AN ADDRESS BY
SENATOR PIERRE CLAUDE NOLIN

British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, Vancouver

May 8, 2004

Check upon delivery

Ladies and gentlemen, first, let me thank the organizers and especially M. Kirk Tousaw, the Policy Director of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association for inviting me to this important conference on a multidisciplinary approach to law reform on cannabis.

Many centuries ago, Aristotle said the following about the world of politics, and I quote: “Changes in the arts and sciences have certainly been beneficial; medicine, for example, and every other art and craft have departed from traditional usage. And, if politics be an art, change must be necessary in this as in any other art. That improvement has occurred is shown by the fact that old customs are exceedingly simple and barbarous. (…) But when we look at the matter from another point of view, great caution would seem to be required. (…) The analogy of the arts is false; a change in a law is a very different thing from a change in an art. For the law has no power to command obedience except that of habit, which can only be given by time, so that a readiness to change from old to new laws enfeebles the power of the law.” End of quote.

After having been in the Canadian political field for the last 20 years, after having studied the complex issue of drug law reform in Canada and elsewhere in the world for the last eight years, I can tell you that the enlightened and visionary reasoning of Aristotle can apply to this file.

Since the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs tabled its report, in September 2002, I can tell you that things are starting to change in Canada. Finally, after more than 80 years of prohibition of cannabis along with the prejudices, myths and adverse effects that came with it, there is hope that the 21^st century will mark the end of this insidious policy which has not had any beneficial long-term effects.

In honesty, the Special Committee was not the first one to study proposals meant to reform our national policy on cannabis.

More than thirty years ago, the Le Dain Commission released its report on cannabis. This Commission had far greater resources than did we. However, we had the benefit of a much more highly developed knowledge base and of thirty years' historical perspective. The Commission concluded that the criminalization of cannabis had no scientific basis. Unfortunately, the Commissioners were not able to reach a consensus on their recommendations to modernize this outdated public policy.

According to the testimony of professor Line Beauchesne, a renowned criminologist from the University of Ottawa, to the Special Committee, a majority of Commissioners adopted a so-called paternalistic position, aimed protecting the users against themselves, while Commissioner Campbell took a so-called moralistic position, aiming to impose the moral values of the majority. Finally, Commissioner Bertrand took a so-called liberal position based on self-responsibility.

Today, politicians, researchers, lawyers, police officers, medical physicians and a majority of Canadians citizens – more than 86 % according to recent public opinion polls – around our country are no longer afraid to say that status quo is not acceptable anymore.

After having had the honour and privilege of chairing the Special Committee, I firmly believe, that for the preservation of life, public health, personal safety and autonomy, freedom and democracy, prohibition of cannabis use and production needs to be abandoned. Listening to the various proposals that I’ve heard earlier today from outstanding speakers, I believe we all agree that the status quo is not an option.

Having said that, what kind of reform is needed to put an end to this public policy failure? For example, if we take cannabis, some would prefer that it be decriminalized or simply legalized. What is the best option for citizens and governments? Canadians who are debating this important issue deserve clear answers from their elected officials and, first and foremost, they do not want to repeat the undue multiplicity of mistakes that tainted the evolution of the Canadian policy on cannabis since 1923, the year where this so than called evil substance became illegal.

To answer these complex and highly emotional questions, the Senate of Canada established the Special Committee on Illegal Drugs in April 2000 to study this important matter, to intelligently and objectively provide information to Canadians, and to recommend appropriate reforms in order to develop a “Canadian Solution” on cannabis and other psychoactive substances.

To accomplish those ambitious objectives, we did not want to repeat the error of the Le Dain Commission with three reports recommending three different solutions to Canadians. To avoid this situation and to initiate an honest, effective and transparent social debate, we decided to develop guiding principles that I will later present.

The basic thesis underlying our report is the following: in a free and democratic society like Canada’s, citizens ought to have the right to make informed decisions about their behaviour, on the condition that they do not cause undue harm to others, and the State must favour such autonomous responsibility. We firmly believe that cannabis use falls into this category. We concluded that this substance is less harmful than tobacco and alcohol, both of which are legal. We questioned why it should not be treated in the same manner at least?

Nevertheless we established that in the name of public health protection, public intervention was needed. Even though we acknowledge that the excessive use of cannabis involves health risks, we found no valid reason to use criminal law, beyond repression of criminal trafficking or driving under the influence of cannabis often mixed with alcohol, as a means of protecting public health and safety in this case.

What should be the true role of the state? The Special Committee concluded that state intervention in the matter of cannabis and other psychoactive substances should be guided by the following objective principles: a principle of ethics based on reciprocal autonomy and responsibility; a principle of governance based on the need to facilitate individual choice; a legal principle, whereby only actions involving significant harm to others should be matters of criminal law; and a scientific principle, whereby knowledge, always incomplete, and ever necessarily being developed, can only help communities and governments make decisions.

Those four important objective guiding principles – that can be used to study other complex issues such as prostitution – were at the heart of our study, and followed us in the analysis of the testimony of 234 witnesses, including ordinary Canadians. We also rigorously reviewed a phenomenal number of scientific studies and data on the many facets of the problems involved in cannabis.

This lead us to our conclusions about the current Canadian policy on cannabis and other drugs. In Canada, the criminalization of illicit drug use as a strategy to protect the population from one of the most serious scourges of human history has subtly veiled the real issues at stake in the policy, as well as the way it has ravaged many communities while making it impossible to establish intelligent and efficient prevention and public education programs, and better focused and respectful treatment measures.

Despite the extremely strict statutes passed since almost a century to deal with users and traffickers, and the billions of dollars spent annually to enforce them, these substances can nevertheless still be found in our schoolyards and local communities.

In other words, the prohibition policy has had no impact on trends in drug use in Canada, given that at least 40 per cent of young Canadians aged 12 to 17 years – that’s over a million young people – have used cannabis in the past twelve months and 10 per cent, or 225,000, use this drug every day!

Nevertheless, many other models of public policy – ones that place an emphasis on health protection and on reducing the harm caused by drugs and their criminal prohibition – have been developed over the past 30 years in Europe as an alternative to criminal law. We studied with great interest the policies developed by countries such as the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Germany, France, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and Australia.

Since the report’s publication, I’ve always said that the Special Committee do not promote the recreational use of cannabis or other psychoactive substances.

We simply want governments to be accountable and to empower citizens with respect to the cannabis use phenomenon and all other drugs. Having said that, it was clear for the Special Committee that legislation, particularly criminal legislation, is only one of the tools of a global, effective and respectful public policy on psychoactive substances.

After having carefully studied these issues, I am convinced that it is essential for Canada to develop an integrated national strategy on the use of all psychoactive substances, based on objective guiding principles that I have mentioned earlier.

Adequate funding levels are essential to strengthen our understanding of the patterns of use and the impacts of drugs, thereby making it possible to create and implement innovative prevention and treatment programs, as well as strict evaluation and monitoring mechanisms.

Once the reach of this ambitious objective has been properly recognized, federal and provincial governments could establish a regulatory framework governing the use and production of cannabis. I am referring here to the concept of legalization with strong government control. As you see, for the Special Committee, legalization of cannabis does not mean establishing a “free market environment for drugs” as some people are arguing.

After many years of hard work, I can say that our committee has succeeded in offering an alternative to prohibition that is both promising and innovative.

Many people were surprised when I’ve stated that I was against Bill C-10 that would depenalized the simple possession of small amounts of cannabis.

Some will say that this Bill is a step in the right direction, one that gives society time to become accustomed to cannabis, to convince opponents that chaos will not result, and, finally, to adopt effective preventive measures.

I believe however – it is also the opinion of the Special Committee – that this approach is in fact the worst-case scenario, depriving the State of a regulatory tool needed in dealing with the entire production, distribution, and consumption network, and delivering a rather hypocritical message at the same time.

It is obvious that criminal legislation still remains the privileged way use by the federal government to deal with cannabis phenomenon.

In fact, even if Bill C-10 is part of a modernization of the outdated Canada’s Antidrug Strategy adopted in 1987, it is not aimed at dramatically reducing the amount of people, especially youths, arrested each year for simple possession or cultivation of small amounts of cannabis or to finally enable personal autonomy and enlightened decisions.

The main objective of this bill is to give more tools to police officers to catch these people. This is what we call the net-widening effect. First of all, it is obvious that criminal legislation still remains the privileged way by which the federal government deals with cannabis use. In other words, it is still considered as an abuse.

Furthermore, instead of putting an end to the problems related to the development of secure source of access to cannabis and the growth of organized crime, Bill C-10 will boost the expansion and the enrichment of criminal organizations across Canada.

While police officers will have more resources to deal with the big producers and traffickers of cannabis, the adverse effect could be to significantly raise the risk premium usually associated with those two illegal activities bringing more people especially young people into those gainful “businesses”.

In the end, this situation will be profitable to organized crime that will be able to plow back huge profits into money laundering and develop new technologies to frustrate police investigation procedures.

For all these reasons, I cannot support Bill C-10. Even though I am proud of our recommendations compared to the approach proposed by the federal government, my experience in politics leads me to be realistic about what the future holds for them.

Canada’s geographic position, its major trade relationship with the United States, and issues surrounding border protection and Canada’s international obligations with respect to the control of illegal drugs mean that, if the Canadian government were to decide to act upon our recommendations in the near future, it would have to begin by adopting a new public policy on drugs.

The legalization of cannabis could only be considered simultaneously with the United States and other countries doing the same, or if we asked for the renegotiation of international conventions. I will be discussing this issue in a few minutes.

Even though many years will likely go by before the dawn of the new day arrives, I am convinced that the days of prohibition are numbered. Why? Because Canadians want rigorous and objective information not only about cannabis and other legal and illegal psychoactive substances, but also about the harmful effects of the war on drugs.

They know that all use is not abuse. They are becoming increasingly aware that the current policy is a costly failure, and are desperately searching, as I have said earlier, for answers to their legitimate questions.

They want transparency in an informed, comprehensive and democratic public debate on these substances.

Only citizens can force their governments to put an end to prohibition, and from that standpoint, I believe, in all modesty, that our work, especially regarding guiding principles, constitutes an excellent contribution to the democratic process and to collective thinking on these issues.

Before I conclude my remarks, I would like to address the issue of the deadline of 2008 for a drug-free world decided by the United Nations in 1998 and the reform of our public policy on cannabis in an international context.

In 1998, the United Nations agreed, at a Special Session of the General Assembly to eliminate – or at least significantly reduce – the cultivation of cannabis, coca leaf and opium poppy, as well as the demand for these psychoactive substances, by 2008.

In March 2003, representatives of more than 100 countries met again, in Vienna, during the 47^th Session of the United Nations Commission on Drugs to reaffirm their commitment to, and hence their faith in, prohibition.

Let us be clear, a drug free society has never existed in human history and will not exist in the near future. Greediness caused by prohibition had too many injurious consequences that go way beyond health problems and growth of organized crime. Today, prohibition threatens the basis of democracy, economy and the rule of law in many countries or regions of the world.

Sooner or later, governments around the world will have to, in the names of transparency and honesty, acknowledge this massive failure. As I pointed out earlier, many countries, mostly in Europe, have reviewed or are currently reviewing their policy on illegal drugs within the straitjacket of the current international framework. Now this analysis must be taken to the next level: the international one.

In this area of public policy, nobody can act alone. In that sense, multilateral discussions may be a pragmatic solution to the ineffectiveness of worldwide prohibition of cannabis and other illegal drugs. Otherwise, national reforms will not be effective.

To be successful, this important discussion must be open, honest, respectful and rigorous. By 2008, governments need to provide clear answers to citizens who debate drug policy reform in civil society. Time is running out and they must begin to work on them now. They need to offer to their citizens hope and innovative solutions, whatever they may be, not only speeches of experts or old recipes from the past.

To conclude, I honestly submit to you that the framework and guiding principles used by the Special Committee could not only be used here in Canada, but also by the international community to accomplish this ambitious task over the next 3 years. I’m convinced that Canadians can play an important role in this public policy field. The war on drug discourse is outdated and disrespectful. It is time to make our political leaders accountable. It is time to empower citizens, individually and collectively, on their responsible behaviour on cannabis and other illegal drugs.

It is only after having accomplished these objectives, that we will be able to achieve historical reform of our policy in this field. Thank you very much.