What's Wrong With Bill C-10?

by: Allysa Olding

Parliament is back in session and the MPs and senators have busied themselves in intense debate, reading bills and deciding their validity, proposing amendments or outright dismissing them. As Canadians who are concerned about drug policy, we have a lot to pay attention to this February. One major policy platform being pushed by Conservatives in government which has got everybody talking is the Omnibus Crime Bill C-10 or, as the conservatives are calling it, the “Tough on Crime” Bill.

“Tough on Crime?”

The Bill itself is several major criminal code changes lumped into one, and - according to the Government of Canada website summary - creates dramatic changes to the criminal code which are intended to target organized crimes, gangs, and drug-related offences involving youth and children. “The Safe Streets and Communities Act” proposes several amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act which would impose mandatory minimum sentences for drug-related criminal offences. According to the Act people who produce, sell, or use illicit substances - from recreational use of cannabis, to those with serious and potentially life-threatening narcotic addictions are met with the same response: incarceration. This bill imposes more incarceration for more people, nearly eliminating judicial discretion and undermining a health-focused restorative approach to addiction and substance abuse.

But does this Bill, problematic as it is, achieve its stated goals? Will it reduce crime rates and create “safer streets and communities”? Has it been carefully formulated to combat organized crime and abuse of substances by youth? The bill has been widely criticized by both governmental and non-governmental groups, activists and academics for being unnecessary, inefficient, and economically impractical. Ultimately, the concern for activists interested in Drug Policy is related to the fact that C-10 effectively eliminates a healthcare-focused approach to addiction in lieu of merciless and unnecessary incarceration.

“What's Wrong With Bill C-10”

Well, Lots. But don't take my word for it. There is an expansive and growing body of literature being produced from groups such as Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, The Canadian Bar Association, and CSSDP have launched campaigns against elements of Bill C-10. Cogent arguments against C-10 have been given in the House by many including Glenn Thibeault, Ryan Cleary and Andrew Cash. Academics and Criminologists like Susan C. Boyd, and Paula Mallea have written critical responses to mandatory minimum sentencing in drug policy. I can only hope to graze the surface of the problems with the proposed bill C-10, and I encourage you as an activist to listen to the speeches and read the articles I have hyper-linked here. That being said, here's an introduction to some of the problems with Bill C-10.

Crime rates are actually falling not spiralling out of control as the conservatives pushing Omnibus would have you believe. In her report “Fear Factor: Stephen Harper's Tough on Crime Agenda” published with Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Paula Mallea reminds Canadians that since 1992, crime rates have been steadily declining. In 2008, the crime rate was the lowest it has been in the last 25 years. This statistic is consistent regardless of how it is measured: this includes the traditional Crime statistics gathered from police reports, statistics measuring crime severity and violent crime. Particularly, drug offences are down 6% since 2008, and youth offence rates have remained relatively stable since 1991 despite the fact that fewer youths are being incarcerated under the new Youth Criminal Justice Act. Even though the statistics affirm that the very crimes targeted by the Omnibus Crime Bill are in decline, Conservatives still assert there is a need for policy adjustments to respond to an explosion of crime which cannot be statistically substantiated. It is clear that these declarations are made to induce fear and manipulate public perception – not, as the Conservatives claim, to help improve the safety and security of communities.

Incarcerating offenders doesn't help reduce crime rates, nor do they rehabilitate offenders to reduce recidivism. Mallea points out that “evidence shows that long periods served in prison increase the chance that the offender will offend again ... In the end, public security is diminished, rather than increased if we 'throw away the key'” (CCAP, 2011: 12). The old-fashioned assumptions that retribution is the primary or exclusive function of the Criminal Justice System, and that retributive justice is the correct response to behaviour considered socially deviant is simply ideological and does not reflect the reality of the causes for deviant behaviour, nor does it offer an effective solution.

C-10 will continue to overly incarcerate marginalized groups. The changes embodied in C-10 will target groups already over represented in the prison and justice system . As Ryan Cleary described to the house of commons:

“mandatory minimum sentences aren't so much tough on crime, as tough on Canadians suffering from mental illness, addiction and poverty... The bill targets youth for harsher punishment and will put more Aboriginal People[s] in prison.”

People who suffer from addictions, mental illness, and racial discrimination will be further marginalized by the criminal justice system if mandatory minimums are imposed. Additionally the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network has spoken against mandatory minimum sentencing for drug use as a dangerous practice which leads to health issues. Criticizing what was formerly Bill S-10, now included in Bill C-10, the HIV/AIDS legal network warns against treating the health problem of drug addiction primarily in terms of its criminal dimensions as deeply problematic. Patricia Allard, Deputy Director of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, reminded Canadians that:

“evidence shows that imprisoning people who inject drugs fans the flames of Canada's HIV epidemic. The HIV prevalence rate in Canadian prisons is at least 10 times that found in the population as a whole”

Incarcerating more people for longer periods of time will serve to exacerbate already existing health problems. As the Canadian Bar Association points out, the changes in Bill C-10 will continue to further victimize and alienate the most vulnerable populations by replacing conditional sentences for people in remote areas of Canada and relocating them far away from their families:

“People in remote rural and northern communities will be shipped far from their families to serve time. Canada's Aboriginal people already represent up to 80% of inmates in institutions in the prairies, a national embarrassment that Bill C-10 will make worse.”

If these conditional sentences are eliminated, mandatory minimum sentences will tear mothers from their families, nearly 80 percent of incarcerated women are parents to minors. This means women will be deprived of their children, it also means that an unbearable strain will be placed on Children's Aid Services who are already lacking essential funding. Susan C. Boyd, a professor currently working in British Columbia, criticized former Bill C-15 which is now included in C-10 for its harmful effect on women. You can listen to her talk about these effects on women and children by clicking here .

The proposed changes in C-10 take away funding from programs that would produce real change. Most inmates currently institutionalized within the Criminal Justice System suffer from an addiction. Many live with a mental illness. A large portion are First Nations, many are homeless, illiterate, and victims of previous abuse. These social-structural elements influence the rates of offending and correlate with who will or will not be incarcerated. The key to addressing crime rates lies in effectively remedying the structural inequalities. As the Canadian Bar Association states, it has been proven by various studies that the tactics which actually reduce crime are:

“(a)addressing child poverty, (b) providing services for the mentally ill and those afflicted with FASD [fetal alcohol spectrum disorder], (c) diverting young offenders from the adult justice system, and (d) rehabilitating prisoners and helping them to reintegrate into society”

Bill C-10 not only ignores these tactics, but it's fiscal cost, estimated to be nearly five billion dollars, diverts much needed funding away from useful social spending. Perhaps the government should “stop wasting money on cages and start spending it on hospital beds and text books”.

What Can I Do?

Bill C-10 is already in its second reading at the Senate. Immediate action is required to stop this harmful bill from coming into force. For more information on how you can participate in action to stop mandatory minimums for drug-related offences, check out the CSSDP campaign by clicking here: http://cssdp.org/index.php/our-campaigns/no-mandatory-minimums/342-c10-senate

Pass that Dutch...Legislation

by Alex Rowan

This past October, I, like so many travelers before me, travelled to the Netherlands knowing little more about the country than that that I could buy pot or hash from my corner “coffee shop”. I stayed not in Amsterdam itself, but in a nearby town named Hilversum, about 20 minutes by train outside of the city. While the folks I met in Amsterdam couldn’t fathom my decision to sleep away from the action, in retrospect I feel that the decision (which was prompted simply by the lower cost of accommodation) helped me to develop a far more informed view of the country than I would have otherwise. As with so many countries in which one major urban hub is viewed as culturally supreme, to know Amsterdam is to know an incredible metropolis, but is not to know the life of the (for lack of a better term) “average” Dutchman. Throughout the time I spent in Hilversum, I was able to observe the manner in which the liberal drug policies of the country are both influenced by and influence the sensible mindset of the bulk of Dutch people, a mindset which I will forever admire and strive to propagate.

At the center of Dutch drug policy is the very mantra of CSSDP, that to ignore, hide, or simply condemn a prevalent issue in society does nothing to combat it. In fact, the more illicit an activity, the more appealing it is to many, and the less it can be effectively monitored. From what I’ve seen, the studies that have come out of the Netherlands on drug use at home and abroad have in many cases proven to be comprehensive than those of their international counterparts. I feel that the reason for this is because there is a true faith among the people that the government is out to gain knowledge to better improve public health, rather than to wage war. Furthermore, as there is no conclusive evidence to link marijuana use to the use of harder drugs (i.e. the gateway affect), the Dutch government will never assume that a marijuana user is also a hard drug user. In speaking to the Dutch folk I met about their drug use and their run-ins with officials, it became clear that they had always been forthcoming in a way that, as a jaded Canadian youth who has had her share of negative experiences with the cops, I had never even imagined. Again aligned with the mantra of the CSSDP, the Opium Act outlines the view that drug use should always be seen as a health issue first, and a criminal justice issue second. That being said, trafficking of illegal drugs is still a criminal offense, and initiatives are consistently underway to prevent the trafficking of what the Opium Act classifies as ‘hard drugs’, for example heroin and cocaine. What is this Opium Act, you query? Also called the Narcotics Act, it is the most important piece of drug legislation active in the Netherlands, and was first enacted in 1919, following an international conference headed by the USA. With a pivotal change in the policy to make the distinction between hard and soft drugs in 1976, Marijuana use in the Netherlands was decriminalized.

It begs the question: if drug trafficking is still considered illegal, how is that coffee shops exist with little to no governmental interference? The Opium Act includes the following key provisions: no legal action against a coffee shop shall be taken as long as no minors are permitted entrance, no promotion is done for the establishment, sales capped at five grams per person, and no more than 500 grams are on the premises at any given time. Cultivation, while also technically illegal, is dismissed up to five plants, and jail time is extremely rare even in cases of large-scale growth. So just remember smokers, five is the Netherlands’ magic number. While many a conservative politician has tried to prove that the Netherlands’ liberal drug policies have increased Cannabis and other drug use, in fact, as we can well predict, they have had the opposite effect. According to one comparison pieced together by DrugWarFacts.org from the U.S. and Netherlands’ national surveys, the lifetime prevalence of marijuana use in the Netherlands in 2001 was 17%, just under one half of the 36.9% stat for the U.S.
It is important to note that the Netherlands’ liberal drug policy extends beyond recreational use. The Netherlands became the first country to legalize euthanasia in 2002, provided such cases are put before a review committee by the physician who has deemed the procedure warranted. The Netherlands is also known for pioneering other conscientious public health initiatives such as heroin-assisted treatment, which has had great success in limiting the reliance on heroin and instances of overdose among heroin addicts.

Admittedly, a far greater respect and belief in social pluralism was present within the Netherlands government in 1976 than in the Canadian here and now, fostering the responsiveness to public need necessary for dramatic political change. Yet I remain inspired. Upon leaving the Netherlands, and this was reinforced in Portugal which also has more lax drug legislation, I was inspired to stop being a disenchanted, passive youth, and start truly believing what I wish I’d encouraged myself to believe all along, that a shift to health-oriented drug policy can be a reality. Here goes and cheers, I’m starting with this blog.


To find out more about the Netherlands’ drug policies and their relationship with drug use in the country, here are just a few of the great sites available to us:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/371/ille/library/dolin1-e.htm http://drugwarfacts.org http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4607233.stm http://www.amsterdam.info/drugs/ http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/aus/can_ch3_6.htm

Sophie Feltes

The Peaceful Oktoberfesters

by David Hewson

photo credit: Muenchen Kotzt


Hi all, I'm writing this from Germany, where I'm doing an internship at the moment.

One of the most natural, and enjoyable, things to do when travelling is to just stop, look around, and realize that you're in a foreign country. Sometimes the differences are subtle. But in the case of the Munich Oktoberfest, which I was able to visit this year, they're about as subtle as a frying pan to the jaw.

I grew up in Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, which has its own Oktoberfest - the world's second-largest, after Munich. But it just can't compare to number 1. Here's why:

1. The sheer scale of the proceeedings: 6.9 MILLION people visited the Munich Oktoberfest this year (still less than the 1981 record of 7.1 million).
2. Beer is consumed exclusively in 1L glasses.
3. There are a bunch of roller coasters and other stomach-turning attractions...right next to the beer tents. Where people have just been drinking 1L glasses of beer. You might think that would be a bad combination, but the people of Munich seem to disagree.

Of course, when 6.9 million people put their efforts towards drinking beer in 1L intervals, there are bound to be consequences. Starting in the late afternoon, you start to see people who have had far too much to drink scattered around outside the tents, resting, recovering, and um...taking care of business. It's not a pretty scene. If you're up for it, click here to get a sense of the mayhem.

Despite all the drunkenness, I couldn't help but think: where's the belligerency? Yes, wherever you looked, there were people in lederhosen and dirndls dropping like flies. But in the 4 days I was there I saw evidence of only one fight - a guy outside a beer tent had a bloody nose and was being restrained by bouncers. That was it. I remember thinking: in Canada, you just couldn't get this many drunken people together, and have so few problems.


Why is this?


One theory is that there is a special spirit to Oktoberfest, one of Gemütlichkeit or togetherness, that sets a friendly tone the proceedings. There might be something to that, but since Oktoberfest I've travelled to many other parts of Germany and found the same lack of belligerency, so that can't explain it completely.

A second explanation is that different types of alcohol lead to different types of drunk – an idea that the show "How I Met Your Mother“ had some fun with recently. As the theory goes, the Oktoberfesters – and Germans in general – tend to drink beer, so they are therefore friendlier.

Maybe there's something to that too. I have a friend whose mother has banned Jack Daniels whiskey from her house, after seeing generations of men in her family become a different kind of angry drunk after they've been drinking it.


A third theory has to do with alcohol policy, where Canada and Germany vary enormously. In Germany, the rules around alcohol are much more relaxed than Canadians are used to. Here are some differences:

- Germans can buy alcohol at grocery stores during the day, and when the stores are closed they can go to the convenience stores at gas stations. You can buy alcohol at any hour of the day.

- There is no set closing time for drinking establishments, although there are some local bylaws, and by 6am the staff usually kick you out because they want to clean up and go home.

- There's also a two-tier drinking age (16 years old for anything less than 13% alcohol, 18 years old for anything more concentrated) designed to encourage young people to start with beer and wine instead of hard liquor, which is easier to sneak around with but also increases the risks of alcohol poisoning. The argument is that this openness towards alcohol leads to Germans, on the whole, developing a more mature relationship with the substance than the more repressed Canadians.

Of course, policy questions like these are the sorts of things that we CSSDP members like to consider. What kind of relationship with drugs is best? What kind of legislation – laws, taxes, social programs, etc – is the right mix?

But here's the tricky part: since policies tend to vary on a country-by-country basis, when we compare different policies, we are also comparing between countries and the cultures that go with them. It's hard to tease the two apart. And that makes things complicated.


At the end of the day, I don't know why Oktoberfest was as (relatively) peaceful as it was. What I do know is this: when it comes to drugs, each culture is unique.

Germany has a long and storied history with alcohol, including the beer purity laws of 1516 and festivals like Oktoberfest – which began when a Bavarian Crown Prince invited everyone to come drink beer with him to celebrate his wedding. Fond memories for the people of Munich, indeed.

Canada has its own narrative, including the whiskey that was used in the fur trades, to Al Capone bootlegging Canadian Club into Chicago, to Bob and Doug McKenzie's stubby bottles. Untwisting the tangled threads of history, culture and drugs is no easy thing to do.

A new not4me....."contest"

So folks, take a gander at this link:


http://promos.ytv.com/drugs-not4me/create.aspx


INFO:


Use our cool comic creator to make your own DrugsNot4Me story – the comic that gets the most votes will be turned into an animated cartoon short on YTV!


No, we are not endorsing this contest. But we thought we'd post some comics from the lovely people at CSSDP. More to come!

Thoughts from the 3rd Latin American Drug Policy conference

As I sat in the 3^rd Latin American Drug Policy conference last week in Mexico City, news emerged about two youths in Nueva Laredo who were brutally murdered because they were believed to have spoken out against narco traffickers online. It was about half way through the conference, creating a strange moment where my excitement about the energy and potential for reform collided with the harsh realities of failed drug policies.

Throughout the conference the urgent need for reform was made clear. Stats and arguments were presented throughout that demonstrated the disastrous effects failed policies were having on communities across Latin America and the world. The criminalization of people through drug laws has devastated communities, leading to such atrocious facts as ‘85% of those imprisoned for drug crimes in Ecuador are women, or that 1/3 of people imprisoned in Argentina are for drug crimes.’ The failure and limitations of supply reduction policies was made clear. Stats were presented on the failure of Plan Colombia, on the failing prices alongside rising potency of illegal drugs, as well as tales of human rights abuses from both organized crime elements and from military and police forces. Across Mexico, the leading cause of death for youths is murder. One panellist described an optimistic scenario in Mexico which saw 55 000 deaths as a result of drug market violence at the end of Felipe Calderone’s current term as president.

During meetings and discussions it became all too clear that while these facts are shocking, these realities cannot be looked at as exceptional. Across the world, drug prohibition is having devastating consequences, with countries sitting at different points in the spectrum of impacts. The issues we address as drug policy reformers must be borderless. While the scales may be different, Canada and Mexico both share needless deaths, human rights abuses, and wasted resources as a result of our countries’ failing drug policies. Both countries are consumers and producers of currently illegal substances, and both countries face similar problems when it comes to accessing treatment, harm reduction services, and honest education about substance use. We must recognize that the violence from drug traffickers and from the state in Mexico is related to the similar violence in communities across Canada.

Just as the prohibition related problems we face are on a shared spectrum, so too are the responses we take. Where injection drug use is a problem, clean needle distribution is a necessity. Where young people are disadvantaged by poor economic opportunity, creative community responses are needed. Where young people are using ‘party drugs’, peer led harm reduction strategies emerge. Where drug market violence threatens community safety, residents find ways to band together to demand changes to policies and practices that perpetuate the status quo.

With this in mind a group of young activists gathered before the conference to connect our movements across borders. I was honoured to be asked to participate in the video we produced for the closing panel of the conference. As we debated what the key messages should be, it became clear that we wanted this video to inspire other young people to action. Across the entire world, young people are organizing and taking action to end the war on drugs. Our video is an attempt to let other young people know that whenever they take action against the injustice of drug prohibition, they are not alone. We are everywhere, and we are together!

Remember that alcohol is a drug too! A CSSDPers perspective on travel to a "dry state"

by Priya Shah

I am about to embark on a journey to India... the place of my ancestors. I am of Indian descent but was born in Canada so I’ve always felt a bit removed from my culture. Doing research and trip-planning has led to some interesting discoveries. I am beginning my trip in Gujarat, suitably because it is where my grandparents are from. But it is also... a dry state! Because I’ll be spending 1-2 months there it’s important for me to get an idea of the current state of affairs; the laws, politics etc. So I’ve been reading up on what a ‘dry’ state means for Gujarat right now, and this is what I’ve learned:

Basically, prohibition in Gujarat has been in effect since 1960 when the state was formed (more than a decade after Independence) and it has created an illicit liquor trade; an industry that generates revenue and employment for thousands of people. The law was mainly put in place as a tribute to Mahatma Ghandi, who hails from Gujarat.

The high demand fuels the smuggling and production. The police and other officials are involved in the trade, which generates the most money around elections because the politicians turn to bootleggers* and form power alliances when they need money to boost their campaigns. This highlights perfectly the degree of corruption among police and government officials in Gujarat. The party members and the electorate drink alcohol discretely, just the same as the majority of working and lower class people, but the outcome of drinking illicit liquor is more fatal for them. This is because the former have access to IMFL (Indian Made Foreign Liquor) which is popular and more attainable among the middle and upper class, and the latter are familiar with cheaper types of liquor - responsible for the majority of deaths.

There are a few exceptions to alcohol prohibition in Gujarat, which include:

• personnel of the armed forces are permitted to buy alcohol 
• retired personnel are allowed to buy a specific quota per month:
• "anyone over 40 in Gujarat can apply for a liquor permit on “health grounds”, securing a monthly ration of one bottle of hard liquor or 10 bottles of beer” (Basant Rawat, The Telegraph) 
• liquor can be purchased for medical reasons, if prescribed by a doctor 
• foreigners are allowed to acquire a permit and drink liquor 
• “to encourage corporate houses to hold business conferences in Gujarat instead of going over to nearby Mount Abu (Rajasthan) or Diu, the government allowed group permits so that delegates could drink liquor at hotels” (Rawat) 

However, liquor permits in Gujarat are expensive, and whether the officials like it or not, people prefer to buy from bootleggers! For example, a bottle of whisky costs Rs 1,000 in permit shops, which are located in select hotels. But a bootlegger sells the same brand for Rs 750 (Rawat). This leads to events such as the hooch tragedy in Ahmedabad, Gujarat in July 2009 where over 109 people died. Vinay Dholakia, director of the award-winning Parzania (2005) is making a film that addresses the issue of prohibition in Gujarat. The film covers all related issues from revenues to religion, the politics of prohibition to communalism and the mafia involved. (http://box4.chakpak.com:9080/articles/?p=16470)

In any case, I’ve still got lots to learn and discover by seeing first-hand how people are suffering and dealing with alcohol prohibition in Gujarat. I’ll keep you posted!

*It is believed that the biggest gangsters in Gujarat started their careers as bootleggers, as opposed to gangsters in Mumbai who started with kidnapping and theft.

Here’s more information if you’re interested: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2003-09-23/ahmedabad/27215207_1_new-tourism-policy-foreign-tourists-tcgl

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090712/jsp/nation/story_11226165.jsp

Overdose awareness- our demands

August 31st was overdose awareness day. An event was held on the human rights monument in Ottawa, ON. There were speakers, an exchange of information and a call for action.

here is what I (Alex Rowan) had to say.

Now that we have addressed the issue of overdose in the city of Ottawa, I want to discuss what needs to happen to deal with this devastating trend.

         First, I want to tell you about a medication called naloxone. It is an opioid antagonist which blocks the opioid receptors and quickly reverses life threatening depression of the central nervous system and respiratory system. It is essentially an opiate antidote.  It lasts for about 30-90 minutes, giving the individual time to access emergency medical services. It is a safe medication and will not cause harm if administered to someone who isn’t overdosing. This medication is often used by emergency medical professionals. However, some areas run peer based naloxone distribution and training programs, which have resulted in very positive outcomes and have saved many lives.

Ottawa needs this.

These programs train users how to identify and respond to opiate overdose, including when and how to administer naloxone. This gives people the opportunity to literally save the lives of their peers. Unfortunately, we do not have a way for people to access this drug and learn how to use it. That needs to change.

Our next demand is accurate reporting of overdose related deaths. It is incredibly difficult to find information regarding the number and frequency of overdose deaths. Often the cause of death will not be labeled as an overdose, but instead as a “heart attack” or something else. Though that may look better on an obituary, it makes finding information that much more difficult. It is also harder to develop public health education on overdose prevention and to advocate for programs such as naloxone distribution without this information. This also needs to change.

Our final demand is far more broad, but still crucial. We need to view overdose as a human rights issue. That’s why we chose to hold this event here. People who use drugs deserve better than they’re getting. We need better access to appropriate, evidence based treatment. This includes harm reduction programs like methadone maintenance and safe consumption rooms. We need to improve access to health care services, especially for street involved drug users. We need affordable housing. We need to stop criminalizing people for drug use, as it only makes the problem worse.

I know that’s a lot to ask for, and it will take a lot of work to get to that place. However, our demands for naloxone distribution programs and accurate reporting of OD deaths are a great place to start. These suggestions will both reduce the number of overdose related deaths and give us more accurate information so that we can move forward. We will strive for a community that respects everyone’s right to life and the highest level of health possible. We need to realize that people who overdose are worth keeping alive.  If you only take one thing from this event, I hope that’s it.