Conservatives propose new Drug Legislation

[Flash Walken]

The Canadian federal government currently spends about $350 million a year on anti-drug efforts, the vast majority of which goes to law enforcement, with lesser amounts for treatment and prevention, and a pittance for harm reduction. Canadian drug policy is guided by a 20-year-old national drug strategy that has been widely criticized for lacking clear direction, targets, and measurable results.

What the Harper government is proposing is not the answer, says a growing chorus of critics. The Liberal Party was quick off the mark to attack the yet-to-be-seen Conservative drug strategy.

"Stephen Harper's government is expected to announce next week new measures that will retreat from harm reduction measures that help Canadians, such as the safe injection site in Vancouver," said Liberal Health critic Bonnie Brown in a press release last week. "They are trying to do this under the guise of cracking down on illicit drug trafficking and prevention -- even though all the research suggests that an ideologically-motivated war on drugs is ineffective, while programs such as the safe injection site are producing positive results."

A series of reports -- including the Canadian Medical Association Journal and the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS -- have concluded that the site has had a positive effect on Vancouver's Downtown Eastside, and has not increased crime or addiction rates, or threatened public health and safety.

...

"The science is there. What we're seeing here is political interference," said Dr. Thomas Kerr with the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, who has led several research studies on Insite. "I think it's a sad day for drug policy in Canada given that the Conservative government is now advocating a US-style approach to drug policy that's been shown to fail," he told reporters in Vancouver last week.

Kerr isn't the only one complaining. Several prominent researchers from across Canada have written an open letter to Health Canada criticizing it for calling for new research on Insite despite years of research showing positive incomes. The call for proposals from Health Canada ensures that the research will be superficial and inadequately funded, they said. They also took issue with a condition that researchers not be allowed to talk about their findings for six months after reports are submitted.

"Clearly what that does is to muffle people who might have something to say until after the curtain has dropped on this piece of political theatre," Benedikt Fischer, a director of the BC Centre for Addictions Research at the University of Victoria, said in an interview last Friday. "Overall, we get the feeling that what this is about is there's an attempt to instrumentalize science in a fairly cheap way for politics."

"The Conservatives don't like InSite," said Oscapella. "This is not an issue of science, but of ideology and playing to the peanut gallery. They have tried to misstate its purpose, what it has achieved, and the position of other countries. This is a propaganda exercise by the government to further its electoral objectives," he said.

"But the Liberals are no angels, either," he pointed out. "They had three opportunities to reform the cannabis laws and they didn't do that. I give them some credit for the medical marijuana regulations, but at the same time, the process is now incredibly cumbersome. They backed away from decriminalization. In effect, they backed a tough drug war, but with softer rhetoric."

"The Liberals are known to oppose from the left and govern from the right," said Dana Larsen, a New Democratic Party (NDP) candidate for a West Vancouver riding and head of the party's anti-prohibitionist wing, eNDProhibition. "Now they're in opposition, and they will say that Harper's drug war is wrong. But they passed our current drug law in 1996 despite testimony from nearly everyone it was bad law, and marijuana arrests went up every year the Liberals were in power."

Link

There should be more information in the coming days, but right now this is the only really informative link I could find.

[Hack&Lube]

I wonder if the Cons will go toward marajuana decriminalization or against.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I wonder if the Cons will go toward marajuana decriminalization or against.

totally against.

I would imagine enforcement of marijuana laws will become more strict. Eventually the courts may bring things back, but for the time being, I don't see much changing in the cannabis law arena.

[Bobblehead]

The "War on Drugs" hasn't worked. I don't like drugs, things like needle exchanges and needle parks just feel wrong to me; but they seem to do a better job at dealing with the issue than simply throwing people into jail. All that strategy seems to have done in the US is fill jails as fast as they can build them.

Perhaps it is time to put away the handcuffs and try something different.

[Devils'Advocate]

Agreed. The Conservatives are going about this ass-backwards, just like everything else. They will crack down on everything, including marijuana, just like Bush wants us to.

[Rockin' Flames]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Agreed. The Conservatives are going about this ass-backwards, just like everything else. They will crack down on everything, including marijuana, just like Bush wants us to.

Give me a break. I'm so sick of hearing how the things the Conservatives do is because it is what Bush wants us to do. The Conservative government has a mind of its own and you can't just blame everything you don't like on it being done because it is what Bush wants them to do. In case you havn't noticed Bush is not our Prime Minister.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

Give me a break. I'm so sick of hearing how the things the Conservatives do is because it is what Bush wants us to do. The Conservative government has a mind of its own and you can't just blame everything you don't like on it being done because it is what Bush wants them to do. In case you havn't noticed Bush is not our Prime Minister.

It's a fact of life. IIRC the American government stopped the Chretian [sp] govt. from liberalizing our cannabis laws.

[calculoso]

I want to see the drug use numbers.

With increased "acceptance" of drugs (and the let-everyone-do-what-they-want mentality), I'm sure that drug use and the problems associated with it have gone up substantially.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

In case you havn't noticed Bush is not our Prime Minister.

Not much different.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by calculoso

I want to see the drug use numbers.

With increased "acceptance" of drugs (and the let-everyone-do-what-they-want mentality), I'm sure that drug use and the problems associated with it have gone up substantially.

I'd like to see those numbers too, and maybe some evidence of this "let-everyone-do-what-they-want" mentality you speak of. I bet there are thousands of people twiddling their thumbs in Canadian prisons on drug convictions who would love to hear about it as well.

On another note, how many more decades of failure will it take to convince you that the way we do things now doesn't work?

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Rockin' Flames

Give me a break. I'm so sick of hearing how the things the Conservatives do is because it is what Bush wants us to do. The Conservative government has a mind of its own and you can't just blame everything you don't like on it being done because it is what Bush wants them to do. In case you havn't noticed Bush is not our Prime Minister.

Harper is a puppet of Bush, just like Tony Blair. i'm really glad he wasn't in power when the US went into Iraq otherwise we'd probably be stuck there too

course the only alternative next election seems to be the equally idiotic Dion. it's like the South Park episode where you're forced to vote for a turd sandwich or a giant ######, there is just no hope

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by evman150

Not much different.

More absurdity from the King of the Absurdity Hill.

Unbelievable.

As for the topic at hand....dont know if they want to target weed smokers as much as they do those who peddle stuff, but if they do Im not so sure why it cant be compared to the Liberal policy....or lack thereof.

"marijuana arrests went up every year the Liberals were in power."

If true, Liberals and their sort have absolutely nothing to whine about....do they?

Im all about decriminalization for minor amounts, but anyone that says the Cons are the "boogeyman" when it comes to said subject, best look at what has happened in the last 20 years, which the Libs governed a huge majority of the time.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I'd like to see those numbers too, and maybe some evidence of this "let-everyone-do-what-they-want" mentality you speak of. I bet there are thousands of people twiddling their thumbs in Canadian prisons on drug convictions who would love to hear about it as well.

On another note, how many more decades of failure will it take to convince you that the way we do things now doesn't work?

"decades of failure" depend on what you consider to be success. If eradication is your success barometer, then yes it has failed miserable. Decriminalizing and endorsing areas where people can inject safely sure seems like a great way to get to that same goal though!

Obviously your idea of success in this area is not eradication. What is your idea of success?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by transplant99

More absurdity from the King of the Absurdity Hill.

Unbelievable.

You say this, and then you say

If true, Liberals and their sort have absolutely nothing to whine about....do they?

Im all about decriminalization for minor amounts, but anyone that says the Cons are the "boogeyman" when it comes to said subject, best look at what has happened in the last 20 years, which the Libs governed a huge majority of the time.

So the two parties that have governed the country for the last 30 years are both completely inept at implementing some form of progressive drug policy, but you don't believe it has anything to do with a reflexive american policy and trade threats?

In mid-2003 Canada was considering the decriminalization of marijuana which caused American law officials to worry about whether the drug trade would increase as a result on the Canadian side of the border. U.S. Drug czar John Walters has warned that Canadian laxity on marijuana could lead to tighter control being placed on the cross-border flow of people and goods.

In a country where over 70 percent of the population doesn't feel marijuana posession should be a criminal charge, you'd thinkthe MPs might listen to their constituents...I wonder why they don't...

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by calculoso

If eradication is your success barometer, then yes it has failed miserable. Decriminalizing and endorsing areas where people can inject safely sure seems like a great way to get to that same goal though!

I don't have a "success barometer" and I know eradication is impossible so I'm afraid that particularly clever little set-up you arranged for me there isn't going to work.

What they've been doing about this "problem" does not work, yet you poo poo safe-injection sites and decriminalization out of hand. You even make a joke of the idea. At least they are different than the whole "failed miserably" results of the WAR ON DRUGS and isn't "different" better than the old "failed miserably" way of doing things?.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I'd like to see those numbers too, and maybe some evidence of this "let-everyone-do-what-they-want" mentality you speak of. I bet there are thousands of people twiddling their thumbs in Canadian prisons on drug convictions who would love to hear about it as well.

On another note, how many more decades of failure will it take to convince you that the way we do things now doesn't work?

Here's some numbers for you:

For the ten years following the dutch 'pretend' legalization of marijuana (1976) there was no increase in usage beyond the threshold of statistical error. Prior to that, the dutch user percentage was a lower number than in America. Only after commercial viability and promotion became factors did dutch usage increase. Shocking.

Even now, the rate of usage in the US (Where in some places, a first time cultivation charge can get you 100 years without parole) is on par with the 'legal' (it's technically not) rate of usage in the Netherlands.

Furthermore, the rate of 'hard' drug use among cannabis smokers between the two countries is, in the case of heroin, statistically irrelevent. The United States also can boast 11 percent MORE cocaine and marijuana users than the Netherlands. So much for the gateway theory. The dutch rate of 'problem' drug use is even lower than many of its neighbours.

The Swiss seem to having close to the same results. Weird how that works...

"Finally, the analysis of the reasons for interrupting treatment revealed that, even in the group of those treated for less than one year, the majority did not actually drop out of the program but rather changed the type of treatment, mostly either methadone maintenance or abstinence treatment. Knowing that methadone maintenance treatment – and a fortiori abstinence treatment – is able to substantially reduce acquisitive crime, the redirection of heroin maintenance patients toward alternative treatments is probably the main cause for the ongoing reduction or at least stabilization of criminal involvement of most patients after treatment interruption. Thus the principal post-treatment benefit of heroin maintenance seems to be its ability to redirect even briefly treated high-risk patients towards alternative treatments rather than back “on the street”."

Here's a link to a pdf, but you'll have to subscribe if you want to read it. Otherwise, i'm sure it's accessable at your local library.

[CaptainCrunch]

Eradication might be impossible.

To be honest, I have no problem with legalizing pot, as long as it sold to adults only and in a controled environment like a liquor store.

I am all about massive punishment for people that sell drugs and manufacture drugs, and grow drugs.

I think that people that sell drugs to kids are the scum of the earth, and I'd be all for stringing them up by thier heels.

There has to be a balance between enforcement and permissiveness, I don't think we can go all the way on either side.

Even with the legalization of grass, you still have an enforcement issue because you have to treat it like an intoixicant, that means harsh sentences for operating a vehicle under the influence, and the ability to terminate people who use it on the job, so legalizing it isn't going to solve the problem.

Another part of any government policy in terms of legalization is to remove the criminal element from manufacturing it and profiting from it. That means to me that if you want to grow bud, you have to have a license, live up to quality levels and pay taxes on your profits, and if you don't then you go to jail.

I personally don't know if legalizing any drug is going to solve any of the social or criminal problems that drug use causes.

I do think that the punishment of users might have to be tempered, but as a society should we be seen as encouraging its use, I'm fine with limited use injection sites, and needle exchanges as long as there is an ernest effort by the users to get cleaned up.

Its a tough issue.

[metallicat]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

It's a fact of life. IIRC the American government stopped the Chretian [sp] govt. from liberalizing our cannabis laws.

LOL, how exactly did they do that?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

LOL, how exactly did they do that?

By threatening border closures and delays.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't have a "success barometer" and I know eradication is impossible so I'm afraid that particularly clever little set-up you arranged for me there isn't going to work.

Clever? I thought I had made it blatantly obvious. I'll have to be more obvious next time...

Unfortunately for you, I don't give up that easy. If you don't have a "success barometer", you surely would at least have a goal.... whether the goal is "no drug use", "maintain current drug use levels", "complete drug use by everyone", or whatever.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

What they've been doing about this "problem" does not work, yet you poo poo safe-injection sites and decriminalization out of hand. You even make a joke of the idea. At least they are different than the whole "failed miserably" results of the WAR ON DRUGS and isn't "different" better than the old "failed miserably" way of doing things?.

"Different" isn't always better. If different was always better, we'd all be cheering for different NHL teams every year.

Taking care of those that are already hooked on drugs is definitely something "different" that is needed. To me, safe-injections sites do not do this. They just promote drug use. Sure it means that they have a "safer" place to shoot up, but I don't see how that minimizes drug use. From your opposition to this thought, I can see that drug use isn't a problem to you....