NCJ Number
128703
Date Published
1991
Length
19 pages
Annotation
This study reviews the empirical studies relevant to assumptions underlying Canada's drug laws.
Abstract
Canada's Narcotic Control Act and the Food and Drug Act are based on certain assumptions. They assume that some drugs (cannabis, cocaine, heroin) are inherently dangerous and crime-related, and other drugs (alcohol, tobacco, coffee) are much less dangerous. They also assume that earlier drug laws were enacted to address these chemical dangers and that granting statutory drug-control authority to law enforcement agents and physicians ensures that drugs will be safely used. Another assumption is that Canada's drug statutes reflect public concern and voter demand expressed through free and democratic elections. The historical record, pharmacological evidence, and sociological/psychological research all refute the thesis that illicit drugs are particularly dangerous. Given such evidence, earlier drug laws were either enacted out of ignorance of the facts about narcotic drugs, or they were enacted for reasons other than public safety and health. Available evidence is not supportive of the effectiveness of law-enforcement and medical officials in controlling unsafe drug usage. Although most Canadian voters do support drug prohibition now, evidence suggests that the first drug laws, enacted in the early 1900's, were promoted by a few vocal reformers, politicians, police, journalists, some Chinese, and the Federal drug bureaucracy. Given the flawed correspondence between the rationale for drug laws and empirical data, legislators should be required to produce scientific facts to show the need for new criminal offenses. 60-item annotated reading list