Panic and Indifference

The Politics of Canada's Drug Laws.

P.J. Giffen, Shirley Endicott and Sylvia Lambert.

A study in the Sociology of Law.

(Highly recomended.)

<Begin Quoted Text pgs 66-68>

Another important claimant for credit in bringing about the legislation was a young Conservative in Vancouver, H. H. Stevens. Stevens became a very vocal MP during the narcotics debates of the 1920s, and personally introduced several important amendments. His zeal for narcotic drug prohibition was kindled during his early investigations of the problem.

According to his own account, when he learned about the gambling and opium trade being carried on in Vancouver's Chinatown, he took the following actions:

I took it up with the Chief of Police, but he just brushed me off. Then I went down into Chinatown itself, and visited the gambling joints and also saw personally the Chinese preparing raw opium for the market. When the Chief of Police refused to take any action, I used to publish in the _Vancouver News Advertiser_ exactly what I had seen the night before. This I did for several weeks. It created quite a sensation in Vancouver, and as a result the civic authorities discharged the Chief and appointed Mr. Chamberlain. This man, when he became Chief of Police, did an excellent job in clearing up Chinatown(29).

He described his role in bringing about the first opium Act as follows:

(In 1908) I was responsible for the matter being brought to the attention of the then government. I remember taking some very prominent eastern gentlemen around Pacific Coast cities and showing them the effects and use of these drugs. They returned to Ottawa and put it up to Sir Wilfred Laurier, and the result was the Bill that was introduced(13d,p.2899).

<SNIP>

The motives of H. H. Stevens and of the city councils are open to question. They appear in this instance to have been concerned about moral reform and civic order but all were associated with anti-Chinese policies in other contexts. Stevens came to be recognized as the "the city's leading anti-Oriental spokesman" (30, p.91), in Parliament as at local rallies. Civic politicians, too, had an anti-Chinese rhetoric as part of their election kit and, once elected, usually supported the use of municipal ordinances and licensing powers for discriminatory purposes.

<SNIP>

The League's (Vancouver Anti-Opium League) representations to King(Mackenzie) included an urgent telegram at the time when the Bill was being sent to the Senate and the opium manufacturers were lobbying for a moratorium to protect their financial interests.

INFORM GOVERNMENT NOT TO LET MANUFACTURERS DELAY LEGISTAION. CHINESE AT LARGE FAVOUR IMMEDIATE SUPPRESSION(2d).

<End pgs 66-68>

<Begin pg 203>

THE PUBLIC

Interested sections of the public became very vocal and active during the same period in in demanding more severe penalties. The cry for heavier punishment was the result of a drug scare created almost entirely by alarmist stories in the mass media. The stories, of which Emily Murphy's articles in _Maclean's_ were a prime example, reinforced pre-existing hostility to Orientals and augmented the horrifying spectre of the "dope fiend." The negative racial stereotypes and alarming drug mythology, spread by people who claimed to have first-hand knowledge, were accepted uncritically. The immediate result of these fears and hostility was the emergence of a British Columbia drug lobby in 1921, with the straightforward goals of compulsory imprisonment and whipping for all traffickers and, where possible, deportation. Public fears about narcotic drugs were particularly intense in British Columbia, the province with the largest concentration of Chinese immigrants. Accordingly, the greatest pressure on legislators for severe penalties originated in that province. Much of the demand for greater punitiveness was linked to animus against the Chinese and a desire to get rid of them, seen most clearly in the proposal for deportation.

<End Quoted Text pg 203.>

APPENDIX 2 - Persons Convicted of Offences Against the Opium and Narcotic

Drug Act by country of Birth

1922-1969(1)

YEAR TOTAL Non-China(2) China % Other(3)

1922 1,858 733 1,117 60.1

1923 1,297 688 604 46.6 4

1924 997 327 633 66.5 5

1925 835 366 469 56.2

1926 743 240 495 66.5 7

1927 491 133 353 71.9 3

1928 608 187 412 67.8 7

1929 616 110 506 82.1 **** 82.1 % *****

1930 461 164 281 60.9 1

1931 316 147 169 53.5

1932 NA

1933 230 108 122 53.0

1934 218 93 125 57.3

1935 165 101 64 38.3

1936 182 136 55 30.2

1937 220 177 35 15.9 8

1938 183 142 40 21.9

1939 226 192 24 10.6 11

1940 234 199 32 13.7 3

1941 273 241 31 11.4 1

1942 136 130 5 3.7 1

1943 136 128 8 5.9

1944 194 167 27 13.9

1945 212 199 13 6.1

1946 247 220 27 10.9

1947 341 321 16 4.7 4

1948 316 304 0 - 12

1949 353 350 2 .6 1

1950 356 346 5 1.4 5

1951 353 338 10 2.8 5

1952 367 359 5 1.4 3

1953 337 325 9 2.7 3

1954 306 291 11 3.6 4

1955 349 400 8 2.3 1

1956 382 377 0 - 5

1957 400 393 5 1.3 2

1958 488 486 1 .2 1

1959 565 560 3 .5 2

1960 467 460 3 .6 4

1961 464 459 3 .6 2

1962 334 277 1 .3 56

1963 318 309 5 1.6 4

1964 325 314 8 2.5 3

1965(4) 377 375 2

1966 428 418 10

1967 958 903 55

1968 1,372 1,326 46

1969 2,200 1,961 239

(1) From Criminal Statistics 1922 to 1969

(2) Includes Canada, the British Isles, the British Commonwealth, the United

States and Europe.

(3) Includes Asia and "not stated."

(4) Chinese data no longer specified.

---

APPENDIX 3 - Number of Aliens Deported from Canada having been Convicted

of Offences Under the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act from 1922 to 1944(1)

YEAR CHINESE US Citizens Others

1922 4 11 0

1923 92 29 9

1924 125 24 5

1925 88 24 7

1926 86 10 1

1927 55 13 1

1928 69 5 4

1929 59 6 4

1930 60 7 4

1931 70 1 5

1932 53 7 6

1933 81 1 5

1934 59 5 3

1935 60 6 3

1936 23 1 3

1937 16 1 1

1938 16 2 2

1939 22 3 0

1940 26 2 2

1941 14 1 1

1942 1

1943 1

1944 4 2

(1) From Annual Report, Department of Pensions and National Health, 1934-5,

Table 5, p. 110 and Annual Report, Department of National Health and Welfare,

1944-5, Table 5, p.25.

---

APPENDIX 6 - Possession Offences: Individual Drugs, 1922-1972

YEAR OPIUM MORPHINE COCAINE HEROIN MARIJUANA OTHER

1922 272 66 93 - - 665

1923 155 79 43 - - 564

1924 48 41 19 - - 276

<SNIP>

1929 56 26 10 12 - 285

(first one for heroin)

<SNIP>

1937 39 23 3 64 4 18

(first year including marijuana)

<SNIP>

1955 2 7 - 242 8 34

1956 - - - 29 1 322

1957 - 6 - 274 5 31

(No further opium charges after 1955)

<SNIP>

1963 - 15 1 222 29 26

1964 - 13 1 227 39 18

1965 - 20 2 222 42 35

1966 - 21 1 193 112 50

1967 16 - 281 447 55

1968 - 10 1 199 817 49

1969 - 6 2 185 1,476 58

1970 201(2) 5,399

1971

1972 630 10,695(2)

(1) Criminal Statistics

(2) From Bureau of Dangerous Drugs, Health Protection Branch, Health

and Welfare Canada 9/3/73.

Source :