
ò
Scientific
findings about the short- and long-term effects of cannabis use;
ò
The real risks
related to addiction and escalation of drug use;
ò
The ways to
protect children against early usage;
ò
The impact of
decriminalization (or legalization) on the fight against organized crime.
This information must be documented and backed by
credible expertise. In fact, the
prerequisite to supporting a policy on the decriminalization or legalization of
marijuana must be the gathering of further scientific data.
Canada, a tolerant
society…
… but is concerned about the consequences of
this tolerance on children and teenagers … Decriminalization is the consensus Pockets of resistance still exist
No to depenalization |
|
?
Generally speaking,
participants feel that Canadian society is rather tolerant when it comes
to the recreational use of cannabis. Were we to rank Canada in terms of
its level of tolerance, it would be closer to the Netherlands than to the
United States. “I think that in Switzerland
and in the Netherlands, there is a lot more openness and more tolerance
than in Canada…” (translation) “Canada is in the middle… “ “As tolerant as you can get
without legalizing… “ “Repressive countries would
include Singapore, Saudi Arabia and the USA. Canada is more tolerant and
Holland would be more tolerant than us…“ Although the majority of
participants are in agreement with the prevailing view held by Canadians
about the recreational use of cannabis, they greatly dislike the fact that
young people can easily obtain drugs particularly in schools and Cegeps. “It
has to be zero tolerance for young people…” “I
don’t want drugs to end up in elementary schools” “I want the law to be stricter
with people under 18 years of age… and not as strict with adults …“ ?
For the most part, the
opinions of participants tend toward a position between decriminalization
and legalization. “I’m between
decriminalization and legalization…“ “The best option is
decriminalization leaning towards government legalization. The worst
option would be depenalization: to legalize without getting involved…“ “What does it change for
Canadians to have criminal records because of smoking marijuana? We are
not fighting the real problem…“ This position is
particularly popular in Montreal,
Toronto, Vancouver and Halifax.
Participants who opt for the decriminalization of the recreational use of
cannabis feel that it will have a positive impact on the following: §
The ability to inform
citizens of the risks involved §
The health of
individuals §
Public health §
Public safety §
Illegal trafficking §
The involvement of
organized crime §
The respect of
individual rights and freedoms §
The effective use of
public monies In addition,
participants expect an increase in the use of cannabis for recreational
purposes but do not think that decriminalization will lead to an increase
in the abuse and use among young people. In this respect, many
participants in the various regions mentioned that decriminalizing the
recreational use of cannabis would lead to a lower interest in the drug
among young people since it would no longer be a “forbidden fruit.” “Pot is
attractive to kids only because it’s prohibited. Remove the element of
curiosity and they aren’t as interested… “ ? There
is still a hardcore segment of the Canadian public who feel that the law
concerning the recreational use of cannabis is not strict enough and that
Canadian society should move toward greater criminalization of the social
use of cannabis. This view is popular
namely in Winnipeg and Trois-Rivières.
Participants opting for greater criminalization of the recreational use of
cannabis feel that such a decision would have a positive impact on the
following aspects: §
The recreational use
of cannabis §
The abuse of cannabis §
Use among young people §
The ability to inform
citizens about the risks §
The health of
individuals §
Public health §
Public safety §
Illegal trafficking §
The involvement of
organized crime §
The respect of
individuals rights and freedoms §
The effective use of
public monies ?
The complete
depenalization of the recreational use of cannabis does not seem to raise
the enthusiasm of Canadians who participated in the focus groups. “The worst case scenario would
be depenalization because it would lead to chaos. The Mafia would be so
involved… it would get much worse than it is already…“ “Depenalization is too much of
a free for all. Pot would be everywhere, young kids would get a hold of
it. There has to be some kind of control… like alcohol…“ “There would have to be a
certain control…marijuana should not be available everywhere…young
people should not be able to obtain it in convenience stores…” |