The Canadian Harm Reduction Network
The Canadian Harm Reduction Network is the virtual meeting place for individuals and organizations dedicated to reducing the social, health and economic harms associated with drugs and drug policies.
Our goals are:
- To develop in Canada a network of harm reduction workers, agencies, organisations, individuals and groups of individuals, including people with current drug use experience, for the purpose of exchanging information and providing mutual support
- To educate the public, politicians, legislators and the media about the efficacy and legitimacy of Harm Reduction for redressing the consequences of the use and distribution of illicit drugs
- To ensure that drug policies in Canada exemplify true Harm Reduction
- To work collaboratively to end the war on drugs and on the people who use them
STEPHEN HARPER ON DRUGS
From time to time, we will post information about the Harper government's sabotaging approach to harm reduction. Please feel free to respond.
Ideology Trumps Science in the Harper Government’s “New” Drug Policy
2007-10-08Concerned that "certain forces" have changed culture so that drug use is no longer dissuaded and is at times encouraged, Stephen Harper's new conservative government has announced its "new" drug policy. It is a policy which is strongly indebted for its innovativeness to the failed American model, the "War on Drugs". The "War on Drugs" was initiated by Richard Nixon and has been embraced by each of his successors. No one has been more strongly committed to it, however, than George W. Bush, who has melded it into his War on Terrorism.
Until now, Canada has not wholeheartedly subscribed to the "War on Drugs". We pursued a more reasoned and holistic approach which included prevention, harm reduction, treatment and enforcement, a "Four Pillars" approach, more like some of the successful European models. This was the case even in the most recent iteration of our drug strategy, completed about two years ago after extensive multi-sectoral and community input.
Harper's government is taking a sharp turn away from this, however, and it will likely cost Canada dearly in terms of increased disease and ruined lives, not to mention its reputation in most parts of the world save the USA.
Thirty-six years ago, Richard Nixon declared a "War On Drugs". Since then, according to Richard Stevenson of The Fraser Institute, "by just about every measure, drug problems have intensified and proliferated".
In the United States, largely as a result of the "War on Drugs", drug arrests have more than tripled over the years, totalling a record 1.8 million arrests in 2005. Currently the USA has a higher proportion of its population incarcerated than any other country in the world for which reliable statistics are available, reaching a total of 2.2 million inmates in the US in 2005. Over the past 20 years there has been an increase of from 10% to 30% in the jail population devoted to drug offenders, according to Professor Neil Boyd, Associate Director of the School of Criminology at Simon Fraser University. "That's what mandatory minimums do". (CBC Radio 1, "The House", 6 October 2007) Mandatory minimum sentences are one of the planks in Harper's "new" policy, which overall has a strong emphasis on enforcement at the expense of other approaches.
Since the initiation of the "War on Drugs", however, at a cost of approximately $60 million a year, expended at the rate of approximately $600 per second, America has seen no decrease in drug use. (see the "Drug War Clock": http:/www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm)
The identification of treatment and education as elements of Canada's "new" drug strategy is clearly important. Actually, they have always been there. However, much will depend on the direction these elements take.
The proposed prevention campaign targeted at youth and their parents is reminiscent of the US-style "Just Say No" campaign, a campaign that has not worked. Without a doubt, we need to engage youth in a frank and open discussion about alcohol and other drugs, so that they can understand the risks and make better, more informed decisions. However, according to Leon Mar of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, education programs such as the one proposed by the Harper government have previously proved ineffective. "Health Canada's own review of the Drug Abuse Resistance Education program implemented widely across Canada", he said, "has shown that the program does not prevent or delay drug use."
Treatment, of course, is under provincial jurisdiction. Whatever programs the federal government might mandate or choose to fund, one hopes that they recognise that treatment services need to be flexible and meet people where they are at. For some people abstinence-based programs work extremely well. But there is a significant group of people for whom, say, maintenance on methadone, or buprenorphine, or heroin are more appropriate, if not necessary, strategies.
A palpable concern is that the Harper government will impose ideological criteria on funding for its treatment initiatives, just as they have on some research projects, and just as is ocuring in the USA. According to an article in the Vancouver Courier (5 October 2007), a "gag order" imposed on the results of research has impelled the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDSu7ui to reject a contract with the federal government for further research about Insite, the Safe Injection Site in Vancouver. "We could produce an analysis showing that there's been a huge reduction in some type of health outcome and then have the health minister stand up and say once again the research has shown nothing, and we're supposed to sit there and not say anything," explained Dr. Thomas Kerr, a senior scientist with the Centre. "It was a very politically motivated contract, and we just couldn't do it. We don't work that way." (Quoted in the Vancouver Courier, 5 October 2007)
The drug strategy put forward by Prime Minister Harper, together with Stockwell Day and Tony Clement, provides no funding or support for harm reduction measures. These include, of course, Vancouver's safe injection site, which has become the federal government's whipping boy, and more alarmingly for the distribution of clean needles and safe inhalation equipment, which are critical to stemming the spread of HIV, hepatitis C and other infectious diseases among people who use drugs and their partners, nor, for that matter, for opiate or methadone maintenance, which are important elements of harm reduction treatment.
In fact, Harper has stated that harm reduction is not a "distinct pillar" of his strategy, and that he is cool to the idea of it. "I remain a skeptic", he said, "that you can tell people we won't stop the drug trade, we won't get you off drugs, we won't even send messages to discourage drug use, but somehow we will keep you addicted and yet reduce the harm just the same." This statement is a deliberate distortion of what harm reduction does, and flouts extensive scientific data, and I would be surprised if Mr. Harper didn't know this.
Tony Clement, at a Canadian Medical Association meeting last month, was quoted saying "harm reduction, in a sense, takes many forms. To me, prevention is harm reduction. Treatment is harm reduction. Enforcement is harm reduction." This is another conscious distortion as well as a devious attempt to co-opt the term harm reduction to support incarceration.
Note that this is the Minister of Health speaking.
From the point of view of health, the health of the Canadian public, incarceration will lead to more people becoming infected with HIV and Hepatitis C. For example, it has been estimated that 21% of all HIV infections among injection drug users in Vancouver occur in jails. There is very good reason to believe that the number of Hepatitis C infections which originate in jails and prisons is even greater. These infections don't remain behind bars. They move out into the community as people are discharged.
Our jails and prisons are wells of HIV and hepatitis C infections. And, locking people up in them is NOT harm reduction. Real harm reduction has been very successful in reduction the spread of infectious diseases. Jails and prisons have failed at it. Thus, the current Harper drug policy risks creating epidemics of HIV and hepatitis C, for the sake of ideology, and is contrary to what should be seen as good public health practice.
Finally some notice must be taken of the government's use of language.
It is not merely that simplistic language reflects simplistic thinking about the complex issues of drug misuse, which it does in this instance, but that comments such as "The Party's Over" for people who use drugs, made by Mr. Clement show both a lack of understanding and an underlying contempt for people who use drugs. For many people, including young people, this is not a party.
Mark Townsend, director of the Portland Hotel Society in Vancouver, said that Harper doesn't understand the scourge of drug addiction. "It's depressing to see his [Harper's] lack of leadership on that and now he is out there trying to find a new study that will say the world is flat," Townsend said. (CBC News, 4 October 2007)
Neil Boyd commented, (again on "The House", 6 October 2007) that "one of the problems I fear comes in listening to Mr. Clement, listening to Mr. Harper, is they don't really understand the desperation and the ravages of drug addiction at the very far end of the continuum. The problem for that very small group of users is not the drugs. The problem is that people live that way. And these are not people who need to be hit harder. They need support and, I fear, in the language, the rhetoric that I hear from Mr. Harper and Mr. Clement, I don't hear really . . . I hear a double speak. I don't really hear compassion for users."
Further, referring to all people who sell drugs as the "bad guys", as Mr. Clement did on "The House", may be strategic, even cute, but it is not necessarily true. As Neil Boyd pointed out, all-inclusive labelling such as this does not permit discrimination between the non?addicted big?time dealers and the user?dealer who sells small quantities of drugs simply to support an unquenchable habit. Courts are full of the latter. If we consider the year 2006 the first year of the Harper government, the increase in arrests for possession of marijuana ranged between 20 and 50%, depending on the city, over those made in 2005. This is scarcely compassion.
Barry McKnight is chief of the Frederickton Police Force and chair of the drug abuse committee of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. He said, on CBC's "The House" (6 October 2007) that "from a police perspective you can guarantee that we, because we work with people who suffer from addictions on a day-to-day basis, whether they are victims of crime, as they frequently are, as well as involved in committing crimes, we understand the lifestyle that those people are living. And they haven't chosen to live that way, and they need to get into treatment too."
As Neil Boyd summed up, again on CBC's "The House", "the policies and the approach which the Harper Government plans to take will increase risk. It will increase risk. It will increase risk for users. It will increase profit for dealers. It's the kind of approach that, perhaps inadvertently, I don't know, but certainly quite clearly puts more profit into the hands of organised crime."
Useful background material:
Science and Ideology
Dr. Stephen W. Hwang
Link to Article
A 25-Year Quagmire: The War on Drugs and Its Impact on American Society
Marc Mauer and Ryan S. King
Link to Article
Contact information for the Canadian Centre for Substance Abuse:
E-mail: info@ccsa.ca
Web Site: http://www.ccsa.ca/
The Canadian Harm Reduction Network has great concern about the War on Drugs approach that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is undertaking in his new anti-drug strategy. We have called on The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse (CCSA) to address this policy in a forthright manner. The CCSA was established in 1988 by an Act of Parliament and has a legislated mandate to provide national leadership and evidence-informed analysis and advice to mobilize collaborative efforts to reduce alcohol- and other drug-related harms. It played a major role in helping to formulate Canada's most recent drug strategy, which put forward a comprehensive approach which included harm reduction as well as treatment, prevention and enforcement. We encourage you to contact them and assist us in enlisting their support.
Contact information for the Canadian Centre for Substance Abuse:E-mail - info@ccsa.ca Web Site - href="http://www.ccsa.ca/
We also urge you to contact your MP with your concerns.
The ignorance displayed by Harper and his band of self righteous fools is inexcusable. If I had the chance, I would love to ask these 'wise' fellas:
What if we were talking about your rebellious 18 year old daughter? The one who, unbenounced to you, started smoking pot at 16 with her classmates from private catholic school, then excalated to throwing lines of cocaine up her nose at 17. She met this really cool guy that even Dad liked, who came from money, drove a nice car and shook your hand and called you sir. The next thing you know, your daughter stops talking to you and moves out. She calls for money and that's it. You give it to her thinking you are helping her, but you're not. Detox, Treatment - she just runs away. She's doing it all now: from pot to heroin. Such a beautiful girl, why is she doing this to us? We love her so much? Then she calls you a few years later crying, saying she's in jail on multiple drug offences and its not her first time. Do you try to help her? Are we supporting the mandatory minimums now? And how do you propose to help your daughter? Put her into another 12 step program she'll run away from? Let her rot in jail with no support system except your shallow 'just say no' advice? Wouldn't you rather have your daughter find some understanding and compassion in a harm reduction counsellor? Someone who listens without judging and is finally someone your daughter can trust. Or would this situation be different?
What the high priced law firm where all the partners are closet heroin addicts? One of these lawyers even handled your 2nd divorce. Two of them are members of the same golf club as you. Nice fellas. He charged you double and they pad the books to increase their profit. They also have knowledge of certain drug shipments coming through the longshoreman. Comparatively, one could say they can afford their addiction. If they get busted for possession, are they different? Should they get thrown in the clink with the rest of the "drug addicts" or would this situation be again different? Hang on... these guys are intelligent, well paid and respected in their field? NO WAY, they couldn't be drug addicts ...
That's just the tip of the "Question Iceberg"
HARPER HAS CHOSEN UNWISELY TO FOLLOW THE FAILED US DRUG POLICY,& THIS WILL SET US BACK A DECADE IN HARM REDUCTION EFFORTS!!BACK JACK & VOTE NDP & LETS LEGALIZE POT ONCE & FOR ALL!~~SHAME MR. HARPER,SHAME ON YOU FOR TURNING SICK & DYEING PEOPLES INTO CRIMINALS!!OF WHICH I AM ONE,PHA HIV-AIDS EDUCATION & AWARENESS SPEAKER AT TEACHING FACILITIES,ECT.SMOKING POT HELPS ME TO EAT,NOT THAT I COULD AFFORD MUCH FOOD ANYWAYS AFTER ALL BILLS ARE PAID,WHEN ARE DISABILITY RATES GOING TO BE RAISED TO NORMAL LEVELS??
I beg to differ with your stance on Harper's approach drug abuse. Would you rather he does nothing and keeps on coddling the druggies. Drugs are a problem and something has to be done to stop it. There is more than enough information in all media informing people about the harmful effects of drugs. If they don't want to listen, then they shall suffer the consequences. The problem with this generation is that they don't beleive that their actions have consequences. Well they do. It's time to take responsibility for your actions. Stop blaming everyone else.
You say that prisons and jails are wells of infections. Well stay out of there.
"Further, referring to all people who sell drugs as the "bad guys", as Mr. Clement did on "The House", may be strategic, even cute, but it is not necessarily true." Oh please, give me a break. You deal drugs, you deal death. There aren't many rungs lower than a drug dealer. I have no sympathy for them, whatever their reason is for selling.
Kudos to Mr. Harper. By the way, how do you people feel about the Harper government's lowering of taxes and the GST. You're probably against that too.
Why are you guys opposing Harper's policy on drugs? Wha'ts wrong in it? You oppsoe it just because it failed in the USA? This is no logic for the oppsition. Those who are in the business of destroying the whole generation must pay severely for the crime. There are number of organisations and of course media too playing important roles in educating but education alone doesn't work. If you have fever you ought to take bitter pills to get alright, right? Drugs is also the worst kind of a deasese and it needs curative steps. Stop opposing govt's policy.
Harper is doing right thing. You fellows are on the wrong side. Stop encouraging druggist and those who are in calendetine business. By the way are you funded by druggists? You want to see the whole generation suffering?
I am supporitng Harper's policy on drugs. He is doing right thing. Unlike you there are many other organisations supporting his stance. This is good for the whole generation. Youth nowadays doesn't listen and understand always the right thing. Some time it is necessary to bring them on right path. And by the way, ritght people have not at all to fear. Please allow Harper to do his job.
i wholeheartedly disagree with stephen harper's drug policy. i'm amazed and saddened that so many comments on the CANADIAN HARM REDUCTION NETWORK homepage support it. why are you people bothering to read this site if you so vehemently disagree with harm reduction philosophies?
harm reduction ultimately assists and aids those most in need of support, care and understanding. kudos to the canadian harm reduction network for so publicly opposing what is a closed minded and backwards drug policy.
...WHAT IS 'HARM'??? - WHO IS REALLY CAUSING HARM???
....To the people who are so concerned about the 'harm' being done to the 'younger generation'...- do you really think that throwing someone in jail, exposing them to a higher chance of infection, stigmatizing them, making their ability to succeed in life more difficult, traumatizing/psychologically damaging them, etc. - is somehow GOOD for them (teaches them a lesson, etc...makes them learn about responsibility....)....ALL TO SAVE THEM FROM THE HARM OF DOING DRUGS - do you really believe that this is a reasonable response to drug abuse that cANADA should continue to pour a huge amount of money/resources into?
.....Pls. consider - when people involved in the harm reduction field talk of the shortcomings of Americas response (the legalistic/incarceration approach)....we are pointing out - that it doesn't work.
Not only is it harmful to the individual, morally hypocritical (consider the case of alcohol, etc...)...incredibly expensive, fosters increased social corruption and violence in our society, but is also a rather extreme reaction founded, not on PROTECTING society, but on PUNISHING those whose behavior we do not choose to understand.
The sad part of the whole 'War on Drugs'...is all the faulty perceptions associated with the 'harm' that drugs do - harm that is in large part directly due to their illegality.
The other side to this enforced ignorance is the lack of information on addictive behavior, and safer medical/biochemical alternatives to the current drugs being used.
...It should be stressed, that the emphasis is NOT on eliminating drug use, or FOCUSING ON JUST DRUGS!...but UNDERSTANDING the basis of 'addictive behavior, (it's role in neural development, bio-chemical deficiencies involved, result of abuse, etc...) and instead, helping/healing the brain by supplying the brain what it needs.
....Addiction is NOT just about drug use. Nor is it JUST a problem with 'The Poor, or The Outcasts of society - it is a wide range of behaviors that cuts across all lines and social boundaries.
Many believe that this is our number #1 social problem - understanding (and not limiting our views to punishing) this behavior, is essential to our society's survival.
...Most importantly, doctors and scientists in 'addiction' research have developed/tested 'drugs' (which are on the whole, are a natural part of our biochemistry, which the 'addictive' person lacks)...that medically benefit 'addicts' WITHOUT an individual having to resort to illegal chemicals.
(The very phrase 'Addiction' has been replaced by the term 'Reward System deficiency')
This understanding allows individuals to 'repair' a deficiency that makes it difficult for them to thrive or feel adequate in their lives, without having to resort to behaviors that are deemed 'illegal', and are therefore threatened by the very laws that are supposed to protect them.
This information (the biochemical approach of treating addiction as a ...gasp!...disease...IMHO)...can have enormous impact on the future of Harm Reduction....and offers an alternative political approach to addiction that John/Jane Q. Public can readily accept - it's truly amazing what some of the medical alternatives are out there - drugs that significantly reduce the amount of drugs needed to 'get high'...both cocaine and heroin...(that alone could reduce the sales of drugs)....NATURAL proteins that work/feel BETTER than heroin...this is all information that really deserves to be looked at, and implemented in our social approach to drug use....jails/prisons ARE NOT an answer - let's face long standing facts AND open our minds to a more humane approach!....
To all of the neoconservatives out their that support Harper's drug war , let me ask you , have you ever heard the prohibition before? Has the policy ever been tried before? Our history booked tell us that the US had alcohol prohibiton for approximatley 13 yrs until they realized IT DIDN"T WORK . Drug prohibition is no different . As with alcohol prohibition we had gangs ( remember Al capone ) & with drug prohibiton we have gangs. People are being killed by these gangs , not because they are high ( just as Al Capone & his gang did not kill people because they were drunk) people are being killed over arguments over drug debt , arguements over drug turf . As a society we have a choice with drugs , most people would agree that no matter what policies are put into place drugs will never go away. So our choice is we can give control of drugs to the public sector , the private sector or to criminal gangs , sadly we have made the worst choice , we have given control of drugs to criminals .
I invite Prime Minister Harper to take an evening stroll in the Byward Market in Ottawa, only a short distance from his home, and see for himself the desperation of those REAL PEOPLE living there. No one chooses to live this way. Their will has buckled under the weight of mental illness, abuse, and neglect. Shame on a society that not only failed them before the addiction but turns their back on them when the addiction is all they have left. How narrow-minded and irresponsible of government to think that the problem starts with the drug dealers.
People who want to risk taking street drugs from pushers should suffer the consequences they take on themselves. But no one should be forced to take medication without informed consent.
Harper and the House of Commons received a petition in November of 2006, duely signed by 40 Canadian health care professionals, teachers, seniors, university students, and a priest, asking that Tasers be banned in Canada.
The petition originated because of an incident in 2005. A university student was forced to a hospital for drug testing by four Saanich Police with a Taser. The police trespassed in his house, following a cell phone tip that suggested he might have taken a substance three days earlier. They didn't find any drugs in his house, but Tasered the student five times in his bedroom, while he was naked in bed, trying to get some rest when he didn't need to be in class. It all happened in just a few minutes.
After almost electrocuting the student to death, police told paramedics to take the student naked to the hospital. He was conscious, but felt totally paralyzed, his muscles all twitching involuntarily. No one even provided proof of his identification – all his possessions were left unprotected in the open house. No charges could be laid against the student, so the police pretended to the doctor that he had been threatening and resisting them. They didn’t admit they trespassed. They also lied and said that the Taser didn’t work, so the doctors didn’t look to notice when Taser burns began festering on his back and leg. Tests didn’t show any toxicology, but because he was so agitated psychiatrists treated him with sedatives and antipsychotics, and detained him in a high security psychiatric ward for sixteen days, assuming this healthy varsity athlete had mysteriously suffered a psychotic break.
When a sub-renter returned to the house, he called the student’s mother. She flew 1500 kms to the hospital and after finally understanding from her son that he really had not taken any dangerous drugs, and really was Tasered five times, she yelled "habeus corpus" scaring the doctors with the risk of a lawsuit for treating her son without his or her informed consent. The student was not even offered legal aide to appeal his unwarranted arrest and detention under the BC mental health act, so had no choice but to attempt civil litigation on a contingency fee agreement, after enduring all that pathologizing abuse and leaks of confidentiality to the university. He and his mother left Victoria and started looking for a lawyer, finally finding Cameron Ward six months later.
Three years gone by now and still no apology from the police, the Vancouver Island Health Authority, the BC government, or Canadian government. He even had to pay the ambulance bill of $350.00.
Had Harper and his caucus heeded the warning implicit in that petition, the stupidity of the Vancouver Airport incident where a poor Polish Immigrant was murdered last month, might never have happened. Does anyone really now think that Harper didn't approve of Canadian Police importing Tasers to help George Bush with his "drug war"? He and Stockwell Day have embarrassed all Canadians. "Public Safety" doesn’t seem to exist in Canada or the US anymore - nor does privacy in our bedrooms, human rights against torture, forced detention, and drugging by unscrupulous doctors.
To a drug dependent, the Harper's Policy does not matter. He is going to get his doses somehow. I know, because I am a drug dependent. It is not a situation I want to be in. But it is a disease I am suffering from. And the govt. must treat it as such. Cure the diseased. Prevent the disease from spreading to others. That must be the main aims of any drug policy. We are not criminals, we did not commit any crimes. The Harper's policy, is going to turn the efforts of many to waste. The Govt. needs to study the Production and Supply of drugs minutely. They need to reduce the supply of drugs, but in the process they must never forget the dependents in the process. Any drugs policy must have 1) Supply & Demand Reduction Component and 2) Harm Reduction component at the core.
What we need to understand is that not everybody uses these substances just to get high. Many use it for spiritual enlightenment. It's been proven with magic mushrooms that they can be very spiritually uplifting to the point where it could make someone on the edge of life change their ways, turn over a new leaf and get their shit together.
Salvia Divinorum is a great substance for spirituality, however it is too powerful for most people, as most people don't have the mind power to understand Salvia's teachings. Those few that can try and teach verbally and through art.
I think drugs should be regulated, not banned. Such as, 18+ for marijuana, magic mushrooms, salvia divinorum, cacti, and such. Pharmaceutical drugs should remain the way they are, as there is possible access to those who need them, and they can be harmful if not used correctly.
Maybe a drug licensing would be sufficient? People need to know how to use things properly and responsibly. If kids started drinking alcohol at young ages, by the time they hit 18 or 19, they would continue that responsible pattern. If they are not allowed to, then when they get the chance to drink (ie parents out of the house) they go all out, and get as drunk as possible, which could lead to driving or regretful actions.
People just need to know how to use things properly and the world would work properly. Kids should stay away from drugs until their brains are finished the initial development which happens from 18-21.
I am an Addiction specialist in Madison, WI. The answer to the supporters of Mr. Harper is simple: The so-called War on Drugs in this country has been so successful that we now incarcerate the largest percentage of population of ANY country in the world, the majority of these horrible criminals being non-violent drug users. The War has been so successful that we are now witnessing an explosion of Heroin addiction in this country, largely stemming from the too-easy access to Vicodin and Oxycontin. Methamphetamine abuse is spreading across the country. Yet we are successfully denying participation of these dangerous "dope fiends" from High School athletics and other activities, and access to student loans for college for a positive drug test or an arrest for possession.
Part of my practice is in a clinic in which we treat affluent white adolescents and adults. They are not the ones that typically go to jail. Like our President, they manage to avoid the consequences of their indiscretions, and may continue their abusive patterns indefinitely.
So, what drives this failed policy? Politics and greed. Anyone who suggests reduction in penalties for drug charges is tagged with the simple-minded pejorative of being soft on drugs. In a country where we can not justify basic medical care, adequate substance abuse treatment is out of the question. Rather than increasing funding for substance abuse treatment in jails and prisons, it has been cut out completely in most states.
Where does the greed come in? One of the cornerstones of the Neoconservative mindset is privatization (or corporate welfare as many of us perceive it). One of the worst examples of this has been privatization of the prison system, that now lobbies for stricter laws and penalties in order to justify the expansion of these prisons. Then theres the social control aspect, being that the vast majority of those incarcerated are poor blacks and hispanics.
One of the defining aspects of the Right and far-Right (as exemplified by our President and his cronies) is the unwillingness to put themselves in the shoes of someone less fortunate. They believe in the most punitive, inhuman treatment until it happens to them or someone close to them. We have a great example in our state. One of our state legislators (a rabid law-and-order Right winger) was adamantly opposed to medical marijuana legislation. That was until he was diagnosed with, and began treatment for cancer. Suddenly, he became a vocal proponent.
I am saddened to see the direction your country has taken. It has always provided a contrast to some of the more insane policies of our country.
Thank you, Dr. Schiffman, for your INFORMED and logical comments on this subject.
I have been a Psychiatric Nurse for nearly 3 decades and deal with people with substance abuse problems on a daily basis.
Naturally, I do not advocate drug use (after all, it is a health hazard), but it is quite clear that punishing people with drug dependencies is counterproductive and exceptionally harmful. It makes no more sense than punishing people for having cancer or a broken leg. Substance abuse is a Public Health problem, not a Criminal problem.
Do you smoke? Do you drink? If so, the only difference between your drug abuse and that of the street drug user is that your drug abuse is legally and socially accepted.
The problem is not drugs themselves but the fact that they are illegal.
Because they are illegal, their manufacture, distribution and sale is controlled by criminals. The risks involved raise prices to very high levels. There are not many jobs which pay the hundreds or thousands of dollars per day needed to support the high prices caused by making drugs illegal.
Since the drugs are so very expensive as a result of being illegal, users turn to fraud, theft and prostitution in order to raise the money required to support their addiction. SO IT IS THE ILLEGALITY OF DRUGS WHICH CAUSES THE HIGH CRIME LEVELS ASSOCIATED WITH STREET DRUG USE.
As mentioned earlier, Prohibition of alcohol served only to enrich gangsters and did nothing to eradicate alcoholism. People will drink, smoke or use drugs no matter what laws say. Let them at least get their drug of choice in controlled quality from an agency like the Liquor Control Board at reasonable cost. This will save taxpayers billions, divert funds currently directed toward the coffers of organised crime to government in taxes, reduce the crime levels in our communities and contribute to the health of our people.
Liam, BSW student, Kelowna, BC
I find the blame the addict attitude, in which people are expected to "suffer the consequences" of their use most disturbing. Obviously, ignorance of the complexities and the socioeconomic contexts of addiction underlie such right-wing rants. I invite owners of such attitudes to read up, to consider addiction from a social determinants of health perspective to gain understanding. Locking up addicts is not the solution at all. How would you feel if your brother, sister, son, or daughter had an addiction and society expressed such views?
Such comments only contribute to the fear and stigma surrounding addiciton and neglect society's responsibility to address contributing factors such as unresolved traumas, lack of affordable housing, and fragmented mental health and addiction services.
Remember- there but by the grace of God go I.
I am gratified to see that people with opinions on both sides of the argument, (harm reduction or not harm reduction) are posting on this site. It is only through dialogue that we, the grass roots, will be able to press our arguments. I identify as a life long lifestyle drug user and believe in the legalization of all drugs. It is time to take the dispensing of drugs out of the hands of the Mafia, CIA and most importantly the pharmaceutical industrial complex, which seems to have a stranglehold on the media, our politicians and our children. Childrens aspirin, gummy bear Flintstones vitamins, a pox on them all. Marijuana is one of the best therapies for abdominal pain. How much Midol would Pfizer or Bayer sell if people could grow their own, cook it and eat it, which is the recommended therapeutic practice for this entirely natural substance. Marijuana is not a drug, drugs are the product of chemical synthesis, ingredients obtained from plants, by exposing them to harsh chemical solvents and other denaturing process, produce drugs. Eat or smoke Marijuana and you may get a mild psychotropic event, me I get relief from abdominal pain.
people like Allan,s. makes me sick.they have no idea what a drug addict is,they think of dirty homeless people.just like they,they have a choice.If they actually took the time to read and understand what a drug addict means,they would come to realize that it is a disease, not a career choice.If a addict had a choice when they were born.He,or she would want to be just like everyone else.If a addict end's up in jail it's because of the out dated law's and the naive politician's that turn a blind eye and pretend addiction does not exist.My guess is that harper has not have a heart.this is not going to go away,if not dealt with properly it will only get worse.this is the reality whether you like it or not.
Hi agree with what you are doing, it is around the world , unless we do something together, we will never get a handle on this.
Harper is a fool, he is just thinking about money and what can he cut, like everyone else that get into power, they give themselves a pay raise, them tell us they can't afford anything.
We have to change the way we are as a government, before we can fix anything, after all it is our money NOT theirs.
I am here in Australia at the moment, helping out with Street Works, it is private, they are helping kids on drugs and anything else that goes wrong in a child's life.
We have to get into the schools from kinder age up.
Most of all we have to get Governments around the world together.
I agree with your pettition, it's a first step. However, until the image of handguns is changed, or underplayed, I see your fight as being an uphill one.
Setting aside the relationship between poverty, easy money and the rest. Many youngsters start their romance with guns, through the images that portray them, and with the images of guys who tote them or is it pack them? anyway, clearly they can't carry them--that would be ordinary.
Until Arnold S, Mel G and the like, start refusing (and, they can afford it) to play roles which enhance and elevate the image of the gun--I think it's going to be increasingly hard
to change things on a regular level.
Just a thought.
This is a test
We could legalize drugs (much like sleeping pills, alcohol, and coffee are legalized and to various degrees controlled). And much like alcohol (or even gluttony), we could let those who abuse the substance pay the consequences. Unfortunately we all know that we all pay. Greater demands on the health and mental health care systems are things that we all pay for. When my car gets broken into for the fifth time by addicts looking to get some cash to keep themselves from going insane with craving, I pay for and you pay for it through higher insurance premiums and greater demand for police protection. If we legalized drugs, do you think crime would go down? Do you envision drug dealers opening nice little psuedo hotdog stands on street corners and cheerily selling you a bag of coke. Maybe providing the moirror and razor for you to snort right there. Then you continue on your way down the street to your office job down the street. Or maybe home for dinner with your kids. How close to reality is this? Drugs and alcohol are not the same thing and do not have the same effect on a life. Thats reality.
Well, really my only concern here is not about coddling drug addicted persons, nor is it about rebelling against the people who want to "teach them a lesson", but rather about the fact that harm reduction helps lesson the spreading of non curable diseases like HIV and Hep C. Harm reduction facilities have needle exchanges, safer crack/meth packages (because HIV and Hep C has been proven to be spread now by pipe sharing due to metal pipes getting too hot, burning the lips, then being passed to the next person who goes through the same pipe too hot/burned lips process. The infected blood gets passed this way), and safe sex kits for workers of the sex trade. Not to mention street outreach/education, and harm reduction counseling amoungst a bunch of other things.
The point is, any person who is infected with a non curable disease can hook up with any of our daughters, sons, cousins, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews etc etc. And there may be some people who believe that they could tell if a person does drugs or not, and in many cases it's possible, but that's only if the addicted person has reached the chronic stage. If the infected and or addicted individual is still a weekend user, or a functional addict, which is quite common, it isn't so easy to tell if they're using drugs. How many times have we heard stories about people who had loved ones who were addicted to drugs for months, years before they reached the chronic stage, and only then were they aware that the loved one had a problem? How many times have we heard stories of someone going out with someone and then later finding out that that person was addicted to drugs? It can happen to anyone.
Drugs aren't going away, no matter which sanctimonious government official comes up with any plan that they come up with. If our government REALLY wanted to do something about the drug trade, they'd start at customs and every single border surrounding our country. It's good that they are cracking down on grow ops and stuff though within the country. How about the borders now?
Its time to legalize & TAX weed.This would take out the criminal element & would give those that R suffering with HIV,Cancer & numerous other diseases & ailments,quality control & easier access.It would also pay for healthcare & education =free for everyone,pay off our national debt,pay for Defence,Offence & ANY other fence that needed fixin!+ we could wipe out poverty in canada by ensureing each person & family makes so much /yr. PEACE N LOVE NOT WARS N WALLS!!!
I'm tellin all you who praise Harper for this so called "war on drugs" attitude. Being an ex-drug injector myself if Harm Reduction was not available, 80 percent I would have ended up with HIV/AIDS. I was using with many HIV infected people but thank God I had plenty of clean needles!!! I am now 7 1/2 years clean and am a Harm Reduction/Addictions worker. :)
It's a shame how folks get all rattled up about issues they have no understanding of. Basically, if it does'nt relate to them,they're so quick to shake a finger at anyone who's found themselves living with addiction. I work with the homeless population using a harm reduction approach and i see the changes that can happen in one's life once the seed of hope has been sewn. I find that the general population has they're heads in the sand when it comes to dealing with our homeless. You cant fix something by wishing it wasnt there. It's like trying to cure an established disease with a vaccine. When developers in ottawa started putting up these fancy condos in the downtown core, the new residents petitioned for the salvation army to be moved so they wouldnt have to see it on their way to work. That's the attitude Harper's Government adopted. I suppose wasting efforts and money on initiatives that will keep us going in circles is just what he relies on for support. I'm sure he'll get some approval this way. Meanwhile, the man lives in a glass house, in a glass neighborhood...
To all the people who agree with the new Harper approch because " drugs are a major problem in this society, and something MUST be done about it " I have only this to say ....Drugs have been apart of our world as long as we have been apart of this world, they will never go away and people will never completely stop using them...
I am a firm believer in harm reduction, and being a former addict/street kid I have seen first hand how harm reduction saves lives. To loose this kind of approch would be like handing out a death sentence to some drug addicts......which may be the outcome they hope for. Jail and other punitive measures do not help people get off drugs, if anything sending a hopeless person to jail only increases their desire to use drugs.
Instead of wagging war on the drugs, why not wage war on those things which lead people into addiction like poverty abuse and discrimination.
Still our chilldren will be curious, they will expariment and when they do the drugs will always be there, just like they have always been. But if we stop trying to scare our chilldren into compliance and accepted their curiosity perhaps we would have less parents out there with no idea that their chilldren are becoming addicts. With an open line of communication and harm reduction our chilldren wont be afraid to talk about their use, and they wont be afraid if the parents want to talk about it either because they are not worried about having to hide it. DRUGS ARE HERE TO STAY....we dont need another war that cant be won!
Hello all,
I'm just wondering if anyone here can direct me to easy to understand information pertaining to harm reduction in Canada. Specifically, I am curious about whether or not there is:
1) a federal harm reduction policy that is implemented nation wide
2) Provincial policy
3) municipal,
4) all of the above?
Thanks! Just trying to navigate through and find some legislation, but the gov't web pages sure don't make it easy!
Google: ihra.net/Whatisharmreduction and you will find the world's national organization on harm reduction.
can anyone please tell me if there is a federal or provincial policy for harm reduction in Canada?
Have both sides ever ask the question, why are funded by the government? What is there agenda in funding your organzation? Do you think that they really want to clean up their act and change the lives of this population anytime soon. Folkes you should really think about these questions and question the government of their so call funding for harm reduction services.........
December 31, 2008, my devout nephew asked me during my rant to him on the Landlord-Tenant Board (and legal aid, and subsidy housing lists) "What do you think could be done to better the social safety net?"
Sadly, it is already being done, the hard way. Many will be surprised to learn in 2009 that the face of poverty is the face missing from the office or workbench next to ours, or in the U-Haul in the driveway next door, or even in the mirror.
And the friends of poverty are not the apparently well-intentioned agencies paid in advance by the government, whether they help ameliorate it or not. Aside from a few honest church agencies who put the rubber to the road when donation money comes to them in support of the poor, the friends of poverty are not necessarily agencies, or the lawyers who put the poor's plight before the courts, though some of these lawyers truly are friends of poverty. The friends of poverty are not the powerful-appearing media and press, who, after all, require the public to act on what they report for change to come of it. The most prolific friends of poverty include the deja-vu of the face missing from the office or workbench next to ours, or in the U-Haul in the driveway next door, or even in the mirror.
What 2009 might ensure is that this is only a brush with poverty for most of those new to it, that they do not need more of it to understand. They need to be met at the door to the street with empathy, yes, empathy, supports to survive in extremity, consideration for their perhaps recent realisation that they are not so different in their poverty and their hopes from others in a like situation. They need to be recognized as people with hopes and capabilities that have a place in the communities in which they have chosen to live their lives. They need an experience of poverty unlike that in Ontario the past fifteen years, one that shows even hard-pressed communities can care (and governments administer communities of all sizes and breadths, even national communities, too).
Then they can grasp that poverty and indifference are not powers, but simply a lack of direction or will waiting to be fulfilled with more positive forces and powers.
And when they regain their own contributing force and power in communities that have rebuilt themselves with contributions and care from all of us, then they can take an expanding, positive role themselves in ameliorating and refuting the power of future poverty. disability, and disadvantage among Canadians.
I am of the feeling that something more decisive and definitive may be the acts that set off change in our society and then, necessarily, politicians. But while I will prepare for chaos, I will act during 2009 to do my part and extend an influence for enlightened change. Will that influence always be positive, and cheerful and accepting? In the face of malice and ignorance and indifference, I must say no, it probably will not. Will I always reflect if this positive, cheerful enlightenment and consideration in return should be my first response? Probably also not. But extending that spirit and commitment to reflect first on the influence of positive, cheerful enlightenment and consideration, in 2009 will garner a response that will show me whether or not this should continue as my commitment in 2010.
Add a Comment