How we're promoting the #cssdp12 conference

by David Hewson

Promotions brainstorming. Like Leonardo da Vinci's scribblings, except for social media.

First off - anyone catch what I did there?


If you're on Twitter, you'll recognize the hash tag (#) I used in this post's title (actually, you'll probably recognize it even if you're not on Twitter, since the hash tag's gone pretty mainstream eg. Jack Layton using "#FAIL" in the leader's debate during the last federal election.)


Briefly, hash tags / #'s are a way to group together tweets on the same theme, so that everyone can see the latest and greatest of what's happening. In this case, we've created the #cssdp12 hash tag to give you a way to keep up on what's happening with the conference, and because I put it in this post's title, now you know about it...#sneaky, no?


Sneakiness aside, this post is about letting you guys know how we've been promoting the conference so far, and hearing any ideas you might have on the subject.


But first: promotion. When I say that, I mean two things:
1. Letting people know about CSSDP and the conference when they otherwise wouldn't know about them.
2. Finding ways to engage with the people who are already planning on going.


Thing 1 is what normally comes to mind when we think about promotions, but Thing 2 is important too. And since investing in Thing 2 makes the event that much more awesome, it actually makes Thing 1 a whole lot easier.


My point: when you leave us your suggestions (like in the comments below, *hint *hint) remember to think of Thing 2 promotion as well as Thing 1. 


Now that that's out of the way, here's what we've been doing so far:


Personal networks
Nothing beats word of mouth, so we've been making sure that any friends or acquaintances in Calgary or nearby know about the conference, and the latest news. (Nearness is always a relative term in Canada - in this case I think of "nearby" as pretty much all of Western Canada.) Facebook makes this easy, all you have to do is look up "Current City" and see who's where. 


Q - Any other ways to reach out?


Posters
We've got a gorgeous poster for the event (see below), and our CSSDP chapter members and volunteers at UCalgary have been making sure it gets seen, by posting it on-campus and off, at cafés and businesses that like us.


Q - Any other places we should put them up?

Facebook
Everyone and their mom seems to be on Facebook now, so we'd be foolish not to take advantage of 2012's big IPO.


Apart from encouraging people to share news about the conference on their walls, we've been staying active on our CSSDP page and the Facebook event page for the conference, and encouraging speakers and participants to post any questions and news they have. 


Q - Any other ways we should be using Facebook?


Survey / Attendee profiles
While Facebook has helped get some interaction going, we wanted to do more. The answer was a quick survey for those attending the conference, with a few key questions that only take 5-10 minutes to fill out. (If you haven't already taken the survey,  you can do so here.)

See?! Filling out a survey ain't so scary.

What do we do with the surveys? Apart from reading them ourselves, we post these attendee profiles on our blog for everyone to see! (You can see the first bunch of attendee profiles here.)


What this does:

- gets you thinking about what you want to accomplish at the conference.

- starts getting everyone familiar with each other, so that when conference time rolls around we can hit the ground running.

- gives us (the conference planners) ideas and feedback on what you're expecting, so we can make this the best conference we can.

A few other great things, from a promotions standpoint:

- we get fresh material for our blog (more on this later), but we don't have to create it.

- you are more likely to spread material that you created further and wider among your social networks than the most compelling material we could ever write. Awesome.

Q - Have you filled out the survey? How were the questions - too many, too few?

Any ideas for how we could use surveys in the future?

The CSSDP Blog

As I mentioned above, our attendee profiles give us fresh content for our blog. But why does fresh content matter - or why even blog in the first place?

Because blogging is fantastic. For many reasons:

1. Writing forces us to sort out our thoughts, so that you, the reader, can see them and respond. This doesn't mean we have to have everything figured out. In fact, displaying a work-in-progress encourages collaboration, because the reader knows it's not too late for feedback (like in the comments below - *hint *hint).

2. Blogging warms you up to some of the ideas and initiatives we're working on. For example, this conference, we want to:

a) promote Twitter and other Internet tools, and 

b) create some really good video content. 

See? Now you know this. More info coming soon - stay tuned to this blog.

3. Our blog gives us material to put in our email newsletters, post on Facebook, and tweet about - don't want that #cssdp12 hash tag going stale!

4. Blogging shows you what we're excited about, and why you should be excited about it too. And in your excitement, you can reply with your thoughts and opinions (like in the comments below - *hint *hint). In other words, our blog helps create and strengthen the ties that bind us as an organization.

And keep in mind - we're not just blogging about the conference. We still have quality posts on drug-related issues, like Alex's reflections from her trip to the Netherlands and Alyssa's critique of Bill C-10, with more posts like them in the works.

Q - Any other ways we should be using our blog? What do you like about what we're doing? How could we improve?


And if it wasn't obvious enough: in the comments section, please let us know any questions, ideas or suggestions you have, or get in touch via Facebook or Twitter (or my CSSDP Twitter account). 

Guess who's coming to the conference? Vol. 1

by David Hewson

Our annual conference is the one weekend each year that Canadians interested in drug policy are all in the same place. It's a huge country and bringing everyone together is expensive, so we want to make the most of this opportunity. 

To do this, we created a short (5-10min) survey with a few key questions. We then asked some of the first people who registered for the conference to fill it out, and we'll show you their responses below.

Our goal:

- get you thinking about what you want to accomplish at this conference.

- start getting everyone familiar with each other, so that when conference time rolls around we can hit the ground running.

- give us (the conference planners) ideas and feedback on what you're expecting, so we can make this the best conference we can.

Our speakers are particularly interested to know where you're coming from, so if you have questions or ideas for them, put them in the comments. And feel free to get in touch with anyone who's given their contact information.

If you haven't already filled out the survey, please do! We'll post your entries on the blog, like we did with these ones.

Here's the link:

http://dwhewson.wufoo.com/forms/tell-us-about-yourself/

Now that's out of the way, I'd like to introduce our first three contestants. I hope you enjoy reading these as much as I did.

Tyler Chartrand

CSSDP chapter (or other organization you're involved in):

Okanagan College, Kelowna, BC

Which CSSDP conferences have you attended?

First time!

Were there any tipping points, or "A-ha!!" moments that got you into drug policy reform? 

How did they come about? 

Bill S10 of 2010 is the reason I got involved. I use Cannabis recreationally and took S10 as a personal assault to me as a citizen/student.

What do you want to accomplish at this conference?

Network with like minded individuals/groups to further a growing respectful dialogue of drug policy and the need to move from prohibition to legal regulation. The goal being to have drug policy as a key platform in the next federal election.

Scott Bernstein

Twitter: @redcedarlaw

Speaker – Harm Reduction Panel (Saturday, March 3)

CSSDP chapter (or other organization you're involved in):

Pivot Legal Society

http://www.pivotlegal.org/

Twitter: @pivotlegal

Which CSSDP conferences have you attended?

First time!

Were there any tipping points, or "A-ha!!" moments that got you into drug policy reform?

How did they come about? 

Yes - I worked on the Insite case as a law student and then as a lawyer at all levels of court. I saw the harms associated with the government's anti-evidence approach to drug policy. I decided to dedicate my career to drug policy reform. Being at the Supreme Court of Canada as a new lawyer was a life-changing experience for me.

What do you want to accomplish at this conference?

Meet some interesting people, learn some things, have a good time.

Anything else to add?

Very happy to be at the conference and honoured to be asked to speak on the harm-reduction panel.

Tera

CSSDP chapter (or other organization you're involved in):

None

Which CSSDP conferences have you attended?

First time!

Were there any tipping points, or "A-ha!!" moments that got you into drug policy reform?

How did they come about? 

I've always been into drug policy reform, but I got a lot more interested when I began working with youth in the criminal justice system and realized how many youth are sent to prison on drug-related crimes.

What do you want to accomplish at this conference?

I know drug policies need to change, but I don't fully understand what changes are realistic. I want to learn more about how drug policies could be be reformed and what I can do to advocate for change.

Anything else to add?

I'm super excited.

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!