Posted May 28, 2001
Analysis by Richard Cowan
Note: Excerpts from the CPA Report are in red italics

Today the Canadian Police Association effectively launched the debate over the
future of marijuana prohibition in Canada, by opposing even decriminalization.
See
Leader of Canadian Tories Supports
“Decriminalization” – Not “Legalization” — Again. This Makes
Mere “Decriminalization” a Defeat for Us. Defining Our Terms and Setting Our
Goals.
and
The Beginning of The End: Canadian
Parliament Puts Marijuana Prohibition On Trial. Events in Switzerland and Other Countries
Run Parallel Course. We Are Winning! Analysis By Richard Cowan

The CPA represents the cops of Canada. It is a professional group, like the medical
associations. Such groups, like labor unions, tend to be dominated by political types for
whom ideology is more important than for most of its members, and it is possible that many
in the rank and file disagree. I know that some do.

Ideologies are politicized ideas arranged to justify those who use them. There
is nothing inherently sinister about this, but when one considers all of the conflicting
ideologies in the world, it does suggest caution.

The CPA should certainly have been more cautious in trying to justify marijuana
prohibition. They have apparently employed a hard-core ideologue to write their position
paper, which they presented to the Canadian Senate Committee today.

I like to think of myself as something of a connoisseur of prohibitionist propaganda, and
this is a really a pathetic attempt. This morning as I watched the televised press
conference at which representatives of the Canadian Police Association laid out the party
line to a skeptical media, attacking NORML by name, and later when I read their overly
long statement, I almost felt sorry for them. They are in way over their heads and relied
on the wrong people to write this.

Today’s statements do follow some of the basic tactics of prohibitionist
propaganda, like Bait and Switch. The topic is marijuana decriminalization, but they
frequently change the subject to all illegal drugs, not just marijuana. Is marijuana
dangerous? We are told that “In 1995, there were 804 deaths
(695 men and 108 women) in Canada attributable to illicit drugs. Suicides (329 deaths) and
opiate poisoning…”

Okay, but how many were killed by marijuana? None.

Another standard ploy is to dump so many accusations on the table that it would
take a library to refute all of it. Their presentation to the Canadian Senate is a 74 page
PDF file. That made my morning.

However, it is not marijuana that is on trial here, but marijuana prohibition.
The Journal of The Canadian Medical Association recently echoed The Lancet and said,
“The minimal negative health effects of moderate use would be attested to by the
estimated 1.5 million Canadians who smoke marijuana for recreational purposes. The real
harm is the legal and social fallout. About half of all drug arrests in Canada are for
simple possession of small amounts of marijuana: about 31 299 convictions in 1995
alone.”
See
Journal of Canadian Medical Association
Calls for Decriminalization. Perfect Timing. Contrast with DEAland.

The Police Association should have stopped with generalities that are hard to
dispute. Instead, they made the mistake of getting into specifics that are easily refuted
by anyone familiar with the literature.

The CPA should sue whoever prepared this report for them, because they did not
lie well enough, and the Canadian Justice Department should investigate the fraud as well.
The Canadian people should not have to pay their taxes to fund being lied to by the very
people who are supposed to protect them from fraud.

However, I want to emphasize that I do not doubt the sincerity of the Canadian
Police in their support for marijuana prohibition. They seem concerned about people
doubting their motives. They list what they call “The CPA’s Top Ten Myths”
About Illicit Drugs and Enforcement, saying, “Those who
advocate drug liberalization have been quite successful in raising doubts concerning the
effectiveness of legitimate drug control strategies, through the calculated dissemination
of provocative information challenging the foundation of internationally accepted drug
control strategies.”

“Myth #9 Police Support the Status Quo in Fear of Losing Jobs

Reality: Actually, we do not support the status quo, and we are afraid
of gaining jobs if drug use increases. We believe that Canada has to reaffirm its
denunciation of illicit drug use, raise public awareness and education on the harmful
effects of drugs, review our sentencing practices to instil meaningful consequences and

deterrence, and focus enforcement efforts on reducing supply and demand for
illicit drugs.”

They need not fear losing their jobs, but it is clear they do fear losing
arbitrary power and control over the lives of their fellow Canadians, who they think
cannot be trusted with freedom. Apparently, they also think that Canadians are very
gullible. As they put it:

“In the pages that follow we will demonstrate that Canada must resist the
seductive temptations being advanced by a sophisticated drug lobby…”

“Drugs are not dangerous because they are illegal; drugs are illegal
because drugs are dangerous. There is no such thing as “soft drugs” and
“hard drugs”, nor bona fide criteria to differentiate between these terms.
People who refer to hard or soft drugs generally do not understand the truth about drugs,
or are seeking to soften attitudes towards the use of certain illicit drugs.”

Notice that the bait and switch begins with the cliché that is the theme here,
“Drugs are not dangerous because they are illegal; drugs are
illegal because drugs are dangerous.”

Of course, in another part of the bait and switch they go on at great length
about the dangers of alcohol, although claiming that marijuana is equally dangerous. But
if alcohol is so dangerous, then why isn’t it illegal? Clearly, dangerousness is not
sufficient for a drug being illegal.

“Generally, Marijuana (Cannabis) and its derivative products are described
in this context to distance the drug from the recognized harm associated with other
illegal drugs. This has been a successful, yet dangerous approach, and contributes to the
misinformation, misunderstanding, and increasing tolerance associated with marijuana
use….”

They are saying that there is no relevant distinction between the dangers of
marijuana and other drugs. This means that they are telling the children of Canada that
marijuana and heroin have comparable risks. That is appalling and should raise the ire of
the Parliament.

“Marijuana remains the most widely used illicit drug in Canada. Even
though alcohol use is more common, problem use and frequent use are much less common with
alcohol than with illicit drugs…”.

Bait and switch again.

The following section is bizarre and will cause them great embarrassment.

“Lessons Learned from Other Countries

The facts proving that liberalization experiments in different countries
produce negative consequences are overwhelming. In many Western European Countries
including Great Britain, decriminalizing possession of small quantities of cannabis for
personal use has either occurred, or has been de facto implemented….”
See
UK Government Cynicism: Change in Cannabis
Laws to Benefit Son of “Justice” Minister, But Not the Sick and Dying.

“Countries that have liberalized drugs have highest rate of illicit drug use and
death by overdose per capita in Europe. Conversely Sweden, which has adopted a policy of
social refusal and interdiction of drugs, has the lowest incidence of drug abuse in the
European Union…”.

Sweden is the prohibitionist ideal, but its policies are a disaster.

“The European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Addiction writes in its annual 2000
report that drug overdose death rates in Sweden are among the highest in the EU and more
than seven times higher than in the Netherlands. The report also states that the rate of
hepatitis C among intravenous drug users in Sweden is over 90 percent, the highest in
Europe.”
From http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2000/11/30112000154646.asp

Also see
Two Press Releases from Swedish
Prohibitionists Tell Us A Little About Dutch and Australian Policies – And Too Much
About the Prohibitionist Mentality.
and links

Then consider what they have to say about the Dutch:

“In Holland, studies conducted in the early 1990s reflect the negative
impact of illicit drug tolerance.

From 1984 to 1988 the number of hashish smokers over 15 years of age doubled in
Holland. From 1988 to 1992 the number of 14 to 17 year old hashish smokers doubled once
again, that of 12 to 13 year olds even tripled….

According to studies reported by the International Drug Strategy Institute,
shootings increased 40%, holdups 60%, and the murder rate in Holland was 3 times that
of the United States “.

In fact, The Netherlands has a murder rate that is about 22% of DEAland’s
and the Dutch teen marijuana use rate is less that of many prohibitionist countries,
including Canada.
See
The Dutch Start Making Whole Cannabis
Available By Prescription. Radio Netherlands Describes How Coffee Shops Work. — 2 Items
and
The
Drug Czar’s Testimony On “The Drug Legalization Movement In America” Has
Three Parts:
Lie About The Anti-Prohibitionist Movement; Lie About Marijuana; Lie About The Netherlands
With A Little Lying About Me.
and links

The CPA has told pointless lies that further highlight the absurdity of taking
the country with the worst drug death rate as a model and attacking the country with the
best results. But they aren’t very good at math either.

“The Costs of Legalization Will Be Astronomical

Canadian statistics clearly demonstrate that the costs of Canada’s alcohol
and tobacco are more than thirteen times those of illicit drugs. Enforcement for
alcohol related crime costs more than three times that of illicit drugs. Direct
Health Care Costs for alcohol and cigarettes are nearly 50 times greater than those for illicit
drugs. Law enforcement costs for illicit drugs, including courts, corrections
and border protection, represent only 2 percent of the total costs to Canadians of
alcohol, tobacco and illicit drugs in Canada.

The primary reason costs are lower is simply lower usage. As legalization and
permissiveness will increase drug use and abuse substantially, the costs of health care,
prevention, productivity loss and enforcement will increase proportionately…”

First, note that this was another bait and switch. The topic is supposed to be
marijuana decriminalization. There are separate numbers for marijuana. According to the
Addiction Research Foundation, marijuana costs $8 million from provincial health care each
year. Alcohol costs health care nearly half-a-billion a year. Tobacco costs the Canadian
health system one billion.
See

HREF=”http://www.marijuananews.com/marijuananews/cowan/reality_of_the_marijuana_situati.htm”>The
Reality Of the Marijuana Situation In Canada: Unequal Injustice.
Alcohol Costs Canadian Health Almost 100 Times As Much As Marijuana.
Tobacco: Almost 200 As Much – Article and Editorial

According to the CPA there are roughly ten times as many alcohol users as
marijuana users. If marijuana increased ten fold, and there is no evidence that it would,
then the costs of marijuana on the health system would be only $80 million, a small
fraction of the costs of alcohol – or marijuana prohibition.

Another oddity is that they use a Dutch/American study on marijuana and driving
to prove that marijuana decriminalization would be a safety problem. However, they have
taken a few statements out of context from a report that actually demonstrates that
cannabis is not a significant road safety problem.

“The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration supported a study
by Maastricht University in Holland on the effects of driving under the influence of THC
only, alcohol only, and THC/alcohol combined. The report concludes:

Marijuana smoking that delivers relatively low to moderate THC dose of 100-200
ug/kg impairs road tracking and car following performance. Effects are dose related and
persist or even increase during a 2 ½ hour period after ingestion. While THC driving
impairment was not necessarily large, it could be serious in exceptional traffic
situations. Any combination of THC and alcohol had a very severe effect on driving
performance….”

For the rest of the story see
1994
Dutch Study On “Marijuana Use And Driving” In Real World Conditions
and

HREF=”http://www.marijuananews.com/marijuananews/cowan/canadian_study_confirms_that_mar.htm”>Canadian
Study Confirms That Marijuana Impairs Driving Far Less Than Alcohol
SIZE=”2″>

Maybe they think nobody has ever heard of this stuff. But here is one that I
have had to deal with recently.

“According to one U.S. study, the number of marijuana related emergency
room episodes to 488 reporting hospitals increased 455% from 1990 to 1999: Some
authorities maintain that addiction is one of the major reasons that marijuana related
medical emergency room visits have risen from 15,706 in 1990 to 87,150 in 1999…”

These are not “marijuana related emergency room
episodes” they are mentions of marijuana by patients who may mention up to four other
drugs.
See
Lies and Hatred From Former US Attorney In
Alaska. As Bad As It Gets.

But it gets even weirder. First they quote something called the
HREF=”http://www.drugidbible.com/”>Drug Identification Bible about the “gateway
theory.” But then they go on to quote the IOM report, trying to give the impression
that the IOM report had supported the “gateway.” That is really brazen.

From The Drug Identification Bible: “Those
advocating legalization of marijuana continue to deny the obvious connectivity between
marijuana and other illicit drugs. Marijuana is internationally recognized as the
“gateway drug” for introducing young people to drug use and abuse.

Then from the IOM:“Patterns in progression of
drug use from adolescence to adulthood are strikingly regular. Because it is the most
widely used illicit drug, marijuana is predictably the first illicit drug most people
encounter. Not surprisingly, most users of other illicit drugs have used marijuana first.
In fact, most drug users begin with alcohol and nicotine before marijuana – usually
before they are of legal age…”

However, the IOM report went on to say, “It is the legal status of
marijuana that makes it a gateway drug.”

Finally, two of their favorite “myths” from

“The CPA’s Top Ten Myths” About Illicit Drugs and Enforcement

Myth #1: Marijuana is Less Dangerous than Alcohol or Tobacco

Reality: Tobacco, although addictive, does not impair consciousness and
brainpower. The same may be said for alcohol when taken in moderation. There is no such
thing as safe use of illicit drugs, including marijuana. Marijuana disrupts functions of
the brain, impairing judgment, concentration, and short-term memory as well as the ability
to perform normal tasks. Smoking Marijuana damages the lungs more than tobacco.
Individuals who consume illicit drugs, including marijuana, are more likely to engage in
risky or addictive behaviour.”

In New Zealand, where there is a very high marijuana use rate, Health Minister
Annette King said the number of deaths in which alcohol was the underlying cause was 419
between 1994 and 1996. Some of the causes included gastritis, liver disease,
cardiomyopathy, alcoholic psychoses or dependence syndrome, non-dependent alcohol use
disorder and accidental poisoning. There were a further 509 deaths from external causes
such as road accidents, drownings, suicide and falls, where alcohol may have been
responsible.

For the same period, there was one death where cannabis was listed as the underlying
cause, and 23 deaths from external factors such as drowning and suicide, where cannabis
may have contributed.
See
Great London Times Column and News From
New Zealand Compare Marijuana and Alcohol
and
Canada’s Crime Rate Dropped In 1999 For
8th Consecutive Year Without Creating A Police State. But Marijuana Arrests Continue to
Climb. Alcohol Related Violence Soars in UK. Lessons for Everyone.

One more myth:

Myth #3: Consequences of a Cannabis Possession Charge are Severe

Reality:

Young people who are found to be in possession of small amounts of cannabis as
first time offenders are frequently the subject of warnings, alternative measures, or
diversion programs. The new Youth Criminal Justice Act reinforces this approach. Persons
prosecuted for minor crime, including drug possession charges, are

frequently the subject of absolute or conditional discharges, community
service, conditional sentences and/or fines. Such offenders are rarely if ever
incarcerated. Convicted offenders are eligible to apply for a pardon if they remain free
of criminal

convictions. Jail is reserved for only the most serous and chronic offenders.

Canada’s approach to such crimes is far from severe, and many young people
view such practices as insignificant. This reinforces the need to instil meaningful
consequences that deter drug use.

The CPA report frequently quotes a study by the Canadian Centre on Substance
Abuse, to support its arguments, but this was another mistake. The
HREF=”http://www.ccsa.ca/canfinal2.htm”>CCSA report refutes the CPA’s claims
about the lack of harm from marijuana arrests:

“In addition to costs to the justice system, cannabis possession cases
involve other social costs such as the adverse consequences to the individual offenders.
These include employment impacts, economic impacts due to payment of fines and lost time
from work, and family discord caused by arrest. Even in cases involving a non-custodial
sentence, there are serious and often poorly understood criminal record consequences for
the offense.

Over the past three decades, there have been more than a million arrests under
Canada’s drug laws, and there are hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have a criminal
record as a result of a conviction for possession of small amounts of cannabis. There is
little empirical data on the impact of a criminal record, but the list of potential
adverse consequences is extensive. Anyone with a criminal record is at a disadvantage in
subsequent criminal proceedings: a criminal record may influence a police officer to lay a
charge; it may be grounds for denying bail; it can influence a crown attorney to proceed
by way of indictment rather than by summary conviction; it may be raised to impeach the
suspect’s credibility as a witness; and it may result in more severe penalties as dictated
by various criminal statutes.

Entry to Canada or other countries may be denied to persons with criminal
records and a drug conviction may prevent a landed immigrant from obtaining Canadian
citizenship.

Under federal and provincial statutes, a criminal record may be used to show a
lack of good moral character and deny an offender employment in certain professions, such
as law, architecture, veterinary medicine, psychology, ambulance driving, auctioneering,
real estate and law enforcement.

A number of attempts have been made to mitigate the consequences of a drug
offense, including the provision of pardons and discharges for offenders.

Unfortunately, the discharge provisions of the Criminal Code and the pardon
provisions of the Criminal Records Act provide very limited relief. A discharged offender
is legally deemed not to have been convicted and can honestly deny a criminal conviction,
but he or she would have to answer affirmatively to any of the following questions:
“Have you ever been arrested, found guilty of, pled guilty to, or been sentenced for
a criminal offense?”

In a Toronto study of cannabis offenders, the likelihood of being unemployed or
suffering other adverse consequences was unrelated to whether or not the offender received
a discharge. Pardons also provide only very limited relief. A pardoned offender cannot
truthfully deny having a criminal record-the pardon merely “vacates” a
conviction or discharge, meaning it negates legal disabilities which automatically result
under federal law. Thus, a pardoned offender regains the right to run for political office
or apply for certain federal government jobs. However, a pardon has no impact on local or
provincial police files or media data. In any case, most drug offenders are unaware of the
pardon provisions and few have availed themselves of them.”

In other words, the CPA has greatly misstated the facts about the consequences
of a marijuana arrest. Some Canadian lawmakers may believe their reefer madness, but they
will not be deceived by their claims about arrest records.

Marijuana prohibition is a major burden on the people and criminal justice
system of Canada, but the police on whom Canadians depend for their protection are
addicted to a disastrous ideology that puts them at odds with the overwhelming majority.

Links to the full text of the CPA report to the Canadian Senate and other
papers on the subject can be found on their web site
HREF=”http://www.cpa-acp.ca/indexe.htm”>What’s New Section.

Have an anti-emetic handy.

Share This Post

You Should Also Check Out These Posts:

Most Active Posts: