This is a book for a lay audience, so I have taken some liberties in order to make it more accessible. Instead of referring to “cannabis,” I talk about “marijuana” in all cases, even though hash and hash oil may be included in the discussion. I also refer to “addictions” and “drug addicts,” even though today the politically correct terms would be “substance dependence” and “substance abusers.”
I have also concentrated the discussion around three illegal drugs — heroin, cocaine, and marijuana. Arguments about how to end the War on Drugs and find new solutions to the problems of addiction, illness, crime, and violence can be made based upon our knowledge of and experience with these three drugs. I could have gone on to examine methamphetamines, new psychoactive drugs, and prescription drug abuse, but this would only make for a longer book, not for a more comprehensive argument.
Many advocates of change appeal to our experience with the legalization of alcohol as a justification for legalizing other drugs. Opponents, on the other hand, argue that the harms caused by legal alcohol provide the best reason for never legalizing other drugs. I have not offered a detailed comparison of illegal drugs and alcohol because many others have already done so. It is enough for our purposes to assert that the two main legal drugs — alcohol and tobacco — cost society much more in dollars and suffering than all of the illegal drugs combined.[4]
One final thought. Before I began to work on this research, I had my own ideas about what might be an acceptable alternative to the War on Drugs. There are two general possibilities — decriminalization or legalization.
Decriminalization is also described by some as “prohibition lite” because it leaves prohibition intact. It generally allows adults to possess, grow, or even share a small quantity of drugs. These activities, though, remain prohibited and may attract criminal sanctions in the event of non-compliance with any imposed fines or drug treatment programs. Trafficking and production continue to be strictly banned, leaving criminal organizations in control of the drug trade, with the attendant concerns about violence and quality control.
Legalization eliminates prohibition altogether. Some advocates recommend a wide open, free market model in which there are no regulations. Most, though, envisage a government-controlled regime with regulations tailored to the particular drug. Regulations appropriate for heroin, for example, might not be sensible for marijuana, and vice versa. Legalization would generally allow adults to possess, sell, or produce drugs, but within strictly controlled and regulated regimes. This has the advantage of removing control of the drug trade from criminal organizations altogether, ensuring the drugs are not adulterated with dangerous substances or sold to children, and eliminating the violence associated with organized crime.
My own ideas about an acceptable alternative to the War on Drugs were modest. They ran along the lines of decriminalizing, not legalizing, marijuana and then working on a solution for other drugs. The evidence, though, pulled me along inexorably and I was drawn to an unexpected conclusion.
What follows is based upon the best work of the best minds in the field. The science and research are as solid as they can be when dealing with a regime that is illegal and necessarily conducted underground. If nothing else comes from this book, I hope that readers will begin to think differently about the drugs that we have chosen to label “illegal.” The future of our children may depend upon it.
Chapter One
How We Got into This Predicament
Shifting Ground
The ground is shifting under the War on Drugs. After more than forty years of tough-on-drugs rhetoric, countries around the world are withdrawing from the law enforcement model espoused by Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan as well as by the international community and its many nation states. One by one, starting in Europe and Latin America, they are beginning to question the wisdom of using the criminal justice system to deal with a problem that they now feel requires a public health model. In turn they are beginning to remove criminal sanctions from some or all drug infractions. Astonishingly, even the United States is rethinking its approach, with two states voting to legalize marijuana and the Attorney General announcing a less harsh approach to some non-violent drug offenders.
Many of those who used to be dedicated drug warriors are renouncing the War on Drugs in order to work for the liberalization of drug laws. A good example revolves around the story of a Canadian advocate for marijuana legalization who is currently serving five years in an American prison. Marc Emery, Canada’s “Prince of Pot,” sold marijuana seeds to American buyers and was convicted in Washington State in 2010 for that offence. The man who put him in prison, District Attorney John McKay, took to a podium in Vancouver two years later and argued for the outright legalization of that very drug.[1] “Criminal prohibition of marijuana is a complete failure,” he said, adding that it allowed gangs and cartels to generate billions in profits and cause mayhem while doing so. At time of writing, Marc Emery is still serving his sentence in the United States. The Harper government has refused, so far, to permit his transfer to a Canadian prison.
John McKay is by no means the only one who has moved from one side of this debate to the other. Prosecutors, police, medical doctors, mayors, Attorneys General, former and current heads of state, and many others now urge the legalization, regulation, and taxation of marijuana. Many also argue that the prohibition of other illegal drugs should be lifted and replaced with a legal regime appropriate to each. How has this sea change occurred, and will it result in the wholesale adoption by nations of a new approach to illegal drugs?
Where is Canada in this developing scenario? Ten years ago we were toying with the idea of decriminalizing marijuana — a very modest proposal. Today, we are outliers, denying the science and research that show the criminal justice model to be counterproductive to public safety, to our fiscal health, and to the health of our communities. We are cracking down on illegal drugs, increasing prison sentences, and reducing funding to the many treatment and prevention programs that we know work. How did we get here and why are we virtually alone in ramping up the demonization of certain drugs?
Canada’s position from the beginning has been fraught with contradiction. We were the first in North America to ban marijuana, but also the first to allow for its use as a medication (spurred on, it must be admitted, by the Supreme Court of Canada). Parliamentary reports as early as 1972 and as recently as 2002 have recommended that the prohibition of marijuana be lifted and that a regime of decriminalization or outright legalization be instituted. In 2004, a Liberal government even tabled legislation that purported to effect some minor changes.
However, in 2006, a Conservative minority was elected that solidly backed the War on Drugs. It swiftly hardened its position on punishment of all drug infractions, including harsh mandatory minimum sentences. As of November 2012, judges no longer have any discretion in sentencing most drug offences. If, for example, an offender grows six marijuana plants, he will face a mandatory prison sentence of six months. If the offender is growing his six plants in a rented unit (a house he shares while attending university, for example), the mandatory minimum is nine months.
Conservative legislators have ensured maximum coverage by designing additional “health and safety factors” and “aggravating factors.” These factors are vague, mandating the application of higher sentences to drug offenders. For example, if an offender is in possession of more than three kilograms of marijuana or resin for the purpose of trafficking, he will receive at least a two-year sentence if he did so “for the abuse of authority or position” or if he did so “in or near a school, in or near an area normally frequented by youth, or in the presence of youth.” Both factors are so vague and/or all-encompassing (for example, where in the average city can you go and not be near an area frequented by youth?) as to virtually guarantee the