Last fall, in the wake of two reports, one from the Senate and the other from the House of Commons, the issue of the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana surfaced once again in Canada. Porte ouverte met with Ms. Line Beauchesne, Associate Professor, Department of Criminology, University of Ottawa to collect her thoughts on this matter.
As for marijuana, it would be false to pretend that decriminalization or legalization could lead to an increase in its use.
Porte ouverte: Ms. Beauchesne, would you begin by briefing us on the general thrust of these two reports?
The Senate report on illegal drugs was released last September. It focussed on issues pertaining to cannabis and Canadian drug policies. A short time later, in December, a report emanating from the House of Commons was released dealing with the whole of Canadian policy pertaining to drugs. These two reports are quite different.
An In-depth Study by the Senate
What the Senate had set out to do was to take stock of the latest scientific evidence available pertaining to cannabis. This explains why several national and international experts were invited to testify before the Senate committee over the two years devoted to this the study. The Committee also provided food for thought about the role of the State as it relates to drugs. It came to the conclusion that there exist a number of myths pertaining to cannabis and that the criminal law does not offer adequate tools to deal with matters that would be more appropriately dealt with through health policies. The Committee views the legalization of cannabis as desirable and is of the view that it is incumbent upon the State to ensure the safe distribution of this product. This report is a wonderful piece of work which will prove very useful for many years to come.
A Report in Defence of the Status Quo!
While the Senate was conducting its work, another Committee was being established by the House of Commons to look into matters pertaining to illegal drugs and prescription drugs. Clearly, since prescription drugs are nonetheless drugs, the simple fact of making that distinction opened to door to an analysis of the issues from a legal rather than a scientific perspective. As well, the Committee=s mandate was mainly to listen to Canadians and try to determine precisely what they want. The sad part is that such an approach takes for granted that the people being consulted are well informed about drugs and that they are in a position to make enlightened choices.
Nothing new came out of the report of this Committee which rather favours the status quo. Following the release of the report, the media reported with fanfare on the setting up of safe injection sites which had already been planned for some time. Even the recommendation to decriminalize cannabis was not new—the Minister of Justice of Canada had previously and openly discussed that possibility. The House Committee should have followed the lead from the Senate and further explored the role of the State in relation to drugs.
PO: The Minister of Justice of Canada has recently indicated that he intends to introduce legislation next June addressing the decriminalization of marijuana. What do you think will be included in that bill?
It is very hard to say since we have no indication of the type of decriminalization measures which the Minister has in mind. There are basically three models of significance.
The Australian Model
The first is that which was implemented in Australia where criminalization has been replaced by a fine system. The government has made it into an income-generating scheme; however, in the end, this is sending mixed signals in terms of prevention. If a product is dangerous, why would one want to decriminalize it? Conversely, why would one set up a fine system for a product that is not dangerous? With this scenario, consumers of the drug continue to operate underground and in environments that may be hazardous to them.
The British Model
In England, the police are no longer compelled to lay possession charges when small quantities of marijuana are involved, unless serious disorderly conduct has resulted from the offence. That is more or less the approach prevailing in Canada where police do not proactively seek out marijuana users and focus their attention mainly on disruptive behaviour. This strategy affords the police a considerable amount of discretion which allows them to sort out the well-behaved from the not-so-well-behaved users. This is a rather bizarre way of addressing a public health issue.
The Dutch Model
The Netherlands has opted to no longer lay charges for possession of small quantities of marijuana, all the while making sure that sales outlets are well monitored so as to be able to check that whatever product is sold is safe. The State has placed added emphasis on intervention for those whose drug use has become problematic. These changes were also supported by an important prevention campaign dealing with psychological addiction. This approach has demonstrated its success as the Netherlands now boasts one of the lowest rates of marijuana use in the world.
PO: Would you say that the Dutch Model represents an ideal?
Not at all. Any scenario that is based on decriminalization sends mixed messages because the role of government is never clearly defined. Which should be more important, promoting public health or protecting ourselves from a product? If one opts to emphasize public health, it then becomes important to monitor the quality of that product, to ensure that the public has access to all the relevant information and to prevent abuse. On the other hand, if self-protection is the focus, one must then continue to restrict or prevent access to that product.
Clearly, it is possible to misuse marijuana to the point of developing problems. However, by focussing our attention on the potential harmful effects of a product rather than on the consequences of misusing it, it becomes most difficult to adopt effective prevention measures.
PO: What would you consider to be the ideal scenario?
The ideal scenario is that of legalization because it would force the State to set up control mechanisms. There are many who feel that legalization would open the door to anarchy; they are wrong. The opposite is most likely true.
Just consider what we experienced a few years ago when we witnessed a thriving black market of tobacco products. Teenagers could easily purchase cigarettes anywhere and actively recruit new smokers. Teenagers are prime candidates for black market distribution networks and there are no structures or support services being provided to consumers.
Legalization would mean that regulations could be adopted which would allow for some control over the quality of the product and the distribution sites, all the while fostering the implementation of adequate prevention measures for people at risk.
PO: What is the source of the opposition to the legalization of marijuana?
One needs to understand that legalization could not occur in the short term because Canadian laws are subject to certain international covenants. There is currently a movement beginning to form in Europe aiming to amend such covenants; Canada should join forces with these countries.
Our only obligations stemming from these international covenants are to ban illegal substances and to crack down on international trafficking. Hence, it is possible to ban marijuana yet to show leniency in terms of sentencing.
According to these covenants, the medical use of drugs is permissible. It would not require much imagination to expand on this definition without necessarily having to obtain a doctor=s prescription. This would allow for a smoother transition from a policy focussed on law enforcement and punishment to another based on a regulatory framework. This would make it possible for people to obtain safe supplies and would not contribute to trivializing the use of drugs.
PO: In your view, could legalization or decriminalization lead to an increase in drug use and in the number of users?
We need to be very cautious in our assessment of statistics pertaining to drug use. Let us look at alcohol consumption, for example. It is sad to note that, in Canada, Quebec is often given as an example of how greater availability of alcohol products leads to more drinking. Yet, Quebeckers are among those who drink the least in Canada. Statistically, Quebeckers purchase more litres per capita than other Canadians. Yet, when one considers the alcohol content of the products they purchase, they drop below the national average in terms of alcohol consumption.
As for marijuana, it would be false to pretend that decriminalization or legalization could lead to an increase in its use. As a rule, when a product becomes more readily available, we are more likely to observe a change in consumer patterns.
That is what we observed when Quebec increased the number of its liquor outlets as of 1979. Alcohol consumption was down the following year and the greater availability of wine prompted Quebeckers to change some of their drinking habits. There were many who changed their lifestyle, cutting down on their beer drinking and turning to wine instead.
It has been shown that a diversification of available drug products leads to diversification in drug use. The decision to use drugs is not based on availability, but rather depends on a person’s social environment and his or her expectations in relation to drug use.
What is important then is to adopt an approach that is focussed on the promotion of health and prevention, an approach that includes support mechanisms for those who may encounter problems as a result of abuse. While the decriminalization of marijuana may present a certain appeal, it continues to force users underground and sends mixed messages which make it difficult to implement effective prevention measures.
