What follows is our review and summary of the evidence presented at the final Spring meetings.

Alaskan Follies

    On February 18, the Committee met with Fred Burford, President of the Council On Drug Abuse (CODA). Burford spoke on CODA's opposition to criminal records for first-time possession of marijuana charges and expressed hope that his recommendations would not "fall on deaf ears" with the Standing Committee on Health as it did with the Senate committee.
    At the same time, Burford noted that "some submissions to the Senate committee recommended removing the legal restrictions on cannabis. These submissions conveniently overlook the state of Alaska, where the possession of cannabis in the privacy of the home was legalized in 1976. The concomitant increases in cannabis and the resulting problems among youth caused parent groups to force a statewide vote in 1990. A majority vote resulted in the recriminalization of cannabis in March 1991."
    Just to set the record straight, Alaska decriminalized cannabis possession for people 19 and over in 1975. Alaskans voted to 54.3% to 45.7%. to recriminalize after a massive campaign by then-President George Bush spear-headed by then-Drug Czar William Bennett. The same tobacco smoking, martini drinking, overweight William Bennett that Bill Clinton sent to Arizona last April to incite an anti-medicinal marijuana campaign. Bennett galvanized excitable, well-intentioned Alaskan parents by erroneously claiming that 12-17 year-old Alaskans used marijuana at "more than twice" the national average for their age group. In reality, a survey conducted in 1982 by the University of Alaska showed that a 4% of Alaskan students used marijuana every day, compared to 6.3% of all American high school seniors.
    Bennett based his "more than twice" figure on a 1988 University of Alaska study whose author specifically stated that "because there are so many variables" his study should not be used to argue for or against legalization. Indeed, when Oregon, Maine, and California decriminalized personal possession, cannabis use did not go up. Northern aboriginal communities have always had higher rates of alcohol and drug abuse than the national average and during the years of Alaskan decriminalization alcohol consumption went down. The 1988 usage numbers are self-reported, meaning that after 13 years of decriminalization more Alaskan teenagers felt comfortable discussing their cannabis use than teenagers in more prohibitive states. No surprise there.

Youthful Indiscretion

    Burford discussed CODA's own recent survey of Ontario students aged 12 to 18 which asked students to agree or disagree with the statement "If legal restrictions on cannabis were removed I would begin to use or use more." 1,427 students agreed with this statement out of a total of 4,903 students surveyed. "This means 29% of the students would begin to use or use more, and therefore be at greater risk." concluded Burford. Well, not really.
    We must first subtract from the 29% those students who would begin to use or use more if legal restrictions remained the same. We do not know how many would begin to use or use more if legal restrictions were removed for adults only. We certainly do not know how many would quit or cut down their use of alcohol and tobacco, nor do we know how many would cut down on pot after the enforcement budget had been reallocated to education and harm reduction. As is usually the case, the CODA survey makes no distinction between use and abuse. The 29% figure is as meaningless as the Alaskan case study.
    Burford reiterated CODA's support for sparing first time offenders a criminal record. Said Burford, "So often when a young person is involved...  they are experimenting and inadvertently they are caught. We just feel it's too big a price to pay as far as stigma is concerned." Burden concluded, "As a secondary school principal, which I was for over thirteen years, I did not see that the fact that there was going to be a criminal record had any deterrent effect whatsoever. They had no idea what it even meant." So much for "sending a message" to irresponsible teenagers by incarcerating responsible adults.

Brain Damage

    Fred Burford's testimony was actually a breath of fresh air in contrast to the testimony of Karl Burden, the CEO of Concerns, Canada. Burden trotted out the usual list of marijuana myths. "Marijuana leads to poor short-term memory and learning problems. It impairs cognitive functions, with conditions worsening the longer and more frequently smokers use the drug. These impairments, according to some researchers, may not be reversible." Readers may recall that this "brain damage" myth is based on a rhesus monkey study conducted by Dr Robert Heath in 1982. Heath forced monkeys to inhale pure cannabis smoke through gas masks f long periods of time resulting in "apparent" brain damage through oxygen deprivation. Heath's work was sharply criticized for its insufficient sample size (only four lucky monkeys), its failure to control experimental bias, and the misidentification of normal monkey brain structure as "damaged".

Immune System Damage

    "Cannabis damages the immune system," warned Burden. This myth is based on studies where animals were given near-lethal doses of cannabinoids. The results have never been duplicated in human beings. Studies done in 1978, 1988 and 1994 have all shown that hashish and marijuana may actually stimulate the immune system.1
Lung Damage and Cancer
    Burden's list continued, "Marijuana contributes to lung damage and cancer risks that are 50% to 70% greater than those that are associated with tobacco."
    On April 3, 1997, researchers at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) School of Medicine published the results of an eight-year study into marijuana and lung function in Volume 155 of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. This comprehensive study was headed by Dr Donald Tashkin, one of America's foremost experts on marijuana smoking and lung function.
    The study found that "Neither the continuing nor the intermittent marijuana smokers exhibited any significantly different rates of decline in [lung function]" as compared with those individuals who never smoked marijuana. Researchers added "No differences were noted between even quite heavy marijuana smoking and nonsmoking of marijuana."
The results of this latest long-term study on marijuana and health repeat the findings of an Australian group of researchers at the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre. The Australian study, published in March 1997, concluded that "the health of long-term marijuana users is virtually no different from that of the general population."

Impaired Driving

    Naturally Burden added "Of particular concern to us, because of our work with impaired drivers, is the fact that the control of motor vehicles is impaired by cannabis." Driving simulator and closed-course tests have shown that THC and many other drugs can effect driving performance. However, THC's effects after doses up to 300 ug/kg never exceed alcohol's at BACs of 0.08 g% and are not unusual compared to many medicinal drugs.2
The evidence also strongly suggests that alcohol encourages risky driving whereas THC encourages greater caution. In addition, cannabis users are better able to compensate for its adverse effects. But then, any pot smoking professional driver (and there are thousands of them) will tell you that. What any of this has to do with smoking a joint in the privacy of your home is anyone's guess.

Marijuana Addiction

    Burden predictably continued "Marijuana is addictive. This addiction is well described in the marijuana literature." It certainly is. This "addiction" is well described as "habituation". Yes, people will often repeat activities that feel good. A British survey questioned "Trekkies" at two conventions and found that at least 10% of them had maladjusted personalities and took the show too seriously. Star Trek junkies dream about the show's characters, argue about the plots and spend up to $6,000 a year on memorabilia. Some showed irritability and withdrawal symptoms when they weren't getting enough Star Trek.
    Cannabis is not physically addictive in the way that tobacco, alcohol, valium and chocolate are. Cannabis does not stimulate dopamine and no one is recommending coffee prohibition. Give the addiction myth a rest.

Increased Potency

    Finally, Burden resurrected William Bennett's favourite fairy tale: "cannabis that's available on our streets today is many times stronger than that which was available in the early 1980s." I won't bother repeating why this is wrong. Just remember that any danger associated with cannabis consumption is not from the THC content, but rather from other by-products of combustion which come along for the ride. Stronger cannabis is safer cannabis.

Successful Prohibition

    Burden concluded his testimony by saying, "Even if marijuana users face only a portion of the above health and developmental consequences, there is justification for maintaining the current legal status of this drug." Based on what? The success of cannabis prohibition?
    The more dangerous the drug, the less it makes sense to abdicate control and distribution to the black market. Dealers work on commission. Dealers are not motivated to label their drugs, they are not subject to quality control, they sell to anyone of any age and they often sell "hard" drugs to the same customers.
    If users face only a small portion of the above marijuana myths, then it is high time we reduced this harm through law reform and education.

Horror Story Confusion

    Despite months of expert testimony contradicting Burden's horror stories and despite a lack of peer reviewed studies to back him up, Committee members seemed to take Burden seriously. Expressing his confusion, Bloc Quebecois Member Antoine Dube remarked, "Some say that marijuana is not dangerous to your health and that it does not cause dependency; others say the opposite. Quite frankly, it's very difficult to form a precise opinion in this case. I think we're going to have to ask for additional evidence sometime to try and clear up this murky issue." Months of expert testimony and dozens of peer-reviewed studies negated by fifteen minutes of hyperbole.

The Wrong Message

    As a parting shot, Burden used the tired scare tactic "decriminalization or legalization will simply send a message to young people." As previously noted, young people have little understanding of, or respect for, criminal law. Incarcerating responsible adults is by no means the most cost-effective method to send a message to teenagers.
    If we want to send a message to young people why don't we use more traditional methods of communication? One of our official languages perhaps? Better yet, why don't we send prisoners who are now serving time for cannabis offences to high schools to deliver personal messages on the difference between drug abuse and responsible use? We could even pay them the thirty thousand dollars a year we would otherwise spend to keep them hidden away behind bars.

Alcohol Prohibition Redux

    Following Karl Burden's support of the status quo, the Committee heard the testimony of Diane Buhler of Parents Against Drugs and John Bates from Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Bates shared some sobering statistics on the most harmful of recreational drugs, alcohol. As he put it, "Alcohol is a drug. It's as much a drug as cocaine, heroin, or any other so-called illicit drug. It's an addictive, mind-altering substance." Bates reminded the Committee that "the social damage caused by alcohol outweighs that of all illicit drugs combined. We lose something like 500 people to illicit drugs every year. We lose about 19,000 to alcohol. Some 1,500 people die in impaired automobile crashes. Alcohol accounts for some 65% of snowmobile deaths, 50% of all violent crime, and so forth."
    What did Bates recommend we do? More laws. Specifically Bill C-22, a Bill then before the House that would mandate health and safety warning labels on alcoholic beverages. Regarding punishment for drunk drivers, Bates said, "the penalties are quite irrelevant. People don't commit crimes with a view to being caught. We've done a lot of things wrong in the battle against drinking and driving, one of which is to assume heavy penalties are going to create something. They used to have heavier penalties in Scandinavia, and that was broadcast all over the world. It became the Scandinavian myth. They are just as bad as we are."
    So heavier penalties do not equal less abuse. Bates' theory is supported by the relative cannabis penalties and usage rates in the United States and the Netherlands.
Szabo Coming Around
    Committee member Paul Szabo seems to be coming around. As he put it, "what we do right now is not working, so why don't we decriminalize? Why don't we just ease up? That will make for cheaper, safer drugs, less violence in our society, and all this other stuff. It's almost condemning what we're doing today and resolving to try something else." You can almost see the light bulb glowing over Szabo's head.
    Still unsure, Szabo asked, "is there any proof that harm reduction as a model is a useful approach?" Try the web page of the Standing Committee on Health Paul. If re-reading the testimony presented before your committee doesn't convince you, re-read the testimony presented to the Senate before they inexplicably approved Bill C-8.

Rape vs Pot

    When asked to explain his objections to harm reduction techniques Mr Ben Jenkins of Concerns, Canada, replied, "I would draw an analogy with rape on this question. Rape is against the law in Canada, yet we know that a certain percentage of the population is going to commit rape. What should we do? Should we give these people one woman every two weeks or every three months, or whatever? The parallel is there."
    This kind of inane comment trivializes rape, since unlike drug use, rape is not a victimless crime. Our society's prohibition of heroin use might better be likened to banning masturbation.

Why are we here?

    The February meeting concluded with a spirited, partisan, discussion of the Committee's budget and goals. "I'm a little concerned and I'm not sure what the heck we're doing now. It's just not clear to me any more what the heck we're doing and why." lamented Paul Szabo.
    In case anyone else has forgotten, the Committee has an extremely simple and narrow mandate, narrowed down from the "comprehensive review" of Canada's drug policy which we were promised by both Parliament and the Senate, as a consolation prize for the reckless passage of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
    To receive evidence about the harmful impact of misuse and abuse of legal and illegal drugs on the social behaviour and physical health of Canadians;
    To identify the relevance of variables such as age, sex, ethnicity, socio-economic status and geographic area on the demand for and effect of such substances;
To examine effective measures for reducing the demand for and use of such substances through education, prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation;
    To make appropriate recommendations on future policy actions to reduce the demand for such substances.

Substitution and Treatment

    On March 18, the Committee convened with only three members present. They heard the testimony of Eric Shirt from the Society of Aboriginal Addictions Recovery. Like so many front-line professionals who have appeared before the Committee, Shirt justifiably complained of the lack of funding for treatment in Canada and lobbied the Committee for more.
    Raising the issue of health care costs, Shirt observed "people are going to doctors and getting uppers or downers. One of the things Chief Chris Shade said is that whenever our people en masse on the Blood Reserve fall off the wagon, our prescription drug use falls, but when suddenly our people go on this rage of sobering up, our prescription drug use goes up." So it seems that, under certain circumstances, supplying drug users with a safe and affordable supply of drugs is quite acceptable.
    David McKeown from the City of Toronto Public Health Branch lobbied for passage of the Tobacco Products Control Act, Bill C-71. He criticized the punitive nature of Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, saying it draws attention away from creative solutions to reduce the harm associated with illicit drug use, such as needle exchange programs, methadone maintenance and prescribing controlled substances to addicts. Like Eric Shirt, McKeown made a desperate plea for treatment and harm reduction funding.

French Philosophy

    On April 8, the Committee met with their French counterparts from the Cultural, Family and Social Affairs Commission of France in a "question-and-answer-type thing." After lengthy diplomatic introductions, discussion turned to young people, alcohol and drugs. The French "felt it would be a good idea to see how this problem was being addressed abroad," saying they had visited Sweden and Italy and were scheduled to tour the United States. Readers may recall that our Standing Committee did not travel across Canada as originally promised, due to budgetary concerns.
     The Standing Committee had a pleasant meeting with the French though, due to the diplomatic nature of the visit, it yielded little of substance.  They focussed on alcohol abuse, compared notes, and agreed that "education is better than punishment." As Francisque Perrut, member of the visiting Commission put it "when talking about prevention, the important thing is not to ban alcohol outright, but rather to educate people at a young age to have a reasonable, healthy attitude toward alcohol or wine." The meeting adjourned to a dinner reception hosted by the Canada-France Association, where I am sure both the Canadians and French demonstrated this reasonable and healthy attitude.

The SocioBiology of Alcohol

    On April 15, the Committee heard the testimony of three witnesses. First was Denise Tompkins of the Addiction Research Foundation, who discussed the pharmacology or biology of alcohol. Next was Louise Nadeau of the Standing Committee on Addiction, Government of Quebec, who spoke on the negative effects of alcohol consumption from a social perspective. Last was Eric Single, a former director of policy and research for the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. His position had been terminated because of "budget cutbacks."

Recommendations?
What Recommendations?

     Finally, at the end of the April 15 meeting, the Committee turned their attention to their long-awaited recommendations. They reviewed a confidential draft document, "a summary of briefs and testimony so far" and pondered whether or not to submit this summary to the House.
    Concerned that the report would not be ready before the anticipated federal election call, the Chairman pointed out that "under House procedure, once the House is dissolved the whole issue, including the committee, dies and would have to be reconstituted under a new Parliament."
    Failing to reach consensus, the Committee elected to withhold their interim report, or as the the Chairman put it, to "tread water," until after the federal election.

A Waste of Time

    We did not see any recommendations from the Committee before the passage of Bill C-8 on May 14, and unless the new Parliament resumes the review, we may never see more than a summary of the evidence. Should we be surprised? Not really.
    On February 16, encouraged by his public support of cannabis decriminalization, I sent Reform MP Keith Martin a letter asking if he could share insights on the drug policy review, specifically whether the Committee was learning anything not already learned by the Le Dain Commission. Martin candidly replied "The current Canadian review of our drug policy... is a waste of time." Martin continued, "most committees' studies are make work projects for MPs as opposed to being constructive and useful." He advised me not to "anticipate that there will be any new earth shattering insights into our management of illicit drugs."
    There you have it. The review, which was supposed to have been some consolation for the inexplicable passage of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, was nothing more that a diversionary stall tactic.

Another Criminal Act

    To add insult to injury, on April 17 the federal government introduced a new anti-gang bill to combat Quebec's motorcycle gang drug-turf wars. The Criminal Organization Act, Bill C-17, broadens police powers and creates the new ambiguous offence of "participation in a criminal organization." Other measures contained in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and Bill C-17 include a new peace bond that would allow a judge to prohibit associating or communicating with other gang members, and changes to make it easier for police to use electronic surveillance against gangs for up to a year, compared to the current 60 days.
    As if existing laws governing weapons and explosives are not enough, the new law will make it an indictable offence if a person "participates or substantially contributes to the activities of a criminal organization, knowing that any or all of the members of the organization are engaged or have engaged in a series of indictable offences within the proceeding five years." Are we leaving anyone out? One wonders if the Criminal Organizations Act will apply to corrupt police departments, political parties and their supporters.
    Canadian constitutional experts have advised the federal government that a law criminalizing membership would not withstand a challenge under Sections 7 and 2(d) of the Charter, which protect individual rights, including the right of freedom of association. Yet, driven by Quebec's squeaky wheel, the poorly worded and ill-conceived legislation has moved through the House like shit through a goose. So we see, bureaucracy can work if properly motivated. Perhaps the new federal government will establish yet another "make work" standing committee to retroactively review the legislation after it has passed. 

Footnotes
1. Kaklamani, et al., Hashish smoking and T- lymphocytes, 1978.
Kalofoutis et al., The significance of lymphocyte lipid changes after smoking hashish, 1978.
Marijuana and Immunity, Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, Vol 20(1), Jan-Mar 1988.
Wallace, J.M., Tashkin, D.P., Oishi, J.S., Barbers, R.G., Peripheral Blood Lymphocyte Subpopulations and Mitogen Responsiveness in Tobacco and Marijuana Smokers, Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, ibid.
Lynn, A.B. and Herkenham, M., Localization of Cannabinoid Receptors and Nonsaturable High Density Cannabinoid Binding Sites in Peripheral Tissues of the Rat: Implications for Receptor-Mediated Immune Modulation by Cannabinoids, Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 268: 1612-23, 1994.
2. Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance, US Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, (DOT HS 808 078), Final Report, November 1993.
The Incidence and Role of Drugs in Fatally Injured Drivers, National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, by K.W. Terhune, et al. of the Calspan Corp. Accident Research Group in Buffalo, NY (Report # DOT-HS-808-065).

For More Info
Contact author Matt Elrod by email at creator@islandnet.com.