2222 Lecture 3 PDF

The drug paradox “Despite a long cultural history of substance use to alter one’s physical or mental state, the history of psychoactive drug laws in Canada is relatively short. In fact, the first official federal legislation was enacted just after the turn of the twentieth century.” “Some have eve...

The drug paradox “Despite a long cultural history of substance use to alter one’s physical or mental state, the history of psychoactive drug laws in Canada is relatively short. In fact, the first official federal legislation was enacted just after the turn of the twentieth century.” “Some have even argued that Canada’s approach to drugs and drug users is founded upon principles of harm reduction (Grant, 2009). While it is true that some policies and practices are certainly more progressive and pragmatic than those in other countries, Canada’s approach to drugs is a “persistent paradox” (Erickson, 1999). In practice, while Canada has a history of public health–based approaches, when critically examining drugs, our laws are quite punitive.” “Instead, it is more often the case that drug laws are founded upon political and moralistic interests, with a not-so-subtle hint of racism and oppression” “Indeed, the short history of Canadian lawmaking surrounding drugs reveals an uneasy truth: drugs and drug users are not a significant social problem until they are socially created to be problematic”  “Prior to the turn of the twentieth century, psychoactive substances were commonly consumed for various religious, recreational, and medicinal purposes (Dyck & Bradford, 2012; Green, 1979). There were no federal laws regulating the manufacture and distribution of psychoactive substances, so citizens were free from any legal penalties associated with possession, manufacturing, importing, and distribution.” “However, with Confederation and the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway, several aspects of Canadian society began to change, and questions of morality and cultural dominance surfaced, underscored by urban-rural tensions. These issues would serve as the major foundation of Canada’s first drug laws. Before any drug legislation was enacted in Canada, there were several decades of moral crusades encouraging temperance, or complete prohibition of alcohol” Temperance + nativists “However, during this era there was rarely a focus on substances other than alcohol that were not only readily available but openly advertised— including cocaine for toothaches, heroin for cough control, and the unrestricted growth of hemp.” “2.1: PROHIBITION ERA”  “Canada never had full alcohol prohibition, except for a brief period between 1918 and 1920 as part of the larger War Measures Act” US: 1920 to 1933; ON: 1916 to 1927; PEI: 1901 to 1948  “Much of the political decision-making under Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier (1896–1911) is attributed to a lack of full consensus amongst the provinces, in particular Quebec’s unwillingness to support a nationwide prohibition of alcohol, despite a plebiscite where the majority, outside Quebec, did vote in favour of alcohol prohibition” “In Ontario, prohibition was enacted in 1916 only to be repealed in 1927, making alcohol publicly available under government control and regulation, which is maintained in a similar manner today” LCBO est. 1927  “Prince Edward Island was the first province to enact full prohibition in 1901 and the last province to repeal the laws in 1948” “Quebec, on the other hand, never supported prohibition, but the War Measures Act forced the province into prohibition for a brief period of time, with the province rescinding prohibition immediately after the War Measures Act was withdrawn in 1920” “Thus, even in this era, alcohol was always available either by prescription from doctors or in the form of beverages containing less than 2.5 percent alcohol, as it was believed it was not possible to become intoxicated at such low levels.” “As a result of these concessions, Canada became an important source for bootlegging and illegal distribution of alcohol in North America (Schneider, 2009). The history of alcohol prohibition worldwide is often cited as one of the main contributors to organized crime, labelling particular groups of people as morally abhorrent.” How Prohibition Created the Mafia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-K60XXaPKw “2.2: THE OPIUM ACT (1908)” “The Opium Act of 1908 was the first official federal drug legislation in Canada”  “The particulars of the legislation were relatively limited in scope, but it made it an indictable offence to import, manufacture, possess, or sell opium for purposes other than medicinal use. People violating these provisions could face up to three years in prison and/or a fine ranging from $50 to $1,000”  “As mentioned before, Canada’s history of drug laws, including the debut of the Opium Act in 1908, was almost exclusively socially constructed. Giffen, Endicott, and Lambert’s (1991) in-depth historical analysis reveals four social factors that collectively contributed to the successful and virtually uncontested passing of the inaugural Canadian psychoactive drug legislation.” “The first condition that contributed to the passing of the act was the moral reformist movements that existed in Canada, and North America more generally.” “Central to these beliefs was the inappropriateness of drunkenness, prostitution, gambling, and other hedonistic pursuits. With this came the not-so-subtle concern of the sexual mixing of races. Opium was primarily associated with Chinese labourers, and the concern of the reformists was that drugs were being used to sexually exploit non-Asian women.” Ontario Female Refugees Act https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSGGXMOmJQc&t=552s “A second (and related) factor that allowed for the initial opium legislation to be passed uncontested was the intense racial hostility towards Asian immigrants in the latter part of the nineteenth century and the early twentieth century.”  “Given that opium was a common cultural practice amongst some members of the Chinese population, proposing legislation that criminalized these vulnerable groups ensured that the existing status quo was maintained.” War on Drugs in the US similar tone. “The third factor adding to the strength of the legislative momentum was the international anti-opium movement. North American and European leaders believed that the economic and social successes of their countries were evidence of the natural dominance of Caucasians. Accordingly, they believed it was their civic duty to denounce abhorrent behaviour and impose the proper and noble way of living on other less developed nations.” “Finally, the widespread lobbying for anti-opium legislation was the fourth condition that contributed to the eventual enactment of Canada’s first drug law” “2.3: PROPRIETARY OR PATENT MEDICINE ACT (1908)” “In the same year that the Opium Act was passed, Parliament also passed the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act (Government of Canada, 1908b). This legislation prohibited the use of medicinal cocaine, limited the amount of alcohol that could be contained in medicinal preparations, and required pharmaceutical companies to label ingredients if heroin, morphine, or opium was used.” “Under the Opium Act, violations were treated as criminal infractions carrying the potential for significantly more jail time—a maximum of three years—and a much more substantive monetary fine of up to $1,000; the same was not true if the substance was created for medicinal purposes and violated the regulations set out in the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act. In addition to potentially losing the ability to register a product for sale, the maximum fine under this act was only $100, while the maximum jail time was 12 months” “2.4: THE OPIUM AND DRUG ACT (1911)” “Labour Minister Mackenzie King, who was aiding Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier with investigating the effectiveness of the Opium Act of 1908, proposed three reasons for introducing a new bill:” “1. the Shanghai Commission, which was the first international attempt to make collaborative recommendations concerning opium imports and exports (United Nations, 2009); 2. the panic in Montreal caused by cocaine use, which was believed to be spreading through all segments of society (Murray, 1987); and 3. the need to grant special powers to the police to ensure that the Act could be enforced effectively (Giffen, Endicott, & Lambert, 1991).”  “The 1911 Opium and Drug Act attempted to address these emergent issues and the shortcomings of the 1908 act by extending the focus of the legislation to include opium, cocaine, and derivatives of these substances”  “Some of the most notable changes included extending the list of offences to include possession for the purpose of using; introducing greater police power to search and seize; making it an offence to be in a dwelling or building containing narcotics1; and introducing the reverse onus clause, where individuals had to prove that they were not involved with or intending to use the drugs if they had been accused.” “Based on these significant changes, the 1911 legislation is argued to be the true beginning of Canada’s national drug prohibition and the legislated, and thus socially-constructed, standpoint that drug use was a criminal act as opposed to a medical or social issue”  “In 1921, drug penalties were expanded to seven year sentences for crimes committed under the act (Government of Canada, 1921), while whipping and deportation became penalties for convicted offenders in 1922”  “Interestingly, in 1923, cannabis was added to the list of prohibited substances (Government of Canada, 1923). There was no parliamentary debate provided, nor any objections to adding this new, relatively unheard of or used substance to the act.” “Much of the impetus for this change was the work of pioneering Canadian feminist activist Emily Murphy, whose book The Black Candle, published in 1922, claimed marijuana turned its users into homicidal maniacs.” The Famous Five “2.5: THE OPIUM AND NARCOTIC DRUG ACT (1929)” “By the end of the 1920s, the drug laws shifted towards an even more punitive stance against drugs and drug users, further criminalizing this behaviour. Some have attributed the support of this movement to the ongoing racist media propaganda of Emily Murphy”  “Indeed, there were several social forces operating at the time cannabis debuted in Canada’s drug legislation. Amongst these influences were the enforcement agencies, members of parliament, politicians from the United States, and perhaps most importantly an ignorant public. The major focus of the 1929 act was on harsher drug penalties.” “Ultimately, when new and harsher penalties were introduced, there was widespread support in parliament and little public resistance (Mosher, 1999). The only noted concerns were with the potential mistreatment of doctors and other medical professionals under the legislation. Nevertheless, the act was passed.” “Perhaps most important was Canada’s adoption of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs through the auspices of the United Nations in 1961 (United Nations, 1972). This was an important point in drug legislation history, as it consolidated the existing international drug laws into a single convention, formally replacing the 1912 Hague Convention. Undoubtedly, this single convention influenced the introduction of the next federal drug legislation, as it was necessary for Canada to ensure that our domestic laws were consistent with international agreements.”  “2.6: THE NARCOTIC CONTROL ACT (1961)” “In response to the findings of the Senate committee and the need to comply with the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the Narcotic Control Act of 1961 was introduced. This body of legislation would become the primary instrument of Canadian drug control for over 35 years.” “The major changes to the legislation included the removal of a minimum six- month jail term for possession. The maximum seven-year sentence for possession still remained, and the minimum and maximum penalties for importing remained unchanged, with the minimum penalty being seven years and the maximum being a life sentence” “Throughout the 1960s, however, there were increasing numbers of young people using cannabis in Canada. With the strict enforcement strategies contained in the Narcotic Control Act, many otherwise “respectable” young people were now being charged with indictable offences. In 1969, at the urging of Minister of Health and Welfare, John Munro, the act was changed to allow for cannabis users to be fined and processed summarily” “The interim report released in 1970 recommended that possession of any illicit substance should not result in a fine greater than $100. This recommendation toward a more lenient and pragmatic approach to drugs and drug users was further echoed in the 1973 final report from the committee, with a recommendation specific to cannabis possession that penalties associated with simple possession should be eliminated” “However, despite the extensive scientifically grounded background research conducted by the Le Dain Commission, the recommendations for a change in focus from law enforcement to prevention and treatment have yet to be fully realized in Canadian drug policy, and even the United States is now moving ahead of Canada in terms of pragmatic approaches” “The late 1980s, however, saw a wave of intense media and political campaigns to eradicate drugs once and for all under an enhanced “War on Drugs,” just as HIV/AIDS was becoming a prominent health and societal issue. Overnight, prohibition was back in full force, especially in the United States, with drug users again being demonized and calls for those with AIDS to be socially and geographically isolated, as lepers had been centuries ago.” “Though the most recent War on Drugs formally began during the 1970s under the Nixon administration, it was during the Reagan years when policy was simplified under the banner of “Just Say No,” which suddenly became a reasonable practice model.” “Despite the highly promoted public relationship between Prime Minister Mulroney and President Reagan, the support for a War on Drugs was not widely supported amongst Canadian citizens, nor did it become immediately established in Canadian practices” “Another reason why the drug war did not take root in Canada is because there was little support from the opposition parties to uphold Mulroney’s claim. Unlike in the United States, where both the Republicans and the Democrats were fighting over who was going to better deal with drug issues, Canadian opposition parties had no interest or concern in psychoactive drugs as a major party policy platform. Thus, there was no real heightened concern, even within Parliament, at the time.”  “2.7: CONTROLLED DRUGS AND SUBSTANCES ACT (1996)” “As Erickson (1998) stated, Canadian research had ultimately been “neglected and rejected” in the formation of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA).” “the CDSA contained eight schedules of controlled substances and two classes of precursors substances used in the manufacture of synthetic or semi- synthetic drugs (Fischer, Erickson, & Smart, 1996). Under this act, amendments can be made to any one of the schedules at any given time if it is deemed necessary for the public interest” “While there is no way to ascertain why existing evidence on the harms of prohibition were not considered in this legislation, some compelling explanations have been offered (Boyd, 1998; Erickson, 1998; Fischer, 1999). Erickson (1998) outlines several potential reasons for the disappointing enactment of the CDSA.”  “no federal government leader expressed any interest in changing the status quo. Enforcement and punitive control had been a mainstay of Canadian drug legislation for almost a century, and the introduction of a new approach was not on any political party’s agenda.” “Even though it was clear that the public did not support Conservative Prime Minister Mulroney’s initial attempts to create a moral panic concerning drugs (Jensen & Gerber, 1993), neither was there a substantive push from citizens for any reform when Liberal Prime Minister Chrétien came to power.” “Added to this is the significant undermining of the value of science and evidence in informing policy, especially with such moralized issues as drugs and drug users.” “Drug policy expert Benedikt Fischer (1999) referred to the 1980s and early 1990s as a “window of opportunity” for Canada to shift its focus from a prohibitionist approach to a public health approach, as adopted in many parts of Europe. However, he argues that Canada’s inability to approach drugs more pragmatically was primarily a result of our close economic, geographic, and social ties to the United States.” “2.8: MARIHUANA FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES REGULATIONS (2013)”  “While hemp has many commercial, agricultural, and industrial uses, its most renowned psychoactive strain, marijuana, has a variety of documented therapeutic uses. This includes producing relief from nausea and vomiting produced by chemotherapy; increasing appetite among people with HIV and other terminal illnesses; aiding in the treatment of glaucoma; relieving muscle spasms associated with spinal cord injuries and multiple sclerosis, as well as decreasing seizures for some forms of epilepsy; and alleviating gastrointestinal disorders, depression, anxiety, tension, and chronic pain” “Beginning in 2000, court challenges to the prohibition of cannabis on medical grounds began to be heard and won. For over a decade, judges ruled that the prohibition on cannabis was unconstitutional,” “Finally, on April 1, 2014, the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (MMPR), was introduced, allowing access to marijuana for medical purposes in Canada through licensed producers if prescribed by a physician”  “2.10: A FRAMEWORK FOR THE LEGALIZATION AND REGULATION OF CANNABIS IN CANADA (2016)” “During the latter part of 2016, a multidisciplinary task force consulted with municipal, territorial, provincial, and Indigenous governments, as well as community organizations, youth, patients, and medical experts, to develop a plan for the legalization and regulation of cannabis.” “The task force’s recommendations focused on five thematic areas: (1) minimizing harms of use; (2) establishing a safe and responsible supply chain; (3) enforcing public safety and protection; (4) medical access; and (5) implementation.” “Among the key recommendations were:”  “ A national minimum age of 18 to purchase cannabis, with provinces and territories having the latitude to set limits above 18 to coincide with alcohol and tobacco age requirements. Restrictions on advertising and promotion similar to those applied to tobacco products, including the prohibition of products that mix cannabis with other substances, such as tobacco or alcohol. The use of tax revenues derived from sales to fund education, research, and enforcement of not only cannabis use disorders but also underlying risk factors such as mental health and social disadvantages. Development of a public education campaign to begin immediately to educate the public, especially youth, parents, and vulnerable populations, about cannabis and the proposed legislation (Health Canada, 2016).” “Until its defeat in 2015, the Conservative-led federal government continued to view cannabis as a major public threat. As well, even though the Supreme Court of Canada, the ultimate arbitrator of the constitutional validity of legislation, has consistently struck down proposed legislation to close safe injection sites and invoke mandatory minimum sentencing,”  “While the proposed changes to cannabis legislation are certainly welcomed and long overdue, there is still no indication that any discussion surrounding changes to domestic legislation for other illicit psychoactive substances is being considered.” 2018 Cannabis Act https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIenkOMwVtM