T
The420Guy
Guest
Criminalization Is Ineffective, Costly And Does The Public More Harm Than Good
Free Thinking: The following are excerpts from the report of the Senate
special committee on illegal drugs released yesterday.
Thirty years ago, the Le Dain Royal Commission of Inquiry on the
Non-Medical Use of Drugs released its report on cannabis. We have had the
benefit of Le Dain's work, a much more highly developed knowledge base
since then and of 30 years' historical perspective.
The commission concluded that the criminalization of cannabis had no
scientific basis. Thirty years later, we confirm this conclusion and add
that continued criminalization of cannabis remains unjustified based on
scientific data on the danger it poses.
The commission heard and considered the same arguments on the dangers of
using cannabis: apathy, loss of interest and concentration, learning
difficulties. A majority of the commissioners concluded that these
concerns, while unsubstantiated, warranted a restrictive policy. Thirty
years later, we assert that the studies done in the meantime have not
confirmed the existence of the so-called amotivational syndrome and add
that most studies rule out this syndrome as a consequence of the use of
cannabis.
The commission concluded that not enough was known about the long-term and
excessive use of cannabis. We assert that these types of use exist and may
present some health risks; excessive use, however, is limited to a minority
of users. Public policy, we would add, must provide ways to prevent and
screen for at-risk behaviour, something our policies have yet to do.
The commission concluded that the effects of long-term use of cannabis on
brain function, while largely exaggerated, could affect adolescent
development. We concur, but point out that the long-term effects of
cannabis use appear reversible in most cases. We note also that adolescents
who are excessive users or become long-term users are a tiny minority of
all users of cannabis. Once again, we would add that a public policy must
prevent use at an early age and at-risk behaviour.
The commission was concerned that the use of cannabis would lead to the use
of other drugs. Thirty years' experience in the Netherlands disproves this
clearly, as do the liberal policies of Spain, Italy and Portugal. And here
in Canada, despite the increase in cannabis users, we have not had a
proportionate increase in users of hard drugs.
The commission was also concerned that legalization would mean increased
use, among the young in particular. We have not legalized cannabis, and we
have one of the highest rates in the world. Countries adopting a more
liberal policy have, for the most part, rates of usage lower than ours,
which stabilized after a short period of growth.
Thirty years later, we note that:
- - Billions of dollars have been sunk into enforcement without any greater
effect. There are more consumers, more regular users and more regular
adolescent users;
- - Billions of dollars have been poured into enforcement in an effort to
reduce supply, without any greater effect. Cannabis is more available than
ever, it is cultivated on a large scale, even exported, swelling coffers
and making organized crime more powerful;
- - There have been tens of thousands of arrests and convictions for the
possession of cannabis and thousands of people have been incarcerated.
However, use trends remain totally unaffected and the gap the commission
noted between the law and public compliance continues to widen.
It is time to recognize what is patently obvious: Our policies have been
ineffective, because they are poor policies.
- - - -
Every year, more than 20,000 Canadians are arrested for cannabis
possession. This figure might be as high as 50,000 depending on how the
statistics are interpreted. No matter what the numbers, they are too high
for this type of conduct. However, even those numbers are laughable when
compared to the three million people who have used cannabis over the past
12 months. We should not think that the number of arrests could be
significantly increased even if billions more dollars were allocated to
police enforcement. Indeed, such a move should not even be considered.
A look at the availability and price of drugs forces us to admit that
supply-reduction policies are ineffective. To what extent do we want to go
further down this road? Clearly, current approaches are ineffective and
inefficient. Ultimately, their effect amounts to throwing taxpayers' money
down the drain in a crusade that is not warranted by the danger posed by
the substance.
It has been maintained that drugs, including cannabis, are not dangerous
because they are illegal, but rather are illegal because they are
dangerous. This is perhaps true of other types of drugs, but not of
cannabis. We should state this clearly once and for all, for public good:
It is time to stop this crusade.
However much we might wish good health and happiness for everyone, we all
know how fragile they are. Above all, we realize that health and happiness
cannot be forced on a person, especially not by criminal law based on a
specific concept of what is morally "right." No matter how attractive calls
for a drug-free society might be, and even if some people might want others
to stop smoking, drinking alcohol or smoking joints, we all realize that
these activities are part of our social reality.
The state should neither abdicate responsibility and allow drug markets to
run rife, nor should it impose a particular way of life on people. We have
opted, instead, for a concept whereby public policy promotes and supports
freedom for individuals and society as a whole. Support for freedom
necessarily means flexibility and adaptability. It is for this reason that
public policy on cannabis has to be clear while at the same time tolerant,
to serve as a guide while at the same time avoiding imposing a single standard.
As far as cannabis is concerned, only behaviour causing demonstrable harm
to others should be prohibited: illegal trafficking, selling to minors and
impaired driving. Used in moderation, cannabis in itself poses very little
danger to users and to society as a whole, but specific types of use
represent risks for users.
In addition to being ineffective and costly, criminalization leads to a
series of harmful consequences: users are marginalized and exposed to
discrimination by the police and the criminal justice system; society sees
the power and wealth of organized crime enhanced as criminals benefit from
prohibition; and governments see their ability to prevent at-risk use
diminished.
We would add that, even if can-nabis were to have serious harmful effects,
one would have to question the relevance of using the criminal law to limit
these effects.
All of this does not in any way mean, however, that cannabis use should be
encouraged or left unregulated. Clearly, it is a psychoactive substance
with some effects on cognitive and motor functions. When smoked, cannabis
can have harmful effects on the respiratory airways and is potentially
cancerous. Some vulnerable people should be prevented, as much as possible,
from using cannabis. This is the case for young people under 16 years of
age and those people with particular conditions that might make them
vulnerable, for example those with psychotic predispositions.
As with alcohol, adult users should be encouraged to use cannabis in
moderation. Given that, as for any substance, at-risk use does exist,
preventive measures and detection tools should be established and treatment
initiatives must be developed for those who use the drug excessively.
Lastly, it goes without saying that education initiatives and severe
criminal penalties must be used to deter people from operating vehicles
under the influence of cannabis.
- - - -
The prohibition of cannabis does not bring about the desired reduction in
cannabis consumption or problematic use. However, this approach does have a
whole series of harmful consequences. Users are marginalized, and more than
20,000 Canadians are arrested each year for can-nabis possession. Young
people in schools no longer enjoy the same constitutional and civil
protection of their rights as others. Organized crime benefits from
prohibition and the criminalization of cannabis enhances their power and
wealth.
Society will never be able to stamp out drug use -- particularly cannabis
use. We believe that the continued prohibition of cannabis jeopardizes the
health and well-being of Canadians much more than does the substance itself
or the regulated marketing of the substance. In addition, we believe that
the continued criminalization of cannabis undermines the fundamental values
set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and confirmed in the
history of a country based on diversity and tolerance.
Source: Ottawa Citizen (CN ON)
Webpage: MapInc
Details: MapInc
Free Thinking: The following are excerpts from the report of the Senate
special committee on illegal drugs released yesterday.
Thirty years ago, the Le Dain Royal Commission of Inquiry on the
Non-Medical Use of Drugs released its report on cannabis. We have had the
benefit of Le Dain's work, a much more highly developed knowledge base
since then and of 30 years' historical perspective.
The commission concluded that the criminalization of cannabis had no
scientific basis. Thirty years later, we confirm this conclusion and add
that continued criminalization of cannabis remains unjustified based on
scientific data on the danger it poses.
The commission heard and considered the same arguments on the dangers of
using cannabis: apathy, loss of interest and concentration, learning
difficulties. A majority of the commissioners concluded that these
concerns, while unsubstantiated, warranted a restrictive policy. Thirty
years later, we assert that the studies done in the meantime have not
confirmed the existence of the so-called amotivational syndrome and add
that most studies rule out this syndrome as a consequence of the use of
cannabis.
The commission concluded that not enough was known about the long-term and
excessive use of cannabis. We assert that these types of use exist and may
present some health risks; excessive use, however, is limited to a minority
of users. Public policy, we would add, must provide ways to prevent and
screen for at-risk behaviour, something our policies have yet to do.
The commission concluded that the effects of long-term use of cannabis on
brain function, while largely exaggerated, could affect adolescent
development. We concur, but point out that the long-term effects of
cannabis use appear reversible in most cases. We note also that adolescents
who are excessive users or become long-term users are a tiny minority of
all users of cannabis. Once again, we would add that a public policy must
prevent use at an early age and at-risk behaviour.
The commission was concerned that the use of cannabis would lead to the use
of other drugs. Thirty years' experience in the Netherlands disproves this
clearly, as do the liberal policies of Spain, Italy and Portugal. And here
in Canada, despite the increase in cannabis users, we have not had a
proportionate increase in users of hard drugs.
The commission was also concerned that legalization would mean increased
use, among the young in particular. We have not legalized cannabis, and we
have one of the highest rates in the world. Countries adopting a more
liberal policy have, for the most part, rates of usage lower than ours,
which stabilized after a short period of growth.
Thirty years later, we note that:
- - Billions of dollars have been sunk into enforcement without any greater
effect. There are more consumers, more regular users and more regular
adolescent users;
- - Billions of dollars have been poured into enforcement in an effort to
reduce supply, without any greater effect. Cannabis is more available than
ever, it is cultivated on a large scale, even exported, swelling coffers
and making organized crime more powerful;
- - There have been tens of thousands of arrests and convictions for the
possession of cannabis and thousands of people have been incarcerated.
However, use trends remain totally unaffected and the gap the commission
noted between the law and public compliance continues to widen.
It is time to recognize what is patently obvious: Our policies have been
ineffective, because they are poor policies.
- - - -
Every year, more than 20,000 Canadians are arrested for cannabis
possession. This figure might be as high as 50,000 depending on how the
statistics are interpreted. No matter what the numbers, they are too high
for this type of conduct. However, even those numbers are laughable when
compared to the three million people who have used cannabis over the past
12 months. We should not think that the number of arrests could be
significantly increased even if billions more dollars were allocated to
police enforcement. Indeed, such a move should not even be considered.
A look at the availability and price of drugs forces us to admit that
supply-reduction policies are ineffective. To what extent do we want to go
further down this road? Clearly, current approaches are ineffective and
inefficient. Ultimately, their effect amounts to throwing taxpayers' money
down the drain in a crusade that is not warranted by the danger posed by
the substance.
It has been maintained that drugs, including cannabis, are not dangerous
because they are illegal, but rather are illegal because they are
dangerous. This is perhaps true of other types of drugs, but not of
cannabis. We should state this clearly once and for all, for public good:
It is time to stop this crusade.
However much we might wish good health and happiness for everyone, we all
know how fragile they are. Above all, we realize that health and happiness
cannot be forced on a person, especially not by criminal law based on a
specific concept of what is morally "right." No matter how attractive calls
for a drug-free society might be, and even if some people might want others
to stop smoking, drinking alcohol or smoking joints, we all realize that
these activities are part of our social reality.
The state should neither abdicate responsibility and allow drug markets to
run rife, nor should it impose a particular way of life on people. We have
opted, instead, for a concept whereby public policy promotes and supports
freedom for individuals and society as a whole. Support for freedom
necessarily means flexibility and adaptability. It is for this reason that
public policy on cannabis has to be clear while at the same time tolerant,
to serve as a guide while at the same time avoiding imposing a single standard.
As far as cannabis is concerned, only behaviour causing demonstrable harm
to others should be prohibited: illegal trafficking, selling to minors and
impaired driving. Used in moderation, cannabis in itself poses very little
danger to users and to society as a whole, but specific types of use
represent risks for users.
In addition to being ineffective and costly, criminalization leads to a
series of harmful consequences: users are marginalized and exposed to
discrimination by the police and the criminal justice system; society sees
the power and wealth of organized crime enhanced as criminals benefit from
prohibition; and governments see their ability to prevent at-risk use
diminished.
We would add that, even if can-nabis were to have serious harmful effects,
one would have to question the relevance of using the criminal law to limit
these effects.
All of this does not in any way mean, however, that cannabis use should be
encouraged or left unregulated. Clearly, it is a psychoactive substance
with some effects on cognitive and motor functions. When smoked, cannabis
can have harmful effects on the respiratory airways and is potentially
cancerous. Some vulnerable people should be prevented, as much as possible,
from using cannabis. This is the case for young people under 16 years of
age and those people with particular conditions that might make them
vulnerable, for example those with psychotic predispositions.
As with alcohol, adult users should be encouraged to use cannabis in
moderation. Given that, as for any substance, at-risk use does exist,
preventive measures and detection tools should be established and treatment
initiatives must be developed for those who use the drug excessively.
Lastly, it goes without saying that education initiatives and severe
criminal penalties must be used to deter people from operating vehicles
under the influence of cannabis.
- - - -
The prohibition of cannabis does not bring about the desired reduction in
cannabis consumption or problematic use. However, this approach does have a
whole series of harmful consequences. Users are marginalized, and more than
20,000 Canadians are arrested each year for can-nabis possession. Young
people in schools no longer enjoy the same constitutional and civil
protection of their rights as others. Organized crime benefits from
prohibition and the criminalization of cannabis enhances their power and
wealth.
Society will never be able to stamp out drug use -- particularly cannabis
use. We believe that the continued prohibition of cannabis jeopardizes the
health and well-being of Canadians much more than does the substance itself
or the regulated marketing of the substance. In addition, we believe that
the continued criminalization of cannabis undermines the fundamental values
set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and confirmed in the
history of a country based on diversity and tolerance.
Source: Ottawa Citizen (CN ON)
Webpage: MapInc
Details: MapInc
