Own your ow legal marijuana business | Your guide to making money in the multi-billion dollar marijuana industry |
Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy | ||||
Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs | ||||
Volume 2 - Policies and Practices In Canada |
|
Chapter 18
Observations
on practices
In previous chapters, we described
public action by dividing it up into the major sectors of involvement. Before
closing the third part of this report, we would like to make some general
observations that cut across the individual areas we have examined. The first
concerns difficulties in harmonizing the various levels and sectors of
involvement; the second, the difficulty in co-ordinating their various
approaches; and the third, the costs of drugs and public policy. Difficulties
in harmonizing the players
Without reopening the debate on the
division of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
we consider it obvious that any public policy on illegal drugs, and cannabis in
particular, applies to all three levels. Drugs affect education and health
(primarily provincial jurisdictions), justice (a responsibility shared between
the federal and provincial governments), public well-being and public safety
(which involve all three levels), international relations (a federal
responsibility), and even culture, science and research (essentially
provincial). Thus we are attempting to make our way through a field that is at
least tangled, if not chaotic. Co-ordinating mechanisms do exist.
On the most formal level, the federal-provincial-territorial Deputy Ministers
of Health Working Group is responsible for co‑ordinating the drug
strategy. But we know almost nothing about their discussions, which are held in camera, or any concrete results. The Canadian Centre on Substance
Abuse (CCSA) is another coordinating mechanism, but only a few provinces have
equivalent partners (Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and Quebec, with some
reservations). And the Centre has neither the budget, the infrastructure nor
even the legitimacy, which it would derive from a clear mandate, needed to
initiate a genuine national dialogue on the issue. Yet another coordinating mechanism
is the Health, Education and Enforcement in Partnership (HEP) network..
Established in 1994 by the CCSA, the HEP network is rooted in the balanced
approach of Canada’s Drug Strategy: seeking an equilibrium between supply
reduction and demand reduction. HEP unites key players in the health and enforcement fields in this common
focus and includes other partners, notably in education, social services,
correctional services and justice. On a national level, its Steering Committee
is composed of representatives of the Addictions Foundation of Manitoba, the
Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (co-chair), the Canadian Centre on
Substance Abuse (co-chair), the Correctional Service of Canada, the Canadian
Federation of Municipalities, Health Canada, Justice Canada, the National
Centre for Crime Prevention, the RCMP and the Solicitor-General. How many
readers of this report, even among those actively engaged in the drug field,
are aware of this partnership, its achievements, actions and benefits? In Chapter 14, we examined the
disparate response of police services across the country to the application of
the law–between regions, provinces and territories and, within provinces and
territories, between cities. In Chapter 15, we noted that all the evidence
suggests that the same holds true of the judicial response. Chapters 16 and 17,
on preventive practices and treatment respectively, described the same unequal
or fragmented approaches. In a federation like Canada, it is
to be expected that differences in practice and direction will co-exist. How
the issue of cannabis is seen and dealt with will not be the same in the
greater Vancouver area, with its explosion of growers, as in Quebec, with its
criminal motorcycle gangs, or as in Prince Edward Island, which has almost no
problems with production or even with abuse of cannabis. The difficulties
experienced in the downtown cores of major cities are not those of smaller
urban centres. And First Nations people have their own quite specific problems. Nevertheless, among other effects,
the difficulties in harmonizing the action of different levels of government
mean in concrete terms that: v Results
of a successful experiment in prevention conducted in one area of the country
will not reach the players in another part.
Notably absent in the development of
public policy is the civil society, especially community-based organizations
(rehabilitation organizations, for example) and also user self-help support
groups (including compassion clubs and groups of users of cannabis for
therapeutic purposes). The hyperbola that would make drugs
into a bigger social issue than they actually are aside, it remains that the
use of psychoactive substances, legal or illegal, and the resulting problems of
dependency that may follow, concern every citizen, every level of government,
throughout the country. This is a national
issue. That, unquestionably, the future and quality of our health system,
the protection of our national interests and security, the quality of education
and the protection of the environment are even more important issues does not
mean that drugs are not a national
priority. Or should be, at least. Quite apart from its social and economic
consequences, which will be discussed later, the drug issue should be a
priority because it concerns the education of children and adolescents, affects
the quality and safety of living environments, and causes suffering and wasted
lives. Granted that this is not so much the case for cannabis, whose social and
economic effects cannot be compared to those of alcohol, but, while agreeing
that cannabis calls for a different approach, we cannot isolate it from other
psychoactive substances. We need to develop a comprehensive national policy on
drugs and addiction, within which cannabis would have a place. Better harmonization among levels of
government and with civil society would allow us to lay the foundations of a
shared understanding of the issues presented by psychoactive substances, and
above all to develop a common set of indicators for assessing the effectiveness
of policies and actions. |