THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF
DRUG POLICY, VOL 7, NO 3,1996Canada's new drug law, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Bill C-8), was voted into law in June of 1996. Technically a 'health' bill, its punitive focus suggests that it is in fact criminal law, continuing and expanding Canada's strictly prohibitionist approach to the possession as well as the trafficking of numerous substances. This law, like the old one, will result in the continued misdirection of resources, the criminalisation of drug users, and the unnecessary infection, and death, of many Canadians.
BACKGROUND
Bill C-8, the Controlled Drugs and Substarnces Act, was first introduced in February of
1994 by the Liberal government. The bill, however, had an earlier genesis. It very closely
resembled Bill C-85, introduced by the Conservative government in June 1992 and harshly
criticised by the Liberals, who were then in Opposition. Bill C-85 died with the
Conservative government, but the Liberals resurrected it within months of coming to power.
Bill C-8 is technically a 'health' bill, introduced into the House of Commons by the Minister of Health. However, its punitive focus suggests thatas a practical matter it is criminal law, normally a responsibility of the Minister of justice.
At the Health subcommittee hearings into Bill C-8, the vast majority of witnesses, including experts in health, law, and the addictions, criticised the bill severely. Some called for its complete withdrawal. Organisations expressing concern included the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Police Association, the Canadian Center on Substance Abuse, the Addiction Research Foundation and the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy.
Bill C-8 promises only to make drug use more dangerous, and to lead to more people being killed by adulterated drugs, by drugs of unknown potency orby conditions that promote the spread of HIV infection among drug users. Similarly, the Bill will do nothing to address the multiple underlying causes of drug use. Instead, it betrays the vain belief that simple repression can solve a problem with such complex roots.
A number of witnesses before the subcommittee, including the Canadian Medical Association, expressed concern that the wording of the Bill could result in health care professionals being charged with trafficking when they are in fact legitimately provid, ing controlled substances to users.
Provisions applicable to physicians trafficking in controlled drug prescriptions would therefore require revision. The emphasis should be placed on the absence of a normal practitioner patient relationship as the threshold of proof for trafficking violations. The CMA also criticised C-8 for not protecting the confidentiality of patient records, and for not exempting doctors from 'indiscriminate search without the authority of a warrant'.
Members of Parliament who support Bill C-8 have emphasized that C-8 is not a policy document but simply a 'housekeeping' bill directed exclusively at consolidating existing drug laws and bringing Canadian legislation into line with international drug treaties. This has also been the position of the bureaucrats responsible for the evolution of the legislation.
BILL C-8, DRUG POLICY AND HIV/AIDS
Drug and other social policy around the world has most certainly been a catalyst for the
spread of AIDS and other drug related harms (cf. Des Jartais and Friedman, 1994;
Oscapella, 1994; Riley, 1993). Current Canadian drug taws will eventualtycontribute to the
deaths of thousands of people through the preventable spread of drug related HIV and other
infections such as hepatitis and TB. BillC-8 wittberesponsible for continuing and
exacerbating these harms.
Laws prohibiting certain drugs, heroin and cocaine for example, have encouraged users to ingest them in more efficient ways, often by injecting. Injecting with contaminated equipment greatly increases the risk of HIV infection and,other bloodborne infections.
Our drug laws have created a culture of marginalised people, driving them from traditional social support ne tworks-non- using family members, friends and co-workers. Users may share syringes out of a sense of solidarity. It is difficult to reach marginalised communities with educational messages about safe drug use practices or drug treatment. Our drug laws have also fostered a reluctance to educate both users and non-users about safe drug use practices, for fear of condoning or encouraging the use of illegal drugs. The laws and the attitudes they have fostered towards Canadian citizens who use drugs have sometimes generated strong opposition to life-saving needle-exchange programmes and other harm-reduction programmes.
The highly inflated price of illegal drugs has forced some men, women and young people into high-risk forms of sex to pay for their habits. Condoms are not always used in these transactionssometimes because clients offer more money for unprotected sex. This increases the risk of HIV infection for drug users, their clients and unsuspecting contacts of both.
Drug users who fear being arrested for possession of illegal drugs (and who also fear having their syringes used as evidence against them) may forego usingtheir own drugs and syringes. Instead, they may go to'shooting galleries' where they may be given syringes contaminated with HIV
Our drug laws greatly increase the risk of spreading HIV in prisons: they result in users being placed in high-risk prison environments where they will continue to want to use drugs, but will likely have no means to protect themselves against HIV infection and are unlikely to receive effective treatment to helpthemcontrol their desire to use drugs.
Dependent users desperate for enough money to pay the exorbitant illegal market price of drugs-a price that is the product of prohibition-may commit acquisitive crimes, including burglaries and robberies. Thus, drug taws are indirectly responsible for other crimes that result in heavily dependent users being placed in high-risk prison environments. Condoms have not been available until recently in Canadian prisons, and are still not available in all of them. The reluctance to provide condoms stems in partfrom the fear that they will be used to hide illegal drugs.
Bleach is often not available to clean syringes in circulation in prisons, as its availability might be seen as condoning an illegal activity and there is no legitimate source of access to clean syringes in Canadian prisons, in part because this might be seen as condoning an illegal activity. As a result, the considerable amount of injection drug use thatoccurs in prisons may be done by sharing a few syringes contaminated with HIV Prison authorities have restricted attempts to educate prisoners about safe injection practices for fear of beingseenas condoningan illegal activity.
Drug testing programmes within prisons-in part an offshoot of prohibition-may lead to the increased use of heroin and cocaine instead of marijuana, since heroin and cocaine cannot be detected for more than a few days after use; in prison environments, these drugs are often injected using unsterile equipment, greatly increasing the risk of HIV infection.
Prisons have become overcrowded with people charged with drugoffences, making it more likely that AIDS will spread there. In addition, a number of prisoners report using drugs and injecting for the first time in their lives when they are in prison-perhaps because that is the only way they can cope with the oppression inherent in institutional environments.
Our drug laws have fostered public attitudes that are vehemently anti-drug user. In this climate, it is difficult to persuade Canadians to care about what har)pens to their fellow citizens who use drugs. The attitude towards drug users, fostered by our drug laws is that drug users do not care about their own lives; therefore, society need not care about the lives of drug users.
Our drug laws and policies have focused too much attention on punishing Canadians who use drugs, playing down critically important issues such as why people use drugs, and what can be done to help them stop unsafe drug use practices.
BILL C-8 AND SYRINGE EXCHANGE
Syringe exchange is often controversial because of legal concerns. In Canada, legal
barriers to syringe exchange programmes such as those posed by current paraphernalia and
other drug laws, are more perceived than real. For example, clean syringes are not
considered drug paraphernalia under present law or under the law as it will stand if Bill
C-8 i,-enacted. However, Bill C-8 will continue to create unnecessary confusion in the
law.
Bill C-8 states that 'a reference to a controlled substance includes a reference to ... any thing that contains or has on it a controlled substance and that is used or intended or designed for use ... in introducing the substance into the human body' (clause 2(2)b). This means that syringes containing drugs controlled by the bill themselves become controlled substances. A used syringe would of course need to contain a detectable amount of substance to qualify as a controlled substance, and the user would have to known that it contained an illegal drug. In practice, this provision may make users less willing to be caught with their own used syringes; if they want a fix, they may therefore be more likely to share someone else's injection equipment, with the risks for acquiring blood-borne infections that this entails.
Whether or not C-8 becomes law, users should be asked to ensure that the syringes they carry to syringe exchanges are as free of drug as possible. Washing out used syringes with water before taking them to the exchange would be one way to reduce the amount of residual drug. The most appropriate course of action, however, would be specific legislative exemptions for syringes containing small amounts of a drug.
CONCLUSION
The introduction of Bill C-8 showed that the federal government was not interested-at
least until substantial opposition to the Bill arose-in serious reflection on drug policy
reform. This should be a time to re-evaluate Canada's drug laws and draft new ones based
on public health and harm reduction; the latter is especially pertinent given that
Canada's Drug Strategy explicitly states that its aim is to reduce drug related harms.
Existing Canadian drug legislation is irrational and often confusing. Bill C-8 promises only to exacerbate the irrationality and add to the confusion. The result will be continued misdirection of resources, the criminalisation of drug users and the unnecessary infection, and death, of many Canadians.
Canadian drug laws must be re-examined. Alternative ways to reduce the harms associated with drugs must be honestly and openly considered. We must move towards treating drugs as a health issue rather than addressing drugs through the almost wholly inadequate mechanism of the criminal law. To this end, rather than legislation such as C-8, we need the creation of an independent committee that can identify and develop alternative programmes on how to deal with drugs in an enlightened, humane and effective manner that will in the end better serve all Canadians.
REFERENCES
Oscapella E (1994). AIDS and prohibition. Paper presented at the 8th BC HIV/AIDS Conference, Vancouver, November. Riley D (1993). The Policy and Practice of Harm Reduction,
Ottawa: Canadian Center on Substance Abuse.