Presented to:

Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs

By:

DRUG PREVENTION NETWORK OF CANADA
4438 West 10th Avenue, Suite 178
Vancouver, BC V6R 4R8
(604) 731-2425

Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs

Re: Bill C-10
Amendments to Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA)
Part 2, Clauses 32-33, 39-48, and 50-51

Illicit drug use imposes tremendous economic and social costs on society in the form of health care, enforcement, loss of productivity in the workplace and at home, disability and death of addicts.

According to Antonio Mario Costa, Executive Director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), however, legal controls on drug use have been highly successful.[i] This is contrary to some claims, based solely on ideology, that prohibition does not work. The latter is an incorrect assumption.

One has only to analyze the results of prohibition in the US between 1920 and 1933. Alcohol consumption declined dramatically during prohibition, noted by the large decrease in cirrhosis deaths (29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 and 10.7 in 1929). Admissions to State mental hospitals for alcoholic psychosis declined from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928. Arrests for public drunkenness and disorderly conduct declined by 50%.[ii]

For the population as a whole, the best estimates are that consumption of alcohol declined by 30% to 50%. That is, prohibition did not end alcohol use, but it did succeed by reducing by one-third the consumption of a product that had wide historical and popular sanction.[iii] In contrast, the use of marijuana, heroin and other controlled drugs have never been a widely accepted activity in the US or in Canada.

Parliament’s Role to Determine Appropriate Sentences

It is Parliament’s role to advise courts and judges across the country, so that offenders are led to understand the severity of the offences they commit. This objective can be achieved, inter alia, by mandatory minimum sentences. Unfortunately, the application of judicial discretion in sentencing does not always achieve this objective. It is detrimental to the interests of the Canadian public to rely solely on judicial discretion in sentencing, as it can lead to a loss of confidence and faith in the criminal justice system. This is due to the fact that, regretfully, judicial discretion does not necessarily mean the application of common sense by judges when sentencing. In fact, judges, when sentencing, have frequently failed to balance the objectives of denunciation and general deterrence, with their desire for rehabilitation of the offender. This has led, in all too many instances, to a chaotic sentencing regime for offences, especially in regard to marijuana grow ops and marijuana possession. That is, operators of grow-ops all too frequently are given minimum fines, and this “slap on the wrist” approach is regarded by the offenders as merely the cost of doing business, and in no way serves as a deterrent. According to The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Report (2009) on the illicit drug situation in Canada, domestically produced marijuana continues to provide a source of considerable profit for Canadian based organized crime.[iv]

Similarly, possession of cannabis is regarded by some liberal judges, for personal ideological reasons, to be merely a minor offence. Consequently, in exercising their “discretion”, they have mostly handed down sentences of probation only.[v]

According to the UN Office of Drugs and Crime (July 2007), Canada has the highest proportion of marijuana users in the industrialized world, reaching 16.8% of those between 15 and 64 years of age. Cannabis offences rose 13% in Canada between 2009-2010.[vi] The lenient sentencing (probation only) for cannabis possession has led to a public perception that marijuana use does not cause harm. Well-informed individuals should understand, however, that marijuana is not a harmless drug. In fact, there are many, many studies indicating the contrary. Please refer to our website http://dpnoc.ca/, under the heading, Drug Facts, Marijuana and http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/marijuanainfo for studies on harm caused by marijuana use.

Drug Courts

There are, at present, only six drug courts in Canada. This is in contrast to literally thousands of such drug courts in the USA.

Drug courts provide non-violent drug users with the option of obtaining treatment in lieu of conviction. That is, these courts provide a window of opportunity for the addict to obtain treatment, which the addict may not otherwise consider. It is significant that, whether the treatment is undertaken voluntarily, or by way of a court order, the rate of success remains the same.

It is significant that in the USA, 75% of drug court graduates remain arrest-free at least two years after leaving the program.[vii]; [viii] The National Crime Prevention Centre also reports that there is a significant decrease in drug use and drug related crimes for those who complete the court designated program[ix]. However, it is troubling that apparently only 14% of the participants of court-supervised treatment in Canada actually complete such programs.[x] Therefore, strategies are urgently required to encourage participants to complete treatment programs, as well as to greatly increase the number of drug courts established across this country in order to assist drug addicts.

[i] The Observer September 5, 2010 (UK)

[ii] US Drug Enforcement Administration Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization online at www.dea.gov, page 9.

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Report on the Illicit Drug Situation in Canada- 2009.

[v] Dauvergne, “Trends in police-reported drug offences in Canada,” Juristat, Vol. 29, No 2, May 2009.

[vi] Ibid.

[vii] Roman et al, the Urban Institute and Caliber, “Recidivism Rates for Drug Court Graduates: Nationally Based Estimate-Final Report,” Washington D.C., 2003.

[viii] Department of Justice, Backgrounder (2 June 2005).

[ix] Public Safety Canada, National Crime Prevention Centre, Building the Evidence – Evaluation Summaries, “Drug Treatment Court of Vancouver (DTCV),” 2008-ES-18.

[x] Ibid.

Chuck Doucette has been elected the new President of DPNC.

THE COURTS MEDDLING ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA

Courts’ meddling on issues about which they are not properly informed has caused chaos.  There is no better example of this than the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision to legalize marijuana for medical purposes.

In 2000, in the case Regina vs Parker, the Ontario Court of Appeal ordered that marijuana used for medical purposes was a constitutional right, even though there was little evidence introduced to support this conclusion.  It was simply an ideological decision made by activist judges.

Marijuana for Medical Purposes Not Justified

Medical literature is replete with hundreds of studies about the physical and emotional harm that can result from this plant.  Recent studies reveal that psychosis, a severe form of mental illness, is much higher in people who begin using marijuana at or before 15 years of age.  Amotivational syndrome (characterized by a person who has no initiative, no drive and no energy) is well documented in people who use this drug regularly.  Increased problems with depression and anxiety have also been documented.  The same dose that “works” today won’t work forever and increased amounts are needed to obtain the same effect.  This is what defines chemical dependence.

The tar and carcinogens in smoked marijuana are just as dangerous as in cigarettes or even worse, since many cigarettes have filters.  Marijuana smoke is an irritant to the lining of the nose and lungs, which can cause chronic cough, sinus irritation and lung diseases, such as emphysema and lung dysplasia.  Decreased testosterone in males and altered menstrual cycles in females are other adverse effects.  The brain is also affected negatively, with a decrease in both the memory capacity and the ability to think, along with an increase in seizure risk.  Slowed reaction times are also clear consequences of marijuana use and can have significant detrimental effects on driving skills.

With such harmful effects, the question then arises whether it is worth these risks to allow marijuana for medical reasons. Unfortunately, the current data on the medical use of marijuana are very limited and what little there are available, indicate that it is not usually effective for pain relief, as claimed by advocates.

In addition, there are no standardized dosages as well as no standards of concentration of the plant or its purity. All in all, the use of marijuana for medical purposes was not a reasonable decision for the Ontario court to make. The Ontario Courts, therefore, were way off base in ordering marijuana’s availability for medical treatment.  So, what else is new with judicially active Ontario courts?

The Obtuse Allan Rock, Liberal Minister of Health

Instead of appealing this nonsensical and dangerous court decision, the then Liberal Minister of Health, Allan Rock, eagerly set about authorizing access to marijuana for medical use, by amending the regulations, and also by establishing a federal government operated marijuana grow-op, in an abandoned copper mine, in Flin Flon, MB. This was a disaster.  There was no consistency in the quality of the marijuana produced, and the smokers refused to buy the government’s product.  Canada, by the way, is the only government in the world that produced its own marijuana for sale.

As a consequence of the marijuana users refusing to buy the government’s marijuana, the government issued licenses to the marijuana users to grow their own marijuana, or to allow someone else to grow it for them.  The licensees, however, had to first obtain a physician’s certificate indicating the medical need for the marijuana.

This led to a new legal challenge in the Ontario Superior Court by a marijuana user, who was unable to obtain the required physician’s authorization to grow his own marijuana.

On April 13, 2011, the Superior Court of Ontario, declared the medical marijuana program was unconstitutional because the government’s system to supply medical marijuana was ineffective.  The government appealed this decision and the appeal is to be heard in the Ontario Court of Appeal in March 2012.

In the meantime, Health Canada has come up with yet another system of providing medical marijuana.  The Minister of Health, Leona Aglukkaq, announced, in June 2011, that the current system of allowing medical marijuana users to grow their own or have someone else grow it for them had become dangerous. These growers do not follow local electrical, health and safety by-laws. Further, there were so many licenses to grow marijuana,  that it was virtually impossible for municipalities to know who was licensed, and whether the licensed growers were conforming to the conditions of the license.  As a result, Ms. Aglukkaq’s new rules provide that medical marijuana patients will be required to obtain a document from their doctor, authorizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes.  This document will then be presented only to a government licensed commercial grower of marijuana.

Doctors Refuse to Cooperate with the new Government Plan

The 75,000 members of the Canadian Medical Association (CMA), however, announced that they would have nothing to do with this plan.  The CMA stated that its refusal to participate is due to the fact that marijuana is an untested and unregulated substance about which most physicians know little or nothing.

The fact is that marijuana has never gone through the normal regulatory review process and this has made physicians wary of its use for medicinal purposes. Physicians also fear being exposed to legal action and becoming a “go-to” source for people seeking marijuana, not to alleviate their pain, but rather, to alter their consciousness.

No drug company wishes to evaluate smoked marijuana as a medicine, as there is no money in it for them.  Similarly, funding agencies refuse to become involved with this problem, as they don’t see smoking marijuana as a safe, viable drug delivery system.  For these reasons, “medical” marijuana has not been endorsed by any of the major medical societies i.e., Canadian Medical Association, the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Osteopathic Association (A0A), and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP).

Marijuana users want to smoke it – and are using the medical approach to achieve this so as to normalize its use. They are assisted in this objective by the politically activist judges on the Ontario courts.

Do you believe in the goals of abstinence-based Prevention and Treatment?

If so, we want you to become a full-fledged Member of the DRUG PREVENTION NETWORK OF CANADA.

Our reasons for wanting you to join are simple.

It’s a numbers game.

Governments and private funders in communities across Canada are investing enormous amounts of money in approaches to drug problems that do NOT encourage or support abstinence-based Prevention and Treatment.

The DRUG PREVENTION NETWORK OF CANADA is a small organization with an even smaller budget, and it is not our goal to become a large organization with a big bank account.

But we are rapidly becoming the strongest and clearest voice for clean and sober Prevention and Treatment programs in the media, in communities and in Parliament and local government.

Please join us and become part of that growing voice that calls for more support for solutions that really work.

Please fill in our application form  Download our membership application here. and send it back to us by mail or email. If you are an organization, we ask that you contribute $200 for one year. If are an individual, please include $50 for one year.

You will have a vote at our Annual General Meeting, and you will be sent our website and blog regularly where your comments, thoughts and Prevention and Treatment stories will be published if you share them with us. You will be invited to attend conferences and participate whole-heartedly in the issues at hand.

Most importantly, you will become another crucial voice in support of abstinence-based Prevention and Treatment. Your voice will be central in helping more men, women and children avoid or escape the indignities of a life in addictions.

The second is a position paper by the International Task Force on Strategic Drug Policy.

Marijuana: Is legalization the answer?

I am sure you have heard the well spoken, practiced media lines of those who would like you to believe that we would all be better off if we legalized marijuana. There are several groups with slightly different messages. Some want to legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes only, some want to legalize it for adults only, yet others want to legalize it for everyone. Together they get their message across often and for some reason it seems like the majority in the media support them. Unfortunately, the average person hears these messages often and after awhile they start to think they sound reasonable. Here is a list of some of the most common statements.

1. They say they would legalize and regulate it like alcohol and tobacco.
2. They say they would tax the sale of legal marijuana and use all the tax money for treatment and other programs.
3. They say they would control the purity of marijuana sold at the legal store.
4. They say legalization would get rid of Organized Crime.
5. They say legalization would eliminate the illegal marijuana grow operations.
6. They say less young people would use it, if it was legal.
7. They say less young people would get a criminal record for possession, if it was legal.
8. They say alcohol (and/or tobacco) is legal, why not marijuana.
9. They say the laws cause more harm to people than the use of marijuana.

Do these statements sound reasonable? Would it work? How do we know? The decision making model used in the new D.A.R.E. Program, teaches our children that it is important to take time to consider the potential consequences of our actions before we make a decision to do something. Thus, before we decide to change the laws with respect to marijuana, we should consider the potential consequences. To help in that process, I have listed a few questions under each of these headings that I think need to be addressed.

First, you can start by asking one very basic question. Ask them to show you how they are going to stop children from using alcohol and tobacco. They have both been legal and regulated for years, yet they are used by more children than any of the illegal drugs and continue to cause more deaths and other costs to society than all the illegal drugs combined. You will find that they don’t have all the answers. They are big on opinions but short on facts to back them up.

Dr. Robert Gilkeson, a noted child and adolescent neuropsychiatrist, addresses this issue in the following statement: “The toxic properties of chemical molecules and their cellular damage are not matters of opinion or debate. They are not determined by adolescent servicemen, or by scientifically uneducated lawyers, legislators, judges, or doctors without the facts. We cannot vote for or against the ‘toxicity’ of a drug. How much a drug impairs cell structure or chemical function is neither subject to nor governed by congressional committee, public referendum, or the federal constitution. Everyone is entitled to his own ‘opinion’. He is not entitled to his own ‘facts’. Chemically, marijuana is a far more dangerous drug than most of the scientifically ignorant media and American consumer have been duped into believing.”

1. If they say they would legalize and regulate it like alcohol and tobacco, ask them:

• Would it be legal for everyone?
• Who wouldn’t it be legal for?
• What laws/regulations would you have regarding those who couldn’t legally buy it?
• How would you enforce those laws/regulations?
• Where would you allow legal marihuana to be sold?
• What laws/regulations would you have to control where and how it is sold?
• How would you enforce those laws/regulations?
• How would your new laws/regulations regarding the sale of legal marijuana be different than the present laws/regulations in place regarding the sale of alcohol and tobacco?
• Have the present laws/regulations concerning alcohol and tobacco been effective in eliminating the harms associated with the use of these two substances?
• Why would it be different for marijuana?
• Where would you get the marijuana to sell in your store?
• What laws/regulations would be in place for the legal suppliers?
• How would you enforce those new laws/regulations?
• Would people be allowed to grow their own?
• Would people be allowed to grow it for friends?

2. If they say they would tax the sale of legal marihuana and use all the tax money for treatment and other programs, ask them:
• If you added a tax on it, could you sell it for less than what organized crime charges?
• If organized crime still sold it cheaper, why would anyone buy from your legal store?
• If you tried to undersell organized crime, how much tax would you be able to collect?
• Would you collect enough tax money to offset the social and economic costs (health, treatment, prevention, enforcement of the new laws/regulations, administration, etc)
• How would this be different than it is now for alcohol and tobacco where the taxes collected are far less than the measurable social and economic costs?

3. If they say they would control the purity of marihuana sold at the legal store, ask them:
• What THC level would you allow to be sold?
• What information would you use to determine what the THC level should be?
• What laws/regulations would you have to control the purity level?
• How would you enforce these new laws/regulations?
• What if someone wanted a higher THC level than your store sells?
• Why would people stop buying from their usual dealer?

4. If they say legalization would get rid of Organized Crime, ask them:
• Would you make it legal for Organized Crime to sell it?
• Why would they stop selling it?
• How would you make them stop selling it (what would be different than now)?
• Would it be legal for Organized Crime to grow it?
• If not, how would you stop them from growing it?
• When you say (alcohol) prohibition failed, what failed?
- alcohol related medical problems were at an all time low during prohibition.
• Did Organized Crime go away when we legalized alcohol?
• What would be different if you legalized marijuana?
-we now have even more organized criminal groups and they still make money selling alcohol, as well as, many other legal products like tobacco, guns, stolen property, stolen ID, counterfeit money and fake trademarked merchandise, etc.
• What about the other drugs that Organized Crime sells (heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, etc) would you legalize them too?

5. If they say legalization would eliminate the illegal marijuana grow operations, ask them:
• Why would those who are currently growing it, stop (refer to questions in previous sections)?
• Even if you were able to supply the same quality at a cheaper price in your legal stores, why would they stop growing it for export to other countries?
• How would the present dangers concerning grow operations change under your new laws/regulations?

6. If they say less young people would use it, if it was legal, ask them:
• What age would you make it legal for kids to buy marijuana from your store?
• What laws/regulations would you have to keep kids under that age from buying it?
• How would you enforce these new laws/regulations?
• How would legalizing marijuana change the perceived risk of smoking it?
- several studies have shown that as the perceived risk goes down, use goes up.
• How would making it legal to sell to adults lead to less use by youth?
• How would making it legal for adults to possess lead to less use by youth?
• Would legal marijuana be less addictive for youth?
-there are more youth in treatment for addiction to marihuana than for all other drugs combined (including alcohol).
• Why would legal marijuana be any different than alcohol and tobacco?
- now more kids use alcohol and tobacco than marijuana.

7. If they say less young people would get a criminal record for possession, ask them:
• How would this differ from the present Young Offenders Act which already prevents young people (under 18) from getting a criminal record?
• What laws/regulation would you have in place concerning the amount a person was allowed to have in their possession for personal use?
-the present law allows for 30 grams, which is approx. 90-120 cigarettes.
• How would you enforce these new laws/regulations?
• How would you prevent young people from selling marijuana to other young people? (assuming their was an age limit for buying it legally)

8. If they say alcohol (and/or tobacco) is legal, why not marijuana, ask them:
• Would you suggest alcohol is the model we should use for marijuana?
- alcohol use kills about 9,000 people per year in Canada.
• How would you keep marijuana use from going up the way alcohol use went up after prohibition ended?
• What would you do to control driving while impaired by marijuana?
- would less people smoke and drive if it were legal?
• What about tobacco, did making it legal make it safe to smoke?
- tobacco use kills about 37,000 people per year in Canada.
- smoking marihuana is like mixing alcohol and tobacco together. It impairs like alcohol and causes cancer and respiratory problems like tobacco.
• How much marijuana can you smoke without getting high?
- you can drink a little alcohol without getting drunk, the whole point of smoking marijuana is to get high.
• Do we really want to make the same mistakes with marijuana that we made with alcohol and tobacco?
-shouldn’t our goal be to try and reduce the use and subsequent harms associated to all drugs (including alcohol)?

9. If they say the laws cause more harm than the marijuana, ask them:
• Will it help console distraught parents (whose children are smoking marijuana) to tell them, that marijuana is now legal?
- what do we tell those concerned parents who call when their children have dropped out of school, have no motivation and are getting into trouble because they are smoking marijuana?
• Would the problems related to young people smoking marijuana be any less if they smoked legal marijuana?
• Don’t we already have too many kids using marijuana, leading to all kinds of bad decisions regarding school, work, driving, safe sex and other problematic behavior?
- the more people that use, the more that end up having problems resulting from that use.

• Are they concerned about the use of other drugs, like crystal methamphetamine?
- there is a strong correlation between the use of marijuana and use of other drugs (like crystal meth), the more kids that smoke marijuana, the more that go on to use other drugs.
-if we want to stop kids from using meth (and other drugs), we need to get to them early, before they start to use marijuana and help them make good decisions to prevent or delay first use.
• What would they do to help prevent the harms to young people from smoking it?
- risk of harm is significantly higher for a maturing youth under age 21.
- a recent study from Dalhousie shows clearly that youth below grade ten do not understand harm reduction (how to use safely). At that age, they need help learning the skills and information that will help them decide not to use.
-saying marijuana never killed anyone is like saying tobacco never killed anyone. You can’t overdose from either but the effects of continued use can be deadly. We do not know enough about marijuana to say how much it takes, but we do know that it contains all the same carcinogens as tobacco. They may smoke less, but they inhale deeper and hold the smoke in their lungs longer.
• Would there be less accidents (auto, industrial and other) if marijuana were legal?
-marijuana, legal or not, impairs the ability to drive and when mixed with alcohol it is even more impairing than either by itself.
• Would there be any laws/regulations regarding the use of marijuana by people in safety sensitive areas (airline pilots, bus drivers, police officers, dentists, doctors, surgeons, etc.)?
• Would people make better decisions when high on legal marijuana than they do on illegal marijuana?
- marihuana use affects the ability to make good decisions. There are a lot of people in jail who admit they were high when they committed their offence and that they probably would not have committed the offence if they weren’t high. The more people smoking marijuana, the more bad decisions being made. Police don’t usually get calls to report someone who made a good decision…

Yes, I understand the frustration with the current situation and I agree that something has to change. However, when I ask the questions, I just don’t see the evidence to support legalization as the best choice. When I examine the potential consequences, I fail to see how that would lead to less problems for our children. There has to be a better choice!

Wouldn’t it be better to help our children make good decisions and resist the pressure to use marihuana, alcohol or tobacco? Rather than choosing to give up (legalizing), why don’t we try prevention? I mean get serious about it. Do it right!

Prevention does work, if you do it right. Some examples of effective prevention strategies that succeeded in changing social acceptance are the anti-smoking, drinking and driving, and seat belt campaigns. These comprehensive, long term (10+ years) strategies all reduced incidence and related harms. They all included an increase in penalties, a multitude of educational programs and consistent media messages, coordinated at both the national and provincial level.

In comparison, what have we done for drug prevention? We have a lack of coordination, very few educational programs, and nothing in the media to help young people learn the potential consequences of a decision to use drugs. Instead, we hear people talking about the benefits of legalizing marihuana and other drugs. Even some of our community leaders are calling for the legalization of marihuana. Is it any wonder some children are confused and making bad decisions?

We have never had a comprehensive long term drug prevention strategy in Canada (or a so called “War on Drugs”). Until we have had one, we cannot say that it has failed. Rather than giving up, lets start something! Let’s show them we care!

C.D. (Chuck) Doucette, Vice President
Drug Prevention Network of Canada
www.dpnoc.ca

Drug Legalisation: An Evaluation of the Impacts on Global Society
An International Task Force on
Strategic Drug Policy
Position Statement
December 2011

The flawed proposition of drug legalisation

Various well funded pressure groups have mounted campaigns to overturn the United Nations Conventions on drugs. These groups claim that society should accept the fact of drugs as a problem that will remain and, therefore, should be managed in a way that would enable millions of people to take advantage of an alleged ‘legal right’ to use drugs of their choice.

It is important to note that international law makes a distinction between “hard law” and “soft law.” Hard law is legally binding upon the States. Soft law is not binding. UN Conventions, such as the Conventions on Drugs, are considered hard law and must be upheld by the countries who are members of the UN.

International narcotics legislation is mainly made up of the three UN Conventions from 1961 (Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs), 1971 (Convention on Psychotropic Substances), and 1988 (Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances):
• The 1961 Convention sets out that “the possession, use, trade in, distribution, import, export, manufacture and the production of drugs is exclusively limited to medical and scientific purposes”. Penal cooperation is to be established so as to ensure that drugs are only used licitly (for prescribed medical purposes).
• The 1971 Convention resembles closely the 1961 Convention, whilst establishing an international control system for Psychotropic Substances.
• The 1988 Convention reflects the response of the international community to increasing illicit cultivation, production, manufacture, and trafficking activities.

International narcotics legislation draws a line between licit (medical) and illicit (non-medical) use, and sets out measures for prevention of illicit use, including penal measures. The preamble to the 1961 Convention states that the parties to the Convention are “Recognizing that addiction to narcotic drugs constitutes a serious evil for the individual and is fraught with social and economic danger to mankind”. The Conventions are reviewed every ten years and have consistently been upheld.

The UN system of drug control includes the Office of Drugs and Crime, the International Narcotics Control Board, and the Commission on Narcotic Drugs. The works of these bodies are positive and essential in international drug demand and supply reduction. They are also attacked by those seeking to legalise drugs.

It is frequently and falsely asserted that the so-called “War on Drugs” is inappropriate and has become a very costly and demonstrable failure. It is declared by some that vast resources have been poured into the prevention of drug use and the suppression of illicit manufacturing, trafficking, and supply. It is further claimed that what is essentially a chronic medical problem has been turned into a criminal justice issue with inappropriate remedies that make “innocent” people criminals. In short, the flawed argument is that “prohibition” monies have been wasted and the immeasurable financial resources applied to this activity would be better spent for the general benefit of the community.

The groups supporting legalisation are: people who use drugs, those who believe that the present system of control does more harm than good, and those who are keen to make significant profits from marketing newly authorised addictive substances. In addition to pernicious distribution of drugs, dealers circulate specious and misleading information. They foster the erroneous belief that drugs are harmless, thus adding to even more confused thinking.

Superficially crafted, yet pseudo-persuasive arguments are put forward that can be accepted by many concerned, well intentioned people who have neither the time nor the knowledge to research the matter thoroughly, but accept them in good faith. Frequently high profile people claim that legalisation is the best way of addressing a major social problem without cogent supporting evidence. This too influences others, especially the young, immature and ill informed who accept statements as being accurate and well informed. Through this ill-informed propaganda, people are asked to believe that such action would defeat the traffickers, take the profit out of the drug trade and solve the drug problem completely.

The total case for legalisation seems to be based on the assertion that the government assault on alleged civil liberties has been disastrously and expensively ineffective and counter-productive. In short, it is alleged, in contradiction to evidence, that prohibition has produced more costs than benefits and, therefore, the use of drugs on a personal basis should be permitted. Advocates claim that legalisation would eliminate the massive expenditure incurred by prohibition and would take the profit out of crime for suppliers and dealers. They further claim that it would decriminalise what they consider “understandable” human behaviour and thus prevent the overburdening of the criminal justice system that is manifestly failing to cope. It is further argued irrationally that police time would not be wasted on minor drug offences, the courts would be freed from the backlog of trivial cases and the prisons would not be used as warehouses for those who choose to use drugs, and the saved resources could be used more effectively.

Types of drug legalisation

The term “legalisation” can have any one of the following meanings:

1. Total Legalisation – All illicit drugs such as heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana would be legal and treated as commercial products. No government regulation would be required to oversee production, marketing, or distribution.

2. Regulated Legalisation – The production and distribution of drugs would be regulated by the government with limits on amounts that can be purchased and the age of purchasers. There would be no criminal or civil sanctions for possessing, manufacturing, or distributing drugs unless these actions violated the regulatory system. Drug sales could be taxed.

3. Decriminalization – Decriminalization eliminates criminal sanctions for drug use and provides civil sanctions for possession of drugs.

To achieve the agenda of drug legalisation, advocates argue for:
• legalising drugs by lowering or ending penalties for drug possession and use – particularly marijuana;
• legalising marijuana and other illicit drugs as a so-called medicine;
• harm reduction programmes such as needle exchange programmess, drug injection sites, heroin distribution to addicts, and facilitation of so-called safe use of drugs that normalize drug use, create the illusion that drugs can be used safely if one just knows how, and eliminates a goal of abstinence from drugs;
• legalised growing of industrial hemp;
• an inclusion of drug users as equal partners in establishing and enforcing drug policy; and
• protection for drug users at the expense and to the detriment of non-users under the pretense of “human rights.”

The problem is with the drugs and not the drug policies

Legalisation of current illicit drugs, including marijuana, is not a viable solution to the global drug problem and would actually exacerbate the problem.

The UN Drug Conventions were adopted because of the recognition by the international community that drugs are an enormous social problem and that the trade adversely affects the global economy and the viability of some countries that have become transit routes. The huge sums of illegal money generated by the drug trade encourage money laundering and have become inextricably linked with other international organised criminal activities such as terrorism, human trafficking, prostitution and the arms trade. Drug Lords have subverted the democratic governments of some countries to the great detriment of law abiding citizens.

Drug abuse has had a major adverse effect on global health and the spread of communicable diseases such as AIDS/HIV. Control is vitally important for the protection of communities against these problems.

There is international agreement in the UN Conventions that drugs should be produced legally under strict supervision to ensure adequate supplies only for medical and research purposes.
The cumulative effects of prohibition and interdiction combined with education and treatment during 100 years of international drug control have had a significant impact in stemming the drug problem. Control is working and one can only imagine how much worse the problem would have become without it. For instance:
• In 2007, drug control had reduced the global opium supply to one-third the level in 1907.
• During the last decade, world output of cocaine and amphetamines has stabilized; cannabis output has declined since 2004; and opium production has declined since 2008.

We, therefore, strongly urge nations to uphold and enhance current efforts to prevent the use, cultivation, production, traffic, and sale of illegal drugs. We further urge our leaders to reject the legalisation of currently illicit drugs as an acceptable solution to the world’s drug problem because of the following reasons:
• Only 6.1% of people globally between the ages of 15 and 64 use drugs (World Drug Report 2011 UNODC) and there is little public support for the legalisation of highly dangerous substances. Prohibition has ensured that the total number of users is low because legal sanctions do influence people’s behaviour.
• There is a specific obligation to protect children from the harms of drugs, as is evidenced through the ratification by the majority of United Nations Member States of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC). Article 33 states that Member States “shall take all appropriate measures, including legislative, administrative, social and educational measures, to protect children from the illicit use of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances as defined in the relevant international treaties, and to prevent the use of children in the illicit production and trafficking of such substances”.
• Legalisation sends the dangerous tacit message of approval, that drug use is acceptable and cannot be very harmful.
• Permissibility, availability and accessibility of dangerous drugs will result in increased consumption by many who otherwise would not consider using them.
• Enforcement of laws creates risks that discourage drug use. Laws clearly define what is legal and illegal and emphasise the boundaries.
• Legalisation would increase the risks to individuals, families, communities and world regions without any compensating benefits.
• Legalisation would remove the social sanctions normally supported by a legal system and expose people to additional risk, especially the young and immature.
• The legalisation of drugs would lead inevitably to a greater number of dependencies and addictions likely to match the levels of licit addictive substances. In turn, this would lead to increasing related morbidity and mortality, the spread of communicable diseases such as AIDS/HIV and the other blood bourne viruses exacerbated by the sharing of needles and drugs paraphernalia, and an increased burden on the health and social services.
• There would be no diminution in criminal justice costs as, contrary to the view held by those who support legalisation, crime would not be eliminated or reduced. Dependency often brings with it dysfunctional families together with increased domestic child abuse.
• There will be increases in drugged driving and industrial accidents.
• Drug Control is a safeguard protecting millions from the effects of drug abuse and addiction particularly, but not exclusively, in developing countries.
• Statements about taxation offsetting any additional costs are demonstrably flawed and this has been shown in the case of alcohol and tobacco taxes. Short of governments distributing free drugs, those who commit crime now to obtain them would continue to do so if they became legal.
• Legalisation would not take the profit out of the drug trade as criminals will always find ways of countering legislation. They would continue their dangerous activities including cutting drugs with harmful substances to maximise sales and profits. Aggressive marketing techniques, designed to promote increased sales and use, would be applied rigorously to devastating effect.
• Other ‘legal’ drugs – alcohol and tobacco, are regularly traded on the black market and are an international smuggling problem; an estimated 600 billion cigarettes are smuggled annually (World Drug report 2009). Taxation monies raised from these products go nowhere near addressing consequential costs.
• Many prisons have become incubators for infection and the spread of drug related diseases at great risk to individual prisoners, prison staff and the general public. Failure to eliminate drug use in these institutions exacerbates the problem.
• The prisons are not full of people who have been convicted for mere possession of drugs for personal use. This sanction is usually reserved for dealers and those who commit crime in the furtherance of their possession.
• The claim that alcohol and tobacco may cause more harm than some drugs is not a justification for legalising other dangerous substances. The pharmacology and pharmacokinetics of psychotropic substances suggest that more, not less, control of their access is warranted.
• Research regularly and increasingly demonstrates the harms associated with drug use and misuse. There is uncertainty, yet growing evidence, about the long-term detrimental effects of drug use on the physical, psychological and emotional health of substance users.
• It is inaccurate to suggest that the personal use of drugs has no consequential and damaging effects. Apart from the harm to the individual users, drugs affect others by addiction, violence, criminal behaviour and road accidents. Some drugs remain in the body for long periods and adversely affect performance and behaviour beyond the time of so-called ‘private’ use. Legalisation would not diminish the adverse effects associated with drug misuse such as criminal, irrational and violent behaviour and the mental and physical harm that occurs in many users.
• All drugs can be dangerous including prescription and over the counter medicines if they are taken without attention to medical guidance. Recent research has confirmed just how harmful drug use can be and there is now overwhelming evidence (certainly in the case of cannabis) to make consideration of legalisation irresponsible.
• The toxicity of drugs is not a matter for debate or a vote. People are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts. Those who advocate freedom of choice cannot create freedom from adverse consequences.
• Drug production causes huge ecological damage and crop erosion in drug producing areas.
• Nearly every nation has signed the UN Conventions on drug control. Any government of signatory countries contemplating legalisation would be in breach of agreements under the UN Conventions which recognise that unity is the best approach to combating the global drug problem. The administrative burden associated with legalisation would become enormous and probably unaffordable to most governments. Legalisation would require a massive government commitment to production, supply, security and a bureaucracy that would necessarily increase the need for the employment at great and unaffordable cost for all of the staff necessary to facilitate that development.
• Any government policy must be motivated by the consideration that it must first do no harm. There is an obligation to protect citizens and the compassionate and sensible method must be to do everything possible to reduce drug dependency and misuse, not to encourage or facilitate it. Any failures in a common approach to a problem would result in a complete breakdown in effectiveness. Differing and fragmented responses to a common predicament are unacceptable for the wellbeing of the international community. It is incumbent on national governments to cooperate in securing the greatest good for the greatest number.

ISSUED this 21st day of December, 2011.

Read it in its mind-boggling entirety HERE.

This is exactly the kind of sharing of information – especially great stories of Prevention and Treatment – that we welcome form all.

About the Festival:
The REEL Recovery Film Festival is an exciting three-day weekend celebration of visual media, the arts, writing and creativity. We showcase local filmmakers and experienced pros who make honest films about addiction and recovery. It’s inspiring to gather with other individuals to share these new and classic films. The realistic portrayal of these issues in cinema is invaluable for the honest conversation that can occur.

This year represents the Canadian debut of this festival presented by The Orchard Recovery Center and Writers in Treatment. All proceeds will be split between Writers in Treatment and Intersections Media. Tears for April will be screened on Saturday October 22 @ 3:30 pm @ District 319 followed by a Q&A with our very own Retired Cst. Al Arsenault.

For more information on the various organizations affiliated with this festival, please see links for each listed below the email signature. Please note: Venue’s regulations require minimum age of 19 for attendees.

Thank you Al for bringing this festival to our attention. Given that this is the festivals first year in Canada, we look forward to working with them for many years to come.

Enjoy and feel free to pass this on.
–
Dani Elias
Director, Web Development & New Media
Odd Squad Productions Society
website: www.oddsquad.com
E dani@oddsquad.com
O 604.408.9945
C 604.809.9200

By Susan Martinuk, Calgary HeraldOctober 14, 2011

Susan Martinuk’s Photo

On Sept. 30, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Insite, Vancouver’s drug injection site for addicts, is exempt from the provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The site can therefore continue to provide drug addicts with a safe place to inject themselves with illicitly obtained heroin and cocaine; that is, they can continue to shoot themselves into pharmaceutical oblivion on the taxpayers’ dollar.

As has been widely reported by the media, the Court supported this ruling by reasoning that: “Insite saves lives. Its benefits have been proven.”

Thus, Insite advocates and its media supporters are claiming that the medical science they cite has won out over the ridiculous ideology of those who think society has a moral responsibility to help addicts by providing them with a second chance at life and a way out of addiction.

But it’s highly misleading for the media or Insite to state that scientific fact has gained any kind of victory at all. Facts can always be twisted to suit one’s purposes and, in this case, it’s clear that scientific contradictions – not facts – reign supreme. In the end, it’s apparent that ideology drives those who favour harm reduction just as much as those who oppose it. It just depends if your ideology leans toward helping addicts or giving in to their need for a fix.

Last week, in these same pages, Peter Stockland challenged erroneous statements that have been perpetrated by the media

in the wake of the Supreme Court judgment. For example, the ruling doesn’t guarantee that the injection facility can now operate permanently. Rather, it states that “the granting of a permanent constitutional exemption” was not appropriate and it allows the health minister to withdraw the exemption “should changed circumstances at Insite so require.”

Further, while the media is reporting that the ruling establishes legal grounds for the creation of injection sites in other Canadian cities, the ruling clearly states that further decisions about applications for exemptions are up to the health minister and his “discretion.” So the judgment is hardly an invitation for drug injection facilities to proliferate across the country.

But nowhere has there been more confusion and misinformation than in the media’s interpretation of the medical data that supposedly underlies the legal decision. In the past days, much has been made of a scientific article on Insite published in The Lancet this spring. It claims that Insite reduced drug overdose deaths in the area around Insite by 35 per cent, and by nine per cent in the rest of Vancouver.

But those numbers simply don’t mesh with the raw data available from the British Columbia coroner’s office or an analysis of The Lancet article commissioned by the Drug Prevention Network of Canada and REAL Women of Canada. Rather than showing a decrease in the deaths in the area around Insite, the analysis found that the number of drug overdoses increased between 2002 and 2007 (note that Insite was established in 2003).

The data from the B.C coroner’s office show 49 illicit drug deaths in 2002, followed by 51, 67, 55, 54 and 56 in each of the years that followed until 2007.

The Lancet analysis further states that 41 per cent of B.C.’s overdose fatalities are not injection-related and are therefore not relevant to the impact by Insite on fatal drug overdoses.

A further contradiction to the 35 per cent figure comes from a 2008 expert advisory committee that evaluated Insite for the Canadian government: It calculated that Insite saved 1.08 lives per year. That’s it – at a cost to taxpayers of approximately $3 million per year.

There are about 5,000 addicts in Vancouver’s downtown eastside (DTES), yet less than 10 per cent use Insite for all injections. In fact, the expert advisory report showed that the injections at Insite account for only five per cent of all drug injections in the DTES, and 18 per cent of Insite users accounted for 86 per cent of all Insite visits. In other words, a small number of addicts are making use of Insite for only some of their injections.

Al Arsenault is a former Vancouver police officer who walked a beat through the DTES. Rather than support Insite, he is a member of the Drug Prevention Network of Canada and Odd Squad Productions, a group that makes films based on life in the DTES as a means of promoting drug prevention and treatment.

In considering the Supreme Court decision and the abundant contradictions in medical evidence, he says, “These harm reduction follies are the longest-standing failed social experiments that I know of. Shame on us.

. This is quite the legacy to cheer about – the continuing loss of human potential all facilitated by statistic twisted researchers .”

Indeed. The Supreme Court may have made a legal determination about Insite, but there’s no clear victory for science and no clear science to back up its comment that the “benefits have been proven.” If anything, the benefits remain highly doubtful. The legal ruling does nothing to change that.

Susan Martinuk’s column

appears every other week.
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

Here’s the response to my letter direct from the director of Insite. He is playing games with what I said. The evidence I was referring to was never presented which means they didn’t miss it, they never had it presented. His statistics are as mis-informing.

Numbers show Insite works

BY RUSSELL MAYNARD, OTTAWA CITIZENOCTOBER 12, 2011 3:10 AM

Re: Nothing safe about injecting drugs, Oct. 8.

Letter-writer Andre Bigras tries to leave the reader with the impression that three Supreme Courts (a total of 13 Supreme Court judges) could not adjudicate the copious research on Insite correctly.

Bigras is with the Drug Prevention Network of Canada (DPNC). The DPNC’s website tells readers that one of those key pieces of evidence that the judges missed is that “The impartial federal government’s Expert Advisory Committee in its report in March 2008 concluded that the drug injection site, which costs three million dollars annually to operate, only (refers) three per cent of its attendees for treatment, the latter is the only way that an addict can regain his/her health and dignity and return to a normal life.”

If the DPNC had called me I would have clarified that three per cent was in the first couple of years of operation. That percentage has grown every single year of Insite’s operation. It is now approximately 30 per cent of the monthly visits to Insite. To clarify: close to 30 per cent of visits to Insite are to inquire, apply for, or access recovery services. Conversely, the number of people coming to Insite to use the injection services has dropped from approximately 90 per cent in 2004 to approximately 60 per cent now.

There is no other public health project in this country, on this continent, that even approaches that volume of referrals to recovery services. Insite works!

Russell Maynard,

Director, Insite Vancouver, B.C.

All of the information and details can be found on our DPNC BLOG.

Check it out now, ad plan to attend!