Drug Watch International

Details

Category: Articles

Published: 12 January 2002

Cannabis is a narcotic drug, which means it is a substance that is damaging to health and habit forming. (Swiss Association of Doctors Against Drugs)

There has been mounting pressure in recent times to “re classify,” decriminalise, or legalise cannabis.  Sources include the UK based Police Federation (no connection to the Police), Paul McCartney (ex Beatle and along with his late wife Linda, also a cannabis user), Anita Roddick (Body Shop selling Hemp products), Richard Branson (Virgin Megastores who admitted that he would sell the products in his shops), and the American multi-billionaire George Soros, who claims to have invested in excess of 90m US Dollars (Soros on Soros) in the campaign. He recently handed over 1m US Dollars to the UK campaign.  In Ireland there are similar self-interest groups.

The UK Government is presently capitulating to this pressure under Mr. Blair's leadership.  It seems there is no energy for this debate coming from the Conservative Party.

As if there is not enough confusion around the issue, these people will argue for decriminalisation as an option in the face of resistance.  They say that this is not the same as legalisation.  This sounds plausible, but it is blatantly false. The term decriminalisation means to bring the drug problem out of the scope of penal (criminal) law.  Law enforcement would then no longer be provided for the export, import, manufacture, distribution, sale, possession or use of drugs. Society would, as a result, have no law or lever to direct addicts towards treatment or to suppress trafficking.  Legalisation means that the government would have to arrange a more or less free distribution of drugs (as for tobacco and alcohol products).

These facts must raise the question, what kind of society do we want?  Do we want teachers, nurses, doctors, public service drivers, airline pilots etc., etc., stupefied while on duty?  Lloyds of London will not insure people who are narcotic dependent.  How do we check?

If cannabis is legalised/decriminalised, who will be responsible for the quality and strength of the drug?  Will there be any age restrictions?  How will the drug prices be set?  Where will they be sold?  Will there be State drugstores, or will drugs be available through your local supermarket?  Will certain groups with sensitive professions be governed by special restrictions?  Are there to be any kind of restrictions at all?  These questions are never answered by the drug legalisation lobby.  The most smuggled drugs on the black market are cigarettes, yet they are legal.  Together with alcohol, they account for more deaths and diseases than the illegal substances.  Because of their legality they are socially acceptable and readily available and cannot be kept away from teenagers, the “underage” population.

WHAT IS CANNABIS?

This so-called soft drug is a toxic narcotic (UN  1961 Single Convention Amended in 1972).  It has no medical benefits (see www.eurad.com...Research).  A single joint is composed of more than 400 different chemicals, all of them toxic.  On combustion these multiply into about 2,000 equally poisonous chemicals.  Cannabis is different from alcohol, heroin or other drugs because it is fat-soluble.   This causes it to be absorbed into the brain and other fatty organs of the body where it is stored for months in both the chronic and so-called recreational user, resulting in the person becoming stupefied.  It is only very slowly released from the body, which explains the absence of severe withdrawals.  This lulls the person into believing that he or she is not addicted.  While in the body the toxins are attacking every cell, system, and organ present, with the brain sustaining the most damage, as it is one-third fat.

People with asthma, epilepsy, heart problems, depression, or mental illness are especially at risk.  Medical studies in Sweden have shown marijuana to trigger latent schizophrenia, an incurable mental illness.  The tragedy of cannabis is that the harm is so subtle that it is not realised by the user or his/her family until it is too late.  Frequently, it is only when a young person has been apprehended by the police and judicial system for anti-social behaviour that his or her cannabis addiction is discovered.  Police intervention can be a life saving exercise in all its forms.

The chemicals in cannabis adversely affect the central nervous system, cardiovascular, respiratory, and immune systems.  Foetal damage is incurred in pregnant women, and a rare form of leukemia can be caused in infants.

Cannabis is a highly carcinogenic drug.  American studies have shown cellular damage to the lungs of cannabis smokers, who smoke two joints of cannabis a day, to be as harmful as the damage caused by 28 tobacco cigarettes.  Since the 1970's, more than 12,000 scientific studies have been conducted on cannabis.  None of them give it a clean bill of health.  Scientists and medical experts warn that the term “soft” has no medical, scientific, or pharmacological basis.  New cultivation methods by the Dutch (Hydroponics) have resulted in cannabis being many times stronger than the so-called “hard” drugs.

There is not a shred of evidence to support the theory of medical benefits.  The American Medical Association, Cancer Society, and the MS Society among others (see wwweurad.com....Research) have gone on record to state that they do not support these spurious claims.  Crude cannabis does not have the medical benefits the legalizers state.  Physicians should no more lend support to the use of a drug that had to be smoked by a patient whose immune system is already impaired than they would prescribe cigarettes to a patient suffering from stress or obesity.

APOPTOSIS

Decreases in sperm production and increases in abnormal forms caused by THC have been recently attributed to a biological phenomenon known as "apoptosis" of the cell.  Apoptosis is the process of programmed cell death occurring over hours and days, in successive stages, resulting in the fragmentation of DNA and the disintegration of the cell.  It is a fundamental process emphasized in the first report on the human genome (2001).  Apoptosis is controlled by an important cluster (home box) of genes, which order the self-destruction, or suicide of the cell. (Nahas)

An incorrect assumption of some scientists was that recreational usage of cannabis would not produce apoptosis.  They failed to take into account the distribution of THC throughout the body and it's lengthy storage in fat depots and subsequent slow release in the same active form as when first ingested.  After a single cannabis cigarette, 50% of its THC is stored in fat depots for five days.  It will take 30 days for it's complete elimination.  If one smokes one joint every two days, one will store ten times more than the initial dose of THC after ten days and 30 times more after 30 days.  Such amounts have been scientifically proven to induce apoptosis of sperm cells and of lymphocytes. (Nahas)

PSEUDO ARGUEMENTS IN FAVOUR

Armchair Generals will go on to argue that it is wrong to criminalise cannabis users.  However, just like larceny, smuggling, or murder, cannabis use and dealing (whether to support the personal habit or not) is prohibited for good reason.  We might as well argue that mugging or larceny should be legalised because it involves too much paperwork, is taking up too much of police time, and clogging up the court system.

It is argued that the money saved could be spent on apprehending the big dealers and providing more treatment facilities. They conveniently forget that although alcohol and cigarettes are taxed to the hilt, the taxes gathered do not cover the cost of their medical treatment.  Nor is appropriate policing provided.

Another argument put forward is that State controlled and taxed sale of drugs would unseat the International Mafia.  Where is the evidence for this?   For example, in 1988, The Netherlands had three organised crime groups, but by 1993 that number had risen to 93.  (Source: Dutch  National Committee on Prevention)  The Mafia are only interested in making money.   When drugs are no longer illegal, they will move into the legitimate market.  Because of the addictive nature of cannabis, the Mafia would have access to a growing market as with alcohol and cigarettes.  They can also “undercut” the legal suppliers and provide a stronger variety without it being challenged.  Who will police the underage market?

In the Netherlands, where de facto decriminalisation is practised (the Dutch Government calls it separation of the market), there has been a 49 percent rise in registered cannabis addicts between 1991-93.  In 1988, there were three organised crime groups in that country.  By 1993, there were 93.  Seventy-three percent of Dutch people think that their drug laws are too tolerant.  Cannabis use among students in Holland has increased by 250 percent since 1984.  (Source: K.F.Gunning MD. Drug Legalisation, Harm Reduction and Drug Policy).  Shootings have increased by 4 percent, car thefts by 6 percent and hold-ups by 69 percent. (Gunning)  The consequences of these lax policies prove clearly that, far from freeing up the judicial system, they are grinding the system to a halt.  The murder rate in Amsterdam is greater than Newark in New Jersey, a city of similar size.  Recent figures released by the Brixton Police in the UK show a rise in crime since the local police chief took it upon himself to reclassify cannabis possession for personal use as a misdemeanour.

The argument that legalisation will mean that addicts will no longer have to commit crimes in order to obtain money for drugs was put to the test in the 1960's in Sweden.  During that time the Swedish Government decided to “medicalise” their drug problem.  However, an evaluation of the legal prescription of narcotics in Sweden demonstrated that criminality increased despite the fact that narcotics (i.e. cannabis) were then freely available.  Similarly, The Netherlands gained the reputation of the crime capital of Europe in 1990.

Many train, plane, and road fatalities are directly associated with the use of cannabis.  Hospital A&E Departments report treating many such victims.( Source: Drug Watch International)  In Ireland, many brutal murders and violent acts, as well as road fatalities, are directly attributed to  cannabis use among the factors.

UNITED NATIONS CONVENTIONS ON NARCOTICS AND THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD

Since 1961, cannabis has been included in the U.N. Single Convention (Amended in  1972) on Narcotic Drugs.  It is also included in Article 33 of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.  These Conventions have been ratified by 150 countries.  Can they all be wrong?

The reason for the inclusion of cannabis was the evidence of the damage being caused to the individual and to society by the use of this poisonous and addictive intoxicant.

During the past century, physicians and public health officials from countries where cannabis and hashish had been widely used reported on the damaging effects of these drugs on their people and their society.  These reports, based on close observation but without the benefit of biochemistry, were at the origin of the U.N. Single Convention of 1960, held in New York City.

The U.N. Convention is a mandate from the people of the world to achieve a global interdiction of drugs of abuse in order to protect public health and safeguard man.  These Conventions were unanimously adopted by all U.N. member nations.

Laws of interdiction against cannabis are enforced in Sweden and Scandinavia with firmness, but according to seriousness of individual offences.  In Sweden, it is against the law to ingest cannabis or other illegal drugs.  Sweden has the best rates of success against drug abuse in Europe.  Prevention, intervention and treatment are priorities.  The parent movement is very strong and effective in that country.

At the other end of the scale, the Netherlands has long opted for the decriminalisation of cannabis, and now their open coffee shops are controlled by criminal organisations that supply  a variety of drugs through the “back door.”   Illegal drug traffic in The Netherlands accounts for close to 1 percent of its Gross National Product.  As a result of being contaminated by it's neighbour with drug trafficking, the Belgium Government has now  decriminalised cannabis.

THE RIGHTS OF THE ORDINARY CITIZEN

To suggest changing the law is to advocate chemical warfare on our most vulnerable citizens — our youngsters and the socially and emotionally deprived, who seek it out as a means of escapism.  In the United States, children who smoke cannabis are 85 times more  likely to use cocaine than those who do not use cannabis.  Sick people are being manipulated as guinea pigs to promote medical pot.  To change the laws will not change the proven medical and scientific facts on cannabis.  It will not alter its toxicity.

Cannabis users do not have the right to destabilise democracy.  The majority of citizens do not want cannabis laws weakened.  Democracy means that one cannot do as one may like always, but must subject him/herself to limitations for the collective good.

If the judicial system is being overloaded with cannabis cases and the police are complaining about the paperwork, then we should be looking at special courts that will direct these people towards treatment in the case of non-violent offences.  Treatment must be readily available, especially in the case of young teenagers, to avert serious addiction and cannabis psychoses.  Support must be offered to parents and schools.  Police Juvenile Diversion Programmes should be strengthened.  This will have a knock on effect in reducing road accidents that occur as a result of cannabis stupification.

The opposite to all of these humane approaches would be to develop a banana republic.

The fat-soluble smoke in cannabis damages the brain, respiratory tract, immune system and the unborn foetus.  Users cause damage to society through family breakdown, road accidents, and violent acts.

WHEN ARE THE UNITED NATIONS GOING TO SIT UP AND DEFEND THEIR CONVENTIONS ON NARCOTICS AND THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN?

Grainne Kenny
International President -Europe Against Drugs

Woman of Europe Award – Médaille de Maire de Strasbourg – Médaille de Maire de Paris – Swedish Parent Award Lord Mayor’s Award Dublin - Drug Watch USA International Delegate for Ireland

EURAD’s delegates and affiliates are in Europe, the USA, Canada, South America, New Zealand, and Australia. EURAD holds consultative status with the Council of Europe, Strasbourg. EURAD is a member of the NGO Committee on Narcotic Drugs at the UN Office, Vienna. Reg. No. Stichting EURAD S-155759, Chamber of Commerce, The Hague, The Netherlands.

Details

Category: Articles

Published: 01 August 2001

By:  Mina Seinfeld de Carakushansky
Special Secretary for the Prevention of Chemical Dependence
City of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil   (August 1, 2001)

On July 28, OGLOBO, the largest newspaper in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, published the article “O confuso planeta da marijuana”  (The Confused Planet Marijuana), by Zuenir Ventura, a well-known and opinion shaping journalist.  The article claims that “marijuana is inoffensive to health,” and that “everybody will, sooner or later, have to admit it’s use.”   His arguments are based on two main points.

The first one is a personal statement: “I know people ... who have been smoking (marijuana) for a long time with no problems — normal people, establishment people, with their jobs and families.”  Such argument implies, for instance, that the Brazilian General Surgeon should no longer determine that cigarette packages have warnings such as “cigarettes are harmful to your health,” just because Zuenir and I know some people who are 80 years old and have been smoking all of their lives.

As the journalist recognizes, chemical addiction is a disease.  However, just as with other diseases, you can tell someone is an addict only after the addiction has happened.  Still worse than that, is the fact that chemical addiction, unlike other diseases, has its victims craving for and seeking the drug that is causing their affliction. Therefore, public health policies cannot permit such an approach.

I agree with Zuenir when he says that we must attempt to heal the disease, but I wonder if he knows that chances of a real “healing” — not just a temporary suspension — are very low  (lower than 30% in the best case, while many experts say that real figures are under 10%).  Does Zuenir perhaps know that a good treatment for chemical addiction takes three to five years at about three thousand dollars a month, and that it could hardly become “wholesale treatment,” as each case must be considered individually?

Most supporters of drug liberalization use the examples of alcohol and cigarettes.  I think these are very good examples of how difficult it is to retreat from drug problems when the consumption of a drug becomes entangled with the habits of a society.  Why should we make the same mistake with marijuana or with any other psychoactive drug?

The second argument is an authoritative one: an authoritative look at the medical and nutritional uses of marijuana. As the journalist is not an expert on the subject, he thinks that “the society … has a very little knowledge” about drugs.  This is not true.  In the last ten years, this knowledge has been increasing at an exponential rate, with the possibility of mapping the human body, particularly the brain, to see how drugs operate in the various regions of the human body.  According to a survey made by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), there are over 15 thousand scientific papers, published in medical association periodicals, indicating that marijuana is harmful to health.  Moreover, now it is known that marijuana as smoked in the sixties had about 0.5% THC (the  psychoactive component that “turns on” the user), while today’s marijuana is ten to forty times stronger as regarding the THC content, which makes its effects correspondingly much stronger.  Marijuana’s THC has an affinity for human fatty cells — including brain cells. THC deposits last for at least five days after only one marijuana cigarette and become permanent in the brains of constant smokers, an open door for other severe diseases.

The journalist also echoes a scam that is very frequently used: restrictive policies against drugs are an “American” policy.  This excites the anti-American fashion, in an attempt to transform the problem into an issue of “patriotism.”  But this is untrue.  The most restrictive policies against drugs are found in China, Singapore, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Cuba, and others.  In Europe, countries like Sweden and Finland, for instance, have policies by far more restrictive than the American one, based on a general consensus of their societies against drug abuse, but not as repressive as the drug policies in the Asian countries mentioned.  Only the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Australia have openly supportive policies for drugs, while other European countries such as Portugal tend towards a liberalization policy.  However; France, Britain, Italy, Germany, etc. — all these countries, as well as many South American countries, such as Argentina, Peru, and Chile — have drug policies similar to the American ones.  Other than official policies of the various countries, there are hundreds of international organizations composed of physicians, researchers, parents, etc. that cannot be ignored — organizations such as Drug Watch International, Europe Against Drugs, and European Cities Against Drugs that have been working for years so that we may be able to live in a drug-free society.

Finally, Mr. Ventura makes a short reference to “controlled drug decriminalization and legalization,” apparently with a kind of support, as he says, that drug abuse “should be admitted to be a transgression that became a standard.”

There is a serious moral issue involved.  Should we also decriminalize theft or legalize murder as common transgressions?  Also here, Mr. Ventura seems poorly informed.  Just to mention one example, a 1999 survey named “Fala galera” (“Tell me folks”), conducted by  Fiocruz-Unesco, indicated that drug consumption figures among young people (ages 14 – 20) in Rio de Janeiro were by far much lower than their teachers had estimated.

Many articles could be written about legalization, but the only thing I have to point out here is that liberating marijuana exclusively would, of course, have no effect or do any  harm to the drug traffickers, as the other drugs would still remain illegal.  Legalizing marijuana would lead to increased general consumption of drugs, including the illegal ones.  Marijuana is known to be the gateway to other psychoactive drugs, as shown by the examples of the Netherlands and Australia.

In the end, Mr. Ventura says, “I do not know what to do — by the way, neither does the government nor the society.”  Let me suggest, Mr. Ventura, that you join those who want a city and a country with healthy and conscious young people, free of cigarettes of any kind, be it tobacco or marijuana.

Most importantly, we need to reshape public opinion by using good role models.  In a democratic and advanced country, as we want ours to be, prosperity and freedom cannot be built by sluggish crowds of drug addicts.

Details

Category: Articles

Published: 08 January 2002

By Mina Seinfeld de Carakushansky
Director of the International Delegates
Drug Watch International

Untruths, when repeated many times, end up acquiring airs of truth. Some articles, written by people who are in favor of drug legalization, make reliable statements next to statements that are not.  But the untruths are so extensively repeated that they end up being accepted as true, even by well-meaning people.

One of these untruths states that prohibition of drugs causes much of the existing violence and therefore generates criminality. If we follow this type of logic, which is against common sense, we should also legalize such crimes as murder, theft, and rape.  Then, they would not be considered crimes, and we would decrease criminality. Prohibition of the indiscriminate extraction of wood in our Amazon Forest makes the wood much more expensive.  Should we stop the prohibition because it may generate illegal traffic, the formation of gangs, and violence?  Of course not.

The cause of criminality is not the existence of laws. Society must decide if it is for or against the indiscriminate and generalized use of psychoactive drugs, and must then decide what will be permitted and what will not be permitted by the law. To live in society implies accepting limitations to one's own individual freedom. What would happen if we lived in a society where each one had the freedom to commit murder, to rob, to drive an automobile placing at risk the lives of other people, or to exercise the "pleasure" of his pedophilia?

Drugs are, and should be, prohibited because they are psychoactive, that is, they change the operation of the brain, the organ that commands the control of our actions. If society legalizes the use of drugs, it will allow individuals to jeopardize not only their own health but also the health and lives of others, under the umbrella argument of exercising their pleasure. Who would like to be on a plane, having just seen the pilot buying cocaine in a little store at the airport? Who would like to undergo surgery by a surgeon who is addicted to crack? What teacher could teach a class to students who are numbed by smoking marijuana? In all places where there are liberal drug laws, such as in Switzerland, Australia, and Holland, drug consumption increased dramatically. The drugs got cheaper, easier to find, and there was no longer the stigma of illegality, which is an important factor of dissuasion.

When predicting supposed positive consequences that could be gained by drug legalization, people fall into the trap and commit the mistake of thinking that if we change the rules, we can apply the new rules to the same set of previously existing circumstances. However, changing the rules changes the social environment itself. As the rules that control any specific behavior become laxer, there is always an increase in the frequency of that behavior.

Neither is it true that, through legalization, the narco-traffickers will disappear. Tobacco cigarettes are legal in Brazil; however, due to high taxes, there is illegal traffic of one-third of the cigarettes consumed. In countries such as Italy, this illegal traffic ends up causing gang wars and many deaths.

One more untruth: the taxes that could be collected through the legal sale of drugs would finance the costs of treatment for the drug addicts. These resources would in no way be enough. The amount of money that the Brazilian government receives now from taxation of the sale of alcoholic drinks represents only 25% of the expenses that the government spends on diseases associated with alcoholism. Numbers vary from country to country, but international research finds that recovery rates of drug treatment are not greater than 10 percent. A comprehensive treatment program usually does not take less than 3 years, and a drug clinic treatment has a monthly cost of about 6 thousand reais (2.5 thousand dollars). The World Health Organization considers drug addiction an incurable disease, and one can imagine the costs of treatment in a society with legalized drugs.  The State — in other words, the citizens, even those who do not use drugs — would have to pay for these treatment costs, at least for the needy. Imagine the disaster this would mean for the public health system. At the moment, legalization is postulated only to guarantee the use of drugs "without restrictions." But almost unavoidably, with legalization, drug addicts will start to demand that society subsidizes their drug consumption. Heavily addicted people will be unable to keep a stable job, and they will demand that the Government sustains them, even in their addiction.  This is already starting to happen by providing free needles to drug addicts who use injectable drugs.

Another false report refers to the Prohibition Era in the USA. It is usually said that during prohibition there was great violence and corruption linked to organized crime, and when Prohibition was suspended, all this criminality disappeared as if by magic. That argument does not resist a more detailed analysis of the facts. The truth is that, in Chicago, in the short period from 1925 to 1931, there was an especially glamorous outlaw for the media, Al Capone. He and his gang inspired dozens of films and other fiction works, stimulating the idea that there were hundreds of Al Capones, accomplishing great "massacres," such as the Saint Valentine’s Day Massacre in which seven people were killed. Considering all the many American cities, like New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Miami, etc., criminality between the twenties and the thirties is not, in any way, more impressive than in previous or later times. Few people mention that several public health indicators in the United States improved considerably during the time of Prohibition, and they worsened again after Prohibition was suspended. Even now, in many North American cities, some businesses do not have licenses to sell alcoholic beverages, there are schedule restrictions, and in some places it is even prohibited to walk on the street drinking a beer from a can or a bottle. Criminality in the USA did not begin with Prohibition, nor did it cease with the end of Prohibition.

The statement that we should legalize drugs because the "current system throws thousands of innocent poor into prison because they were consuming a few grams of marijuana and/or cocaine” is another obvious untruth. A study done in 1999 by the Rio de Janeiro State Justice Secretariat and by the Department of Prisons of the State of Rio de Janeiro concluded that more than 99.5 percent of all the prisoners incarcerated or put into Psychiatric Hospital in the State of Rio de Janeiro's penitentiary System were not in there because of simple drug use! The situation is similar to the one the United States. A Report published by the United States Statistic Bureau of the Justice Department, August 2001, points out that in 1999, the Federal Government prosecuted 38,288 people suspected of drug involvement, of which only 3% were arrested for simple possession of drugs. A great number of convicts and prisoners are incarcerated for drug trafficking, and people mistakenly or willfully mix simple possession with trafficking in order to reinforce their legalization argumentation. To avoid the hell of prison for simple offenses, it is not necessary to legalize drugs. It is enough adopt alternative penalties, as is the consensus today in Brazil and all over the world, not only for drug users, but also for other kinds of deleterious acts. That is much better than what is happening today, when policemen, public attorneys, and judges shut their eyes to the use of drugs, creating impunity and disrespect for the law.

Details

Category: Articles

Published: 07 February 2001

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Canadian Chiefs of Police Association
2001

Drugs Are Illegal Because Drugs Are Dangerous

Drugs are not dangerous because they are illegal; drugs are illegal because drugs are dangerous.  There is no such thing as "soft drugs" and "hard drugs," nor bona fide criteria to differentiate between these terms.   People who refer to hard or soft drugs generally do not understand the truth about drugs, or are seeking to soften attitudes towards the use of certain illicit drugs.   Generally, Marijuana (Cannabis) and its derivative products are described in this context to distance the drug from the recognized harm associated with other illegal drugs.   This has been a successful, yet dangerous approach, and contributes to the misinformation, misunderstanding, and increasing tolerance associated with marijuana use.

Marijuana is a powerful drug with a variety of effects.    Marijuana users are subject to a variety of adverse health consequences:

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

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

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

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

Trends in Drug Use Among Canadians

Weakening perceptions of risk of harm in drug use, weakening moral disapproval of drug use, and increasing perceived availability of drugs have resulted in increasing rates of use among secondary students.   Increased drug dependency and substance abuse problems are also being reported among young people.

Marijuana remains the most widely used illicit drug in Canada.   Even though alcohol use is more common, problem use and frequent use are much less common with alcohol than with illicit drugs.  Students who use drugs are more likely to use drugs repeatedly, more frequently, and rapidly make drugs a significant part of their lives.  Students using drugs are far more likely to go to school intoxicated, play sports while intoxicated, or use drugs in the morning.

Drugs & Organized Crime

There is an undisputable relationship between organized crime and the illicit drug trade in Canada and abroad.   Canada has earned a reputation internationally as both a consumer and leading supplier of marijuana and methamphetamine products to the United States.   Increasingly potent cannabis, having a high THC content, is appearing on the illicit market.

Drug trafficking continues to increase in Canada.   Besides the cannabis and cocaine smuggled into Canada out of countries such as Mexico, there was also an increase in the amount of heroin smuggled into Canada.

As Organized crime flourishes with little deterrence, members of crime gangs become more brazen and confrontational.   In the province of Quebec, 150 people including an innocent child and two prison guards have been murdered by gangsters; reporter Michel Auger was shot six times in an assassination attempt; and farmers who have refused to grow marijuana and politicians who have exposed the activities have been the subject of threats.   Violence and intimidation tactics have spread across Canada, including threats and acts of violence against police investigators and other justice officials. 

We Are Not Losing "The War on Drugs."

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

Statistics reveal that less than one drug related charge per Canadian police officer is laid per year in Canada.   While enforcement efforts focus on drug production, trafficking, and importation, possession only charges are generally laid as a consequence of investigations into other crimes and complaints.   Police officers and justice officials often resort, within our existing legislative framework, to alternative measures in dealing with young offenders, first time offenders and minor possession only type offences.

The impact of the efforts by the law enforcement agencies of Canada, however, has remained limited by our judicial system.   Serious offenders, such as drug traffickers, importers and manufacturers receive little or no punishment, and it has been difficult to deter them from their illicit activity.

Police resources have been subject to fiscal constraints over the past decade, and enforcement efforts have been limited as a consequence.   Perceived tolerance of drug consumption by community leaders, including Members of Parliament, Senators, Editorial Writers and even some Chiefs of Police, have all contributed to the elevation of thresholds for drug investigation, arrest, prosecution, conviction and sentencing.    Ultimately, the effectiveness of enforcement programs, and drug prevention strategies, will be proportionate to the level of resources and commitment.

Lessons Learned from Other Countries

The facts proving that liberalization experiments in different countries produce negative consequences are overwhelming.   In many Western European Countries including Great Britain, decriminalizing possession of small quantities of cannabis for personal use has either occurred, or has been de facto implemented.

In examining these experiences we can quickly learn, however, that permissive drug policies fuel the appetite and consumption of illicit drugs.   Not surprisingly, tolerance of drug use has had a proportionate impact in increasing demand and supply.   The availability of drugs in Europe has increased.   In many countries, the prevalence and rise of amphetamine-type stimulants is second only to that of cannabis abuse.   In countries that have adopted permissive policies towards drug use, violent crime and organized criminal activity has increased proportionately to the drug trade.

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

Having unsuccessfully experimented with permissive drug policies of varying kinds in the 1960s and 1970s, Sweden subsequently concluded that Drug abuse is dependent on supply and demand.  According to Swedish authorities, if drugs are readily available and society takes a permissive attitude, the number of persons trying drugs will increase.   If drugs are very difficult to come by and there is a danger of being arrested, the number of people trying drugs will be reduced.

Alaska is also an example of failed drug liberalization.   From 1980 to 1990 hashish consumption and possession was not a criminal offence there.   During this time hashish abuse, especially among adolescents, increased drastically.   In 1988 the proportion of adolescent hashish smokers in Alaska was double that of all other states in the USA.   As a consequence, a public vote in 1990 repealed the decriminalization measure.

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

Prevention — Reducing Demand

Governments fulfill a legitimate and critical role in establishing laws and policies that define behavioural standards and societal values.   Legislation and enforcement are required proactive strategies to deter behaviour that places individuals at risk.

The success of seatbelt legislation suggests that legislative strategies are effective in supporting behavioural change.     Prior to seatbelt legislation in Canada, only an estimated 15% to 30% of Canadians wore seatbelts.   Today it is estimated that more than 90% of drivers wear seatbelts.  These results reflect the influence that legislative action outside of the health sector can have on the health of Canadians.

Risk of apprehension and meaningful consequences have also been integral components of successful strategies to reduce impaired driving in Canada.   While the fight to eliminate Impaired Driving may never be won, there is no disputing the fact that strategies have been effective in changing behaviour and reducing risk.

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

The Costs of Legalization Will Be Astronomical

Canadian statistics clearly demonstrate that the costs of Canada's alcohol and tobacco are more than thirteen times those of illicit drugs.  Enforcement for alcohol related crime costs more than three times that of illicit drugs.    Direct Health Care Costs for alcohol and cigarettes are nearly 50 times greater than those for illicit drugs.   Law enforcement costs for illicit drugs, including courts, corrections and border protection, represent only 2 percent of the total costs to Canadians of alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs in Canada.

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

While a balanced drug strategy will not completely eradicate drug use; it is cost-effective and beneficial to society to deter drug use, and focus available resources for prevention, treatment and rehabilitation on the small percentage of the population who have the greatest need.

The Canadian Police Association Opposes Legalization or "Decriminalization"

There is abundant proof that proponents of drug legalization seek to "normalize" illicit drug use, through the promotion of programs such as "Harm Reduction" over strategies to reduce demand and supply.   Yet, Canada's balanced approach to drug use continues to have a significant positive effect.   We should not lose sight of the fact that the overwhelming majority of Canadians have not used illicit drugs in their lifetime. 

Unfortunately, it is our youngest and most vulnerable members of society who are at greatest risk.  Organized criminals continue target young Canadians as the primary market for the sale of illegal drugs in Canada. 

The United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention, in a February 2000 presentation to the International Drug Control Summit concerning Amphetamine Type Stimulants, suggested a five-prong approach to prevent drug use:

• Raise Awareness
• Reduce Demand
• Provide Accurate information
• Limit Supply
• Strengthen Controls

Prevention is at the core of demand reduction.   Sending a message to our young people that cannabis use is not harmful or can be used safely, when there is an abundance of scientific proof to the contrary, is not consistent with any of these approaches.   Treatment and rehabilitation should be available to those who have drug dependencies.

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

The time has arrived for leaders to enter into the debate, persons of stature in the community who will present positive role models for our young people, raise public awareness about the harms associated with illicit drug use, and put an end to the erosion of public opinion through misinformation and self interest.  We need to reinforce a balanced approach that instils meaningful and proportionate consequences for serious crime, combined with measures to reinforce desired behaviour with our young people.