Chapter 16
Prevention
Prevention
is a key component of public health strategies and is increasingly part of the
array of measures used to fight crime, especially crime related to the abuse of
psychoactive substances. Viewed–in theory, at least–as a public health
issue, an illegal drugs policy should therefore call for a strong prevention strategy.
Nothing,
however, is more fluid, vague, even controversial, than prevention. The measures
used to enforce the law are clear: they give power to the police and set down
guidelines for the courts in dealing with people found to be in breach of the
law. Correctional measures are equally clear: they implement the sentences
imposed by the courts. Already, the measures used to treat people with drug
problems are vague; there is no
consensus on what constitutes treatment, when treatment begins and, most
importantly, when treatment ends. The literature makes a distinction between
primary, secondary and tertiary prevention; prevention through social
development and situational development; universal, specific and indicated
prevention; and prevention of use, at-risk behaviour and abuse, yet does not
agree on the specific content of each field or the approach that should be taken
in public policy.
When it
comes to illegal drugs, the legal and political context makes the issue of
prevention even harder to clarify and actions even harder to define. There are
policies and initiatives in place that aim to prevent at-risk behaviour related
to alcohol, such as heavy drinking, driving under the influence and domestic
violence. In some circumstances and used in some forms, alcohol can be a
“dangerous” substance; what we want to do is preclude those circumstances
and identify the indicators of abuse so that we can prevent at-risk behaviour
from leading to excessive, even pathological behaviour. It is possible to make
these distinction and not deal with use per
se because alcohol is a legal substance. But the national legal context
surrounding illegal drugs and the interpretation of international drug policies
(see Chapter 19 on the latter subject) are such that because they are defined a
priori as harmful substances, illegal drugs must not be used. Another way of
putting it is that any use is abuse. The glossary published by the United
Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention states:
In
the context of international drug control, drug abuse constitutes the use
of any substance under international control for purposes other than medical and
scientific. [1]
(Our emphasis)
If use
is abuse, if individuals or organizations involved in prevention are unable to
make distinctions that are essential in setting objectives and devising
preventive measures, what hope is there of establishing successful prevention
programs?
The
international context on drugs is decidedly full of surprises. Each year, the
International Narcotics Control Board, whose mandate is to monitor the
implementation by Member States of the various international conventions,
publishes an annual report which includes, in its first section, a commentary on
a specific theme. The 1997 report commented on prevention. Regretting that the
social environment was promoting drug use, the report noted:
Preventing
the abuse of drugs is becoming an increasingly difficult endeavour, at least
partly because of the rapid and growing spread of messages in the environment
that promote drug abuse. Many of them can be regarded as public incitement and
inducement to use and abuse drugs. Therefore, present efforts at prevention need
to be strengthened and innovative prevention initiatives need to be developed
and implemented.
(…)
While
the elimination of all forms of drug experimentation, use and abuse will never
be achieved, it should not be a reason to give up the ultimate aim of all
prevention efforts, namely a drug-free society. [2]
Among
the various factors favourable to drug use and abuse, the Board cited popular
culture (songs, films, etc.), the media, the Internet, the promotion of hemp
products and political campaigns. The report equates advocating for liberal
policy options to the promotion of drug use and suggests a rather disquieting
notion of prevention:
Sensationalism,
the desire to be provocative and the need for higher ratings, may also be behind
the fact that several television companies in some countries in western Europe
appear to be broadcasting many more programmes in support of a change in the
drug law, if not the outright legalization of drugs, particularly cannabis, than
programmes examining the consequences of following such a policy and the harm
arising from it. Preventive education campaigns aimed at accurately informing
the public in general of the effects of drugs and drug abuse will help to
promote a more rational approach to drug problems and to avoid sensationalism.
(…)
It
is possible to curb the showing by public broadcasting media, such as the press,
radio, film and television, of favourable images of drug abuse. In some
countries, it is possible to do this through legislation; in others it can be
done through voluntary codes of practice; in still others, however, no
restrictions on promoting drug abuse are in place because freedom of information
and freedom of speech are considered to be more important than limiting the
promotion of illicit drugs. The Governments of those countries may need to
reconsider whether unrestricted access to and the propagation of such
information are detrimental to the social and health conditions of their
populations.
(…)
Election
campaigns have been conducted with candidates standing for parliament on a drug
legalization platform. Some campaigns, such as the successful campaigns for the
"medical" use of cannabis in Arizona and California in the United
States of America, have sought to change the law (…). Such political campaigns
need to be met with rational arguments and unambiguous language pointing out the
manifold problems that might arise from the decriminalization of drugs and that
certainly would arise from the legalization of drugs, in particular the health
and economic consequences of such action. (…) The Board notes with regret that
despite the fact that (…) Governments of States that are parties to the 1988
Convention are required to make the incitement or inducement to take drugs a
criminal offence, either this has not been done or the law has not been
enforced. [3]
If
criticisms of the current public policies and demands for alternative approaches
are equated with condoning drug use, if prevention means curbing freedom of
speech – whether or not one agrees with these critiques – then one has to
wonder what prevention is about.
Of
course there are, as this chapter will show, many prevention programs that are
not aimed solely or even particularly at the prevention of use, but rather the
prevention of at-risk behaviour. Harm reduction, for example, is not only a
general strategy for dealing with psychoactive substances, but is also a
preventive approach that seeks to lower the risks associated with drugs and drug
control without requiring abstinence. However, harm reduction is the subject of
much controversy and criticism because it is based on the premise that use of
drugs is a social reality.
Is law
enforcement a preventive measure? Many practitioners, not just police officers,
would surely say it is, and they would be right insofar as visible police
presence or community policing does have some preventive effect. But in the
current context, this is designed to prevent use, not at-risk behaviour, and
does so through deterrence, not education or empowerment. And Chapter 14 showed
that its effectiveness is very limited. Are sentences, including deprivation of
liberty, preventive measures? Of course they are, at least for the time the
offender is under supervision or in custody (although drugs are available in
prison). But we saw in Chapter 15 that criminalization and penalisation do not
deter use. And it is generally admitted that intervention by the justice system
is in fact a sign that preventive measures have failed (or were not taken). Are
citizenship education, health awareness and self-esteem programs preventive
measures? They are indeed, but so, too, are social justice and fairness
initiatives, efforts to reduce inequities and measures aimed at improving
relations with Aboriginal peoples. If everything is prevention, what, then,
constitutes the field of prevention?
Addressing
the issue of prevention means considering at the same time government policies
on illegal drugs. This is particularly true in the case of cannabis.
Preventive messages, as will be seen later, must be credible. The message
that smoking tobacco causes lung cancer and cardiovascular disease is credible,
at least in part because it is based on a large body of epidemiological studies
that have established a strong, statistical cause-and-effect link. The same is
true for impaired driving and the wearing of seatbelts. However, as Chapters 6,
7 and 8 have demonstrated, the findings for cannabis are by no means as cut and
dried and the weight of the evidence would tend to indicate that it a much less
harmful substance than most other psychoactive substances. Contrary to what many
told us, marijuana is not illegal because it is dangerous and this is well
established in the history of national drug law and international conventions.
The
UNDCP glossary also states:
Prevention
is defined broadly as an intervention designed to change the social and
environmental determinants of drug and alcohol abuse, including discouraging the
initiation of drug use and preventing the progression to more frequent or
regular use among at-risk populations. [4]
A
careful reading of this definition is in order. It says that preventive
intervention aims to prevent the abuse of drugs and
alcohol. In the case of drugs only,
however, one must aim to prevent people from becoming users in the first place,
since drug use will progressively increase. Yet, the research on marijuana does
not support this distinction. Alcohol – and before that tobacco – are far
more likely than marijuana to lead to more frequent use, even at-risk use, and
to be a gateway to other illegal drugs. But alcohol, like tobacco, is legal.
Marijuana is not.
Any
discussion of prevention entails discussion of the limits of government
intervention and of how one conceives of human action. How far should government
interventions go in identifying groups at risk without further stigmatizing
groups already at risk? To what extent are humans rational beings who act in
their best interest provided they are given the right information?
Finally,
any discussion of prevention in the Canadian context necessarily has a
constitutional dimension: to the extent that preventive measures are matters of
health provinces have the primary jurisdiction, and to the extent that
prevention is education provinces have exclusive jurisdiction. As we saw in
Chapter 12 on the history of federal legislation on illegal drugs, it was no
accident that the Narcotic Control Act
was criminal in nature: since Parliament is authorized to adopt criminal
legislation pursuant to the criminal law power conferred by the constitution.
The federal government’s role in the field of prevention of drug use is
limited at best and non-existent at worst proprio
motu.
This
chapter on prevention begins with a statement that will come as no surprise to
health or justice experts: when it comes to prevention, there is lots of talk,
but the resources allocated are small and the initiatives weak. The second
section asks the question: what prevention? We look at current knowledge of the
factors underlying prevention initiatives and the effectiveness of some
preventive measures, with special emphasis on one of the most important weapons
in the war on drugs, the DARE program. The third section looks at the harm
reduction approach to prevention. As in the other chapters, our conclusions are
in the form of observations that may serve to guide future actions.
Initiatives
that fall short of the mark
When
Canada’s Drug Strategy was launched in 1987, the government acknowledged that
most federal initiatives had focused on reducing supply and that there had to be
more emphasis on prevention. Of the $210 million initially allocated to the
first five-year strategy, no less than 32% was earmarked for prevention. In the
second phase of the strategy, which ran from 1992 to 1997, the total budget
increased to $270 million, with a similar percentage earmarked for prevention.
In
1994, the Government of Canada introduced the National Strategy on Community
Safety and Crime Prevention and created the National Crime Prevention Council,
now the National Crime Prevention Centre (Department of Justice). When Phase II
of that strategy was launched in 1998, funding was $32 million annually; by
2001, funding had increased to more than $65 million. The strategy
is aimed at
reducing crime and victimization by addressing their root causes through a
social development approach. Crime prevention through social development (CPSD)
is a long-term, proactive approach. It is directed at removing those personal,
social and economic factors that lead some individuals to engage in criminal
acts or to become victims of crime. The National
Strategy
is investing in projects that address risk factors in people’s lives, such as
abuse, violence, poor parenting and drug and alcohol abuse. [5]
Where do
things really stand? The stakeholders are probably in complete agreement that
there is a need for prevention. But they are equally unanimous that the actions
that have been taken are short of the mark. Otherwise stated, everyone talks
prevention, but no one does much about it. The observations made before the
Committee cover five sets of considerations: (1) there is not enough prevention;
(2) prevention lacks focus; (3) there is not enough evaluation of
preventive measures; (4) prevention and social messages about cannabis are
contradictory; and (5) there are exemplary practices and successful preventive
measures that need to be promoted more widely.
Not
enough prevention
For many
organizations, police departments and government agencies involved in the war on
drugs, it is clear that there is not enough prevention. That view is measured in
terms of spending levels and cuts in prevention staff.
Think
of the last time that you saw a drug prevention message on television. Probably
one that many of us would recognize is the fried egg commercial representing
what happens to your brain. Unfortunately, that was an American ad. I cannot
recall a recent anti-drug ad on television. We have produced proactive materials
on many other issues in our country. There are campaigns on tobacco and breast
cancer. We really have very little material in the drug prevention area. We are
not saying that we want more money for policing and arresting people. We agree
with the current balance. We think that not only crime prevention, but also drug
awareness is a vital tool in making a difference. […] We believe, first, that
there is a role for police in prevention and awareness as well as in
enforcement. We have excellent partnerships with teachers, parents and community
groups. Community policing has really started to come together in the last 10
years. […] One of our problems is that some of our programs are dated. Very
little effort is put into the prevention aspect. I do not want to be quoted
exactly on dollars. However, a report about a year ago indicated that the United
States spent about $12 per capita on prevention and awareness. In Canada, the
comparative figure was less than $1. I think it was in the area of 20 cents or
30 cents. [6]
Since
1988 and 1989, when we had the Really Me campaign, we have had no federal or, in
B.C., provincial campaign speaking about drugs. […] When there was a decrease
in consistent prevention messages and the National Drug Strategy ended, I
witnessed numerous community coalitions and task forces on drugs that dried up
and went away and no provincial funding followed it. I watched in Nakusp,
Penticton, the Sunshine Coast, Whistler and many other places as excited people
were no longer able to keep going because the attention in the country turned to
the population health bandwagon. There was a loss of interest, funding levels
and prevention, and at the same time, an increase in messages about hemp,
“medical marijuana” and other ideas. […] When you have this going on for
years, common sense would tell you we would have some erosion in the gains we
had made in consumption. With that, and with some of the changes in drug
sentencing and enormous growth in cannabis availability, certainly in British
Columbia, it is no wonder we see these changes. [7]
[Translation]
Third observation: efforts to prevent substance abuse are clearly inadequate.
The task involves budget (increase allocations for prevention in various areas),
coordination (provide a better framework for practices in this area) and
research (establish clear program evaluation parameters, determine the
effectiveness of existing programs, promote winning strategies). There is a
particular need for more substance abuse prevention initiatives in the following
areas:
-
schools
(beginning in middle school) and other areas of young people’s lives (e.g.,
streets, parks, youth centres);
-
workplaces;
-
front-line
services in the health and social services system. [8]
We
had an excellent Canadian program developed in Nova Scotia in conjunction with
the Nova Scotia Addictions Foundation known as PACE, the Police Assisted
Community Education. We, along with a pharmacist, a doctor, a nurse and some
athletes were among the people that went to schools to talk to the students
about peer pressure, why some students feel compelled to use drugs, about
stealing and different moral ethics, and other subjects relating to drug use.
Unfortunately, because of the budget cuts, the programs were cut. The money for
evaluations, for increasing the program, or for improving the program no longer
exited. [9]
In
the 1970s and 1980s, there was support for community-based ongoing prevention
efforts. However, in the 1990s, the federal and provincial governments cut a lot
of the funding and there has been commensurate rise in drug use. During that
same period, multi-faceted prevention efforts such as those directed at tobacco,
seat-belts, fire safety, fitness, and dental health, to name a few, made major
inroads. [10]
Prevention
of social and health problems is often the poor cousin of practice. Whether in
health or in justice, the reality is that much more is spent on treatment and
intervention after the fact than on prevention. This is true for health issues
in general and illegal drugs in particular.
According
to the study by Single et al.,[11]
the direct and indirect cost of illegal drug abuse in 1996 was approximately
$1.5 billion. Of that amount, $400 million was spent on law enforcement (police,
Customs, courts, correctional services, etc.), and approximately $35 million was
spent on prevention, that is, roughly 2% of the total, compared with more than
25% on efforts to fight drugs. Put a different way, the per-capita cost of
illegal drugs is roughly $48; by comparison, about $12 is spent on drug control,
and about $1 on prevention.[12]
We agree with other stakeholders that
spending on prevention is woefully inadequate.
Prevention
lacks focus
Preventing
cannabis use probably requires a different approach than preventing the use of
heroin or ecstasy. By the same token, prevention of use by students will not be
handled the same way as prevention of use by street kids, and preventive
measures aimed at Aboriginal youth will be different from those aimed at white
youth. We will see in the next section that the risk factors and protective
factors are not the same for all social groups.
However,
stakeholders point out that prevention messages and the way they are delivered
are often inaccurate. We see either universal messages the real effectiveness of
which is hard to measure, or messages that are aimed at specific social groups
but are not necessarily geared to the reality of the people being targeted.
[Translation] Of particular note are weaknesses in secondary prevention. Programs
aimed more specifically at high-risk groups are not enough. There is little
effective screening where early intervention might make all the difference in
preventing problems from getting worse, and this is true not only of youth, but
of client groups of all ages. There is at present a lack of consistency in the
messages being conveyed and the initiatives being taken. There is a lack of
program stability. And in some areas, a great deal of ground has been lost
(e.g., gradual loss of substance abuse prevention educators). [13]
Prevention
is not ‘one size fits all.’ Broad population approaches are needed, but so
too are narrow focussed activities that target a specific risk group. Of course,
prevention is proactive. It promotes personal responsibility. It is highly cost
effective: For the cost of one treatment centre, you can fund prevention
initiatives that reach hundreds and, indeed, thousands of kids. [14]
If the
focus is prevention, the objectives have to be clarified: is the goal to prevent
use, at-risk behaviour or abuse? The chosen preventive measures will be
fundamentally different depending on what objectives are set. This point was
made in a recent document produced for Health Canada on best practices in the
area of prevention:
Clear
and realistic goals that logically link program activities to the problems and
factors found in a community are necessary to guide implementation. Clear and
measurable goals will permit evaluation to determine whether the program
achieved its objectives. Goals will vary with the community and the
circumstances; however, important considerations for all programs are the points
at which use and problematic use of different substances generally begin. […]
Accordingly, for youth who are not yet using (i.e., either not considering use
or thinking about use) the program aim would be primary prevention. Programs
working with a population largely consisting of youth who have initiated use and
continue to use, a secondary prevention or harm reduction aim makes most sense.
Each of these aims logically lead to particular activities and messages (e.g.,
use of more intensive approaches with those using or preparing to use). [15]
With
respect to prevention, there is also a sense that anything and everything is
possible by adopting anti-drug rhetoric. However, as we will show in the next
section, preventive measures have to zero in more on known risk and protective
factors. And because there are many risk factors, preventative action should be
multifaceted and involve the community.
There
is not enough evaluation of preventive measures
Another
reason there is not enough prevention is that no one takes the time or devotes
the resources to evaluate programs and demonstrate their effectiveness. As the
saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Similarly, one
dollar invested in prevention saves five dollars down the road. That may be
true, but proving it is something else.
Conducting
evaluation studies is not an easy task. If they are to be credible, studies
often require a complex methodology. They are also expensive. And most
importantly, they cannot – or at least should not – be rushed in order to
meet political timelines: to determine, for example, whether a program aimed at
preventing drug use among youth is effective, “graduates” have to be
monitored for no less than a year (normally at least three years) after they
received the program. Canada is not in the habit of doing evaluative research,
and, as we saw for Canada’s Drug Strategy, we did not set clear objectives or
provide the means to evaluate initiatives.
As a
result of this situation, prevention – a weak segment if ever there was one
– pays the price when even the smallest budget cut is made.
One
of the biggest problems is that our programs have never had an evaluation
component. Whenever we had the opportunity to implement new programs, it was
done “quick and dirty.'' There was very little money. Our only approach was to
pump something out and see if it worked. We have all learned that if you are
going to do something, do it properly. We should set up new programs with
evaluative components in order to know that we are doing the right things at the
right time for the right people. In other words, programs should consider the
message, the messenger and effectiveness. [16]
The
Committee is of the opinion that any future Canadian drug strategy will
have to include mechanisms and resources to evaluate the various components and
in particular to evaluate preventive measures.
Preventive and social
messages in contradiction
For some
observers, the fact that society has become more tolerant of cannabis in recent
years has contributed to increasing levels of use among young people and
undermined the prevention efforts.
The
other important part to remember is acceptability in terms of how drug use is
perceived. Even more than availability, acceptability is affected by legal
sanctions. When we have sanctions against drugs, it reduces social acceptability
and helps hold consumption down. Two aspects of acceptability are perceived risk
in using the drug and perceived social acceptance of the drug. Those are two
tools we have to keep consumption down. [17]
According
to the 1996 Monitoring the Future study by the University of Michigan, today's
teens are less likely to consider drug use harmful and risky, are more likely to
believe that drug use is widespread and tolerated, and feel more pressure to try
illegal drugs than at any other time in the last decade. […]
The
implication of these perceptions is that these factors influence an increase or
decrease in the levels of drug use. Legalization of illicit drugs would only
weaken these perceptions further. It tells our children that adults believe
drugs can be used responsibly. It suggests that there is less risk and that
drugs are more acceptable to society. […] Another influence is the media and
the power of communication. Media coverage of individuals smoking marijuana in
cannabis clubs tells kids that drug taking can be fun. Within this atmosphere,
it is very difficult, if not impossible, to reach children and convince them
that doing drugs is harmful. Increased drug availability and drug use will
worsen our crime problems. Increased drug use has terrible consequences for our
citizens. [18]
As one
American commentator said, telling children that marijuana is a dangerous drug
is one thing, but what happens when they find out in high school that their
friends are using it without frying their brains? The message probably has to be
adapted to the audience, the context and the objectives. However, it is surely
just as necessary to tell children and adolescents the truth in prevention
programs about drugs, their real effects and about what we still do not know. If
our society engages in contradictory debate over cannabis, it is not because
some pot activists are manipulating the media; otherwise we would have to
question the ability of our media to remain neutral and keep a critical
distance. In light of the epidemiological findings presented in Chapter 6 and
the scientific research on the effects of cannabis presented in Chapter 7, we
believe that alarmist rhetoric on the
effects of cannabis is probably counterproductive for the very people who
legitimately hope to prevent its abuse.
That was
among the points raised in the recent Health Canada report on best prevention
practices.
The
most important principle for every program, regardless of program goal, is that
drug information be scientifically accurate, objective, non-biased and presented
without value judgment. […] Even if younger participants initially accept
messages that focus solely on the negative aspects of drug use, once they
receive more accurate information, there is a danger that all the messages
received earlier will lose credibility. […] Fear-arousing messages accompanied
by incorrect or exaggerated information are not effective, and can generate
scepticism, disrespect and resistance toward any advice on substance use or
other risk behaviour. […] Similarly, simplistic messages that young people
believe to be unrealistic (e.g., just say ‘no’) or not feasible (e.g., play
sports when there are not facilities readily available) will not be seen as
credible. [19]
There
is a body of knowledge on which we have to draw
Without
question, there is a widespread preventive practice in Canada that has developed
on a trial-and-error basis and is frequently nursed along with limited resources
by people who truly believe in it. As we will show in the next section, there is
also a body of knowledge on the initiatives that are most likely to have a real
effect on risk factors and the processes most likely to support strong
preventive measures.
One of
the problems is that this “knowledge” all too often remains in the heads of
a few people, primarily because few or no evaluative studies are conducted. What
studies are done appear in scientific journals and are seen by experts but do
not reach practitioners. And there are still few systematic means of
disseminating information. This raises the question of how practices proven
elsewhere can be adapted to other contexts.
We
suggest to the Committee that rather than focusing on reforming our drug laws,
efforts would be much better spent on examining strategies focused on
prevention. Canada’s Drug Strategy points out that first and foremost,
prevention is the most cost-effective intervention. If we know that to be true,
should we not focus our attention on tactics that will ensure greatest possible
return on our investment? […] In a compendium of best practices by the
Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, the authors draw attention to the importance
of parental influence in high-risk behaviour among youth. […] Numerous studies
completed at the Center on Addictions and Substance Abuse at Columbia University
which include extensive research into prevention programs, have reached the same
conclusion. [20]
Finally,
in our years of work and prevention we have come to understand that the real
problem is not so much a drug problem as a people problem. That is, all people -
especially kids who have suffered abuse, neglect, trauma, and addiction in the
home - seek ways to deal with their feelings of anger, despair, hopelessness or
powerlessness. Some may have feelings of boredom, curiosity or a desire to
belong. Marijuana and other drugs can seem to solve or at least soothe these
emotions. […] Alternatively, there is great potential through prevention to
foster informed, confident, capable young people, who from the earliest ages
learn sound mental health practices that are drug-free ways to manage these
pressing and understandable human feelings. [21]
Preventing
what and how?
Agreeing
on the need for prevention is a bit like agreeing on the importance of virtue.
Yet, as we saw in the introduction to this chapter, whether we all agree on the
very concept of prevention is not all that clear. The United Nations Office for
Drug Control and Crime Prevention glossary defines prevention as follows:
Prevention
activities may be broad-based efforts directed at the mainstream population(s),
such as mass general public information and education campaigns,
community-focused initiatives and school-based programs directed at youth or
students at large. Prevention interventions may also target vulnerable and
at-risk populations, including street children, out-of-school youth, children of
drug abusers, offenders within the community or in prison, and so on.
Essentially, prevention addresses the following main components:
-
Creating
awareness and informing/educating about drugs and the adverse health and social
effects of drug use and abuse, and promoting anti-drug norms and pro-social
behaviour against drug use;
-
Enabling
individuals and groups to acquire personal and social life skills to develop
anti-drug attitudes and avoid engaging in drug-using behaviour;
-
Promoting
supportive environments and alternative healthier, more productive and
fulfilling behaviours and lifestyles, free of drug use. [22]
What
this means, then, is taking initiatives that alter the factors leading to drug
abuse, where all use is abuse in the case of an illegal substance or a substance
controlled by international conventions. The definition identifies as a factor
in abuse first-time use of drugs, on the premise that introduction – at least
in people considered to be “at risk” – leads to more frequent use or use
of other substances. The proposed areas of action indirectly identify other
factors: the absence of information on the adverse effects of drug use and
social norms that are insufficiently anti-drug, inadequate personal and social
skills to resist drug use, and unsatisfactory lifestyles that are not health
oriented are other factors in drug abuse.
But what
do we know about the reasons why people use drugs, marijuana in particular? We
know that men use more alcohol and drugs and that women use more prescription
drugs. Do we really know why? We think that there may be more than 150 million
marijuana users in the world, and we have said that there are approximately 3
million a year in Canada; are we to conclude that those people lacked the
personal and social skills needed to resist drugs? When, at what point, does use
become a problem? Depending on the answers to those questions, the entire
prevention strategy will be different.
Genetic
baggage aside, public health factors are a function of:
[Translation] […] environmental factors related to the setting in which the person
lives, from conception to death: the social as well as the physical environment.
Education, employment, income, family and social relationships, and distribution
of wealth are all factors that come into play. There is a close link between
socio-economic status and health and well-being: that link is confirmed by data
on hospitalization, disability, health problems and mortality in a given
population. Other factors of course include lifestyle and behaviour, such as
tobacco use and diet. Even though these are factors that can be changed and are
often targeted by prevention, they are also largely conditioned by
socio-economic factors. The last factor is health services, the level and
organization of which vary from community to community and country to country. [23]
It is
true that epidemiological data tend to show that young marijuana users are more
likely to be from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds, are more likely to
smoke tobacco, and probably have parents who smoke or even use marijuana. These
are referred to as environmental risk factors. According to some authors,
regular or heavy users, those who are at risk, also suffer low self-esteem, are
more likely to drop out of school or not finish high school, and do not perform
as well academically. These are personal risk factors.
Another
term in the vocabulary of prevention besides “risk factor” is “protective
factor”. The United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention
defines “protective factor” as follows:
A
factor that will reduce the probability of an event occurring which is perceived
as being undesirable. This term is often used to indicate the characteristics of
individuals or their environments, which reduce the likelihood of
experimentation with illegal drugs. For example there is some evidence from
research in developed countries that each of the following are, statistically at
least, protective in relation to illicit drug use: being female; of high
socio-economic status; being employed, having high academic attainment;
practising a religion; and being a non smoker. [24]
Epidemiological
data show that use is lower among women, non-smokers and people who practise a
religion. However, the data are not as clear in terms of the impact of
socio-economic status or level of schooling.
One of
the key works in the literature on prevention is without question the 1995
research by Hawkins et al.[25]
The authors give a comprehensive list of risk factors related directly or
indirectly to drug abuse, divided into five categories: individual, family,
school, peer and community environment. These factors were identified based on a
series of longitudinal studies that tracked children and adolescents over long
periods.
Recent
longitudinal research has identified risk and protective factors in the
individual and the environment that consistently predict drug involvement.
Moreover, the evidence indicates that the likelihood of drug abuse is higher
among those exposed to multiple risk factors and that the risk of drug abuse
increases exponentially with exposure to more risk factors. The higher rates of
drug abuse among criminal and homeless populations are consistent with studies
of personal, social and environmental risk factors that are predictive of
substance abuse. This line of research suggests that intervention to prevent
drug abuse should focus on reducing multiple risk factors in family, school,
peer, and community environments. [26]
1. Individual
factors
The
authors include among the individual factors identified by the research family
history, genetic history, biochemical characteristics, early and persistent
behavioural problems, alienation and rebelliousness, attitudes favourable to
drug use, and early introduction to drugs.
2.
Family
factors
These
factors include parents who use or permit the use of substances, poor parenting,
poor parent-child relationships and family conflict.
3.
School
factors
These
factors include academic failure and a weak commitment to school; intelligence
is not a factor, but the school environment and learning difficulties have a
determining effect.
4.
Peer factors
Peer
rejection in primary school and peers who use drugs are also factors related to
substance abuse.
5.
Environmental
factors
The
availability of drugs, legal and cultural norms, poverty and an unstable living
environment.
The
authors identify as protective factors individual characteristics (resilience,
social and personal skills, intelligence), the quality of childhood relations in
the family and especially at school, and individual and social objection to drug
use.
These
factors must not be confused with causes. They are statistical links that are
themselves limited by methodological problems related to measurement of
behaviour, evaluation of the impact of intervention, and other considerations.[27]
A
clear advantage of the protective/risk factor approach is the understanding that
many social and health problems are linked by the same root factors – an
understanding that can lead to better integration of strategies and economizing
of resources. However, because a factor is linked to substance use problems does
not necessarily mean that it causes such problems. Consequently, the actual
preventive effect of addressing one or another of the protective or risk factors
is not very clear and no doubt varies between the factors. Nevertheless, it
appears that addressing protective or risk factors in several domains of a young
person’s life (i.e., individual, school, family and community) can lead to
positive outcomes. [28]
Hawkins et
al. reviewed a series of initiatives–prenatal and neonatal, and preschool,
primary school and secondary school–that were evaluated. They found that the
most promising strategies are multidisciplinary approaches involving the
community.
The
evidence suggests that multistrategy approaches that address multiple risks
while enhancing protective factors hold the most promise for preventing
substance abuse. The current challenge for substance abuse prevention research
is to test prevention strategies that empower communities to design and take
control of their own efforts to explicitly assess, prioritize, and address risk
and protective factors for substance abuse. [29]
Prevention
is not, however, a formula that can be used over and over in the exact same way.
The characteristics of local communities, existing social relationships, and the
strength of community organizations are among the factors that play a key role
in the success of preventive measures. There is growing consensus among authors
on a series of steps that are most likely to bring about success. The compendium
of best practices published by Health Canada proposes the following:
·
Build a strong
framework
Ø
Address
protective factors, risk factors and resiliency
Ø
Seek
comprehensiveness
Ø
Ensure
sufficient program duration and intensity
·
Strive for
accountability
Ø
Base program on
accurate information
Ø
Set clear and
realistic goals
Ø
Monitor and
evaluate the program
Ø
Address program
sustainability from the beginning
·
Understand and
involve young people
Ø
Account for the
implications of adolescent psychosocial development
Ø
Recognize youth
perceptions of substance use
Ø
Involve youth
in program design and implementation
·
Create an
effective process
Ø
Develop
credible messages
Ø
Combine
knowledge and skill development
Ø
Use an
interactive group process
Ø
Give attention
to teacher or leader qualities and training
What
actions are proven and promising? The compendium lists a number of Canadian
intervention programs, but none has really undergone comprehensive evaluation.
A
number of people who spoke at our hearings, police officers in particular,
mentioned the DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) program.
We
use a revised, Canadian version of DARE, which is not the program most people
have been hearing about for years. We are achieving success and acceptance with
it. [30]
We
were unable to continue to fund Canadian programs, and to the credit of the RCMP
and its members across the divisions, they turned to DARE, the Drug Abuse
Resistance Education, from the United States. It was a pre-made, off-the-shelf
program. Our budget still does not permit us to develop Canadian programs or to
do evaluations. Unfortunately and embarrassing is that of the money that has
gone to teaching Canadian police officers to instruct, a total of $750,000 has
been paid for by the United States. The Canadian government has not funded any
DARE training. [31]
DARE was
introduced in the United States in the early 1980s by the Los Angeles Police
Department. In 1996, the program was being used by 70% of school districts and
was serving 25 million students. Some 25,000 American police officers were
trained to deliver the DARE program in schools. DARE is also used in 44 other
countries around the world. It includes a number of modules delivered in
different ways depending on the community. Basically, it entails a series of
visits from kindergarten to grade four in which the children are given short
lessons on personal safety, respect for the law, and drugs. The main 17-week
program is designed for students in grades five and six. A 10-week program for
middle-school students focuses on resistance to peer pressure, the ability to
make personal choices, conflict resolution and anger management. Another 10-week
program for high-school students focuses on personal choices and anger
management. Finally, DARE+ is an after-school program for high-school students
built around recreational activities. The main 17-week program for grades five
and six is the one most frequently used (81% of American school districts). It
is delivered by a uniformed police officer and focuses on the ability to resist
drugs. It provides information on drugs and their effects, self-esteem, and
alternatives to drugs. The program includes lectures, group discussions,
audio-visual presentations, exercises and role playing.
A
document we received from the RCMP shows that the DARE Program is being taught
in 1,811 schools in 584 different communities in Canada outside Quebec. Alberta
leads the way with 150 school districts, 583 schools and more than 21,400 students
in 2001, followed by Ontario (40 districts, 346 schools, 10,940 students)
and British Columbia (60 districts, 289 schools, 10,800 students). All these
schools offer the main 17-week program. In 2001, the program served more than
53,000 students. In all, the various components of the DARE program reached more
than 65,000 Canadian students in 2001.
We do
not know how much the program has been “Canadianized”. To our knowledge,
there have been no studies to evaluate the program’s impact. The document we
received is the first phase of an evaluation study that should, in the second
phase, provide data on impact. The first phase of the study deals with
students’, teachers’ and parents’ opinions, preferences and perceptions.[32]
The study looked at all of the grade 5 and grade 7 students in the West
Vancouver school district who took the program (500 and 570 students,
respectively), as well as their parents and teachers. The findings showed a very
high level of satisfaction with the program:
Ø
97% of the
students, 95% of the teachers and between 78% and 94% of the parents, depending
on the grade, were in agreement with the program and the program objectives;
Ø
78% of the
teachers agreed with the content of the DARE program for their grade level;
Ø
72% of the
students felt that the information they received was valid and up to date;
Ø
97% of the
teachers were very satisfied with the relationship between the police officer
delivering the program and the students;
Ø
96% of the
students said they understood the message;
Ø
88% of the
students said that DARE had helped them resist drugs in middle school; the
result was 58% in high school;
Ø
between 82% and
89% said that they had a better understanding of the dangers of drugs.
These
are only some of the findings. The data are in line with what can be found on
the DARE’s U.S. Internet site and in a number of evaluations. However, those
evaluations measured opinions, perceptions and attitudes, not behaviour. To some
extent, these results, positive though they may be, are not really surprising.
In
contrast, almost all of the evaluations that have endeavoured to measure the
impact of the DARE program on behaviour, specifically the prevention or
reduction of drug use, have shown that the program had no impact or, at best,
very little and very short-term impact.
The
compendium of best practices produced for Health Canada contains a separate
section on the DARE program which states in part:
There
have been many D.A.R.E. reviews and evaluations, but few rigorous scientific
evaluations. While some evaluations show positive results, studies published in
peer reviewed journals, including a 5-year prospective study and a meta-analysis
of D.A.R.E outcome evaluations, have been consistent in showing that the program
does not prevent or delay drug use, nor does it affect future intentions to use.
On the positive side, it does seem to boost anti-drug attitudes, at least in the
short-term, increase knowledge about drugs and foster positive police-community
relations. Also, acceptance of the program is generally quite high among police
presenters, students and their parents. [33]
Of
course, the absence of program impact can be attributed to the requirements of
the evaluation. However, these requirements are the same as those used for other
program evaluations.
In 1997,
a major report on what works, what does not work and what is promising in the
area of crime prevention was tabled in the United States Congress; Congress had
commissioned the report from a team of prominent researchers at a number of
American universities.[34]
The report had the following to say about the DARE program:
Several
evaluations of the original 17-lesson core have been conducted. Many of these
are summarized in a meta-analysis of DARE’s short-term effects sponsored by
NIJ [National Institute of Justice]. This study located 18 evaluations of
DARE’s core curriculum, of which 8 met the methodological criterion standards
for inclusion in the study. The study found:
1.
Short term
effect on drug use are, except for tobacco use, non significant;
2.
The sizes of
the effects on drug use are slight. Effect
sizes average .06 for drug use and never exceed .11 in any study. The effects on
known risk factors for substance use targeted by the program are also small: .11
for attitudes about drug use and .19 for social skills.
3.
Certain other
programs targeting the same age group as DARE […] are more effective than
DARE. […]
Four
more recent reports, three of them longitudinal, have also failed to find
positive effects for DARE. Lindstrom (1996), in a reasonably rigorous study of
approximately 1,800 students in Sweden, found no significant differences on
measures of delinquency, substance use, or attitudes favoring substance use
between students who did and did not receive the DARE program. Sigler and Talley
(1995) found no difference in the substance use of seventh grade students in Los
Alamos, New Mexico who had and had not received the DARE program 11 months
before. Rosenbaum et coll. (1994)
report on a study in which 12 pairs of schools (involving nearly 1,600 students)
were randomly assigned to receive or not receive DARE. Although some positive
effects of the program were observed immediately following the program, by the
next school year no statistically significant differences between DARE and
non-DARE students were evident on measures of the use of cigarettes or alcohol.
[…] These studies and recent media reports have criticized DARE for (a)
focusing too little on social competency skill development and too much on
effective outcomes and drug knowledge; (b) relying on lecture and discussion
format rather than more interactive teaching methods; and (c) using uniformed
police officers who are relatively inexperienced teachers and may have less
rapport with students.
[…]
In
summary, using the criteria adopted for this report, DARE does not work to
reduce substance use. […] No scientific evidence suggests that the DARE core
curriculum, as originally designed or revised in 1993, will reduce substance use
in the absence of continued instruction more focused on social competency
development. [35]
This
information is in the public domain. It has been available for many years.
Considering the limited resources available for the prevention of drug abuse in
Canada, federal authorities and the RCMP ought to have looked at that
information before deciding to implement even a Canadian version of the DARE
program. Beyond the rhetoric that may please some, there are in this case–and
this is so rare that we must take advantage–comprehensive studies which show
that the program is not meeting its stated goals.
The same
study identifies other programs that are much more likely to have a positive
impact on drug use and abuse, in particular programs that develop social skills.
The Canadian compendium also describes a number of programs that have undergone
equally comprehensive evaluation and have shown positive results.
Like one
of our witnesses, we seriously question the police-led practice used to deliver
drug education in schools:
I
have a quick aside about police-led drug education. We, personally, have some
concerns with police officers teaching many hours of drug education in the
classroom. We do not think it is sustainable financially to have paid police
officers in at every grade level teaching hours and hours of drug education.
Teachers - classroom teachers - are trained to be educators and that includes
how to build self-esteem, how to make kids feel more capable. In addition, we
know there are good, well-intentioned police officers, but our concern is that
some of them do not, in our view, have sufficient training to do the type of
education that is required. I am also concerned that the DARE program in the
United States is now starting a whole new initiative.
[…] they still are not addressing a very fundamental question, which
is, ‘who is the best person to deliver these?’
We
have heard concerns from students and teachers that police-led drug education
can be more authoritarian and that it can come across not so much as helping
kids to make their own carefully thought out choices, but more to lead them into
one specific choice. [36]
We
believe that there is a need for education
about psychoactive substances, forms of use and the related risks. But we also
believe that there is a need to rethink the approaches being used and that
police officers, if they must be involved, should neither develop the programs
nor deliver them to students.
Lists of
risk and protective factors and of successful programs aside, it is key to have
a holistic vision of prevention, because drugs are part of a complex social,
cultural and historical environment. Analysis of the debate over prevention and
prevention practices shows that one of the risks lies in putting forward a
reductionist and mechanistic view of personal and community health. We observed
in Chapter 6 that the available data showed an increase in marijuana use among
high-school students. We also saw in Chapter 10 that public opinion is perhaps
more tolerant than it used to be. And we have seen in this chapter that little
has been done in the area of prevention. Does this mean, as the Canadian Centre
on Substance Abuse has said, that the increase in use is merely the result of
all these factors combined?
The
resurgence of drug use we are now witnessing is led largely by mainstream youth,
indicating that we may have paid a heavy price for changing our focus and
neglecting this group in Phase II (of
Canada’s drug Strategy).
Ultimately we must aim our prevention messages at all youth. The Centre believes
that all young people-drop-outs and A students alike-are vulnerable to drug use
and should be viewed as an at-risk population. [37]
Is
it really the effect of the prevention initiatives taken in the first phase of
the strategy (1987-1992) that accounts for the relative decline in use during
that period? Is it really the absence of debate and prevention practices in the
1990s that accounts for the increase in use? Strictly speaking, no one knows.
Not only was there no evaluation of the first phase of the national strategy,
but even the most comprehensive evaluation might not have been conclusive. The
increase in use in the 1990s could just as easily have been the result of a
series of entirely different factors, such as cutbacks in government services,
the decline in the youth labour market or even globalization of world markets,
which makes people feel powerless to change their living conditions. There might
even be other factors of which we are not yet aware.
In the
United States, the use of illegal substances decreased between 1982 and 1991,
then started to rise again in 1993. Did policies and approaches change?
Incarceration rates for drug-related crimes certainly did not drop. At least as
much money was spent on prevention and education programs. The rate of alcohol
use among youth under 17 also decreased; can that be attributed to the same
factors? Inversely, the proportion of smokers in the population hardly changed
at all despite equally or more aggressive awareness and prevention campaigns.
What do we make of this? The decrease in illegal drug use may be attributable in
part to “war on drugs” policies, but that is by no means a completely
satisfactory explanation. And we also have to consider the social and economic
cost.
The
U.S. government’s ‘War on Drugs’ resulted in a tremendous expansion of
resources applied to supply reduction and interdiction efforts focused on
illegal drugs and in increasingly harsh criminal sanctions against users,
including those caught in possession of relatively small amounts of illegal
drugs. These policies have apparently had little effect on the availability of
addictive drugs or on reducing abuse. They have fueled higher costs associated
with prison construction and a tremendous increase in the prison population,
leading some to call for legalization of currently proscribed drugs such as
marijuana and cocaine. [38]
Through
all of this, there is little room for a less mechanistic view of individuals. We
were reminded of this by J.F. Malherbe in the paper he wrote at our request:
The
human experience is always complex and multifactorial, and no statement of risk
referring to a single factor has any meaning for an individual subject (even
though certain correlations appear to be well established). The future cannot be
predicted for a singular individual on the basis of statistical information. We
can therefore wonder at times about the level of scientific training (or
honesty) of doctors who confuse "statistical correlation" with
"risk factors" and "causes". It is true, however, that it is
more convenient to "preach" to people about the causes of cancer than
to support and inform them in the often chaotic advance of their freedom toward
fuller responsibility for themselves, for others and for the fragile biosphere
to which we belong. [39]
Professor
Malherbe went on to say:
The
true harm, the worst of all, the most intolerable, the only one that must
absolutely be repressed is wanting to make people happy by deepening their fear
of disease and death, without asking each individual to make personal choices
and realize his or her preferences. The true, the only harm stems from health
ideology, from the furor sanandi, which sketches out our happiness without us being able to enjoy it.
Does
this mean that everything should be permitted without distinction? Of course
not. But the test is still to discover step by step through our trials and
errors, and it cannot be imposed on us by experts – doctors or economists –
in the name of a prior and death-causing order. The joy of fertile disorder is
better for life than the boredom of a type of planning, the arbitrary nature of
which equals nothing but sterility. [40]
Moreover,
prevention, especially in schools, must provide a forum for open discussion that
makes young people accountable and permits the acculturation of substances.
Demonization and indoctrination can never take the place of education.
Risk
reduction and harm reduction
The harm
reduction approach has become a preferred tool in preventing AIDS/HIV
contamination through intravenous drug use. It was discovered in the late 1980s
that IV drug users were a key vector for the transmission of HIV. Needle
exchange programs came about as a result.
However,
the harm reduction approach creates a number of conceptual and theoretical
problems. The first problem is terminology. “Harm reduction” is the term
most commonly used in English, but “risk reduction” is also sometimes used.
In French, “harm reduction” has been rendered as “réduction des méfaits”, but also as “réduction des dommages” and “réduction
des risques”.
Further,
the concept and practice of harm reduction have been criticized by some
observers who see them as veiled strategies for legalizing drugs.
When
I say a ‘harm reduction drug policy,’ I do not mean as we have already
initiated in the response to drugs so far. We have tried many things such as
needle exchanges and we have tried a harm reduction approach to drinking and
driving. I have developed many programs for youth, which is my specialty. If I
were called upon to develop a program to teach youth with any certainty about
how to use drugs that are now illegal in a safe and moderate way, I do not think
I could do so. Drugs fundamentally have effects. They do affect us. For example,
it may be the cleanest heroin in the world, but is the person functioning in the
family and at work, and are they able to pay for the habit that they will
develop? Those are questions that need to be answered.
When
I use the term, I mean harm reduction as it has been promoted. The term has
become sullied, unfortunately. It began as a noble thing, but has become a key
code word for decriminalization or legalization of substances. I would caution
you against using the term as it is. [41]
Granted,
harm reduction strategies are often on a collision course with law enforcement
strategies: the situation has arisen often in cities across Canada where heroin
addicts leaving needle exchange clinics come face to face with police.
The term
“harm reduction” refers more specifically to strategies aimed at reducing
the adverse effects of drug use on health, economic status and the social
environment for users and those around them.[42]
In addition to needle exchange, harm reduction strategies for drug users
include such measures as prescription methadone for heroin addicts, medically
supervised prescription heroin programs and “safe injection rooms”, or
clinics where no prescription is required.
Canadian stakeholders agree that these measures are underdeveloped in
Canada. Health Canada recently announced that a prescription heroin program
would be tested in three major cities. The number of methadone places is said to
be insufficient. Moreover, there are no safe injection rooms.
What are
the implications of a harm reduction strategy for cannabis? What applications
might there be for such a strategy? Harm reduction strategies related to heroin,
for example, have been based on knowledge of some of the harmful effects of
injecting the drug: HIV and hepatitis C for users (needle exchange programs),
unsanitary conditions and risk of violence in places where the drug is injected
(safe injection rooms), and petty property crime to get money to buy drugs
(prescription heroin). In order to develop harm reduction strategies, we
therefore have to know at least something about the ways the drug is used and
its direct and indirect harmful effects. What are the harmful effects of
cannabis?
We
identified some of those harmful effects in Chapters 7 and 8. They include:
·
risks for youth
under 16 because of their physiological immaturity, in particular the immaturity
of their endogenous cannabinoid system;
·
risks
associated with use that could be described as “occupational” (as opposed to
recreational): the person uses marijuana alone, in the morning, to do school
work or to carry out a job;
·
risks
associated with heavy, frequent use over a long period;
·
risks
associated with inhalation over a long period;
·
risks
associated with impaired driving, especially when the marijuana is mixed with
alcohol.
Based on
this knowledge, harm reduction strategies could be developed for cannabis:
·
discourage use
by youth under 16;
·
detect at-risk
users, especially among youth;
·
provide
information on the risks of inhaling and point out that deep inhalation is part
of the folklore and is not necessary to obtain the effects;
·
use strong
measures to discourage impaired driving.
Obviously,
like harm reduction strategies for other drugs, these tools are based on
recognition of use and an approach that does not call for abstinence. We know
full well that these two points may elicit strong reactions from those who
believe that cannabis is fundamentally dangerous and may put us at odds with the
current legal context.
Conclusions
Prevention
is necessary. Keeping our guiding principles in mind, prevention must be part of
a vision of the role of governance as a way of fostering human initiative and a
vision of ethics and public health that focus on autonomy. In that sense, it is
not an instrument of control, but rather a tool to help set people free. And in
the case of cannabis, being set free does not mean not using, but rather having
the ability to take a position on and think about the reasons for using and the
ability to deal independently with at-risk behaviour.
Conclusions
– Chapter 16 |
|
On prevention On evaluation On harm reduction |
Ø
A
national drug strategy should include a strong prevention component. Ø
Prevention
strategies must be able to take into account contemporary knowledge about
drugs. Ø
Prevention
messages must be credible, verifiable and neutral. Ø
Prevention
strategies must be comprehensive, cover many different factors and involve
the community. Ø
Prevention
strategies in schools should not be led by police services or delivered by
police officers. Ø
The
RCMP should reconsider its choice of the DARE program. Ø
Prevention
strategies must include comprehensive evaluation of a number of key
measurements. Ø
A
national drug strategy should include mechanisms for widely disseminating
the results of research and evaluations. Ø
Evaluations
must avoid reductionism, involve stakeholders in prevention, be part of
the program, and include longitudinal impact assessment. Ø
Harm
reduction strategies related to cannabis should be developed in
coordination with educators and the social services sector. Ø
Harm
reduction strategies related to cannabis should include information on the
risks associated with heavy chronic use, tools for detecting at-risk and
heavy users, and measures to discourage people from driving under the
influence of marijuana. |
[1]
UNDCP (2000), Demand Reduction.
A Glossary of Terms, Vienna: author, page 22.
[2]
International Narcotics Control Board (1997) “Preventing drug abuse in an
environment of illicit drug promotion.” Annual
Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 1997. Vienna :
INCB, paragraphs 2 and 4.
[3]
Ibid., paragraphs 18, 21,
25 and 27.
[4]
Ibid., page 58.
[5]
National Crime Prevention Centre, statement of objectives, on line at
www.crime-prevention.org
[6]
Barry King, Chief of the Brockville Police Service, testimony before
the Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs, Senate of Canada, First
Session, 37th Parliament, March 11, 2002, Issue 14, pages 82-83.
[7]
Dr. Colin R. Mangham, Director of Prevention Source B.C., testimony
before the Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs, Senate of Canada,
First Session, 37th Parliament, September 17, 2001, Issue 6,
pages 74-75.
[8]
Quebec Standing Committee on the Campaign against Drugs (2000), Consultation
2000. La
toxicomanie au Québec : Cap sur une stratégie nationale, Quebec City: author, page 13.
[9]
Chief Superintendent R.G. Lesser, testimony before the Special
Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs, First Session, 37th
Parliament, October 29, 2002, Issue 8, page 14.
[10]
Art Steinmann, Executive Director, Alcohol-Drug Education Service,
testimony before the Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs, First
Session, 37th Parliament, November 7, 2002, Issue 10, page 86.
[11]
Single, E., et al. (1996), The
Costs of Substance Abuse in Canada, Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance
Abuse.
[12]
These figures do not take into account funds allocated to drug abuse
prevention by the National Crime Prevention Strategy that was really
implemented beginning in 1998.
[13]
Quebec Standing Committee on the Campaign against Drugs, op.
cit., page 14.
[14]
Art Steinmann, Executive Director, Alcohol-Drug Education Service, testimony
before the Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs, First Session, 37th
Parliament, November 7, 2002, Issue 10, page 85.
[15]
Roberts, G., et al. (2001),
Preventing Substance Abuse Problems
Among Young People. A Compendium of Best Practices, Office of Canada’s
Drug Strategy, Health Canada, Ottawa: Supply and Services, pages 30-31.
[16]
Barry King, Chief of the Brockville Police Service, testimony before the
Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs, Senate of Canada, First Session,
37th Parliament, March 11, 2002, Issue 14, pages 82-83.
[17]
Dr. Colin R. Mangham, Director, Prevention Source B.C., testimony before the
Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs, Senate of Canada, First Session,
37th Parliament, September 17, 2001, Issue 6, page 74.
[18]
Michael J. Boyd, Chair of the Drug Abuse Committee and Deputy Chief of the
Toronto Police Service, testimony before the Special Senate Committee on
Illegal Drugs, Senate of Canada, First Session, 37th Parliament,
March 11, 2002, Issue 14, pages 77-78.
[19]
Roberts, G., et al. (2001),
op. cit., page 40.
[20]
Brief from the Focus on the Family Association to the Special Senate
Committee on Illegal Drugs, May 14, 2002.
[21]
Art Steinmann, Executive Director, Alcohol-Drug Education Service, testimony
before the Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs, Senate of Canada,
First Session, 37th Parliament, November 7, 2002, Issue
10, page 90.
[22]
UNDCP (2000), op. cit.,
page 58.
[23]
Public Health Directorate, Les
inégalités sociales de la santé. Rapport
annuel 1998 sur la santé de la population. [social inequity in health;
1998 annual report on public health], Montreal: Régie régionale de la santé
et des services sociaux de Montréal-Centre.
[24]
UNDCP, op. cit., page 60.
[25]
Hawkins, D.J., M.W. Arthur and R.F. Catalano (1995), “Preventing Substance
Abuse” in Tonry, M., and D.P. Farrington (eds.), Building
a Safer Society: Strategic Approaches to Crime Prevention, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
[26]
Hawkins, D., op. cit., page
368.
[27]
Hawkins D., et al., op.
cit., pp. 363-367.
[28]
Roberts, G., et al. (2001),
op. cit., page 24.
[29]
Hawkins, D., et al., op.
cit., page 404.
[30]
Barry King, Chief of the Brockville Police Service, testimony before
the Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs, Senate of Canada, First
Session, 37th Parliament, March 11, 2002, Issue 14, page 83.
[31]
Chief Superintendent R.G. Lesser, testimony before the Special Senate
Committee on Illegal Drugs, First Session, 37th Parliament,
October 29, 2002, Issue 8, page 14.
[32]
Curtis, C.K. (1999), The
efficacy of the Drug Abuse Resistance Education program (DARE) in West
Vancouver schools. Part 1 – Attitudes toward DARE: An examination of
opinions, preferences, and perceptions of students, teachers, and parents,
West Vancouver RCMP.
[33]
Roberts, G., et al., op.
cit., page 171.
[34]
Sherman, L.W., et al. (1997),
Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising. A
Report to the United States Congress, Washington, DC: US Department of
Justice.
[35]
Ibid., pages 5-33 to 5-35.
[36]
Art Steinmann, Executive Director, Alcohol-Drug Education Service, testimony
before the Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs, First Session, 37th
Parliament, October 29, 2002, Issue 10, page 86.
[37]
Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse (1996), Canada’s Drug Policy. Brief
to the Standing House of Commons Committee on Health,
Ottawa: author.
[38]
Hawkins, D.J., M.W. Arthur and R.F. Catalano (1995), “Preventing
Substance Abuse”, in Tonry, M., and D.P. Farrington (eds.), Building
a Safer Society: Strategic Approaches to Crime Prevention, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, page 344.
[39]
Malherbe, J.F. (2002), The
contribution in defining guiding princples for a public policy on drugs.
Document prepared for the Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs, Ottawa:
Senate of Canada, page 7.
[40]
Ibid., page 10.
[41]
Dr. Colin Mangham, page 73.
[42]
See, for example, the work of D. Riley (1996), Harm Reduction: Concepts and Practice.
A Policy Discussion Paper, Canadian
Centre on Substance Abuse, and the discussion paper Dr. Riley prepared for
Senator Nolin.
Chapter 17
Treatment
practices
With
the exception of the treatment given to offenders imprisoned in federal
institutions and Aboriginals, the care available to individuals who are
substance-dependent is essentially the responsibility of the provinces and
territories. This chapter will therefore be brief since we received only a few
submissions and heard few witnesses on this question.
In order to place the
discussion in context, we should begin by noting certain data concerning
dependency induced by cannabis and its derivatives. We shall then examine the
various forms of treatment that are available. Finally, we shall take a brief
look at the state of knowledge concerning the effectiveness of these treatments.
Cannabis
dependency
Let us first
clarify the terminology. We saw in Chapter 7 that, while the word addiction is
used most often to refer to those who have a problem of dependency on
psychoactive substances, the WHO recommended as long ago as 1963 that this
expression not be used because of its vagueness. We prefer to use the term
dependency for at least two reasons. First, it is more encompassing and may
include different types of addictive behaviour: substance-related (food,
alcohol, illicit drugs) and activity-related (gambling, sex, extreme sports,
etc.). In the cases of substances, it is also more specific, referring to both
the physical and psychological components of dependency. We share the
distinction made by the WHO between physical and psychological dependency:
[Translation] … psychic
dependency is a ‘state in which a drug produces a feeling of satisfaction and
a psychic urge that requires period or ongoing administration of the drug in
order to cause pleasure or to avoid discomfort’.
Physical
dependency is an ‘adaptive state marked by the appearance of intense physical
problems when the administration of the drug is delayed or its action is
counteracted by a specific antagonist. These problems, that is the symptoms of
withdrawal or abstinence, consist of symptoms and signs of a physical or mental
nature that are characteristic of each drug. [1]
And third, it
is a more neutral term. While dependency is described as a state induced by the
prolonged and abusive consumption of a substance, addiction has a connotation of
mental illness, indeed a moral connotation. Some authorities such as NIDA, for
example, do not hesitate to classify addiction as a true illness that has
certain genetic components. Seen in this way, drug use triggers biophysiological
mechanisms that lead to addiction. Hence the focus on abstinence. Treatment
programs in Canada tend to regard dependency as a bio-psychosocial phenomenon;
“[h]owever, support for the various
modifications of the disease model continues in some service sectors”.[2]
It is interesting to note that more rehabilitation programs for alcoholism (51%)
than programs for ‘addiction’ (47%) accept a harm-reduction strategy and
thus objectives other than abstinence.[3]
These precisions
made, the Committee noted the ambivalence in the terminology, depending on the
language. The English name of the Centre
canadien de lutte contre l’alcoolisme et la toxicomanie [Canadian centre
for the battle against alcoholism and addiction] is the Canadian Centre on
Substance Abuse (centre canadien sur l’abus des substances). The French title
of the brochure published by the Department of the Solicitor General describing
the Department’s activities is La lutte
contre la toxicomanie [the battle against addiction] while the English title
is Countering Substance Abuse
(combattre l’abus de substances). The name of a government organization in
Quebec is the Comité permanent de lutte
à la toxicomanie [standing committee on the battle against addiction]. In
addition to projecting a strong moral thrust, the French word “toxicomanie”
evokes a vocabulary of struggle and combat, whereas the term substance abuse is
more neutral and we might even go so far as to say more measured. However, the
difference between the two languages cannot be explained by the lack of an
appropriate noun in French: dépendance
is the equivalent of drug addiction, and some in French even use the term
addiction. A little rigour and clarity would be beneficial in light of the
emotion surrounding the debate about drugs.
Having distinguished
between use, at-risk use and excessive use, we feel that we should logically
avoid the term drug addiction to refer to dependency induced by excessive use.
Moreover, federal government departments and agencies should modify their
terminology and ensure that both language versions are in accordance.
How common is
cannabis dependency? In Chapter 7 we determined that physical dependency on
cannabis was definitely rare and insignificant. Some symptoms of addiction and
tolerance can be identified in habitual users but most of them have no problem
in quitting and do not generally require a period of withdrawal.
As far as forms of
psychological dependency are concerned, the studies are still incomplete but the
international data tend to suggest that between 5% and 10% of regular users (at
least during the last month) are at risk of becoming dependent on cannabis. If
we recall that approximately we estimated that approximately 3% or 600,000 adult
Canadians have consumed cannabis in the last month and that approximately
100,000 or 0.5% use it on a daily basis; this indicates that somewhere between
30,000 and 40,000 might be at-risk and 5,000 to 10,000 might make excessive use.
For 16 and 17 years old, the numbers were between 50,000 and 70,000 at-risk and
8,000 to 17,000 potentially excessive users. The data also indicated that the
peak period for intensive use is between 17 and 25 years. These broad parameters
indicate where to look to prevent dependency and offer treatment services for
those in need.
What form does
cannabis dependency take? Most of the authors agree that psychological
dependency on cannabis is also relatively minor. In fact, it cannot be compared
in any way with tobacco or alcohol dependency and is even less common than
dependency on certain psychotropic medications. Ceasing to consume the substance
for two to four weeks, which can be accompanied by certain symptoms similar to
those involved in nicotine withdrawal (insomnia, irritability, perspiration,
etc.), is usually sufficient to cause the symptoms to disappear. When treatment
is necessary, in the case of some people, it does not take as long as and is
less difficult than the corresponding treatment for dependency on alcohol or
“hard” drugs. It is also worthy of note that those seeking treatment for
cannabis dependency are younger than those who receive treatment for dependency
on other drugs. A number of factors may explain this situation: consumption of
cannabis is more a phenomenon of youth than that of other substances, reaching
its peak when young people are in their early twenties and declining
significantly when they reach their thirties. Young people who need treatment
also display problems of multiple addiction since cannabis is not the only drug
they consume.
Overcoming dependency
or consumption that the user regards as abusive is often a matter of personal
choice and does not necessarily require therapeutic intervention.
There is the
phenomenon called spontaneous remission. Many people, when they get into their
thirties either stop using drugs altogether or tone down their habit. There is
an obvious phenomenon of maturity in terms of drug use.
Among
long-term users, we also see the retirement phenomenon, that is these
individuals become fed up of their drug-using lifestyle. These individuals lose
interest in the ongoing quest for drugs and for the pleasure that these drugs
can provide them. In fact, it can be equated with a type of cost benefit
analysis, whereby as the individual gets older, he/she decides that the habit is
no longer worth it. The individual considers that the negative impact of his/her
habit is no longer worth it. [4]
While
most people who experience substance abuse problems do not receive help, there
is good evidence that people exposed to some types of treatment subsequently
reduce their use of psychoactive substances and show improvement in other life
areas. In general, treatment outcomes are improved when appropriate treatments
are also provided for significant life problems (communications problems, lack
of assertiveness, unemployment). [5]
There is every reason
to believe that, as far as cannabis is concerned, most problem users do not make
use of the various forms of treatment and probably do not need any, firstly
because the effects of cannabis are not as marked as those of other drugs and
secondly, because cannabis users are more likely to be integrated into society
than hard-drug users, which enables them to make use of their natural support
groups. The third reason, in our view, why most cannabis users can avoid the
trajectory of dependency is the fact that its use is not associated with
“degenerate addiction” in the view of society or in the popular imagination,
unlike the use of heroin, for example. Furthermore, a Canadian study has
indicated that “few (3%) users of
illicit drugs,
identified in a population survey,
reported seeking any kind of help for drug problems.” [6]
Nevertheless,
as in the case of any psychoactive substance, some people opt for or need
treatment.
It has in
fact been observed in groups undergoing treatment - and this is a theory - that
there are two groups of people trying to stop using. First, there are people who
have mainly used opiates on a regular basis for six or more years. Second, there
is the group of users who have been using for two years or less and no longer
want to deal with the secondary effects of drugs. [7]
The decision to seek
treatment is determined in particular by the increase in social and personal
problems that use of a substance may cause and by the fact that it is often
combined with problems of a psychiatric nature.[8]
Women systematically make fewer requests for specialized drug and alcohol
treatment services; this situation can be explained by the fact that fewer
services are available and women are otherwise looked after by traditional
psychiatric services.
However, people do
not always choose or at least not totally.
Family pressures or pressure in the work place and, in some cases, orders
made by judges are only some of the factors that lead people to seek treatment.
Furthermore, little is known about the trajectories of people who abuse drugs
and especially those who seek treatment for the problem. For example, we do not
know to what extent the search for treatment is more the result of other earlier
problems–family or psychiatric problems–than of the actual use of the
substance itself. In the case of
drug users who also have problems with the law and a career of delinquency,
deviant and delinquent behaviour often precedes the start of a trajectory of
drug dependency, as we saw in Chapter 6. Demand for treatment in these cases
will result at least as much from a desire – or indeed obligation – to put
an end to a criminal career as from the detrimental effects of using the
substance.
Can people be forced
to seek treatment? That was one of the questions raised by the introduction in
France of a requirement to seek care in the 1970 Law respecting narcotics, which
has now taken the form of a therapeutic injunction,[9]
and of drug courts in Canada, as we saw in Chapter 15.
Certain
sections of the Criminal Code deal
with the issue of requiring offenders to seek treatment for problems related to
alcohol and drugs. For example, where a court is making a probation order, it
has the discretion to require, as a condition to the probation order that:
·
The offender,
if he or she agrees, participate actively in a treatment program approved by the
province, subject to the program director’s acceptance; and
·
The offender
visit a treatment facility for assessment and curative treatment in relation to
the consumption by the offender of alcohol or drugs that is recommended pursuant
to the program (where a program has been established in a province).[10]
In
addition, when a court imposes a conditional sentence, one of the optional
conditions of the probation order may be that the offender participate in a
treatment program approved by the province.[11]
If a
person has not been convicted of a criminal offence, it is unlikely that a court
will order treatment for alcohol or drug problems, with some exceptions. For
example, persons falling under the authority of provincial mental health
legislation may be detained because of mental health problems. Such legislation
regulates and limits when a person may be confined against their will.
The reluctance of courts to detain a person for substance abuse problems
is illustrated in the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Winnipeg Child and Family Services (Northwest Area) v. G. (D.F.).[12]
In this case, a young Aboriginal was five months pregnant with her fourth child
and was addicted to glue sniffing, a practice which may damage the nervous
system of the developing foetus. The Winnipeg Child and Family Services
requested assistance from the courts to involuntarily secure the mother in
treatment. The case revolved around the issue of the rights of the unborn child,
and the Supreme Court of Canada found that neither tort law nor the court’s parens patriae jurisdiction supported an order for the detention and
treatment of a pregnant woman for the purpose of preventing harm to the unborn
child.
In France, the
therapeutic injunction has been harshly criticized, especially because it
involves enforced treatment. The question is still open despite the guarded
assessments that have been made of the results of this practice.[13]
The
therapeutic injunction system has been in place in France since 1970. A study by
a colleague at the Institut national de santé et de recherche médicale,
in France, showed that many people fell through the cracks because of the
therapeutic injunction forcing them to follow a treatment program. These people
were never treated, because there were not enough places or follow-up. If we
want to set up drug courts in Canada, we shall have to plan effectively and
organize consultation mechanisms with the treatment systems to ensure that the
required treatment services are available. If we fail to do this, setting up
drug courts will be nothing more than a sham, if the people requiring treatment
fall through the cracks of the system. [14]
It is estimated that
approximately 10% of the offenders imprisoned in federal institutions are there
for offences under the Controlled Drugs
and Substances Act. Moreover and more importantly, it is estimated that at
least 50% of all inmates, whether in provincial prisons or federal detention
centres, have dependency problems (drugs and alcohol).[15]
Generally, few of these inmates receive any kind of treatment. In the United
States, studies indicate that fewer than 10% of inmates receive treatment for
dependency problems while they are in prison.[16]
In the case of
provincial institutions, this situation can be explained by the short duration
of the sentences and by the budget cuts made in correction institutions in the
early 1990s. In the case of federal institutions, treatment programs are
available but they are still very far from meeting the needs. Furthermore, it
may be somewhat ironic to offer treatment programs in institutions where drugs
circulate freely and where it is not uncommon for the inmates to have access to
cannabis in particular.
Nevertheless, the
treatment offered to inmates is an essential component of their reintegration
into society given the magnitude of the problems caused by dependency on drugs,
especially harder drugs, and alcohol.
One final comment:
some of the people who appeared before us observed that in certain cases
cannabis maintenance could be used in combination with other forms of withdrawal
and treatment for dependency on opiates.[17]
To the best of our knowledge, there are no studies on the subject–for good
reason! However, we should note, as we did in Chapter 5, that cannabinoid and
opioid systems engage in complex interactions, and we may be justified in
assuming that the consumption of D9-THC
could cause a dopaminergic response that could reduce opiate withdrawal.
Forms of
treatment
The 1992 study by
Single on the cost of alcohol and drug abuse estimated the cost of specialized
treatment for dependency at approximately $290 million. But it would be
misleading not to specify that the largest share of treatment dollars is for
alcohol: in the case of residential treatment, $180 million was for alcohol and
$21 for illicit drugs and in the case of non
residential treatment, $82 for alcohol and $8 for drugs.[18]
Most of this money is
provided by the provinces and territories. The federal government directly funds
rehabilitation for members of the First Nations living on reserves, members of
the RCMP and the Armed Forces, inmates in federal institutions and those who
have not lived long enough in a province to qualify for the provincial health
insurance plan.
This said,
the limited resources devoted to treatment of dependency and the growing
pressures in terms of the number and diversity of clients, mean that the
availability of treatment is limited.
Many
agencies have received significant cutbacks in recent years. Possibly
exacerbating the situation, substance abuse organizations are increasingly being
asked to address problem gambling. … Similarly, Bill C-41, which permits
court-ordered substance abuse discretion, has an impact on substance abuse
treatment at a judge’s assessment and treatment resources. [19]
It is probably not an
exaggeration to say that the area of addiction treatment is totally fragmented
among the individual practices used by therapists, support and assistance
groups, such as addicts anonymous, and therapeutic communities; and among
pharmacological, cognitivist and behavioural approaches, psychoanalytic,
humanist and systemic approaches; among the proponents of freedom of choice for
the user and those who promote enforced treatment. Virtually every possible
approach to and form of treatment is available.
Recent reports
produced for Health Canada bear witness to this. The Profile of Substance Abuse
Treatment programs indicates that in 1998 there were at least 1,200 different
treatment programs and approximately 7,200 professional counsellors across the
country.[20]
Included in these figures are outpatient, day or evening treatment, short-term
and long-term reisdential, outreach and crisis treatment programs. The breakdown
by province and territory may indicate where priorities are set.
Substance abuse treatment services offered across Canada[21]
|
Outpatient |
Day/Even. Treatment |
Short-term residential |
Long-term residential |
Outreach |
Crisis |
Total |
Nfld |
13 |
2 |
5 |
0 |
2 |
7 |
29 |
NS |
9 |
7 |
7 |
6 |
9 |
4 |
42 |
PEI |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
8 |
NB |
5 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
5 |
21 |
Qc |
72 |
52 |
59 |
43 |
48 |
44 |
318 |
Ont |
110 |
55 |
43 |
51 |
61 |
64 |
384 |
Man |
12 |
5 |
8 |
10 |
8 |
10 |
53 |
Sask |
24 |
9 |
10 |
5 |
14 |
14 |
76 |
Alta |
41 |
22 |
22 |
13 |
14 |
27 |
139 |
BC |
128 |
43 |
39 |
28 |
70 |
77 |
385 |
NWT |
7 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
7 |
7 |
31 |
Yukon |
2 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
7 |
TOTAL |
425 |
205 |
202 |
161 |
237 |
263 |
1493 |
The primary
affiliation of these programs also gives an indication of their orientation.
Fully 43% of existing treatment programs are community-based. One of the
implications of this fact is that funding is never secure. Overall, the programs
may be broken down as follows:[22]
In terms of the
therapeutic approaches used, 31% make use of confrontation and 40% of
psychotherapy, but there are very broad differences between individual provinces
and territories and even within a given province.[23]
Effectiveness
of treatment
Once again we should
stress the fact that we are not able to discuss specific treatments for cannabis
dependency. To our knowledge, no study assessing the effectiveness of these
treatments has been completed. Furthermore, of all the treatment and
rehabilitation programs that exist in Canada, approximately 14% have been the
subject of independent assessments.[24]
Despite the lack of
systematic data, it may be possible to state that approaches to treatments for
drug dependency are primarily cognitivist and behaviourist in nature. In the
cognitivist approaches, an attempt is made primarily to increase the awareness
of the fact that a dependency problem exists: objective information and
mechanisms of introspection are used to facilitate this awareness. In the
behaviourist approaches, the treatments are designed to facilitate changes in
lifestyle. It is known, in fact, that drug taking is part of a way of life
revolving around a group of acquaintances and involving the frequentation of
specific locations. Changing these patterns will help to create a lifestyle in
which these drugs are not used.
How effective is this
approach? Most of the authors who have examined dependency treatment programs
agree in saying that, beyond the humanistic dimensions of the treatment, there
is a pool of knowledge indicating that they are relatively effective.
More specifically,
most of the studies including those conducted in Quebec show that people who
seek assistance in rehabilitation centres show improvement.
[Translation] … the
people who undertake a rehabilitative approach as part of the services offered
in Quebec improve their situation … this improvement is maintained for a
period of six months to one year following the treatment. That is a positive and
reassuring result. These results are to the same effect as a very large number
of other studies conducted for the most part over the last twenty years. [25]
In technical terms,
the studies do not permit the conclusion that one approach is any more effective
than another. The report prepared for Canada’s Drug Strategy describes two
mega-summaries of assessments of 24 different methods of treatment conducted in
the United States and shows that, while the two groups of researchers agree on
the effectiveness of a number of forms of treatment, they do not, on the other
hand, agree entirely on the order in which they should be placed. We reproduce
below the part of the table that shows the most effective approaches.[26]
Classification of effective methods of treatment according to two groups
of authors
Holder Index |
Method |
Method |
Finney and Monahan Index |
18 |
Social
skills training |
Community
reinforcement approach |
59 |
17 |
Self-control
training |
Social
skills training |
37 |
13 |
Brief
motivational training |
Marital
therapy, behavioural |
36 |
12 |
Marital
therapy, behavioural |
Disulfiram,
implants |
34 |
6 |
Community
reinforcement approach |
Marital
therapy, non-behavioural |
21 |
6 |
Stress
management training |
Stress
management training |
12 |
3 |
Disulfiram,
oral |
Aversion
therapy, chemical |
3 |
3 |
Aversion
therapy, covert sensitization |
Psychotropic medication, anti-depressant |
2 |
The studies do not
permit us to conclude that the treatment as such makes a difference and, for
some of the authors, the decision to register in a treatment program, no matter
what form of treatment, would be more conclusive. The studies do not enable us
to determine the ideal duration of treatment, but it would appear that the
effects of treatment level off after 9 to 12 months. In addition, it is
difficult to determine the impact of the intensity of the treatment (how many
hours per day, days per week).
Finally and most
importantly, the positive impacts relate primarily to consumption habits and to
the person’s general psychological state. However, the treatments apparently
have little effect on the reintegration of the individuals into society, which
is a particularly important factor in the case of offenders.
As a final point,
treatment is more effective and certainly less expensive than incarceration. In
Canada, it is estimated that the cost of applying the drug court process is
approximately $4,500 per person whereas imprisonment costs an average of
$47,000. Even with a success rate of 15%, there can be no doubt that treatment
both benefits society and better reflects the real needs of offenders who have
problems of dependency.
Speaking more
generally, cost-benefit ratio of the treatment has been recog ized:
Evidence
for the economic benefits of treatment for problems with drugs other than
alcohol comes from a large study of drug treatment in the United States (Hubbard
et al., 1989). This study involved more than 10,000 drug users and 37 treatment
programs that represented three main treatment modalities: methadone maintenance
treatment, drug-free outpatient counselling and
therapeutic community. … Two summary measures of these costs were developed:
costs to law-abiding citizens, and costs to society. The cost to law-abiding
citizens included those associated with crime-related property loss or damage,
reduced productivity because of injury or inconvenience occasioned by
drug-related crime, and the costs of criminal justice proceedings. Costs to
society included cost to victims of drug-related crime, criminal justice costs
and “crime/career/productivity costs” incurred when drug users are not
involved in earning a legitimate income. The results showed that, in the
population studied, both types of costs were lower after treatment than before
and that pre-post differences in costs exceeded the costs of treatment. [27]
Conclusions
Conclusions of Chapter 17 |
|
|
Ø
The expression drug
addiction should no longer be used and we should talk instead of substance
abuse and dependency. Ø
Between 5% and 10% of
regular cannabis users are at risk of developing a dependency. Ø
Physical dependency on
cannabis is virtually non-existent. Ø
Psychological
dependency is moderate and is certainly
lower than that for nicotine or alcohol. Ø
Most regular users of
cannabis are able to diverge from a trajectory of dependency without
requiring treatment. Ø
There are many forms
of treatment but nothing is known about the effectiveness of the different
forms of treatment for cannabis dependency specifically. Ø
As a rule, treatment
is more effective and less costly than a prison sentence. Ø
Studies of the
treatment programs should be conducted, including treatments programs for
people with cannabis dependency. Ø
Studies should be
conducted of the interaction between the cannabinoid system and the opioid
system. |
[1]
WHO (1964), Comité d’experts
des drogues engendrant la dépendance, Technical Reports Series, No.
273, quoted in Caballero and Bisiou, op.
cit., pages 5-6.
[2]
Roberts, G. and A. Ogborne (1998), Profile:
Substance Abuse Treatment and Rehabilitation in Canada, Ottawa:
Canada’s Drug Strategy, Department of Health, page 20.
[3]
Ibid.
[4]
Dr. Céline Mercier, testimony before the Senate Special Committee on
Illegal Drugs, Senate of Canada, Thirty-Seventh Parliament, First Session,
December 10, 2001, Issue 12, page 9.
[5]
Robert, G. and A, Ogborne (1999) Best
Practices: Substance Abuse Treatment and Rehabilitation, Ottawa:
Canada’s Drug Strategy, page 9.
[6]
Roberts and Ogborne (1999) op.
cit, page 59.
[7]
Dr. Céline Mercier, ibid.
[8]
Roberts and Ogborne, op. cit,
page 60.
[9]
We describe the French system in greater detail in Chapter 20.
[10]
Criminal Code,
paragraphs 732.1(3)(g) and (g.1).
[11]
Criminal Code,
paragraph 742.3(2)(e).
[12] [1997] 3 S.C.R. 925.
[13]
Simmat-Durand, L. (1999), “Les obligations de soins en France”,
in Faugeron, C., (ed.) Les drogues en
France. Politiques, marchés, usage, Paris: Georg.
[14]
Dr Serge Brochu, Professor in the School of Criminology at the
Université de Montréal, testimony before the Senate Special Committee on
Illegal Drugs, Senate of Canada, Thirty-Seventh Parliament, First Session,
December 10, 2001, Issue 12, page 25.
[15] Brochu, S. (1995) Drogues et criminalité. Une relation complexe. Montréal : Université de Montréal.
[16]
Lipton, D.S. (1995) The
effectiveness of Treatment for Drug Abusers Under Criminal Justice
Supervision. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
[17]
Among others at a private meeting with staff of the Vancouver
Compassion Club.
[18]
Single, E., et. al., op. cit.,
page 42.
[19]
Roberts, G. and A. Ogborne, op.
cit, page 23.
[20]
Ibid., page 6.
[21]
Ibid., page 8.
[22]
Ibid, page 14.
[23]
Ibid, page 22.
[24]
Ibid., page 15.
[25]
Michel Landry, The impact on
addicts of the treatments offered in Quebec.
Brief submitted to the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs,
November 2001.
[26]
Roberts and Ogborne (1999) op.
cit, page 9. Note that
these treatments apply to all forms of dependency while most assessment
studies relate to alcoholism.
[27]
Roberts and Ogborne, (1999) op.
cit., page 68.
Chapter 18
Observations
on practices
In
previous chapters, we described public action by dividing it up into the major
sectors of involvement. Before closing the third part of this report, we would
like to make some general observations that cut across the individual areas we
have examined. The first concerns difficulties in harmonizing the various levels
and sectors of involvement; the second, the difficulty in co-ordinating their
various approaches; and the third, the costs of drugs and public policy.
Difficulties
in harmonizing the players
Without
reopening the debate on the division of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, we consider it obvious that any public policy on
illegal drugs, and cannabis in particular, applies to all three levels. Drugs
affect education and health (primarily provincial jurisdictions), justice (a
responsibility shared between the federal and provincial governments), public
well-being and public safety (which involve all three levels), international
relations (a federal responsibility), and even culture, science and research
(essentially provincial). Thus we are attempting to make our way through a field
that is at least tangled, if not chaotic.
Co-ordinating
mechanisms do exist. On the most formal level, the
federal-provincial-territorial Deputy Ministers of Health Working Group is
responsible for co‑ordinating the drug strategy. But we know almost
nothing about their discussions, which are held in
camera, or any concrete results.
The
Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse (CCSA) is another coordinating mechanism, but
only a few provinces have equivalent partners (Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and
Quebec, with some reservations). And the Centre has neither the budget, the
infrastructure nor even the legitimacy, which it would derive from a clear
mandate, needed to initiate a genuine national dialogue on the issue.
Yet
another coordinating mechanism is the Health, Education and Enforcement in
Partnership (HEP) network.. Established in 1994 by the CCSA, the HEP network is
rooted in the balanced approach of Canada’s Drug Strategy: seeking an
equilibrium between supply reduction and demand reduction. HEP unites key players in the health and enforcement fields in this
common focus and includes other partners, notably in education, social services,
correctional services and justice. On a national level, its Steering Committee
is composed of representatives of the Addictions Foundation of Manitoba, the
Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (co-chair), the Canadian Centre on
Substance Abuse (co-chair), the Correctional Service of Canada, the Canadian
Federation of Municipalities, Health Canada, Justice Canada, the National Centre
for Crime Prevention, the RCMP and the Solicitor-General. How many readers of
this report, even among those actively engaged in the drug field, are aware of
this partnership, its achievements, actions and benefits?
In
Chapter 14, we examined the disparate response of police services across the
country to the application of the law–between regions, provinces and
territories and, within provinces and territories, between cities. In Chapter
15, we noted that all the evidence suggests that the same holds true of the
judicial response. Chapters 16 and 17, on preventive practices and treatment
respectively, described the same unequal or fragmented approaches.
In a
federation like Canada, it is to be expected that differences in practice and
direction will co-exist. How the issue of cannabis is seen and dealt with will
not be the same in the greater Vancouver area, with its explosion of growers, as
in Quebec, with its criminal motorcycle gangs, or as in Prince Edward Island,
which has almost no problems with production or even with abuse of cannabis. The
difficulties experienced in the downtown cores of major cities are not those of
smaller urban centres. And First Nations people have their own quite specific
problems.
Nevertheless,
among other effects, the difficulties in harmonizing the action of different
levels of government mean in concrete terms that:
v
Results
of a successful experiment in prevention conducted in one area of the country
will not reach the players in another part.
v
Therapeutic
practices that have been proven to be ineffective will continue to be used
elsewhere because the information is not circulated.
v
There is no
national knowledge infrastructure on use and use trends; for example, the few
studies that have been conducted in school environments are not comparable and
are not (all contemporary?).
v
Some cities have adopted policies based on the idea of a
drug-free society while others are focused on harm reduction.
Notably
absent in the development of public policy is the civil society, especially
community-based organizations (rehabilitation organizations, for example) and
also user self-help support groups (including compassion clubs and groups of
users of cannabis for therapeutic purposes).
The
hyperbola that would make drugs into a bigger social issue than they actually
are aside, it remains that the use of psychoactive substances, legal or illegal,
and the resulting problems of dependency that may follow, concern every citizen,
every level of government, throughout the country. This is a national
issue. That, unquestionably, the future and quality of our health system,
the protection of our national interests and security, the quality of education
and the protection of the environment are even more important issues does not
mean that drugs are not a national
priority. Or should be, at least. Quite apart from its social and economic
consequences, which will be discussed later, the drug issue should be a priority
because it concerns the education of children and adolescents, affects the
quality and safety of living environments, and causes suffering and wasted
lives. Granted that this is not so much the case for cannabis, whose social and
economic effects cannot be compared to those of alcohol, but, while agreeing
that cannabis calls for a different approach, we cannot isolate it from other
psychoactive substances. We need to develop a comprehensive national policy on
drugs and addiction, within which cannabis would have a place.
Better
harmonization among levels of government and with civil society would allow us
to lay the foundations of a shared understanding of the issues presented by
psychoactive substances, and above all to develop a common set of indicators for
assessing the effectiveness of policies and actions.
Incongruities
of approach
Some
myths are long-lived. Although not supported by the empirical research we have
examined, images of cannabis leading to use of hard drugs, damaging brain
functions permanently, or causing academic failure, to name but these few,
continue to abound.
We are
well aware that there is no international consensus among researchers on these
issues. But we are equally aware that it is difficult to alter preconceptions.
Last year, at an international scientific conference in Europe, whose results we
have already cited, some participants concluded that, although a consensus was
emerging in the research community, its existence was irrelevant because all the
countries represented were signatories of international conventions on drugs.
One always finds ways to circumvent reality when it does not fit ideology.
Let
there not be finger-pointing. Those who most frequently hold these beliefs about
cannabis are also those who are confronted daily with the negative effects of
drug abuse: crime and violence for the police officer on the beat; human misery
for those in therapeutic practice. Their view of drugs, of cannabis in
particular, is naturally coloured by their experience, which puts them in
situations of contact with abuse, distress, violence and death. But those users
who require treatment are no more representative of the cannabis user population
than are the street kids and petty offenders the police see constantly.
Clearly,
what is required is a bridge, an intermediary between the worlds of research and
the front lines, between decision-makers and field workers and between them all
and civil society. While the research is not perfect, while we deplore the lack
of a truly national system of information, the information is, nevertheless,
there in quantity, as we have had occasion to observe in the course of our
proceedings. But it needs wide circulation, and above all it needs to be the
subject of public debate and discussion. The CCSA could disseminate this
information and promote discussion, were it given the resources - a role it has
never had the means to play.
The
researchers themselves must bear some of the responsibility for the situation.
They tend not to care whether their work reaches those in positions of power or
whether it is distributed in political forums or in the field. Some are still
shackled to the idea of “academic freedom,” thinking that their involvement
in the worlds of decision-making and practice will contaminate the objectivity
of their research. It is thus not surprising that knowledge of the players on
the ground is limited to what their experience provides; nor are the
institutions to which they belong necessarily equipped to systematize and
contextualize such knowledge either.
We have
observed a serious gulf between the positions taken by the research community
and those taken by front-line workers, including the police and the therapeutic
community. It would be too easy to reduce the position of the practitioners to
“corporate” interests. There is a need for basic discussion and exchange,
which is not happening among the various players; and too often the
experience-based knowledge derived from practice has no legitimacy in the eyes
of the scientific community, though this is the knowledge that attracts the
attention of the decision-makers, the media and the general public.
In
practice, glaring contradictions arise between the discourse and the approach of
the two sides. While young people hear about the potential therapeutic value of
cannabis and about decriminalization, they see police operations in the schools
and listen to classroom lectures on its dangers. While the primary targets of
police action are supposed to be the traffickers, young people read that
thousands of people are arrested every year for simple possession of marijuana.
While images of junkies destroyed by heroin are flashed in the media, young
people also hear that it is available by prescription. And drug users continued
to be picked up by the police as they leave needle-exchange clinics. Caught
between these contradictory words and actions, how should they know what to
think?
These
incongruities are exacerbated by the imbalance in power and resources.
Non-profit groups that provide cannabis for therapeutic purposes talked about
this at length: their credibility with law-enforcement agencies is often hard
earned, built over time, with a few individual members of the police. They are
well aware that their status is precarious and that they might have to “bail
out” at any moment. Public health agencies that attempt to foster discussion
and introduce harm-reduction practices are equally aware that they are operating
at the outer limits of the law and that their actions are not universally
supported. Researchers who wish to study the therapeutic applications of
cannabis are restricted by the present system of prohibition.
In
the case of alcohol, a decision-making structure exists to give a relatively
equal voice to the various players involved. It includes
the agencies that regulate production, distribution and sale, the public
health organizations that work to reduce at-risk behaviours and clarify the
determinants of abuse, the justice system that intervenes to prevent smuggling
and arrest those irresponsible people who drive while impaired. The co-operation
and dialogue among these players is close and constant, and there are even
formal channels for co-operation and dialogue with the distilling and brewing
industries. The result, by and large, is uniform practices and views, although
this is not to imply that all problems have been solved. But in the field of
illegal drugs, there is nothing like this. Dialogue where certain words cannot
be spoken or ideas expressed, where certain decisions can never be made and
resources are so unequally shared among the players, is merely empty an exercise
meant to give the illusion that something is being achieved.
Significant
economic and social costs [1]
In 1996,
the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse published the first study on costs
related to alcohol, tobacco and drug abuse in Canada.[2]
Estimating costs raises difficult technical questions:
what should be included, and how should each element be measured? The
very analysis of public drug policies is predicated on the assumption that a
number of the associated social costs can be reduced, if not eliminated
altogether. These costs are of two major types: those associated with public
policy, primarily the cost of prevention and suppression, as well as those of
administering the policy; and the costs that would be avoided if the problems
stemming from substance abuse were eliminated–the so-called
“counter-factual” scenario. In these, the effects of drugs are treated as
social costs, that is, as a diminution of the collective well-being. This
amounts to saying that all the costs of drug abuse are social costs, or what
economists call “externalities” or “spill-overs” – secondary rather
than primary consequences.
Moral
considerations aside for the moment, there is no doubt that use of drugs can
have certain benefits–albeit short-term and to some extent non-rational
ones–for the users, and even for those around them. Hyperactive individuals
calmed by cannabis, those whose productivity is enhanced by the use of cannabis
or whose mental or physical suffering is attenuated, or those who smoke a joint
in the evening to relax or help them sleep and are in better shape to work the
next day as a result, are just a few examples. And they are not unusual cases.
From
another point of view, the underground drug economy, not trafficking on a major
scale, but small-scale neighbourhood supply, whether in poorer or wealthier
areas, generates certain economic benefits and even some capacity to integrate
socially. Entire families are supported by small-scale dealing. Houses, cars,
travel and luxury clothing are financed by drug sales. The amount of the wealth
they generate can be illustrated by the example of British Columbia. In this
province alone the cannabis-based economy is estimated to be worth $6 billion
annually. It can be assumed that a major part of this revenue, let us say half,
goes to people who are otherwise well integrated socially and are not part of
the criminal culture.
The
analysis of social costs based only on externalities does not take into account
the drug economy.
Ultimately
it rests on another hypothesis, equally difficult to defend, which is that the
money saved if the social costs of drug use were reduced could be invested
elsewhere; in economic theory these costs are known as “opportunity costs”.
However, money saved on enforcement of cannabis laws would probably be
redistributed within the police organization; other social costs might also
arise from the substitution of other substances.
Having
set out these caveats, Single’s study produced the following table[3].
Total cost of alcohol, tobacco and illegal drugs in
Canada, 1992
|
Alcohol |
Tobacco |
Drugs |
Total |
1. Direct health care
costs: total |
$1,300.6 |
$2,675.5 |
$88.0 |
$4,064.1 |
1.1 morbidity-general care hospitals |
666.0 |
1,752.9 |
34.0 |
2,452.9 |
-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 home care |
180.9 |
--
|
20.9 |
201.8 |
1.5 outpatient treatment |
82.1 |
--
|
7.9 |
90.0 |
1.6 ambulatory care: doctors’ fees |
127.4 |
339.6 |
8.0 |
475.0 |
1.7 prescription medications |
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 in 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 assistance benefits 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 doctors and nurses |
0.9 |
N/A |
0.2 |
1.1 |
4.4 costs for behavioural modification |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
5. Direct costs of law
enforcement |
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 correctional services 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 damages due to fire |
35.2 |
17.1 |
N/A |
52.3 |
6.2 damages due to traffic accidents |
482.8 |
-- |
10.7 |
493.5 |
7. Indirect costs: loss of
productivity |
4,136.5 |
6,818.8 |
823.1 |
11,778.4 |
7.1 loss of productivity due to illness |
1,397.7 |
84.5 |
275.7 |
1,757.9 |
7.2 loss of productivity due to death |
2,738.8 |
6,734.3 |
547.4 |
10,020.5 |
7.3 loss of productivity due to crime |
-- |
-- |
N/A |
N/A |
Total |
7,522.1 |
9,559.8 |
1,371.0 |
18,452.9 |
Total
% of GDP |
1.09% |
1.39% |
0.20% |
2.67% |
Total
per capita |
$265 |
$336 |
$48 |
$649 |
Total
% of all costs related to substances |
40.8% |
51.8% |
7.4% |
100.0% |
An
examination of these data indicates:
·
In 1992, the
costs associated with all illegal drugs were $1.4 billion, compared with
$7.5 billion in the case of alcohol and $9.6 billion in the case of
tobacco.
·
Expressed as a
percentage of the gross domestic product, the total costs for all substances was
2.67%. Of this, 0.2% was for illegal drugs, 1.09% for alcohol and 1.39% for
tobacco.
·
The principal
costs of illegal drugs are externalities, that is, loss of productivity ($823 million),
health care ($88 million), losses in the workplace ($5.5 million), for
a total of about 67% of all costs related to illegal drugs.
·
The cost of
public policies, or opportunity costs, represent about 33%
of what.
·
The cost of
enforcing the law represents about 29.2% of all costs, or about 88% of all
policy costs. The balance goes to prevention, research and administration.
Previous
studies conducted in British Columbia (1991), Ontario (1988) and Quebec (1988),
using different methodologies, established costs of $388 millions, $1.2 billion
and $2 billion respectively, for a total cost of $3.5 billion for
these three provinces alone.[4]
These figures demonstrate the extent to which such estimates can vary, according
to the methodology selected and the availability of data.
Nevertheless,
with the CCSA study taken as the standard, two comments must be made. First,
loss of productivity–the major cost–is measured in mortality ($547 million)
and morbidity ($275 million). Except in the case of traffic fatalities,
cannabis is not a cause of death and involves none of this type of social cost.
Morbidity corresponds to losses attributed to problems caused by drug use as
measured by the difference between the average annual income of users and of the
population in general. Here, two further observations about cannabis should be
noted. A large proportion of cannabis users are young people who are not yet
part of the workforce; and cannabis use involves none of the addiction and
attendant problems that follow from heroin or cocaine use. It is, therefore, the
costs that can be attributed to cannabis in this regard are likely minimal. If
one accepts the methodology of the authors, cannabis
in itself entails few externalities, which are the main measures of the
social cost of illegal drugs.
However,
it should also be noted that the study did not calculate the costs of
substance-related crime. Alcohol is well known for its frequent association with
crimes of violence (at least 30% of all cases), as well as with impaired driving
, which results in major social and economic losses. Crime related to illegal
drugs is of several types: organized crime, of course; crimes against property
committed in order to pay for drugs, true mainly in the case of heroin and
cocaine; and crimes of violence committed under the influence of drugs. With the
exception of organized crime and driving under the influence, cannabis involves
few of the factors that generate criminal behaviour.
Secondly,
according to Single’s study, the main cost of illegal drugs, after loss of
productivity, is the cost of law enforcement, which the study estimates at
approximately $400 million. In Chapters 14 and 15, we noted that police and
court costs are certainly much higher than this figure, and probably total
between $1 billion and $1.5 billion. As Single et al state, these are costs that “are incurred as a conscious
decision by policy makers, as opposed to those costs imposed on the treatment
system and on industry as a result of substance-related morbidity and
mortality.”[5] The proportion of these
costs attributable to cannabis is, obviously, impossible to determine for
certain. But, insofar as 77% of all drug-related offences involve cannabis, and
of these 50% involve simple
possession, and given that about 60% of incidents result in a charge, of which
some 10% to 15% of cases the accused receives a prison sentence, it is clear
that a considerable proportion of the drug-related activity addressed by the
penal justice system is concerned with cannabis. While admitting this to be a
very rough estimate, we suggest that about 30% of the activity of the justice
system is tied up with cannabis. On the basis of our estimates and the lowest
cost of law enforcement, or $1 billion, it costs about $300 million
annually to enforce the cannabis laws.
In
effect, the main social costs of cannabis are a result of public policy choices,
primarily its continued criminalization, while the consequences of its use
represent a small fraction of the social costs attributable to the use of
illegal drugs.
Next to
this, the costs of prevention and research pale into insignificance. Single
estimates them at approximately $42 million in 1992, at the height of
Canada’s Drug Strategy – a strategy that ceased to be funded after 1997. Far
from increasing since then, it is probable that expenditures for prevention and
research have decreased as a proportion of the total social cost of drugs.
At
several points in this report, we have spoken about the Canadian Centre on
Substance Abuse, pointing out both its lack of visibility and legitimacy and its
lack of resources the two being related. The economic and social costs of
illegal drugs alone on the order of $1.5 billion (which in light of our
estimate of the costs of suppression alone is certainly the floor), the annual
budget of the CCSA represents a mere 0.1% of them! Considering that the CCSA's
mandate is to facilitate everything we have just been discussing, and to serve
as a clearing-house for information, practical experience and best practices,
there is good reason to wonder whether successive governments have not failed
to put their money where their mouth is in their approach to the drug
issue. The social costs of alcohol, a substance that also falls within the
CCSA’s purview, have not even been included in this calculation, though they
are at least seven times greater than those of illegal drugs! This is why it is
imperative to raise the proportion of funding to the CCSA from 0.1% to 1%–a
drop in the bucket for the federal government that would produce inestimable
benefits.
Conclusions
Conclusions of Chapter 18 |
|
Harmonization Co-ordination of approaches Costs of cannabis Under-funding of the CCSA |
Ø
The lack
of any real national platform for discussion and debate on illegal drugs
prevents the development of clear objectives and measurement indicators. Ø
The
absence of a national platform makes exchange of information and best
practices impossible. Ø
Practices
and approaches vary considerably between and within provinces and
territories. Ø
The
conflicting approaches of the various players in the field are a source of
confusion. Ø
The
resources and powers for enforcement
are greatly out of balance compared with those of the health and
education fields and the civil society. Ø
The costs
of all illegal drugs had risen to close to
$1.4 billion in 1992. Ø
Of the
total costs of illegal drugs at that time, externalities (social costs)
represented 67% and public policy costs 33%. Ø
We
believe both the social costs of illegal drugs and the public policy costs
to be underestimated. Ø
We
estimate the cost of enforcing the drug laws to be closer to $1-1.5 billion
per annum. Ø
The
principal public policy cost relative to cannabis is law enforcement and
the justice system; we estimate this to represent a total of $300-$500 million
per annum. Ø
The costs
of externalities attributable to cannabis are probably minimal (no deaths,
few hospitalizations, and very little loss of productivity). Ø
The costs
of public policy on cannabis are disproportionately high given the
drug’s social and health consequences. Ø
The
Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse is seriously under-funded; its annual
budget amounts to barely 0.1% of the social costs of illegal drugs alone
(alcohol not included). Its
budget should be increased to at least 1%; that is, approximately $15
million per annum. |
[1]
For an excellent discussion of these analyses and for some of the
best studies on the subject, see the report prepared for this committee by
Jackson, A.Y. (2002) Costs of drugs
and drug policy.
Ottawa, Library of Parliament, report produced for the Senate Special
Committee on Illegal Drugs, available online at
www.parl.gc.ca/illegal-drugs.asp.
[2]
Single, E. et al,
(2002) The Costs of Substance
Abuse in Canada:
a cost estimation study. Ottawa,
Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.
[3]
Single, E. et al (1996) op.
cit.