Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs (37th Parliament, 1st Session)

Past Session:

Table of Contents

Introduction

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Drugs Are Illegal Because Drugs Are Dangerous

Trends in Drug Use Among Canadians

Drugs and Organized Crime in Canada

We Are Not Losing the "War on Drugs"

Lessons Learned From Other Countries

"Harm Reduction" – Conflicting Messages

Prevention – Reducing Demand

The Costs of Legalization Will Be Astronomical

The CPA’s "Top Ten Myths" About Drugs and Enforcement

Conclusion – We have To Champion Our Successes

May 28, 2001

Introduction

Reinforcing the Need for A Balanced Approach to Drug Use in Canada

Advocates of legalization and decriminalization argue that illicit drugs should be treated as a health problem rather than an enforcement issue. This wrongly suggests it is an "either-or" proposition. In fact, Canada’s Drug Strategy calls for a balance between reducing the supply of drugs and the demand. Prevention is considered the most cost-effective approach. There is also strong emphasis on treatment and rehabilitation.1

The Honourable David Kilgour,
Member of Parliament and
Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa

The Canadian Police Association (CPA) welcomes the opportunity to appear before the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs. Incorporated in 1948, the CPA is the national voice for 30,000 police personnel across Canada. Through our 12 affiliates, membership includes police personnel serving in police services from Canada's smallest towns and villages as well as those working in our largest municipal police services. Our Board of Directors is comprised of an elected President and Executive Vice-President, one Vice-President from each province and Vice-Presidents representing the CN/CP Railway Police, the RCMP Members Association and First Nations Police Association respectively.

The Canadian Police Association is acknowledged as a national voice for police personnel in the reform of the Canadian criminal justice system. The CPA has played a leadership role by advocating advancements in public safety in such areas as:

High Risk Offenders
DNA Search Warrants & National DNA Data Bank
Parole and Sentencing Reform
Young Offenders Act Reform
Deportation of Foreign Criminals
Streamlining the Criminal Code
Criminal Pursuits
Organized Crime

While 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, by suggesting 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 in this submission that this is simply untrue.

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 it’s impact on community safety. Police officers are not simply law enforcement officials, but 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 in our communities;
Share the valuable experiences of those who are working on the front lines;
Promote public policies that reflect the needs and expectations of law-abiding Canadians; and
Ensure that Canada’s children and young people are protected from the danger and destruction associated with Illicit drug use.

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. In the pages that follow we will demonstrate that Canada must resist the seductive temptations being advanced by a sophisticated drug lobby. 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.

JUSTICE REFORM RESOLUTION DRUG ENFORCEMENT2

WHEREAS

AND WHEREAS

The proliferation of illegal drugs remains a serious problem in North American society,

Young Canadians are targeted by organised criminals as the primary market for the sale of illegal drugs in Canada,

Illegal drug use is a significant contributing factor in a wide range of crimes, including property offences, crimes of violence, robbery, prostitution and organised crime gangs,

It is critical to reinforce with young Canadians the danger and destruction caused by illegal drug use,

Meaningful consequences are required to deter the use of illegal drugs in our communities,

The sentencing practices of the Canadian Judiciary do not instil meaningful consequences to persons convicted of less serious crimes including possession of illegal drugs.

BE IT RESOLVED THAT

The Canadian Police Association calls upon the Federal Government, in co-operation with the Canadian Police Association and law enforcement partners to conduct a meaningful review of the effectiveness of our present judicial system in combating less serious crimes, including illegal drug possession. This review should include an examination of sentencing practices, alternatives and effectiveness, to ensure that contemporary measures are consistent with community expectations.

The Canadian Police Association will actively oppose efforts to decriminalise the possession of illegal drugs, except in those approved instances where drugs are legally prescribed for bona fide medical purposes.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Drugs Are Illegal Because Drugs Are Dangerous

Drugs are not dangerous because they are illegal; drugs are illegal because drugs are dangerous. There is no such thing as "soft drugs" and "hard drugs", nor bona fide criteria to differentiate between these terms. People who refer to hard or soft drugs generally do not understand the truth about drugs, or are seeking to soften attitudes towards the use of certain illicit drugs. Generally, Marijuana (Cannabis) 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:

Respiratory Damage
Physical Coordination
Pregnancy & Post-Natal development
Memory & Cognition
Psychiatric Effects

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

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

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

Trends in Drug Use Among Canadians

Weakening perceptions of risk of harm in drug use, weakening moral disapproval of drug use, and increasing perceived availability of drugs have resulted in increasing rates of use among secondary 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 rapidly make drugs a significant part of their lives. Students using drugs are far more likely to go to school intoxicated, play sports while intoxicated, or use drugs in the morning.

Drugs & Organized Crime

There is an undisputable relationship between organized crime and the illicit drug trade in Canada and abroad. Canada has earned a reputation internationally as both a consumer and 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. Besides the cannabis and cocaine smuggled into Canada out of countries such as Mexico, there was 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 the province of Quebec, 150 people including an innocent child and two prison guards have been murdered by gangsters; 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 and other justice officials.

We Are Not Losing "The War on Drugs"

The fact is that Canada is not, nor have we ever been, engaged in a "War on Drugs".

Statistics reveal that less than one drug related 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 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 in dealing with young offenders, first time offenders and minor possession only type offences.

The impact of the efforts by the law enforcement agencies of Canada, however, has remained limited by our judicial system. Serious offenders, such as drug traffickers, importers and manufacturers receive little or no punishment, and 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.

Lessons Learned from Other Countries

The facts proving that liberalization experiments in different countries produce negative consequences are overwhelming. In many Western European Countries including Great Britain, 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 towards drug use, violent crime and organized criminal activity has increased proportionately to the drug trade.

Countries that have liberalized drugs have highest rate of illicit drug use and death by overdose per capita in Europe. Conversely Sweden, which has adopted a policy of social refusal and interdiction of drugs, has the lowest incidence of drug abuse in the European Union.

Having unsuccessfully experimented with permissive drug policies of varying kinds in the 1960s and 1970s, Sweden subsequently concluded that Drug abuse 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 the USA. As a consequence, a public vote in 1990 repealed the decriminalization measure.

"Harm Reduction" has become the focus of drug strategies in western Europe with spill over into other countries. Unbeknown to most Canadians, Canada has also shifted from the goal of a drug free approach towards the "harm reduction" approach. This shift in policy has occurred quietly over time, with little if any input from the majority of Canadians. Of serious concern to the CPA are the confusing and often conflicting messages that are being delivered to young people, who are the primary target of the illicit drug trade.

Prevention – Reducing Demand

Governments fulfill a legitimate and critical role in establishing laws and policies that define behavioural standards and societal values. Legislation and enforcement are 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, only an estimated 15% to 30% of Canadians wore seatbelts. Today it is estimated that more than 90% 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 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 risk.

Examples of similar initiatives to increase public safety include bicycle and motorcycle helmet laws, school bus stopping laws, and boat safety. Success is determined by level of sustained commitment to programs that combine Public Awareness, Education, Legislation, and Enforcement.

The Costs of Legalization Will Be Astronomical

Canadian statistics clearly demonstrate that the costs of Canada’s alcohol and tobacco are more than thirteen times those 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 those for illicit drugs. Law enforcement costs for illicit drugs, including courts, corrections and border protection, represent only 2 percent of the total costs to Canadians of alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs in Canada.

The primary reason costs are lower is simply lower usage. As legalization and permissiveness will increase drug use and abuse substantially, the costs of health care, prevention, productivity loss and enforcement will increase proportionately.

The Canadian Police Association Opposes Legalization or "Decriminalization"

There is abundant proof that proponents of drug legalization seek to "normalize" illicit drug use, through the promotion of programs such as "Harm Reduction" over 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, it is our youngest and most vulnerable members of society who are at greatest risk. Organized criminals continue 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, in a February 2000 presentation to the International Drug Control Summit concerning Amphetamine Type Stimulants, suggested a five-prong approach to prevent drug use:

Raise Awareness
Reduce Demand
Provide Accurate information
Limit Supply
Strengthen Controls

Prevention is at the core of demand reduction. Sending a message to our young people that cannabis 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. Treatment and rehabilitation should be available to those who have drug dependencies.

The CPA will actively oppose efforts to decriminalize the possession of illegal drugs, except in those approved instances where drugs are legally prescribed for bona fide medical purposes.

The time has arrived for leaders to enter into the debate, persons of stature in the community who will present 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.

Drugs Are Illegal Because Drugs Are Dangerous

In general, a drug is defined as any substance, other than food, which is taken to change the way the body and/or mind function.3

Health Canada

Drugs are not dangerous because they are illegal; drugs are illegal because drugs are dangerous. There is no such thing as "soft drugs" and "hard drugs", nor bona fide criteria to differentiate between these terms. Marijuana is a powerful drug with a variety of effects. People who refer to hard or soft drugs generally do not understand the truth about drugs, or are seeking to soften attitudes towards the use of certain illicit drugs. Generally, Marijuana (Cannabis) 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.

According to a Health Canada Report:4

Concentration and short-term memory are markedly impaired, and sensory perception seems enhanced, colours are brighter, sounds are more distinct, and the sense of time and space is distorted. Appetite increases, especially for sweets. Some people withdraw, or experience fearfulness, anxiety, depression; a few experience panic, terror or paranoia, particularly with larger doses. Some experience hallucinations with larger doses and symptoms worsen in persons with psychiatric disorders, particularly schizophrenia…

The respiratory system is damaged by smoking (marijuana); a single joint of marijuana yields much more tar than a strong cigarette. Tar in cannabis smoke contains higher amounts of cancer producing agents than tar in tobacco smoke. Studies suggest that developmental delays may occur in children whose mothers used drugs heavily during pregnancy.

The report also states that:

THC, the active ingredient (in cannabis) has been detected in many bodies of fatally injured drivers and pedestrians in Canada and the United States.

According to the Drug Identification Bible,5 the most common physical effects of marijuana are:

Acceleration of the heart rate for a period of 10 to 30 minutes after ingestion. The rate typically increases 30% to 50% over normal.

Moderate increase in blood pressure.

Reddening of the eyes. (The reddening may be reduced or eliminated by the use of eye drops.)

Slight drop in body temperature.

Dryness of the mouth and throat. Heat blisters and a thick, whitish or green coating may be apparent on the tongue and back of the throat if the marijuana was consumed by smoking.

The subjective and psychological effects of marijuana can vary considerably from individual to individual, and even from one usage to the next for the same individual. The degree and intensity of the psychological high is dose related – the greater the amount of THC ingested the more pronounced and varied the high. When ingested by smoking, the psychological high reaches the maximum level in 15 to 45 minutes and lasts for 2 to 6 hours, depending on the individual and the dose. When ingested as an ingredient in food, the high is reached in 1 to 4 hours and can last up to 6 hours.

While the psychological response to marijuana ingestion will vary with the individual and dosage, the most common effects are:

Pleasant feeling of well being and euphoria.

Feeling of relaxation which often results in reduced physical activity.

Rapid mood changes between gregarious talkativeness, laughter and contemplative silence.

Increased sensory perception of sight, smell, taste and hearing, along with distortion of the sense of time.

Occasionally, feelings of sudden anxiety and panic.

Reduced ability to concentrate.

Impaired short term memory.

Some users have a slight psychedelic or hallucinatory experience.

Marijuana intoxication clearly reduces judgment and impairs motor coordination. Individuals under the influence of marijuana may have difficulty tracking a moving stimulus, and in making the appropriate motor response. This condition lasts for 4 to 8 hours, well after the feeling of intoxication has gone, and can leave the user with a false sense of security about their ability to operate a motor vehicle and other machinery.

The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration supported a study by Maastricht University in Holland on the effects of driving under the influence of THC only, alcohol only, and THC/alcohol combined. The report concludes:

Marijuana smoking that delivers relatively low to moderate THC dose of 100-200 ug/kg impairs road tracking and car following performance.

Effects are dose related and persist or even increase during a 2 ½ hour period after ingestion.

While THC driving impairment was not necessarily large, it could be serious in exceptional traffic situations. Any combination of THC and alcohol had a very severe effect on driving performance.

…Marijuana intoxication may cause a number of learning problems, particularly in younger individuals. The ability to concentrate is diminished and there is often times a short term memory loss. The user also experiences a reduced attention span and difficulty in problem solving and concept formation.

The Drug Identification Bible summarizes the results of studies involving aircraft:6

In one study involving aircraft, ten licensed pilots were given one marijuana joint containing 19 mg of THC, a relatively small amount. Twenty-four hours after smoking the joint, they were tested in a flight simulator. All ten of the pilots made errors in landing, and one missed the runway completely. Similar results were reported in another test involving nine pilots. In this case they were given one marijuana joint containing 20 mg of THC, and were tested in a flight simulator twenty-four hours after smoking. Seven of the nine pilots showed some degree of impairment. Only one of the pilots was aware of the fact that a joint smoked twenty-four hours earlier was still affecting his performance. These and similar tests indicate that marijuana may impair one’s ability to operate a motor vehicle long after the visible effects of the drug have worn off.

According to the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse:7

There is little doubt that cannabis use adversely affects the public health and safety of Canadians. Cannabis users are subject to a variety of adverse health consequences, summarized below, and cannabis use is associated with poor work and school performance. While there is little evidence that cannabis is a causal factor in crimes of violence or crimes of acquisition, cannabis is implicated in a small but significant number of motor vehicle accidents. Furthermore, recent national and provincial surveys indicate that the use of cannabis is increasing among youth.

The report discusses the consequences cannabis use:8

There is currently considerable misinformation about the physiological consequences of cannabis use. Although occasional use often occurs with relatively little or no subjective negative effects for the user, it is a myth to consider cannabis to be a benign drug. There is no doubt that heavy cannabis use has negative health consequences. The most important of these are the following:
Respiratory Damage

Marijuana smoke contains higher concentrations of some of the constituents of tar than tobacco smoke, is hotter when it contacts the lungs, and is typically inhaled more deeply and held in the lungs longer than tobacco smoke. Research has shown a link between chronic heavy marijuana use and damage to the respiratory system similar to that caused by tobacco. The adverse respiratory effects of cannabis are, of course, related to smoking as a means of ingestion, and do not occur when cannabis is eaten or otherwise ingested.

Long-term marijuana smoking is associated with epithelial injury to the trachea and major bronchi, and with alterations in cells mediating the immunological response of the lungs-changes which leave the lung open to injury and infection. Heavy, habitual consumption has been linked with bronchitis. Although a link between marijuana smoking and cancer has not been firmly established, there are case reports of cancers of the aerodigestive tract in young adults with a history of cannabis use. These are of concern because such malignancies rarely occur under the age of 60.
Physical Co-ordination

Cannabis impairs co-ordination. This brings with it the risk of injury and death through impaired driving and other accidental causes. North American studies of blood samples from drivers involved in motor vehicle crashes have consistently found that positive results for THC, the main psychoactive compound in cannabis, are second only to alcohol. However, blood levels of THC do not necessarily demonstrate that the driver was intoxicated at the time of the accident. In addition, many drivers with cannabis in their blood have also been found to be intoxicated with alcohol.
Pregnancy and Post-Natal Development

Cannabis use by women who are pregnant may affect the fetus. Maternal cannabis use has been linked to a shortened gestation period and low-birth-weight infants. The longer-term, post-natal consequences of maternal cannabis use appear to be subtle. Recent research has suggested that exposure to cannabis in utero can affect the mental development of the child in later years. For example, up to three years of age there appear to be no consequences of maternal cannabis use. By four years of age, offspring of regular cannabis users showed reduced verbal ability and memory, and by school age these deficits were supplemented by decreased attentiveness and increased impulsiveness in children of the heaviest users.
Memory and Cognition

The effects of cannabis on memory appear to be variable, and may depend on the test that is used. Overall, the effects seem to be modest. However, the question of whether chronic use would produce serious impairments of memory, particularly if such use occurs during development, is not yet answerable. Studies of adult cannabis users, conducted several decades ago, suggested that the drug has little effect on cognitive function. More recent research has demonstrated that long-term use produces deficits in the ability to organize and integrate complex information, and this may arise from attentional or memory impairments.
Psychiatric Effects

Cannabis use has been linked to a number of psychiatric effects. The most significant of these is the cannabis dependence syndrome. Cannabis-dependent individuals will continue to use the drug despite adverse consequences to physical, social and emotional health. Impairment of behavioral control in dependence, and accompanying cognitive and motivational impairments, can adversely affect productivity at work or at school. The risk of developing dependence increases with use; it has been reported that one-third to one-half of those who use cannabis daily for protracted periods of time may become dependent.

Other psychiatric disorders have been linked to cannabis. There is clearly an association between cannabis use and schizophrenia, but it is not yet known whether cannabis use precipitates schizophrenia, or whether the association reflects the increased use of drugs, including cannabis, as a consequence of schizophrenia. In addition, clinical observations have identified a range of so-called "cannabis psychoses" following heavy use of the drug, which remit within days of abstinence. The higher the concentration of THC, the higher the risk of psychiatric complications. However, these disorders have not been well defined, and it is not clear that they are different from the effects of high doses of the drug. Some of these cases may arise if pre-existing psychotic problems are unmasked by drug use. Reference has also been made to the existence of an "amotivational syndrome" resulting from extensive cannabis use. While there is reasonable evidence that heavy use of cannabis can affect motivation, the production of a syndrome with identifiable symptoms outlasting the period of drug use and withdrawal remains to be demonstrated. This question may have been clouded by studies of the effects of cannabis use on educational performance in adolescents in which individuals most likely to use the drug may have lower motivation to succeed academically.
Other Adverse Health Consequences

Research has shown that cannabis can also alter hormone production, and affect both the immune system, and cardiovascular function. The implications of these findings for human health are unclear at present.

In a 1999 report assessing the scientific base of medical marijuana use, the harms associated with its abuse were discussed, supporting a conclusion that chemically defined cannabinoid drugs were preferred for medical usage, as opposed to smoked marijuana:9

Marijuana is not a completely benign substance. It is a powerful drug with a variety of effects.

The harmful effects to individuals from the perspective of possible medical use of marijuana are not necessarily the same as the harmful effects of drug abuse.

For most people, the primary adverse effect of acute marijuana use is diminished psychomotor performance. It is, therefore, inadvisable to operate a vehicle or potentially dangerous equipment while under the influence of marijuana, THC, or any cannabinoid drug with comparable effects.

The chronic effects of marijuana are of greater concern for medical use and fall into two categories: the effects of chronic smoking, and effects of THC. Marijuana smoking is associated with abnormalities of cells lining the human respiratory tract. Marijuana smoke, like tobacco smoke, is associated with increased risk of cancer, lung damage, and poor pregnancy outcomes. Although cellular, genetic and human studies all suggest that marijuana smoke is an important risk factor for the development of respiratory cancer, proof that habitual marijuana smoking does or does not cause cancer awaits the results of well designed studies.

A second concern associated with chronic marijuana use is dependence on the psychoactive effects of THC. Although few marijuana users develop dependence, some do. Risk factors for marijuana dependence are similar to those for other forms of substance abuse. In particular, antisocial personality and conduct disorders are closely associated with substance abuse.

According to one U.S. study, the number of marijuana related emergency room episodes to 488 reporting hospitals increased 455% from 1990 to 1999:10

Some authorities maintain that addiction is one of the major reasons that marijuana related medical emergency room visits have risen from 15,706 in 1990 to 87,150 in 1999.

Those advocating legalization of marijuana continue to deny the obvious connectivity between marijuana and other illicit drugs. Marijuana is internationally recognized as the "gateway drug" for introducing young people to drug use and abuse.

Patterns in progression of drug use from adolescence to adulthood are strikingly regular. Because it is the most widely used illicit drug, marijuana is predictably the first illicit drug most people encounter. Not surprisingly, most users of other illicit drugs have used marijuana first. In fact, most drug users begin with alcohol and nicotine before marijuana – usually before they are of legal age.11

International authorities have recognized the danger of marijuana use in establishing in the formulation of drug control policies, conventions and treaties. According to the Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 1999:12

It was the consensus of the international community to put cannabis, as well as other substances, under international control; that decision was based on evidence of its harmfulness to human health and its dependence potential. Cannabis abuse should by no means be treated as harmless or even inevitable. Governments must continue to emphasize the dangers of cannabis abuse in the context of activities aimed at reducing illicit drug demand and must not allow permissive attitudes towards cannabis abuse to develop, particularly at a time when increasingly potent cannabis, having a high THC content, is appearing on the illicit market.

Trends in Drug Use Among Canadians

Weakening perceptions of risk of harm in drug use, weakening moral disapproval of drug use, and increasing perceived availability of drugs have resulted in increasing rates of use among secondary students.13 For example, one in three secondary students in Ontario report use of an illicit substance during the past 12 months.¹⁴

While alcohol continues to exceed illicit drug use, marijuana remains the most widely used illicit drug in Canada15.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 rapidly make drugs a significant part of their lives. Students using drugs are far more likely to go to school intoxicated, play sports while intoxicated, or use drugs in the morning.16

Among the issues facing Canada’s teens; drugs and alcohol abuse is the number one issue (71% of teens surveyed), compared to sex (60%), self esteem (51%), school (49%) and violence/bullying (49%).17

York University’s Institute for Social Research administers the Ontario Student Drug Use Survey18 for the Ontario Addiction Research Foundation, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, and it is the longest ongoing study of adolescent drug use in Canada. The 1999 study identified a number of alarming concerns:

The number of drugs used increased. 17.4% of students in 1999 used four or more drugs, compared to 13.4% in 1997. Relatedly, fewer students used no drugs (26.8%) than did students in 1997 (34.3%)

After a lengthy period of decline during the 1980s, the 1990s have seen resurgence in adolescent drug use. Since 1993, the following have shown steady increases:

Alcohol	(from 56.5% to 65.7%)
Heavy drinking episodes	(from 17.7% to 28.2%)
Cigarettes	(from 23.8% to 28.3%)
Cannabis	(from 12.7% to 29.2%)
MDMA (Ecstasy)	(from 0.6% to 4.8%)
PCP	(from 0.6% to 3.2%)
Hallucinogens	(from 3.1% to 13.6%)
Cocaine	(from 1.5% to 4.1%)
Percentage using 4 or more drugs (from 8.0% to 17.4%)
Conversely, the percentage using no drugs dropped (from 36.3% to 26.8%)

More students in 1999 than in 1997 reported being unable to stop using drugs (6.5% vs 2.9%)

Despite recent increases, not all students were involved with drug use. One-quarter (25%) used no drug (including alcohol or tobacco) during the past year, and an additional 24% restricted their use to alcohol or tobacco. Just over one in three (38%) report use of an illicit substance during the past 12 months.

Among users of alcohol and cannabis, there was no significant change in the percentage of new users between 1997 and 1999. However, among cigarette users there was a significant drop between 1997 and 1999 in the percentage who reported first use during the past 12 months (from 27.1% to 20.3%)

57.2% of all cannabis users reported at least one of three dependence indicators.

About twice as many cannabis users in 1999 than in 1997 report uncontrolled use and other dependence indicators. (10.6% vs 5.5%)

More students in 1999 than in 1997 reported being unable to stop using drugs (6.5% vs 2.9%)

Past Year Ontario Student Drug Use (%) by Gender and Grade Level, 199919

Drug	Total	Males	Females	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
Alcohol	67.5	70.7	64.2	39.7	53.7	63.1	74.9	82.0	84.6	83.0
Cannabis	29.3	33.5	25.1	3.6	14.9	25.5	36.4	48.1	39.4	43.3
Cigarettes	29.2	29.8	28.6	7.4	17.8	27.8	37.4	41.7	38.6	38.0
Hallucinogens	13.8	16.2	11.4	0.9	6.7	10.2	19.3	22.7	18.1	24.7
M Barbiturates	12.3	12.6	12.0	11.1	13.9	11.1	13.7	13.6	12.5	9.4
NM Stimulants	7.8	6.1	9.5	1.8	6.3	6.9	8.4	10.7	10.0	12.8
Solvents	7.1	6.1	8.1	12.1	11.2	8.4	4.6	4.9	3.9	1.4
LSD	6.8	8.0	5.5	1.2	3.9	6.8	10.4	10.7	7.8	6.9
M Stimulants	6.8	7.4	6.2	4.7	6.3	6.9	7.8	8.8	7.5	4.3
Methamphetamines	5.3	6.6	4.0	1.5	3.1	3.5	6.1	8.2	8.4	8.4
Ecstasy (MDMA)	4.4	4.5	4.2	0.6	1.9	2.3	4.4	9.8	4.8	7.8
NM Barbiturates	4.4	4.1	4.7	2.5	4.4	3.2	5.2	7.0	3.9	4.9
Cocaine	3.7	4.2	3.2	2.5	2.0	3.2	3.8	5.4	3.6	6.4
Glue	3.6	3.7	3.5	6.8	6.3	4.3	1.1	2.1	2.0	1.2
M Tranquillizers	3.3	3.5	3.1	1.9	3.5	3.8	3.1	3.1	4.0	4.2
PCP	3.0	3.2	2.8	0.7	2.7	3.1	3.5	5.4	2.3	3.0
NM Tranquillizers	2.4	2.3	2.5	*	1.9	1.7	1.3	3.1	4.1	5.8
Crack	2.4	2.9	1.8	0.6	1.6	3.0	3.8	3.6	2.4	1.1
Heroin	1.9	2.4	1.3	0.5	2.8	2.5	1.5	1.8	2.2	1.6
Ice (crystal meth.)	1.4	2.0	0.8	*	1.2	1.1	0.9	3.2	1.6	0.9

Note: NM=nonmedical use; M=medical use; *estimate less than 0.5%

The Canadian Community Epidemiology Network on Drug Use (CCENDU) reported that:20

Cannabis abuse can result in hospitalization for cannabis dependence and non-dependent cannabis abuse… Regarding treatment for drug dependency, although a large proportion of people in treatment for an addiction report having used cannabis, cannabis was identified as a drug causing major problems by a relatively small proportion of adult clients. In comparison, a large percentage of adolescents receiving treatment for substance abuse identified cannabis as being their drug problem. In Calgary, cannabis was the most commonly reported, "most frequently used drug" or "major drug problem" for adolescents seeking treatment in 1996.

Of even greater concern than the increased usage by young people of illicit drugs, is the pattern of use and problem use by school age adolescents. In a study reported in the Press Journal of the America Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry21, researchers examined problem use of illegal drugs in a province-wide (Quebec) sample of adolescents between the ages of 14 to 17. Problem use of illegal drugs was also compared to that of alcohol. The following tables detail the statistical results of the study:

Alcohol and Illegal Drug Use in Québec Teenagers22

	Boys (%)	Girls (%)
ALCOHOL
Ever drank alcohol	79.7	82.3
Ever drunk	55.8	55.9
Drank alcohol more than 5 times in lifetime	62.2	62.2
DRUGS
Any drugs	44.4	50.1
Used drugs more than 5 times in lifetime	32.4	32
Specific drugs tried (ever)
Marijuana	44.2	49.9
Hallucinogens	19.1	20.5
Amphetamines	3.2	6.1
Inhalants	4.8	5.4
Cocaine	2.9	3.9
Tranquilizers/sedatives	1.8	3.7
Opiates	1.4	1.6
Heroin	0.3	0.3
Steroids	0	0.4

Alcohol Problems and Frequency of Use in Adolescents Who Had Drunk Alcohol More Than 5 Times23

ALCOHOL PROBLEM	Boys (%)	Girls (%)
Played sports such as bicycling, roller-blading, swimming while under the influence of alcohol	44.7	26.9
Drank alcohol in the morning	33.6	25.5
Was ever drunk while at school	16.1	13
Ever got into a fight while under the influence of alcohol	14.6	6
Ever drove a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol	13.8	4.9
Had arguments with parents because of alcohol	12	9.7
Had trouble with police due to alcohol	6.4	4.3
Had arguments with friends because of alcohol	4.7	7.9
Sought help to reduce alcohol use	1.1	1.4
Number of alcohol problems (count of problems listed above)	19.1	20.5
0	29.2	47.7
1	29.9	25.7
2	21.7	15.8
3	10.1	4.9
4	5.2	3.7
5 or more	3.9	2.1
Frequency of use at time of maximum use	0	0.4
Once a week, occasionally	21.5	34.2
Once a week	50.8	45
Twice a week	17.2	11.4
Three times per week	5.9	3.5
Four or more times per week	4.8	6.0

Drug Problems and Frequency of Use in Adolescents Who Had Used Drugs More Than 5 Times24

DRUG PROBLEM	Boys (%)	Girls (%)
Drugged or high while at school	79.1	69.4
Played sports such as bicycling, roller-blading, swimming while under the influence of drugs	75.2	53.3
Used drugs in the morning	68	55.7
Had arguments with parents because of drugs	28.1	26.5
Ever drove a motor vehicle under the influence of drugs	26.6	9.3
Had trouble with police due to drugs	18.3	10.3
Got into fights while under the influence of drugs	18	12
Had arguments with friends because of drugs	13.7	23.7
Sought help to reduce drug use	10.4	12.4
Number of Drugs problems (count of problems listed above)
0	6.1	15.1
1	10.1	17.5
2	15.8	15.8
3	19.4	16.2
4	23	16.2
5 or more	25.6	19.3
Frequency of use at time of maximum use
Once a week, occasionally	6.7	5.7
Once a week	24.9	29.9
Twice a week	17.5	17.8
Three times per week	11.5	11.7
Four to six times per week	20.4	15.6
Seven or more times per week	19	19.3

The researchers in this study compared the distribution of individual problem behaviour according to whether the behaviour occurred with both alcohol and illegal drugs, illegal drugs only, or alcohol only in those subjects who had used both alcohol and drugs more than 5 times:

Substance Used By Problem in Adolescents Who Used Both Alcohol and Drugs25

BOYS
	Alcohol & Drugs	Drugs Only	Alcohol Only
Intoxication at school	25.1	71.5	3.4
Morning use	44.9	45.5	9.6
Played sports while intoxicated	60.2	32.3	7.5
Drove motor vehicle while intoxicated	43	45.6	11.4
Fights while intoxicated	40.3	23.6	36.1
Trouble with police due to substance use	13.1	65.6	21.3
GIRLS
Intoxication at school	26.7	75.9	3.6
Morning use	41.5	48.8	9.7
Played sports while intoxicated	47.5	43.1	9.4
Drove motor vehicle while intoxicated	34.3	42.8	22.9
Fights while intoxicated	36.4	36.4	27.3
Trouble with police due to substance use	14.6	53.7	31.7

The study concluded that "normative use" of drugs is problem use:

This is supported by the following observations. First, almost all adolescents who reported using drugs more than 5 times reported problem use. In other words, very few subjects who reported using illegal drugs more than a few times did NOT go to school intoxicated, play sports while intoxicated, or use drugs in the morning. Second, a relatively large proportion of adolescents (around one third) have used illegal drugs more than 5 times, not just a small, highly deviant minority. Third, most of these subjects were 15 or 16 and have begun their drug use very recently and have already rapidly progressed to making drugs a significant part of their lives as indicated by the pattern of problem use and by the frequency of use.

It is interesting to contrast the pattern of problem use of illegal drugs with that of alcohol. Even though alcohol use is more common, problem use and frequent use are much less common than with illegal drugs. Furthermore, among those who have used both alcohol and illegal drugs, there is considerable specificity of problem use to drugs only or alcohol and drugs (fights being a possible exception). These findings suggest characteristics specific to illegal drugs and not just to the adolescent explain these differences in problem use.

Which illegal drugs are responsible for problem use? Some inferences can be made from (the last table). First, over one third of the subjects had used marijuana only but most of these adolescents had at least one problem from marijuana use and a substantial proportion had multiple problems. Furthermore, almost all subjects who reported lifetime use of drugs other than marijuana reported marijuana as among one of the drugs used at the period of maximal use. Marijuana is a significant source of problems in this population. Second, one-quarter of the subjects reported using only marijuana and hallucinogens. The proportion of problem users was even higher in this group, with majority reporting 3 or more problems. Marijuana and hallucinogens are associated with considerable problem use. Finally, those subjects who reported using other drugs in addition to marijuana and hallucinogens had the highest levels of problem use. The most conservative conclusion is that all of the drugs used (including marijuana) are associated with problem use but that the more drugs used the greater the frequency of problem use.

These findings raise difficult questions with regard to the diagnosis of drug use disorders in adolescents. Normative use in this sample was use several times per week; attending school stoned; playing sports stoned; and using drugs in the morning.

…Attending school intoxicated at age 15 or 16; playing sports while intoxicated, and using drugs several times a week and in the morning are intrinsically problems from a developmental perspective. Time spent stoned in school is not learning; intoxication during sports (or while driving) puts one at risk for injury; time spent seeking drugs or stoned with peers is not conducive to good peer relationships. Furthermore, our findings on the relationship of drug problems to frequency of use and the patterns of problems suggest a coherent syndrome and not just a collection of social problems related to drug use.

In a 1999 report by the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse 26, drug and alcohol usage and patterns were examined:

76.8% of Canadians aged 15 or older had consumed alcohol during the past 12 months;

Nearly one in 10 adult Canadians (9.2%) reported having problems with their drinking.

It is estimated that 6,503 Canadians (4,681 men and 1,823 women) lost their lives as a result of alcohol consumption in 1995, and 80,946 were hospitalized (51,765 men and 29,181 women) due to alcohol in 1995-96.

Motor vehicle accidents, alcoholic liver cirrhosis and suicide accounted for the largest number of alcohol-related deaths, while accidental falls, alcohol dependence syndrome and motor vehicle accidents accounted for the largest number of alcohol-related hospitalizations.

Impaired driving is a major cause of death; among fatally injured drivers in 1996, 42% had some alcohol in their blood and 35% were over the legal limit of 0.8% blood alcohol concentration (BAC).

By contrast, the study shows much lower rates of use for illicit drugs:

About one in four Canadians (23.9%) reported having used an illicit drug at least once in his or her lifetime. (emphasis added)

7.7% report using an illicit drug during the past year, of which cannabis was the most common (7.4%). Past-year use of other illicit drugs was reported by 1% or fewer.

The percentage of Canadians who used cannabis during the past year increased from 4.2% in 1993 to 7.4% in 1994.

In 1994, the most commonly reported drugs used on a lifetime and past-year basis were cannabis (23.1% and 7.4% respectively): LSD, speed or heroin (5.9% and 1.1%), and cocaine (3.8% and 0.7%).

In 1995, there were 804 deaths (695 men and 108 women) in Canada attributable to illicit drugs. Suicides (329 deaths) and opiate poisoning (160 deaths) accounted for almost two-thirds of all drug-related deaths. In 1995-96 there were 6,947 hospitalizations attributable to illicit drugs.

Source: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse; Canadian Profile; Alcohol Tobacco and Other Drugs, 1999

Drugs and Organized Crime in Canada

The United Nations has estimated that Organized crime has global revenues of $1 trillion annually. The activity and criminality of organized criminal gangs has increased in recent years within Canada, at severe risk to public safety and security. The Criminal Intelligence Services Canada (CISC) has stated "Virtually every major criminal group in the world is active in this country."

Our proximity to the United States of America makes Canada extremely vulnerable and attractive to organized criminals, whose activities are the subject of disturbing trends:

Increased Violence including bombings, murders and the use of threats, intimidation and violence against victims, witnesses, public officials, and the media.

Collaboration - The sophisticated criminal has recognized that cooperation breads success.

Globalization of Operations

Exploiting Technology

Import / Export Contraband

Illegal aliens
Stolen Vehicles
Drugs
Alcohol & Tobacco
Money Laundering

Globalization and mass technology have presented many opportunities for Canadians, as well as challenges. Criminals, particularly International crime organizations, do not respect nor are they constrained by traditional community, jurisdictional or International borders. Organized crime transcends geographic borders and requires law enforcement agencies to work cooperatively to achieve the shared objective of combating organized crime.

In our presentation to the House of Commons Sub-Committee on Organized Crime, the Canadian Police Association 27 advocated the development and implementation of a Strategic National Response to Organized Crime, providing greater priority, funding, support and co-ordination for local, provincial and federal policing jurisdictions in the battle against organized crime, in a co-coordinated effort with Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Customs and Excise, National Police Services and the Criminal Intelligence Service of Canada, and in partnership with Federal and Provincial Justice Ministries and Crown Prosecutors.

There is an undisputable relationship between organized crime and the illicit drug trade in Canada and abroad. Canada has earned a reputation Internationally as both a consumer and leading supplier of marijuana and methamphetamine products to the United States:

Illicit Cannabis cultivation continues to be one of the most challenging issues in the field of drug control in all three countries in North America. In addition to being smuggled into Canada on a large scale, cannabis is also cultivated within the country. Annual production of illicit cannabis in Canada appears to be around 800 tons, more than 60 percent of which may enter the illicit market in the United States. In the Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Manitoba and Quebec, cannabis with a high THC content is grown indoors. In British Columbia, illicit indoor cannabis cultivation has become a widespread, lucrative undertaking. Though efforts to eradicate cannabis have been made by law enforcement agencies in Canada, the impact of those efforts has been reduced by Canadian courts giving lenient sentences to cannabis growers and couriers.

Drug trafficking continues to increase in Canada. Besides the cannabis and cocaine smuggled into Canada out of countries such as Mexico, there was also an increase in the amount of heroin smuggled into Canada. In 2000, law enforcement agencies in Canada intercepted an illicit consignment of heroin that weighed 156 kg, the largest seizure of heroin ever made in the country.

…In Canada, there are indications that the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine has increased. Law enforcement agencies have uncovered a record number of clandestine laboratories in the past year. MDMA (Ecstasy) laboratories were detected in middle-class suburban neighbourhoods, especially in Central Canada; the laboratories were run by people with no criminal records or connections. In some provinces, the sharp increase in the number of deaths related to MDMA (Ecstasy) reflects the increase in the abuse of that substance.28

Police officers working in central Canada advise us that MDMA export has become a lucrative product for organized drug exporters in Canada, second only to cannabis. The profits of drug production are extraordinary:

British Columbia has become a major supplier of marijuana, reportedly exporting ¾ of its crop to the United States. Because of the drug volume, the I-5 corridor between British Columbia and California has been designated a high density traffic area.

Hydroponic growers in British Columbia have developed a strain of marijuana known as "BC Bud". Reports indicate that the THC content routinely ranges between 15% - 20%, with the highest sample testing at 27%. Local authorities estimate that there are as many as 10,000 hydroponic growing operations in British Columbia, averaging 500 plants each, producing three crops per year. In the U.S., BC Bud sells for $4,000 to $6,000 per pound, while in Canada it sells for $1,000 to $2,400 per pound.

…The large scale operations are profit oriented… a professional garden of only 100 large plants could yield a profit in the area of $300,000 to $500,000 per crop.29

Violence and intimidation tactics have spread across Canada, including threats and acts of violence against police investigators and other justice officials.

Last year the CPA undertook a survey of front-line police investigators who are responsible for organized crime investigations in their jurisdictions. We received detailed responses from more than 50 Investigators, with several hundred years of combined investigative experience from coast to coast.

There is virtual agreement among investigators across the country that:

Canadian Police Agencies are presently ineffective in controlling organized crime in Canada. To quote one senior investigator, while "we have had some major successes, we are barely coping"
The Canadian judiciary has not utilized existing legislation and available remedies to deal effectively with criminals convicted in organized crime activities.
Bill C-95 has not provided sufficient legislative support to fight organized crime.
Existing Immigration laws and enforcement are not sufficient to deal with criminals originating from outside Canada.
Police services do not have adequate funds for organized crime investigations. According to one senior investigator, "Budgets are a major area of concern. Financial restraints are present at every turn and negatively impact our efforts."

Greater priority needs to be placed on training and access to updated technology for organized crime investigators.
While cooperation between front-line investigators is perceived to be good, and improving, issues concerning territory, resources and sharing of information continue to arise between law enforcement agencies and their leadership.

While most (over 75%) of respondents believe that existing legislation is not adequate to fight organized crime, some felt that it was the application of existing laws by the judiciary that was the major problem.

The Government of Canada has responded with new legislation (C-24), new prosecutorial strategies, and additional resources. While we are pleased with the progress to date, all levels of law enforcement and our justice system must demonstrate vigilance in the battle against organized crime.

One officer who responded to our survey noted that it is extremely frustrating to put months if not years of effort into bringing a case before the courts, to see less than meaningful results when it comes to disposition. Another stated, "If there is truly a war on drugs and organized crime, then "we" are fighting without the benefit of ammunition".

We Are Not Losing "The War on Drugs"

The fact is that Canada is not, nor have we ever been, engaged in a "War on Drugs".

According to the International Narcotic Control Board:

The impact of the cannabis eradication efforts by the law enforcement agencies of Canada, however, has remained limited; in some parts of the country, most illegal cannabis growers receive little or no punishment and it has been difficult to deter them from their illicit activity.30

Lessons Learned From Other Countries

Sweden today has a restrictive drug policy by International standards, but this has not always been the case. We have had experience of both a more repressive and a more liberal construction of our drug policy. The present strategy – the central element of which is close interaction between measures to reduce the availability of illicit drugs and measures to curb the demand for such drugs – represents a conclusion drawn from our previous experience.31

Jakob Lindberg
Deputy Director General
Swedish National Institute of Public Health

Drug liberalization proponents frequently point to several western European countries as the model for progressive drug policy. In many Western European Countries including Great Britain, decriminalizing possession of small quantities of cannabis for personal use has either occurred, or has been de facto implemented32. 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 on demand and supply, according to this 1999 report of the International Narcotics Control Board :33

The availability of cannabis in Europe has increased considerably. This is partly the result of intensified cultivation in countries in southern Europe, mainly Albania, and soaring indoor cannabis cultivation has been facilitated by the unrestricted sale of cannabis seeds and cannabis-growing accessories in so-called "hemp shops and on the Internet. The increasing and, in many cases, uncontrolled availability of cannabis, coupled with a tolerant attitude towards the substance, has led to increases in cannabis abuse. Most European countries have reported that cannabis abuse is flourishing. For example, a study undertaken in Switzerland in 1998 revealed that the prevalence of cannabis abuse among 15-year-old pupils in secondary schools had quadrupled in the previous 12 years. Unless Governments take action against indoor cannabis cultivation, there will continue to be increases in both cannabis abuse and the sale of that substance on the illicit market.

Cocaine seizures throughout Europe have increased. Significant seizures of cocaine, amounting to more than 1 ton each, have been made in several countries in western Europe, indicating that the illicit demand for the substance remains high. Although there have been few comprehensive studies on its prevalence, surveys undertaken in secondary schools in western Europe have revealed an upward trend in cocaine abuse, brought about, in part, by lower prices.

The abuse of synthetic drugs, in particular amphetamine and amphetamine-type stimulants, has risen. While the abuse of MDMA (‘ecstasy") is no longer increasing in those countries in western Europe where it had appeared earlier, there has been an upward trend in the abuse of amphetamines in almost all countries in the region. Measures to prevent the abuse of those substances have been difficult to implement since most synthetic drugs are considered fashionable and harmless by young people, who also constitute the largest group of abusers of such substances. The abuse of synthetic drugs is viewed as commonplace by many young people frequenting dance locales, and fatalities resulting from the abuse of synthetic drugs, although still limited, have increased significantly.

The Board believes that Governments of European countries need to make more efforts to reverse the above-mentioned negative trends, in order to accomplish the objective set by the General Assembly at its twentieth special session, devoted to countering the world drug problem, held in 1998.

A year later the Board made the following observations concerning the drug trade in Europe:34

The availability of drugs in Europe has increased. While cannabis abuse appears to have remained stable in most countries, the availability and abuse of synthetic drugs and cocaine have continued to rise in most parts of the region. In many countries, the prevalence and rise of amphetamine-type stimulants is second only to that of cannabis abuse. Despite public concern about synthetic drugs and the fact that scientific evidence has shown them to be harmful to occasional users, few measures have been taken to prevent their abuse. It appears that some authorities in western Europe are firmly convinced that the abuse of such drugs cannot be prevented. Measures to reduce the illicit demand for such drugs therefore tend to consist of advising drug abusers on the "safe use" of such substances and providing drug testing facilities at events where synthetic drugs are abused. Such action, although well intended, leads to ambiguous messages and confusion. Thus, many drug abusers are not aware of the fact that there is no safe use of such drugs. (Emphasis added)

…Drug legalization is not considered a policy option in Europe, but there is a move in several member States of the European Union to decriminalize drug abuse, particularly when it is perceived to be related to drug addiction. Drug legalization is also not supported by the general public, or even young people.

In Holland, studies conducted in the early 1990s reflect the negative impact of illicit drug tolerance.35

The number of shops that subsist from the sale of hashish ("coffee shops") has risen in Amsterdam since liberalization in 1980 from 20 to 400 in 1991 and to over 2000 in all of Holland.

From 1984 to 1988 the number of hashish smokers over 15 years of age doubled in Holland. From 1988 to 1992 the number of 14 to 17 year old hashish smokers doubled once again, that of 12 to 13 year olds even tripled.

Violent crime in Holland is the highest in Europe and the rate continues to rise.

According to studies reported by the International Drug Strategy Institute, shootings increased 40%, holdups 60%, and the murder rate in Holland was 3 times that of the United States.36 Anecdotally, police officers visiting Amsterdam report that liberalization of marijuana policies has resulted in tolerance of heroin and cocaine use, including open transactions and consumption in public places. Organized crime has significantly increased in Holland as the market has opened for illicit drug trade.

As pointed out by the International Alliance for the United Nations Single Convention:37

In Italy, Spain, and Switzerland, use and possession of heroin or cocaine are legal. These countries have the highest rate of illicit drug use and death by overdose per capita in Europe. Conversely Sweden, which has adopted a policy of social refusal and interdiction of drugs, has the lowest incidence of drug abuse in the European Union.

In a 1998 Swiss referendum, 73.2% of voters rejected the legalization of drugs in their country. Demonstrating the disparity between policy-makers and the general public, Swiss voters clearly denounced their country’s "harm reduction" drug liberalization strategies.38

Having unsuccessfully experimented with permissive drug policies of varying kinds in the 1960s and 1970s, Sweden concluded that:39

Drug abuse is dependent on supply and demand. If drugs are readily available and society takes a permissive attitude, the number of persons trying drugs will increase. In other words, even people in a favourable social and psychological situation will come to use drugs. If, on the other hand, drugs are very difficult to come by and there is a danger of being arrested, the number of people trying drugs will be reduced to those who, for psychological and social reasons, occupy a more definite risk zone. If, moreover, society can bring measures of support and treatment to this group in a vulnerable situation, it is very likely that drug abuse can be kept down.

Thus the basic principle of drug policy is the duty of society to intervene - against drug trafficking in public places, by supporting young persons who are experimenting with drugs, and by offering treatment to those whose drug abuse is destroying them…

Swedish drug policy is based on the assumption that the people trying and using cannabis during their school years constitute a recruiting base for those who later become heavy drug abusers…

Sweden is not a completely drug-free society, but the target has been achieved in that use of drugs in Sweden occurs on a limited scale by International standards. Experimental use of cannabis and other drugs is very low, and recruitment for heavy drug abuse among young people has since many years a very limited extent (sic). The development of drug abuse in Sweden is becoming more dependent on events in the outside world. The growth of International drug trafficking and the prospect of a Europe without frontiers – as well as tendencies towards a liberalization of drug policy in other countries – are subjecting Swedish drug policy to increased pressure.

Sweden maintains a strictly restrictive drug policy aimed at promoting public attitudes that support the realization of a drug-free society:

Swedish drug policy is primarily concerned with preventing the spread of drugs. Supplying drugs, therefore, is looked on as one of the gravest offences.

Sweden’s Narcotic Drugs Act is based on the International conventions which Sweden has ratified…

As the Act now stands, the supply, production, acquisition (with a view to supply), procurement, processing, transport, storage, possession and consumption of narcotic drugs are punishable actions…

Offences under the Narcotic Drugs Acct are divided into three degrees: minor drug offences, drug offences and aggravated drug offences. The scale of penalties for minor drug offences is fines or up to six months’ imprisonment, for drug offences it is up to three years’ imprisonment, and for aggravated drug offences it is at least two years’ and up to ten years’ imprisonment.

Despite the apparent trend towards liberalization in Europe, International authorities remain concerned about such practices, as evidenced by the following excerpts taken from Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 1999:40

In April 1999, a draft law was approved in Portugal stipulating that drug users will face fines rather than jail sentences. Under the new law, the abuse and possession of drugs for personal use will no longer be criminal offences but only administrative offences. As the Board has stated repeatedly, this is not in line with the International drug control treaties, which require that drug use be limited to medical and scientific purposes and that States parties make drug possession a criminal offence. It should be noted that the exercise of criminal jurisdiction is discretionary and Governments may provide offenders with alternatives to conviction and punishment.

…The Board regrets that draft laws introduced in Germany and Luxembourg would allow for the establishment of drug injection rooms, also known as "shooting galleries".

…the Board remains concerned over the Swiss heroin programme and policy of heroin prescription. The Board does not encourage other Governments to allow heroin to be prescribed to opiate addicts.

Western Europe does not provide the only examples of failed drug liberalization:41

Alaska is also an example of a 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 the USA. As a consequence, a public vote in 1990 repealed the de-criminalization measure.

In Asia, 19^th century Chinese overcame mass opium addiction (25 percent of the population) through social refusal of the drug and support of the International community. In post World War II Japan, intravenous amphetamine and heroin epidemics were overcome through supply reduction. The Singapore Republic combated its heroin-smoking epidemic through strict law enforcement and compulsory drug free rehabilitation42. According to the International Alliance for the United Nations Single Convention, "These victories did not come easily or cheaply; they were achieved at the cost of severe repression of major offenders, and of very costly rehabilitative measures."

In summarizing world experience, we would point to the conclusion reached by Swiss advocates for illicit drug prohibition following their review of International practices:43

The facts proving that liberalization experiments in different countries produce negative consequences are overwhelming. A prudent political approach should include the ability to learn from the mistakes of others.

"Harm Reduction" - Conflicting Messages

The principles of harm reduction drug education are that drug use is normal; it is associated with benefits as well as risks; it cannot be eliminated all together, but the harms can be reduced; many young people grow out of drug use; education should be non-judgmental; it requires an open dialogue with the young and respect for people’s rights to make their own decisions; and it emphasizes positive peer support, not divisiveness.

…It recognizes that harm reduction education is about drugs rather than against drugs. Teaching begins in early years around familiar substances other than drugs, and emphasizes that most of the things we consume have the potential for both harm and benefit depending on the way we use them.44

The World Conference on Drug Related Issues sponsored by the Hassela Nordic Network recently convened in Visby Sweden on May 3-6, 2001. The conference brought together top drug policy experts representing twenty-five nations to assess the current challenges facing drug policy. According to the Institute on Global Drug Policy, conference delegates reached the following conclusion:

Softening of drug policy which has been termed "Harm Reduction" was identified as a major failure of International drug policy. Examples of failed policies which were discussed include decriminalization of some drugs, needle exchanges or hand outs, heroin maintenance, non-abstinence based treatment, and prevention messages which accept drug use or encourage drug use in adolescence as inevitable. "Harm Reduction" policy is resulting in increasing drug use and crime throughout countries which have implemented it. Specifically, Canada, Holland, Switzerland, Australia and some cities in the United States have seen their drug problems worsen under the softened "Harm Reduction" policies. It is clear that the fallout of soft drug policy particularly threatens the well being of adolescents. In contrast, the restrictive policies of some countries such as Sweden demonstrated substantial successes at reducing use.

While United States drug policy is still largely restrictive and demonstrating successes, some "Harm Reduction" policies are being recommended by groups and individuals seeking to soften drug policy. Policy makers in the United States should heed the cautionary notes regarding the problems with "Harm Reduction" policy which have manifested in other countries. Dr. Eric Voth, a presenter at the World Conference and Chairman of the Institute on Global Drug Policy commented, "It is increasingly clear that ‘Harm Reduction’ policy should be regarded as Harm Production policy. Effective drug policy should instead embrace Harm Prevention and Harm Elimination"

In their 2000 Report, the International Narcotics Control Board published the following observations concerning "Harm Reduction" policies in western Europe:45

Drug policy discussions in western Europe have focused on the implementation of harm reduction activities such as the establishment of drug injection rooms or the effectiveness of heroin maintenance programmes. Following the attention given to harm reduction in western Europe, it appears that some countries in central and eastern Europe have also started to put more emphasis on harm reduction.

The Board acknowledged many years ago, in its report for 1993, that harm reduction had a role to play in a tertiary prevention strategy for demand reduction purposes. However, the Board also drew attention to the fact that harm reduction programmes could not be considered substitutes for demand reduction programmes. The Board would like to reiterate that harm reduction programmes can play a part in a comprehensive drug demand reduction strategy but such programmes should not be carried out at the expense of other important activities to reduce the demand for illicit drugs, for example drug abuse prevention activities.

Since some harm reduction measures are controversial, discussions of their advantages and disadvantages have dominated the public debate on drug policy. The fact that harm reduction programmes should constitute only one element of a larger, more comprehensive strategy to reduce the demand for illicit drugs has been neglected. The Board regrets that the discussion on drug injection rooms and some other harm reduction measures has diverted the attention (and, in some cases, funds) of Governments from important demand reduction activities such as primary prevention or abstinence-oriented treatment.

Parents seeking to deter the use of drugs by children have not been so diplomatic in describing the "harm reduction fallacy".46

The evidence of the failure of this policy is compelling and its manufacture by the so-called drug culture discredits it enormously. It is being promoted by the legalisation movement internationally at "harm reduction" conferences where it is equated with legalisation.

It is absurd to infer that people (particularly young people) will be deterred from using illicit drugs if they are told they can use them safely or responsibly. It cannot be justified because of the assertion that drug use is normal behaviour and to try and prevent it futile. It is equally absurd to suggest that in any drug treatment program that the primary aim must be not to stop drug use but to reduce the harm it causes. This, by equation, means that the primary aim is not to stop drug use. That could, at the best, be a secondary aim. The primary aim must be to stop use, the most effective harm reduction one could possibly aim for. Harm reduction therefore has no place as a primary policy in either prevention or treatment. It is permissive because it tolerates drug use. It is a give-in policy.

Most addicts, whether it be drugs, alcohol or tobacco, will tell you that it is harder to reduce consumption to moderate levels, than to abstain from consumption all together. Why then, would we focus policies on the "safe use" of unsafe drugs, as opposed to promoting abstinence?

Prevention – Reducing Demand

In Toward a Healthy Future: Second Report on the Health of Canadians47, the authors demonstrate that broad policy and legislative approaches can have a dramatic impact on the behaviour of individuals:

For example, increases in smoking behaviours among young people after taxes on cigarettes were reduced substantiate the well-known fact that youth tobacco use is extremely price sensitive. The success of seatbelt (and to some extent, bicycle helmet) legislation suggests that legislative strategies may be as effective as (and possibly even more effective than) health education in supporting behavioural change. Probably a combination of strategies would be most effective.

The report describes the impact of legislation on seatbelt use:

Among the drivers of passenger cars, the rate of seatbelt use was 92%, an increase from 82% a decade earlier. Prior to seatbelt legislation in Canada, only an estimated 15% to 30% of Canadians wore seatbelts. These results, together with the impressive reduction in motor vehicle fatalities in Canada, reflect the profound influence that legislative action outside of the health sector can have on the health of Canadians.

Risk of apprehension and meaningful consequences have been integral components of successful strategies to reduce impaired driving in Canada. The success of such programs has hinged on:

Widespread public awareness and education about the risks of impaired driving. According to MADD Canada48, Raising public awareness about the dangers of impaired driving is a critical strategy for preventing more deaths and injuries;
The threat of apprehension, through increased and highly visible enforcement programs, such as roadside spot checks;
Combined with vigorous prosecution and meaningful consequences, including minimum fines, revocation of driving privileges, and incarceration for serious and/or repeated offences.

These principles are included in MADD Canada’s Statement of Beliefs: 49

An aggressive legislative and public policy advocacy program is a must to achieve MADD Canada's mission.

That a balanced program of public awareness, education, legislation, and aggressive enforcement by police, crown attorneys, and the courts is essential to eliminating impaired driving.

That while an individual's decision to consume alcohol is a private matter, driving after consuming alcohol is a public matter.

That impaired drivers and others who directly contribute to the crime of impaired driving must be held accountable for their behaviour.

That proactive rehabilitation of impaired drivers is essential.

That driving is a privilege, not a right.

That impaired driving crashes are not accidents.

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 risk. Examples of similar initiatives to increase public safety include bicycle and motorcycle helmet laws, school bus stopping laws, and boat safety. The level of sustained commitment to all of the required components determines success:

Public Awareness
Education
Legislation
Enforcement

As one observer suggested:

Let us ask whether medicine is winning the war against death. The answer is obviously no, the one fundamental rule of human existence remains, unfortunately one man one death. And this is despite the fact that 14 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States goes into the fight against death. Was ever a war more expensively lost? Let us then abolish schools, hospitals, and departments of public health. If every man has to die, it does not matter very much when he does so.

If the war against drugs is lost, then so are the wars against theft, speeding, incest, fraud, rape, murder, arson, and illegal parking. Few if any such wars are winnable, so let us do anything we choose. 50

The Costs of Legalization Will Be Astronomical

Canadian statistics clearly demonstrate that the costs of Canada’s alcohol and tobacco are more than thirteen times those of illicit drugs:51

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 those for illicit drugs.
Productivity Losses are more than ten times greater.
Workplace Losses are three times greater.
Only one dollar is spent on drug research and prevention programs for every four dollars spent on alcohol and tobacco.

The primary reason costs of illicit drugs are lower is simply lower usage. Law enforcement costs for illicit drugs, including courts, corrections and border protection, represent only 2 percent of the total costs to Canadians of alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs in Canada.

As legalization and permissiveness will increase drug use and abuse substantially, the costs of health care, social services, prevention, productivity loss and enforcement will increase proportionately, and be a significant drain on society.

Source: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, 1992

The costs of alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs in Canada, 1992
Millions of dollars

	Alcohol	Tobacco	Illicit drugs	Total ATD
1. Direct health care costs: total	$1,300.6	$2,675.5	$88.0	$4,064.1
---1.1 morbidity-general hospitals	666.0	1,752.9	34.0	2,452.9
-------morbidity-psychiatric hospitals	29.0	--	4.3	33.3
---1.2 co-morbidity	72.0	--	4.7	76.7
---1.3 ambulance services	21.8	57.2	1.1	80.1
---1.4 residential care	180.9	--	20.9	201.8
---1.5 non-residential treatment	82.1	--	7.9	90.0
---1.6 ambulatory care: physician fees	127.4	339.6	8.0	475.0
---1.7 prescription drugs	95.5	457.3	5.8	558.5
---1.8 other health care costs	26.0	68.4	1.3	95.8
2. Direct losses associated with the workplace	14.2	0.4	5.5	20.1
---2.1 EAP and health promotion programs	14.2	0.4	3.5	18.1
---2.2 drug testing in the workplace	N/A	--	2.0	2.0
3. Direct administrative costs for transfer payments	52.3	--	1.5	53.8
---3.1 social welfare and other programs	3.6	--	N/A	3.6
---3.2 workers' compensation	48.7	--	1.5	50.2
---3.3 other administrative costs	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
4. Direct costs for prevention and research	141.4	48.0	41.9	231.1
---4.1 research	21.6	34.6	5.0	61.1
---4.2 prevention programs	118.9	13.4	36.7	168.9
---4.3 training costs for physicians and nurses	0.9	N/A	0.2	1.1
---4.4 averting behaviour costs	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
5. Direct law enforcement costs	1,359.1	--	400.3	1,759.4
---5.1 police	665.4	N/A	208.3	873.7
---5.2 courts	304.4	N/A	59.2	363.6
---5.3 corrections (including probation)	389.3	N/A	123.8	513.1
---5.4 customs and excise	N/A	N/A	9.0	9.0
6. Other direct costs	518.0	17.1	10.7	545.8
---6.1 fire damage	35.2	17.1	N/A	52.3
---6.2 traffic accident damage	482.8	--	10.7	493.5
7. Indirect costs: productivity losses	4,136.5	6,818.8	823.1	11,778.4
---7.1 productivity losses due to morbidity	1,397.7	84.5	275.7	1,757.9
---7.2 productivity losses due to mortality	2,738.8	6,734.3	547.4	10,020.5
---7.3 productivity losses due to crime	--	--	N/A	N/A
Total	7,522.1	9,559.8	1,371.0	18,452.9
Total as % of GDP	1.09%	1.39%	0.20%	2.67%
Total per capita	$265	$336	$48	$649
Total as % of all substance-related costs	40.8%	51.8%	7.4%	100.0%

Source: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse

Taxes generated for tobacco and alcohol do not come close to covering the hard dollar costs, let alone the true human costs, of alcohol and tobacco misuse. It is naïve to suggest that the situation would be any different with illicit drugs.

While a balanced drug strategy will not completely eradicate drug use; it is cost-effective and beneficial to society to deter drug use, and focus available resources for prevention, treatment and rehabilitation on the small percentage of the population who have the greatest need. This is far more effective than basing our nations public policies, affecting all Canadians, on the perceived needs of a very small percentage of the population who are addicted to illicit drugs and resist rehabilitation and treatment.

The CPA’s Top Ten Myths" About Illicit Drugs and Enforcement

Those who advocate drug liberalization have been quite successful in raising doubts concerning the effectiveness of legitimate drug control strategies, through the calculated dissemination of provocative information challenging the foundation of internationally accepted drug control strategies:

Myth #1: Marijuana is Less Dangerous than Alcohol or Tobacco

Reality: Tobacco, although addictive, does not impair consciousness and brainpower. The same may be said for alcohol when taken in moderation. There is no such thing as safe use of illicit drugs, including marijuana. Marijuana disrupts functions of the brain, impairing judgment, concentration, and short-term memory as well as the ability to perform normal tasks. Smoking Marijuana damages the lungs more than tobacco. Individuals who consume illicit drugs, including marijuana, are more likely to engage in risky or addictive behaviour.

Myth #2: Drug Laws Cause More Harm than the Drugs Themselves

Reality: A balanced program of public awareness, education, legislation, and enforcement by police, crown attorneys, and the courts is essential to reducing the true harms associated with illicit drug use.

Enforcement reinforces the fact that drug use is harmful and not accepted by society, provides necessary intervention, deters law-abiding citizens from engaging in risky behaviour, and reduces the suffering caused by illicit drugs and its associated criminal activities.

Myth #3: Consequences of a Cannabis Possession Charge are Severe

Reality: 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 Act reinforces this approach. Persons prosecuted for minor crime, including drug possession charges, are frequently 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 serous and chronic offenders.

Canada’s approach to such crimes is far from severe, and many young people view such practices as insignificant. This reinforces the need to instil meaningful consequences that deter drug use.

Myth #4: Other Countries Have Proven That Drug Laws Are Not Needed

Reality: Wrong! While countries and even U.S. states have experimented with drug liberalization policies, the experience in these regions demonstrates that drug usage increases; the demand for chemical drugs increases, crime increases, and public opinion will ultimately increase in favour of prohibition.
Myth #5: We Will Never Eliminate Drug Use, So Why Not Regulate It?

Reality: There is no safe use of illicit drugs. While it is true that we cannot eradicate drug use, we can limit its harmful effects through demand reduction programs. Canada’s experience in combating impaired driving demonstrates that by sustaining public awareness, education, legislation, and enforcement programs, we can change public opinions, influence behaviour in young people and adults, and ultimately reduce the risk of harm.

Myth #6: Legalization Will Reduce Addiction

Reality: Providing greater access to harmful drugs will only serve to increase use and addiction. Alcohol is a primary example, as are prescribed medications. There are far more Alcoholics than drug addicts in Canada, although proportionately far more people who use illicit drugs become addicts than those who consume alcohol.

Myth #7: Legalization will Reduce the Crime Rate

Reality: The experience of countries that have experimented with drug liberalization demonstrates that crime, violence and drug use, go hand in hand. Legalization will not change the harmful effects that drugs have on individuals and their behaviour, nor will increasing the demand and/or supply of drugs reduce the potential for criminal conduct.

Myth #8: Organized Crime Would Be Reduced if Drugs Were Legalized

Reality: Organized Criminals, who have historically targeted the youngest and most vulnerable members of our communities, will not be deterred by efforts to legalize the highly profitable drug trade. As seen in countries that have experimented with liberalization, Organized crime will flourish as the demand for drugs will increase, creating pressures for the supply of newer, cheaper, and stronger strains of drugs. Organized criminals do not limit their activities to exploiting illegal markets, as evidenced by cigarette and alcohol smuggling activities in Canada. Demand reduction and successful enforcement are the most effective strategies in reducing organized crime. In fact, our drug laws have been the most effective tools in fighting organized crime.

Myth #9: Police Support the Status Quo in Fear of Losing Jobs

Reality: Actually, we do not support the status quo, and we are afraid of gaining jobs if drug use increases. We believe that Canada has to reaffirm its denunciation of illicit drug use, raise public awareness and education on the harmful effects of drugs, review our sentencing practices to instil meaningful consequences and deterrence, and focus enforcement efforts on reducing supply and demand for illicit drugs.

Myth #10: Canada is Losing the War Against Drugs

Reality: Canada has never been engaged in a war against drugs. Our national policies are focused on Public Awareness, Education, Legislation and Enforcement. 93% of Canadians do not use marijuana, and 75% have never even tried. 99.3% do not use cocaine, and 98.9% do not use heroin, speed or LSD. That’s far from losing, but we can and should do better. We will never completely win the war against drugs, impaired driving, auto theft, robberies, assaults or even murder. That does not mean that we turn over our streets to the criminals.

The battle against drugs that is being lost is taking place in the boardrooms of the nation, where the success of Canada’s illicit drug prohibition is being assailed. While we are seeing disconcerting trends in drug use among school age children and adolescents, perceived tolerance by community leaders is sending conflicting and confusing messages to our young people.

The time has arrived for leaders to enter into the debate, persons of stature in the community who will present 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.

Serious questions can and should be raised about the motivation of the international and domestic drug liberalization lobby. Who stands to profit from drug legalization, increased demand, and increased supply? And at whose expense? Future generations of Canadians.

Conclusion – We Have to Champion our Successes

Canada’s balanced approach to drug use continues to have a significant positive effect. We should not lose sight of the fact that:

Nine in ten Canadians have not used illicit drugs in the past year.

Three-quarters of Canadians have never used marijuana in their lifetime.
One-half of secondary students have never used an illicit drug.
Two-thirds of secondary students have not used an illicit drug during the past 12 months.

Obviously these statistics point to one harsh reality. Organized criminals target Young Canadians as the primary market for the sale of illegal drugs in Canada. Illegal drug use is a significant contributing factor in a wide range of crimes, including property offences, crimes of violence, robbery, prostitution and organized crime gangs.

Some have suggested that a strategy to decriminalize the possession of cannabis or other drugs would somehow shift the market away from Organized Criminals. We believe that this is a shortsighted approach that fails to acknowledge the risks associated with illegal drug use and the flexibility of organized crime in changing its production activities to generate new demands and sources of income.

The experience of other nations demonstrates that permissive social policy is neither a solution nor consistent with public expectations.

Raise Awareness
Reduce Demand
Provide Accurate information
Limit Supply
Strengthen Controls

The Canadian Police Association recommends, therefore, that the Government of Canada, in co-operation with the CPA and law enforcement partners, conduct a meaningful review of the effectiveness of our present judicial system in combating all less serious crimes, including illegal drug possession. This review should include an examination of sentencing practices, alternatives and effectiveness, to ensure contemporary measures are consistent with community expectations.

The CPA will actively oppose efforts to decriminalize the possession of illegal drugs, except in those approved instances where drugs are legally prescribed for bona fide medical purposes. Further analysis would appear to be required on the bona fide usefulness and application of the medical use of marijuana.

In a May 7, 2001 letter to the Honourable Allan Rock, Minister of Health, Canadian Medical Association (CMA) President Peter H. Barrett stated:52

The CMA recognizes and acknowledges the unique requirements of those individuals suffering from a terminal illness or chronic disease for which conventional therapies have not been effective. We also recognize, and are sympathetic to, the needs of those individuals who may have gained, or hope to gain, benefit from the use of marijuana in relieving their symptoms. The CMA supports the use of any therapy proven safe, effective and manufactured with appropriate diligence, and has long advocated for equitable access to all such therapies. However, we have fundamental concerns about the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes at this time.

Marijuana is an herb, and as such can be considered a natural health product. Unlike many natural health products, however, marijuana is an addictive substance, is known to have psychoactive effects and, in its smoked form, is harmful to health. We are concerned, as well, about the broader social implications of marijuana as a medicine and its potential impact on one’s ability to function at home or at work. The CMA holds that natural health products should be held to the same evidence-based regulatory standards as all pharmaceutical health products.

The CMA supports Health Canada in its efforts to establish research into the safety and efficacy of marijuana and its active components, and to establish a safe and licit source of marijuana from which to conduct this research. We are hopeful that, through sound research, the active ingredients of marijuana will be found to be safe and beneficial for those patients who continue to suffer from conditions for which current therapies have not proven effective. In the interim, however, we are concerned that the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes without adequate scientific support and regulatory controls may create risks to both patients and physicians that might not be justified by possible short-term benefits.

Drugs are not dangerous because they are illegal; drugs are illegal because drugs are dangerous. We submit that there is an inherent risk in "reducing the consequences" of marijuana possession charges; an inescapable message that drug possession and consumption are not taken seriously. The sentencing practices of the Canadian judiciary have already had a significant negative effect in conveying such messages to young people as well as drug cultivators, importers, and traffickers.

It is critical to reinforce with young Canadians the danger and destruction caused by illegal drug use. We need to arrive at a balanced approach that instils meaningful and proportionate consequences for serious crime, combined with measures to reinforce desired behaviour with our young people:

The signal sent to younger Canadians by greater permissiveness would also be counterproductive. Admittedly, the fear of arrest is not a serious deterrent for some, but it is a reminder that Canadians generally don't tolerate illegal drug abuse. Of greater influence in deterring drug use are social attitudes and concerns about health. It is important that drug use not be seen by young people as condoned by society, nor accepted as "safe." Legalization would do nothing to prevent under-age consumption of illicit drugs. At present, though tobacco regulations seek to prevent youths from getting and using tobacco, half a million Canadians under the age of 18 smoke cigarettes. Spreading the message that drugs are "not cool" requires a multi-pronged approach, including use of role models and health education -- and prohibition.⁵³

The Honourable David Kilgour,
Member of Parliament and
Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa

NOTES

Kilgour, David; A Balanced Approach to Drugs: ‘Simple Phrases’ Won’t Work, The Ottawa Citizen, Sep. 22, 2000
Canadian Police Association; 2000 Resolutions
Health Canada; Straight Facts About Drugs & Drug Abuse
Ibid.
Drug Identification Bible; 2001 Edition, Amera-Chem Inc., www.drugidbible.com
Ibid.
Single, Eric: Fischer, Benedikt; Room, Robin; Poulin, Christine; Sawka, Ed; Thompson, Herb; Topp, John; Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse National Working Group on Addictions Policy, Cannabis Control in Canada: Options Regarding Possession, May 1998.
Ibid.
Joy, Janet E.; Watson, Stanley J. Jr.; Benson, John A. Jr.; Institute of Medicine, Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral Health; Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base, Executive Summary, National Academy Press, 1999
Drug Identification Bible, Ibid.
Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base, Ibid.
Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 1999, United Nations Publication
Adlaf, Edward M.; Paglia, Angela; Ivis, Frank J.; Addiction Research Foundation, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health; Drug Use Among Ontario Students; Findings From the Ontario Student Drug Use Survey, 1977-1999
Ibid.
Poulin, Christine; Single, Eric; Fralick, Pamela; Canadian Community Epidemiology Network on Drug Use (CCENDU) Second National Report, 1999
Zoccolillo, Mark, MD; Vitario, Frank, Ph.D.; Tremblay, Richard, Ph.D.; Problem Drug and Alcohol Use in a Community Sample of Adolescents, Press Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 1999
Starch Research Services Ltd.; Teen Tribute Survey, Spring 1998
Adlaf, Edward M.; Paglia, Angela; Ivis, Frank J.; Drug Use Among Ontario Students; Findings From the Ontario Student Drug Use Survey, Ibid.
Ibid.
Canadian Community Epidemiology Network on Drug Use (CCENDU); CCENDU Second National Report,
Zoccolillo, Mark, MD; Vitario, Frank, Ph.D.; Tremblay, Richard, Ph.D.; Problem Drug and Alcohol Use in a Community Sample of Adolescents, Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health; Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse; Canadian Profile; Alcohol Tobacco and Other Drugs, 1999
Canadian Police Association; Brief to the House of Commons Sub-Committee on Organized Crime; October 2000. Available at www.cpa-acp.ca
Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 2000, Ibid.
Drug Identification Bible, 2001 Edition, Ibid.
Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 2000, Ibid.
Lindberg, Jakob; Swedish National Institute of Public Health; in a Foreword to A restrictive Drug Policy: The Swedish Experience, 1993
Karlson, Kenth; League Against Intoxicants; Europe’s Fifth Freedom,
Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 1999, United Nations Publication
Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 2000, United Nations Publication
Aeschbach, Dr. Ernst, M.D.; Bucholz-Kaiser, Dr. Annemarie; Haller, Dr. Franziska; Kaiser, Dr. Ralph, M.D.; Kaiser, Dr. Viviane, M.D.; Koeppel, Dr. Hans, M.D.; Oertli, Dr. Titine; Raff, Diethelm; Ricklin, Dr. Florian, M.D.; Vuilleumier, Jean-Paul; Drug Prevention Working Group, Association for the Advancement of Psychological Understanding of Human Nature VPM; Argumentum Against Drug Legalization: A Contribution in Support of the Swiss People’s Referendum for a "Youth Without Drugs", 1994
Voth, Eric A., M.D.; The International Drug Strategy Institute
Nahas, Gabriel G., M.D., International Alliance for the United Nations Single Convention; The War on Drugs: a position paper.
Voth, Eric. A.; The International drug Strategy Institute, and Bennet, Sandra; Drug Watch International, Media Release, 1998
Swedish National Institute of Public Health; A Restrictive Drug Policy: The Swedish Experience,1993
Ibid.
Argumentum Against Drug Legalization: A Contribution in Support of the Swiss People’s Referendum for a "Youth Without Drugs", Ibid.
Nahas, Gabriel G., M.D., International Alliance for the United Nations Single Convention; The War on Drugs: a position paper.
Argumentum Against Drug Legalization: A Contribution in Support of the Swiss People’s Referendum for a "Youth Without Drugs", Ibid.
Riley, Dr. Diane; Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse; The Harm reduction Model: Pragmatic Approaches to Drug Use from the Area Between Intolerance and Neglect.
Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 2000, Ibid.
Australian Parents For Drug Free Youth; The Fallacy of Harm Minimisation
Federal, Provincial and Territorial Advisory Committee on Population Health; Toward a Healthy Future; Second report on the Health of Canadians¸ presented to the Joint Meeting of Ministers of Health, Charlottetown PEI, September 1999
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) Canada; MADD Programs; www.madd.ca
Ibid.
Dalrymple, Theodore; Don’t Legalize Drugs – Some Thoughts on Prohibition; City Journal, Vol. 7, No. 2, Spring 1997, Manhattan Institute
Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse
Barrett, Dr. Peter H. MD, FRCSC, President, Canadian Medical Association (CMA); Letter to The Honourable Allan Rock, PC, MP; May 7, 2001
Kilgour, David; A Balanced Approach to Drugs: ‘Simple Phrases’ Won’t Work, The Ottawa Citizen, Sep. 22, 2000

Illegal Drugs (Special)