HIV rates much higher among daily needle exchange users than those who do not use the exchange program, according to latest study
HIV incidence was 75 percent higher among daily users of Vancouver’s needle exchange program (NEP) than among drug abusers that did not use the program, according to a new study published in the latest edition of the American Journal of Medicine. Vancouver, Canada boasts the largest NEP in the Western Hemisphere.

Source: The American Journal of Medicine Volume 120, Issue 2, Pages 172-179 (

The Road Safety Monitor, a national telephone survey conducted each year involving Canadian drivers indicates that drug impaired driving is seen as second only to alcohol
impaired driving as a serious issue and that illicit drugs are seen as a more serious
problem than prescription or over the counter drugs1. Overall, 17.7%, or 3.7 million
Canadian drivers report driving within two hours of using illicit, prescription or over the
counter drugs.
Collisions remain a major cause of death and injury in Canada, and concerns about the
role of cannabis in road safety in this country date back many years. Much less is known
about the impact of cannabis on road safety than the impact of alcohol, in part because of
the much greater difficulty involved in measuring the presence and amount of
cannabinoids compared to alcohol. However, there is renewed interest in this issue
stimulated in part by proposed legislative changes on the part of the Government of
Canada to reduce substantially the penalties for possession of small amounts of cannabis.

Objectives
The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of available research and evidence on
the potential impact of cannabis on road safety in Canada focusing on two areas: 1)
research on the prevalence of cannabis use in Canada; and 2) research on the prevalence
of driving after cannabis use in Canada.

Prevalence of Cannabis Use in Canada
Little information is available on the prevalence of cannabis use in Canada prior to the
1960s. However, in that decade, cannabis use increased substantially. While a variety of
possible sources of information on cannabis in the Canadian population have been used
over the years, including such measures as amounts of the drug seized by police and the
number of individuals prosecuted by the courts for cannabis offences, the most direct and
the most accurate measures of the prevalence of cannabis use are those derived from
surveys. Although cannabis is an illegal drug and there are concerns that survey
responses may be influenced by its legal status, research demonstrates that respondents
to anonymous surveys, where there are no adverse consequences involved, generally
provide valid responses.
Smart and Fejer presented one of the very first estimates of the prevalence of cannabis
use in a Canadian population, based on a survey of a representative sample of residents
of Toronto conducted in 1971. They found that 12.2% of males and 5.5% of females had
used cannabis at least once in the preceding year. The prevalence of use differed
substantially by age group and gender. Among males, 41.5% of those aged 18-25, 20.8%
of those aged 26-30, and 1.8% of those aged 31 and over had used cannabis in the
preceding year. Among females, 20.0% of those aged 18-25, 6.3% of those aged 26-30,
and 1.8% of those aged 31 and over had used cannabis in the previous year. These data
clearly demonstrate that, by the end of the 1960’s, cannabis use had become very
common among young people. Ogborne and Smart reported on cannabis use in the
general population of Canada aged 15 and over based on the National Alcohol and Other
Drugs Survey conducted in 1994. This survey was the largest representative survey with
information on cannabis use ever made in Canada, with a sample size of 12,155. Use of
cannabis at that time was relatively uncommon, but not rare. Only 7.3% of respondents
reported using cannabis in the preceding year, and 2.0% reported using it as often as once per week. However, nearly a third (29%) reported that they had used cannabis at least once in their lives. Substantial regional differences were observed, with the proportion reporting use
at least once in the past year ranging from a low of 4.9% in Ontario to a high of 11.4% in
British Columbia.
The data provide a valuable perspective on the use of cannabis across Canada,
unfortunately there is little information on other important issues, such as change in rates
of use over time. However, in Ontario a series of surveys has been conducted over the
past 20 years that allow a picture of current use and changes in use over time in that part
of the country.

The Use of Cannabis in Ontario
Repeated cross-sectional surveys conducted in Ontario by the Centre for Addiction and
Mental Health provide the most comprehensive picture of the use of cannabis and other
drugs use in Canada. These surveys have been conducted among the student population
and adult population since the late 1970s.
A summary of recent data on the use of cannabis and other drugs (any
use in the past year) among students in grades 7 and 126, and among adults aged 18-29
(young adults), 40-49 (the middle-aged) and 65 and over (seniors). shows cannabis is the most
widely used illicit substance, with nearly half of grade 12 students reporting cannabis use
at least once in the past year. It is worth noting that by grade 12 most students will have
reached the age when they will be eligible to drive. Use of cannabis drops with increasing
age, however, and is used by less than 2% of seniors. Use of other illicit drugs is much
less common than the use of cannabis, with highest levels occurring for Hallucinogens and
Ecstasy among grade 12 students. Not surprisingly, alcohol is the most commonly used
substance. While cannabis is used by a smaller proportion of students than alcohol; it is still used
by a substantial minority of students. There have been important changes in the use of
cannabis over time. The general trend appears to have been one of reduced use of cannabis
and alcohol from the late 1970′s to the early 1990′s. The proportion reporting use of cannabis declined from a peak of 31.7% in 1979 to 11.7% in 1991. However, since the mid-1990’s self-reported use
of both substances has increased, with 28.6% reporting cannabis use in 2001.

Prevalence of Cannabis Use and Driving in Canada:

Survey data on the prevalence of driving under the influence of cannabis are available. In
the first reported data from the general population in Canada, the prevalence of driving after
use of cannabis at least once in the preceding 12 months. The
survey included 9943 persons aged 16-69, obtained through random digit dialling.
The prevalence of DUIC varied with age, while the prevalence of DUIC was relatively low,
it was higher in younger age groups. DUIC was significantly associated with a variety of other risk behaviours, such as driving after drinking, use of illicit drugs other than cannabis, and collision
involvement.
Information on the incidence of DUIC in a representative sample of the Ontario adult
population surveyed in 1996/97.
Among all drivers, 1.9% reported DUIC in the previous 12 months. Several factors influenced the likelihood of reported DUIC, including gender, age, marital status and education level. DUIC was most
frequently seen in younger age groups, with 9.3% of the youngest age group (18-19)
reporting the behaviour. DUIC was more common among men (3.0%) than women
(0.8%), more common among those never married (4.7%) than among those married
(0.9%) or previously married (2.1%). It was also least common among those with a
university degree. Among cannabis users, DUIC appeared to be a relatively common
behaviour; 22.8% reported DUIC, and the probability of the behaviour was significantly
influenced by gender and education level As well, DUIC and drinking-driving were strongly
related in this sample.
Prevalence of DUIC by Age among Cannabis Users in Ontario, 1996-97
Data derived from Walsh and Mann8.
The observation that DUIC was more common among younger respondents was recently
extended . Among students with a drivers licence in grades 10-13, 19.3% reported driving
within one hour of using cannabis at least once in the preceding year; this proportion was higher than the
proportion that reported driving within an hour of two or more drinks (15.0%). Males were
significantly more likely than females to report DUIC (23.8% versus 13.5%). DUIC was
more frequently reported than driving after drinking .

Prevalence of riding with a drinking driver, drinking driving, and DUIC by Gender
among Ontario students, 2001
Among respondents, 5.1% reported using marijuana, and 1.5% reported DUIC at least
once in the preceding 12 months. These authors also noted that males and respondents
under 30 were most likely to report DUIC, and also that there was a strong relationship
between DUIC and driving after drinking. Recently, the first report on trends over time in
cannabis use and driving in Canada appeared.

The proportions of Ontario adults reporting DUIC in a representative sample
of the Ontario population surveyed in 2002
A trend for an increase over time was observed, with the proportion of adult drivers reporting DUIC increasing from 1.9% in 1996/97 to 2.7% in 2002. The authors note, however, that this increase is not statistically significant and recommend further monitoring of this trend.

Conclusions
The data presented here indicate that cannabis use is relatively common in Canada,
particularly among young people. The prevalence of use appears to have increased
substantially in the 1960s and ‘70s, while since then some fluctuations have occurred.
Driving after cannabis use is less common, but among cannabis users it does appear to
occur with some frequency. In particular, young cannabis users appear more likely to
report DUIC. Among high school students, DUIC appears to occur as frequently, or more
frequently, than driving after drinking. These data provide grounds for concern about this
behaviour, particularly among younger drivers. Further research on the prevalence of
DUIC in Canada, including differences between provinces, is needed.

Source: CAMH Population Studies eBulletin, May/June 2003 No.20

The federal government is stepping up its fight against tobacco, with a promise to cut smoking rates in Canada from 19 per cent last year to 12 per cent by 2011.
Health Minister Tony Clement, in Vancouver today for the Canadian Medical Association’s annual general meeting, said the target is ambitious but not unrealistic. “Seeing the great progress we have made over the past few years, I am confident . . . we can achieve this goal,” he said in a statement.
Clement also reiterated a promise to get tough on illicit drug use, saying mixed messages about the acceptability of drugs – including marijuana – must end.
“Canada has not run a serious or significant anti-drug campaign for almost 20 years, and the messages young people have received during the past several years have been confusing and conflicting, to say the least,” he told delegates.
“We are very concerned about the damage and pain that drugs cause families and we intend to reverse the trend toward vague, ambiguous messaging that has characterized Canadian attitudes in the recent past.”
He sidestepped questions about whether the anti-drug strategy would include harm-reduction measures such as Vancouver’s safe injection site, saying enforcement and prevention can also be considered harm reduction.
Furthermore, he said there is conflicting research about whether the safe injection site has been successful, adding that Ottawa will review all the data before making the long-awaited decision about whether the site can continue to operate.

Source: www.canada.com/vancouversun August 2007

OTTAWA — By the time they’re 14, many Canadian youth have done it all — cigarettes, drugs and alcohol — so a new report on substance abuse and addiction should serve as a “call to action” to change that, the organization behind the research says.
The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse says Canadians need to pay closer attention to the facts that the average age when a child smokes a cigarette for the first time is about 12, 13 when he or she uses alcohol and gets drunk and 14 for first-time drug use.
In a report released Wednesday, titled Substance Abuse in Canada: Youth in Focus, the CCSA outlines gaps in Canada’s overall approach to dealing with these worrying statistics and it suggests several strategies to plug the holes.
The report paints an alarming portrait of drug and alcohol use by youth. By the time they are in their first year of high school, about two-thirds of students had consumed alcohol, according to one survey. Another survey of youth age 15-24 showed that 83% were currently drinking or had consumed alcohol within the past year. If it’s any comfort to parents, the students characterized their drinking as light to infrequent.
More than a third of students in grades 7 to 9 have binged on alcohol, meaning they consumed five or more drinks on a single occasion, researchers found. The same was true for 40% of 15- to 19-year-olds, while another survey showed that one-third of young drinkers drank at a hazardous level.
After alcohol, cannabis was the most commonly used illegal substance among youth. Cannabis use is reported by 17% of students in grades 7 to 9, about 29% of 15- to 17-year-olds, and almost half of 18- to 19-year-olds, the CCSA report said.
Pot smoking, in fact, now exceeds the rate of cigarette smoking among youth, the study found.
The statistics underline that new approaches are needed to prevent and treat substance abuse by youth, said Michel Perron, the CCSA’s chief executive officer.
In general, Mr. Perron said in an interview, there needs to be more funding for services, better co-ordination between all levels of government and non-governmental agencies, and better use of evidence-based research to evaluate which approaches are most effective. Specifically, Mr. Perron says, services need to be matched to the age and needs of certain kinds of youth, especially those at higher risk of substance abuse.
A universal prevention strategy that talks to youth about peer pressure, for example, can be effective up to about age 12, but beyond that, a one-size-fits-all approach won’t work, he said.
“We know that beyond 12 years old, and because the age of initiation is dropping consistently in Canada, which is a concern to us, we need to start matching our services to the age of youth,” he said.
Prevention strategies should target youth as early as possible, said Mr. Perron, ideally at around age 10.
“The longer we stave off a young person from trying illegal drugs or the like, the better it is, the less likely that they’ll carry on into the future,” he explained.
Canada also needs to “professionalize” addiction treatment services to make them more effective, said Perron. There’s a shortage of knowledgeable workers and no consistency in training, his organization says.
There’s also room for improvement in schools, the CCSA report said. Prevention strategies would be more effective, for example, if teachers had better training to recognize youth with substance abuse issues, it states.
Mr. Perron said he is optimistic about the ongoing challenges of curbing substance abuse among youth. While addiction was not on the political or public radar five or 10 years ago, said Mr. Perron, encouraging signs are now emerging.
He’s eagerly awaiting the anti-drug strategy promised by the federal government and expected this fall, and the recently established Canadian Mental Health Commission is another move in the right direction, he said. Good progress is being made at provincial levels too, Mr. Perron added.
The CCSA report is a call to action for both levels of government and the general public, he said.
“We’re very much looking to mobilize Canadian attention that we need to address substance use and addiction by youth in Canada,” he said. “We can’t do this with government alone; we have to be willing to work together.”

Source: CanWest News Service Wednesday, September 05, 2007

OTTAWA – Prime Minister Stephen Harper is set to announce a $64-million anti-drug strategy that cracks down on dealers and offers more help for users.Harper is to make the announcement Thursday in Winnipeg, casting his Conservative government’s approach as a balanced one that relies as heavily on prevention as it does on punishment. The new plan includes stricter penalties for drug-traffickers while spending millions on rehabilitation and public-awareness programs. The government wants to avoid having the plan portrayed as a Canadian version of the U.S. war on drugs. “There are two aspects to this,” said a source familiar with the announcement. “How can you help the user? And the other thing is punishing the dealer. Funding for the initiative was set out in the 2007 federal budget. The plan is expected to include: -A border crackdown on drug smuggling. -$32 million on treatments like detox and rehab centres.-About $10 million for an awareness campaign aimed at young people. One of the key goals of the awareness program is to alert kids to the dangers of marijuana and remind them that it remains illegal. Since the Conservatives took office, the number of people arrested for simple possession of marijuana has skyrocketed. Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa and Halifax all reported increases of between 20 and 50 per cent in 2006 of arrests for possession of cannabis, compared with the previous year. As a result, thousands of people were charged with a criminal offence that, under the previous Liberal government, was on the verge of being decriminalized. Police say those Liberal efforts to decriminalize pot sent mixed messages to the public. They say many pot smokers have been emboldened by the talk of decriminalization and are more apt to smoke in public – all of which has resulted in more arrests. Proponents of more liberalized drug laws have ridiculed the Tory approach to marijuana, calling it a waste of taxpayers’ money to prosecute pot smokers. Drug-dependency experts have also challenged the common notion that pot is a so-called ‘gateway’ to other drugs, and argue that it actually keeps people from experimenting with more dangerous ones.Health Minister Tony Clement, who will be one of three cabinet ministers present at the announcement, has said his government wants to clear up the uncertainty about marijuana. “There’s been a lot of mixed messages going out about illicit drugs,” Clement said recently. “We’re going to be back in the business of an anti-drug strategy. . . In that sense, the party’s over.”

Friday, October 19, 2007
Forensic psychiatrist Dr. Shabehram Lohrasbe, who has an office in the area, says the exchange is a neighbourhood nightmare of filth, confrontation and constant threats of violence.

I write out of concern that the desperation, exhaustion and fearfulness of the citizens who work and live near the Cormorant Street needle exchange has not come through clearly enough. Frustration can come across as insensitivity, a lack of compassion or a kind of NIMBY attitude, which would be very misleading.
Many of us who encounter the unhappy souls who struggle with addiction are not unsympathetic to their plight. I work regularly with the addicted, the homeless and the mentally ill in our province’s prisons.
For those of us who observe the devastation of a neighbourhood in the name of a social experiment, resentment is focused not on the unfortunates, but on those who planned and implemented this disaster, including our mayor and council. We are exhausted and outraged by their failure to deal with the unsurprising consequences of simply providing needles to a group of people who need much more.
It is the restraint of those who have tolerated this abandonment of civic responsibility that has kept things from getting out of control.
Let me provide one example, a mild one. Not long ago, a man barged into my office, demanding to use the washroom. Having been burned by acceding to a similar demand in the past that resulted in needles and blood in my washroom, I refused and asked him to leave. He did, walked outside and then urinated on my door, aiming at the door handle.
Consider my options. Should I call the police? Or physically push him off my property, risking being doused by urine or stabbed by a needle? Should I risk a shouting match and possible retaliation?
So he walked away smirking, with no fear of any consequences. I washed the door before my next patient arrived. This on a day that started with me scooping diarrhea embedded with needles off my front steps.
Used needles, human feces, discarded underwear, assorted condoms and other unsanitary byproducts of addiction are frequently deposited on properties in the neighbourhood. After earlier protests, the city installed a “porta-potty” outside the needle exchange. That lasted but a few days, apparently because of the refusal of those who have to clean the toilets to deal with the needles and other paraphernalia jammed into them.
Trained workers understandably refused to face the health risks, yet citizens are left to their own devices.
We have asked for toilets, increased policing, assistance in regular cleaning or tax relief so that we can hire our own crews and private security. Our pleas have gone nowhere and the mayor has not responded to my last letter.
In it, I have told him that if the lawsuit over the injection site fails, my neighbours and I will have no choice but to erect tall fences topped with barbed wire along our streets. This is what it has come to in our once-beautiful city; citizens are left to wall themselves off, prison-like, in a downtown area.
Since I spend a good part of my work week in prisons, it is not especially harsh for me, but for a 70-year-old pensioner who grew up in a city where she once walked fearlessly, it is utterly disheartening.
I am outraged by the complacency of those who seek power and responsibility and then do nothing when faced with a crisis.
I work here, but many senior citizens, some handicapped, live here. Many are unable to sleep at night, never mind take a walk. They are intimidated by the arguments and yelling, the confrontations and their increasing fears of violence.
The fears of those who bear the brunt of this disaster are not exaggerated or misplaced. The needle exchange is a gathering place for addicts and the predators that they inevitably attract. It is the latter group that is becoming increasingly prominent and more confrontational.
Drug dependence, especially on short-acting opiates, creates desperate cravings, often several times a day. There is a clear relationship between substance abuse and criminality, including acts of violence.
There are three broad ways in which alcohol and drugs influence crime and violence. The first is physiological, through a direct effect on mental functioning, when disinhibition of behaviour, including aggressive behaviour, is common. The second influence is due to the financial needs of the addict. Finally, there is the “business” aspect of addiction, the turf wars between dealers and others who prey on addiction.
By funnelling a large proportion of the city’s drug-related crime and disorder into a small neighbourhood, those responsible for this disaster have absconded from their responsibility for follow-through with services for the addicts, protection from the predators they attract and basic services for the citizens left to cope with the crime, filth and public disorder.
The “service” of providing needles ends before sundown when the needle exchange shuts down, leaving the addicted with no support, supervision, food or water, protection from predators, shelter or toilets.
Where do the politicians and planners think these people go to shoot up, steal money for their next hit or next meal, sleep, urinate, rant and rave, intimidate, vent their fury against the society they believe has abandoned them and destroy property and peace-of-mind?
Invited to bring their suffering and their rage to a particular spot, then left to their own devices, they inflict their despair and their frenzy on a small group of citizens who have been left to cope with the predictable consequences of “injecting” a crime-prone subculture into what was once a beautiful, pleasant and safe neighborhood.

Source: www.Canada.com 19th Oct.2007

Vancouver is a beautiful city – but they have a dreadful situation around Gas Town on the East side –
The needle exchange programme there attracts the most desperate of drug users. Now Victoria has very similar problems around their NEP.

Mayor promises to find homes for 50 of the most troubled homeless people; plan expected have ‘enormous’ impact
Published: Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Victoria Mayor Alan Lowe promises the city will sweep off the streets 50 homeless people who are shooting up drugs and causing conflict downtown within four months.
The move, which makes good on recommendations contained in task force report released last week, should have an immediate and dramatic effect as the the group is one of the most visible symbols of the substance-abuse, mental-health and homelessness problems plaguing the city. Lowe said the first community outreach team called for in the report will be “up and running immediately,” and will find homes for the 50 “hardest to house” homeless people within 120 days.
One of the most visible examples of the city’s homelessness and addiction crisis is the needle exchange on Cormorant Street. Many of the most troublesome homeless people hang out there, leaving a trail of filth, faeces and needles.
Currently, the 50 people have nowhere to go, so often are sprawled outside the needle exchange on Cormorant Street or Streetlink on Store Street, amid feces, filth and scattered hypodermic needles.
The City of Victoria task force action plan unveiled last week aims to find 1,550 housing units over the next five years for the homeless. Within a year, the city plans to find accommodations, through rent subsidies, for 350 people.
The Vancouver Island Health Authority has kicked in $7.6 million toward the effort to deal with the homelessness and addiction crisis – more than $3 million of that going toward the creation of four outreach groups, dubbed “Assertive Community Teams,” to provide support to people on the streets, in shelters or supportive housing. Another $1.7 million is earmarked for adult detox treatment.
Victoria lawyer Stewart Johnston, who is leading a court action to shut down the needle exchange near his law office, said helping those individuals and finding them a place to live will change the entire look and feel of downtown Victoria. “If you take the worst 45 to 50 off streets, and then another 300, the difference would be enormous,” he said.
Police have estimated about 45 people are causing most of the problems around the needle exchange, Johnston said. Housing that group of people “would make all the sense in the world,” said Rev. Al Tysick of Our Place Society. A meeting on Friday should better clarify how the 50 people will be selected, he said.
Victoria police acting chief Bill Naughton agreed the plan will have an immediate and “very significant impact. It could also make easier the job of police, who continue to shuffle homeless residents from one doorway to another as business owners complain. Police can’t solve the housing piece of the puzzle but we recognize how important it is,” Naughton said.
Police estimate a group of 324 homeless, addicted and mentally-ill people were responsible for 23,033 police incidents over a period of 40 months, at a cost of $9 million. Some of the hardest to house will go to the soon-to-open Our Place Society drop-in street shelter and transitional housing complex, “but I don’t think it is a good idea to put them all in one location,” Lowe said. “They need to be dispersed, as long as there are support services available to follow the individuals.”
Victoria Coun. Charlayne Thornton-Joe said the plan is to use rent subsidies to place people throughout the region in existing housing. As long as there is “support wrapped around the individual,” and landlords have a housing team they can call around the clock, such placements are highly successful, she said.

Source Times Colonist Oct 2007
COMMENTS ON THIS STORY

Sylvia Oertel
Wed, Oct 24, 07 at 04:54 AM
There’s big talk about getting these poor souls off the street & I applaud that action. Now let’s not forget their greatest needs which are continuing health care, mental health care, rehabilitation programs, AA-NA,co-dependancy, abuse& anger mgmt programs ‘for all’ not just a chosen few & no endless wait lists! Then there’s self esteem courses, budgeting help, education & training… I could go on forever with the needs of these persons as they are obviously going to require a myriad of complex treatment to fully recover as it’s more than just addictions now….. There was a time when they thought “oh, I’ll never become an addict, I only do it when I party”, but that devils dust got hold of them and has had them in its grip for a decade or more! Maybe rather than a cheque each month (which at this date is generally being used to support addictiions),until they are stable they get Rent ‘paid direct’ & food credits, & laundry facilities, to assure that the $ are spent on essentials to help keep them healthy & clean…. After all the proof is in the pudding that so far the funds have been supporting habits. That wouldn’t change just because there’s a roof over their head. Not without some type of cautions in place. Maybe to encourage them to attend programs they could earn incentives… These ideas and insights come from the heart of a mother of 2 addicted daughters. Why do I care? Because I have a mother’s heart.When I counted their ten tiny little toes this wasn’t the dreams & hopes I had for my girls….. So when it comes to my girls I can only live 1 day at a time, no making plans with them for days ahead. I go to bed & wake up saying tpraying ‘ Serenity Prayer’, and dreading the knocks on my door or the calls that may be the time someone tells me they’re lost to me forever……….. Please just sign me :’Mom of 3 & Grandma of 6′

Nick
Wed, Oct 24, 07 at 03:57 PM
As a former long time Victoria resident, I think I should warn you that BC is THE destination for drug-loving lowlifes from the rest of the country. Build it and they will come, no sooner will you get rid of the current crop and the next batch will arrive from Ontario, Quebec, or other eastern provinces. BC should be petitioning the feds to make it possible to deport bad apples to their homes.

Nick 2.
Wed, Oct 24, 07 at 08:57 PM
Nick above has it right. Some people need to give their heads a good shake. Surely you must realise that if we citizens of Victoria start (continue) putting our taxes towards free needles, food, shelter etc for those who themselves put the needle in themselves, the flood gates will open. So let me see if I have the picture straight! If I shoot up, leave needles in the street, deficate publically, beg, sleep in someone elses doorway, or have a dog I don’t want to give up you are going to give me a place to live??? Sounds good to me, where do I start and can get a free dog please?

Last week, it was announced that the Conservative government will soon unveil a new national anti-drug strategy. The plan is said to feature a get-tough approach to illegal drugs, including a crackdown on grow-ops and drug gangs. And while it will also (wisely) include tens of millions for rehabilitation of addicts and for a national drug prevention campaign, it is said to retreat from safe-injection sites and other fashionable “harm-reduction” strategies introduced by the previous Liberal government. To which we say: Good. This editorial column has long urged a softening of drug policy on marijuana and other non-addictive recreational substances. But heroin and similarly addictive drugs are a different story. Moreover, safe injection sites don’t work. And they send the wrong message, too, promoting disrespect for the rule of law by having government facilitating the consumption of illegal substances.

 Too bad most of the proof to back these positive claims come from SIS proponents or the academics who devise harm-reduction theories. Police here, and in Europe (where they have lots of experience with SISs) tell a very different tale.

 When Insite applied to have its three-year licence renewed last fall, the RCMP told Health Canada it had “concerns regarding any initiative that lowers the perceived risks associated with drug use. There is considerable evidence to show that, when the perceived risks associated to drug use decreases, there is a corresponding increase in number of people using drugs.”

Reports that the Harper government is preparing to announce changes to Canada’s outdated 20-year-old national strategy on illicit drug use should be reason for optimism.Source:Addiction & Recovery News May 2007

Source:Addiction & Recovery News May 2007

OTTAWA — A new national program designed to prevent youth from using drugs received $10 million from the federal government Wednesday.

The money is slated to go toward the Drug Prevention Strategy for Youth, a new five-year plan led by the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, the government-supported national agency for substance abuse. The strategy will target youth between the ages of 10 and 24 and will have several goals: to reduce the number of youth using illegal drugs, to delay and deter the onset of drug use, to reduce the frequency of drug use, and to reduce multiple drug use among those young people who do use.

The funding comes out of the government’s $64-million National Anti-Drug Strategy, launched last fall. Part of that plan includes a two-year mass media campaign by Health Canada aimed specifically at youth. Health Minister Tony Clement, speaking at the Ottawa-based CCSA, said there hasn’t been a “serious or significant” anti-drug campaign in almost 20 years, and one is long overdue. He said the CCSA’s national prevention strategy is key to the government’s plan.

“This project will reach out to young people and will provide them and their parents the plain truth on the harms of illicit drug use,” said Clement. “We will discourage young people from thinking there are ‘safe’ amounts, or ‘safe’ drugs. And we will highlight the fact that, for young people, having clear and unimpaired judgment is a safety issue,” the health minister said.

The CCSA’s strategy will complement Health Canada’s media blitz with a new consortium media corporations, marketing and advertising agencies, youth agencies and parent groups. It will reinforce many of Health Canada’s messages, but on a wider platform, and with high-risk populations targeted.

According to the CCSA, the average age a Canadian tries an illegal drug for the first time is around 14 or 15, so prevention messages need to start as early as 10 years of age. Sixty per cent of illegal drug users in Canada are 15 to 24 years old, according to the national substance abuse agency, and young people are the most likely to use and abuse substances, and to experience harm as a result.

Source: Canwest News Service January 31, 2008

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=a9d26354-09a5-4fc0-a6aa-89d120ed22b1

VANCOUVER, British Columbia (Reuters) – Canada’s “Prince of Pot” believes the Canadian government wants to punish him by blocking a plea deal with U.S. authorities, who want him to face charges of selling marijuana seeds from his Vancouver store to American customers.
Canada refused to go along with Marc Emery’s deal with U.S. prosecutors to plead guilty in return for the United States dropping charges against two co-accused and allowing him to serve most of the sentence in a Canadian prison, the marijuana activist said on Friday.
The B.C. Marijuana Party founder said Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government is pursuing a get-tough policy on drug use and is upset by his long-running campaign for marijuana legalization.
“They want to make an example out of me,” Emery told CKNW radio in Vancouver. “They just don’t like me.”
Emery was arrested in 2005 at the request of U.S. officials for allegedly selling millions of dollars in seeds to U.S. buyers, mostly by mail-order, from the seed business he operated openly in Canada for years.
A U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency statement in 2005 hailed Emery’s arrest as blow to the “marijuana legalization movement” and cited his financial support of pro-pot groups in Canada and the United States.
Emery is also charged with money laundering, but he says he can prove he declared all his earnings to Canadian tax officials and gave most of the profits to charities and political candidates.
He is scheduled to appear in a Vancouver court next month, with an extradition hearing likely to start late in the year.
Source: Reuters Canada 28th March 2008

Re: Take ideology out of decisions, by Keith Baldrey, In My Opinion, Burnaby NOW, May 7.
Mr. Baldrey makes a number of misleading statements about me and about opponents of Insite in general. I am the author of the “flawed and questionable report” criticizing the Insite evaluations that Mr. Baldrey referred to. Mr. Baldrey and other supporters of Insite and of harm reduction as the new way to deal with drugs seem to lack any real argument for Insite and its parent ideology – yes, ideology – so they attack the critics themselves. So please let me respond.
First, my report was not flawed or questionable. I am more than amply qualified to comment on printed research reports. In fact, any grad student would see the flawed assumptions and conclusions made in the Insite evaluations, regardless of what journal they were published in. I have worked in the addictions field in B.C. and in Canada for almost 30 years, and, until I disagreed with harm reduction, I was well respected by the people who now attack me merely for expressing professional concerns about the direction drug policy was taking – downward.
Second, I did not write the report for a “prohibition group,” as Mr. Baldrey asserts. I wrote it for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, a key stakeholder in Insite and in drug problems in Canada. They merely wanted a review by someone not ideologically wed to Insite. I stand behind the report and everything I said as true and valid based on reading the published Insite research.
I did not write the paper as director of research for the Drug Prevention Network of Canada, or for them. Incidentally, the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice, in which my article was published, is a scientific peer-reviewed journal. Public accusations otherwise should be made with caution.
Third, my paper was but one of three academic reports critical of Insite. Garth Davies, a colleague of Neil Boyd’s at Simon Fraser University, wrote one that was equally critical. A federal panel of experts recently released another, saying essentially the same things.
For example, drug overdose deaths have actually increased in Vancouver and in the Downtown Eastside since Insite was initiated. Insite may or may not be preventing up to one overdose death a year. This is fact.
But Mr. Baldrey refers to reports claiming overdoses have gone down. Somebody is indeed putting out misleading information, but it is not me or others concerned about Insite. It is Insite and its supporters. The fact is that Insite is not doing what it set out to do – reduce infections, prevent overdose deaths and reduce public disorder.
Nor is it demonstrating a unique ability to get people into treatment where they belong. It is drawing funds that could be used for more effective things and taking our attention from the real problems – drug use and addiction.
Mr. Baldrey refers to specific people as experts in harm reduction, etc. What he does not say is that these individuals, and many others involved with Insite, are avid proponents of legalizing drugs. I do not fault them or anyone else for holding this ideology, except when people use their positions or authority to unilaterally push it on the public or to lend credence to it by their names, when no such credence exists.
The fact that so many supporters of Insite and of harm reduction are so rabidly pushing it and skewing the facts even when flaws are identified, and that they disparage their opponents, tells me they are so caught up in ideology themselves that they can no longer be objective.
And as for “moralizing,” no one is moralizing here. The Insite test study did not meet its stated objectives. That is not moralizing.
But Mr. Baldrey seems to be saying that any “moralizing” is bad. The fact is “moralizing” is to some extent inevitable in any human discourse. We all have some moral reference point that underlies our ideas and choices at the deepest levels. Trying to entirely exorcize human debate of values – the outgrowth of our morality – is itself impossible.
Mr. Baldrey, you are very loose and misleading in your accusations. I could go on in pointing them out. But suffice it to say, throwing mud and attacking people is neither professional nor a sign of a noble cause.
It comes from an arrogant belief that anyone who disagrees with harm reduction or Insite is somehow stupid, misinformed or an ideologue. I am frankly embarrassed at how deeply this blind arrogance has gotten into otherwise intelligent people and at the utter lack of professionalism their attacks display.
Colin Mangham, PhD, is a Langley resident.
Source: Canada.com – Burnaby Now May 10th 2008

I have read with interest the article in “The Province” Newspaper from British Columbia dated February 16th, 2009 entitled “Huge Price Tag Leads to Call for Audit, and then the articles in the Ottawa Citizen recommended an injection site in Ottawa of Intravenous Drug users.
The newspaper investigated the cost of funding the “Downtown Eastside” in Vancouver dealing with providing housing and support for the residents. This is the first time such an investigation takes place and the result are staggering given the cost was approximately $360 million dollars per year. The article mentions that is cost approximately $ 1 million dollars a day with most of that for the roughly 5,000 disabled people in the community.
It further states that this spending continues to go unabated, with no one in control of the purse strings as conditions continue to deteriorate at street level.
Given these staggering statistics, I believe it would be a good time for the city of Ottawa to do a cost study of their homeless and addicted population to ascertain the cost before going forth with any other programs especially the recommendation for an injection site for intravenous drug users. It would be best practice to evaluate the pilot project in Vancouver when one reads Dr. Raymond R. Corrado’s and Dr. Irwin Cohen “Analysis of the Research Literature on INSITE: Vancouver’s Injection Site Summary”, and the Health Canada report on Vancouver’s Insite.
The stated Insite objectives were:
- Increasing access to health and addiction care;
- Reducting overdose fatalities;
- Reducing the transmission of blood borne viral infections like HIV and hepatitis C;
- Reducing other injection related infections such as skin abscesses; and
- Improving public order.
My question is, have they met their stated objective and if not should we not reconsider it’s effectiveness.
Dr. Carrado states:
“The pilot of a supervised injection site in Vancouver Downtown Eastside was established as a response to high rates of blood born disease (Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C and HIV/AIDS) and a large number of overdoses among intravenous drug users population”
Here are some of their findings:
Blood-borne diseases::
“Dr. Corrado states that there was a “GOOD LIKELIHOOD” that there was a reduction in the spread of blood-borne diseases since several of Insite clients stopped sharing syringes. However, he also underlines that due to the lack of direct measures of blood-borne diseases, it’s not possible to estimate the extent of the reduction.”
In the final report of Health Canada, the Expert Advisory Committees on Vancouver’s INSITE and other Supervised Injections Sites: What has been learned from research from Health Canada states:
Page 11
“There is no direct evidence that SIS’s reduce the spread of HIV infection, and the mathematical models used are based on assumption that may not be valid.
Baseline rates of needle sharing have not been reported for SIS users.
Self-reports of changes in needle sharing beyond the walls of SISs have been validated.
More objective evidence of sustained changes in risk behaviors and a comparison or control group study would be needed to confidently state that SISs have a significant impact on these behaviors.”
Dr. Carraro then states:
” Insite did achieve its objective of reducing the number of fatal drug overdoses. In fact, drug overdoses were minimized and deaths were avoided.”
The Health Canada report states:
Page 11
“There is no direct evidence that SIS influence overdose death rates and large scale and long term, case-controlled studies would be needed to show that SISs influence overdose death rates among those who use INSITE. Mathematical modeling is based on assumptions that may not be valid.”
The overdose rates increased in Vancouver since the Injection site opened it’s doors.
Dr. Irwin Cohen states in his report:
“Several limitations exist within the research and evaluation on supervised injection sites. There are methodological problems regarding outcome measures, as well as an overall lack of research rendering it difficult to compare supervised injection sites to other types of interventions ( i.e.: needle exchange programs and methadone treatment programs). Furthermore, the limitations also result in restricting comparisons of research findings form one study to another.
Health Canada study states the following with regards to limitations of research in the Cost-Effectiveness and Cost Benefit section on page 13 of report.
” While some longitudinal studies have been conducted, the results have yet to be published and may never be published given the overlapping design of the cohorts. Until these studies have been undertaken it will not be possible to show with any certainty that INSITE is cost-effective or to show that the economic benefits exceed the costs.
Mathematical models used to estimate benefit-cost ratios use estimates of the frequency of needle
sharing involving HIV positive and HIV negative injection drug users and estimates of HIV transmission rates have not been locally validated.
Mathematical models used to estimate benefit-cost ratios with respect to lives saves have incorporated an assumption about the economic value of the lives of injection drug users that has not been validated.”
In summary, on page 3 of the Health Canada report, Insite accounts for less than 5% of injections at the site. Many people have been referred to health and addiction care but have not been followed up to see how many have actually gone or how many have successfully recovered from their addiction? The report on page 11 states that Insite saves about one life a year as a result of intervening in overdose events, but overdose rates have increased in Vancouver. I’ve addressed the HIV/HepC results. In the area of Public order what they fail to mention is that the police presence was increased which could explain why there was no increase in crime and loitering. I do not feel that Insite has accomplished it’s stated objectives.
Given the above direct quotes from the Insite report and others, Ottawa should investigate if the site has met these objectives and if not then question the validity of the pilot project and should question whether it should follow suite based on these findings. The fact that it is costing $360 million dollars per year to manage the poorest postal code region in Canada without any improvement in the lifestyle of its residents should be audited and whatever change is required should be implemented without delay. The price tag speaks for itself.
Will Ottawa be next with these statistics given we are modeling Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside philosophy based on Harm Reduction as best practices.
Andre Bigras,
Drug Prevention Network of Canada.

August 19, 2009

VANCOUVER’S Skid Road is a slummy end-of-the-line refuge for drug-addicted criminals.
Once a vibrant district, Skid Road is now overrun by junkie marauders who plunder law abiding citizens and merchants in a predictable pattern of violence and property crime.
Just deserts for these incorrigibles ought to be detoxification followed by a significant stretch in jail as pure punishment for their parasitical behaviour.
My suggestion that we get tough with Skid Road misfits will likely draw a cacophony of cluck-clucking from big-brother medical health officers and senior bureaucrats engaged in an Orwellian scheme to medicalize drug addiction.
Medicalization is simply an expedient way to transform the deviant moral and criminal behaviour of drug addicts into a non-deviant medical issue.
You may recall that since 2000, the City of Vancouver and the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority have engaged in pernicious campaign to neutralize criminalization of possession of illicit drugs. They unabashedly mislead the general public with the falsehood that drug addiction is: a particular kind of disease displaying special symptoms; that it is beyond personal agency and self-imposed abstinence; and, that it requires professional medical assistance under the aegis of an addictions bureaucracy.
They have adopted a stigma-neutral lexicon including words and definitions such as “problematic substance abuse” rather than “drug abuse”, and “illegal” for “illicit” to eliminate moral/ethical considerations.
It is indisputable that opiates are poisons; and it is equally a fact that there will always be rogue citizens who, regardless of the risk, want to narcotize themselves out of the uncertainties and rigours of daily life, even if it inevitably leads to life of crime and ill health.
In Romancing Opiates – Pharmacological Lies and the Addiction Bureaucracy, Dr. Anthony Daniels says that “medical consequences (of addiction), however terrible, do not make a disease.”
Before publishing Romancing Opiates in 2006, Daniels had worked 14 years as a doctor in a large general hospital in a British slum, and in an even larger prison nearby. During this period opiate addiction increased dramatically and Daniels began treating as many as 20 new cases a day. He witnessed a worsening of the problem even though drug clinics increased as did medication prescribed to addicts.
Based on his experience with addicts and his extensive reading, Daniels rejects the notion that opiate addiction is relatively instantaneous. He says that it requires determination to reach habitual use three or four times a day, and that “it is truer to say that the addict hooks heroin than that heroin hooks the addict. The active principle in the exchange is the person, not the drug, and the addiction is a freely chosen state: an obvious fact that is ignored by the addiction bureaucracy.”
In forming his opinion Daniels also relied on the experience of American soldiers during and after the Vietnam War: “Thousands of American soldiers, especially towards the end (of the war), addicted themselves to heroin. … What happened to them when they went home? Only one in eight of the addicts continued with his addiction after return to the United States, and by two and three years after their return, the addiction rates among those who had served were no higher than among those who qualified for the draft but did not serve in Vietnam.
“And what help or services did these thousands of addicts receive when the returned home? For all intents and purposes, it varied between very little and none. They simply stopped taking heroin and did not resume.”
When Skid Road’s drug addicts go about robbing and stealing to fund their purchases of illicit drugs, they are cunning, wily and mindful of what they are doing. They are not automatons.
The festering sore of Skid Road is a national disgrace. It is worse today than in 2000.
Parliament has the constitutional right to enact a Public Safety Act that would authorize police to arrest any person found in a public place in a state of incapacitation by illicit drugs, and to forthwith render that person to a justice of the peace for committal into a secure detoxification facility.
It’s high time to take back our streets and public places. So just do it, all you members of Parliament.

Source:wallace-gilby-craig@shaw.ca. – North Shore News – Aug 19/09

ABSTRACT

Background Studies in Europe have suggested that injectable diacetylmorphine, the active ingredient in heroin, can be an effective adjunctive treatment for chronic, relapsing opioid dependence.
Methods In an open-label, phase 3, randomized, controlled trial in Canada, we compared injectable diacetylmorphine with oral methadone maintenance therapy in patients with opioid dependence that was refractory to treatment. Long-term users of injectable heroin who had not benefited from at least two previous attempts at treatment for addiction (including at least one methadone treatment) were randomly assigned to receive methadone (111 patients) or diacetylmorphine (115 patients). The primary outcomes, assessed at 12 months, were retention in addiction treatment or drug-free status and a reduction in illicit-drug use or other illegal activity according to the European Addiction Severity Index.
Results The primary outcomes were determined in 95.2% of the participants. On the basis of an intention-to-treat analysis, the rate of retention in addiction treatment in the diacetylmorphine group was 87.8%, as compared with 54.1% in the methadone group (rate ratio for retention, 1.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.35 to 1.95; P<0.001). The reduction in rates of illicit-drug use or other illegal activity was 67.0% in the diacetylmorphine group and 47.7% in the methadone group (rate ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.77; P=0.004). The most common serious adverse events associated with diacetylmorphine injections were overdoses (in 10 patients) and seizures (in 6 patients).
Conclusions Injectable diacetylmorphine was more effective than oral methadone. Because of a risk of overdoses and seizures, diacetylmorphine maintenance therapy should be delivered in settings where prompt medical intervention is available. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00175357 )

Source: New England Journalof Medicine Volume 361:777-786. 20.08.2009

White ‘repackaged’ drug facility idea as crime prevention tool
The newcomer to Ottawa credited with being the catalyst for a new residential drug-treatment centre for youth managed the feat by “repackaging” the proposal from a health issue into a crime prevention issue.
Yesterday, as a who’s who of politicians and community leaders gathered for a multi-million-dollar funding announcement by Premier Dalton McGuinty, police Chief Vern White was praised for being instrumental in putting together the deal that has eluded Ottawa for two decades.
Chief White has been in Ottawa only 15 months, but has done what no one else had managed to do in
“Everyone complains about lack of health care. So I called it a ‘crime prevention tool’,” said Chief White after the press conference yestserday. “The old packaging wasn’t working, so I repackaged it.”
According to Chief White’s calculations, taking 20 youths with drug addictions off the street would result in 80 to 160 fewer minor crimes each day. Each addicted youth commits four to eight crimes a day, ranging from prostitution to vehicle smash-and-grabs to support a drug habit, he estimates.
Chief White took his repackaged argument on the road in the Ottawa area, speaking to more than 50 community groups and service clubs. He didn’t talk about youth, he talked about parents.
“They’re our kids,” he said.
As it stands, drug-addicted youths must go to Thunder Bay and even farther for residential drug-treatment programs. According to figures from the United Way of Ottawa, one in six Ontario high school students reports symptoms of drug use, which translates into 9,000 Ottawa high school students. Young people typically begin to experiment with alcohol at age 12 and with illicit drugs at 14.
Long-term residential treatment for addicts results in a 71-per-cent decrease in substance use and a 61-per-cent decrease in criminal behaviour, according to the United Way.
A campaign to get a residential treatment centre had been on the agenda for years, but plan after plan fell apart.
In June 2006, a proposal to buy the former Rideau Correctional Centre near Burritts Rapids and convert it into a treatment centre was shelved amid concerns about a native land claim encompassing the property.
A likely location for a new anglophone residential centre is the Meadow Creek treatment facility on Carp Road, currently used for programs helping adult addicts. The program is scheduled to be moved into Ottawa in about a month. East-end locations are still being scouted for a francophone program.
Chief White credited restaurateur and fundraiser Dave Smith with being the “DNA” behind the project.
“I have been hollering and screaming for 20 years,” said Mr. Smith yesterday. “Sending kids to the American side wasn’t the answer.” Mr. Smith’s campaign to get a residential centre for youth resulted in the creation of an outpatient drug treatment program. It wasn’t what he wanted, but it was “better than nothing at all,” he said. Mr. Smith said he’s just glad Ottawa will finally be getting a residential centre.
Source: The Ottawa Citizen Published: Wednesday, June 11, 2008

New law puts alcohol and drugs on an equal footing in roadside checks for impaired driving, and promises to reduce driving “high”

The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse (CCSA), Canada’s national addictions agency, welcomes new legislation set to go into effect on July 2 that, for the first time in Canada, establishes parity between drug- and alcohol-impaired driving under the law. Bill C-2, the Tackling Violent Crime Act, comes into force after a decade of rising rates of drug-impaired driving in Canada. Canadian studies indicate that drugs, often in combination with alcohol, are detected in up to 30% of fatally injured drivers. CCSA’s 2004 Canadian Addiction Survey found 5% of Canadian drivers admitted to driving within two hours of using cannabis—a 50% increase since 1989. Among 16–18 year olds, 21% reported driving after using cannabis, slightly higher than the 20% of their peers who reported driving after alcohol use. ―Such findings suggest that the drugs-and-driving problem is by no means insignificant and appears to be increasing,‖ said CCSA Manager of Research and Policy Doug Beirness. Mandatory roadside checks for alcohol impairment are recognized as having a deterrent effect on drinking and driving because of the perceived risk of being caught and charged. However, before Bill C-2, a police officer who suspected a driver of being impaired by drugs could only request that the driver undergo voluntary testing and there was no sanction if the driver refused. This left officers with little chance of pursuing a conviction on the basis of drug-impaired driving. ―As a result, many drug-impaired drivers have been risking their own safety and the safety of others because they believed they would not be caught,‖ said Beirness. Beginning July 2, refusing a roadside drug test will be equivalent to declining a breath test for alcohol and will be subject to the same sanctions. Refusing to take a breath test is a Criminal Code offence. ―The legislation clarifies that you must comply with demands from police to assess whether you are impaired, and if you refuse, you are subject to the same penalties,‖ said RCMP Cpl. Evan Graham, National Coordinator, Drug Evaluation and Classification Program, Traffic Services. The new legislation empowers Canadian police who suspect a driver of being impaired by any drug, illegal, prescription or over the counter, to conduct a Standardized Field Sobriety Test, a roadside test of physical coordination. If found to be impaired, the driver must submit to a mandatory Drug Evaluation and Classification (DEC) assessment, a 12-step process that requires the driver to provide a bodily fluid sample (blood, saliva or urine). The DEC is conducted by a Drug a DEC-trained community police officer, and takes 45–60 minutes to complete.

In this way, Bill C-2 has the potential to reduce the harms associated with drugs by enabling police officers to remove dangerous drivers from Canadian roads, whether they are impaired by drugs or alcohol” said Beirness.
The DEC programme has been operating in Canada for 13 years, but only in cases where drivers agree to participate. Research on the DEC programme, including studies conducted by CCSA staff, has established the accuracy and reliability of this method in determining impairment from a variety of drugs and drug combinations.

Impaired drivers will face new penalties under the law, including a fine of not less than $1,000 for the first offence, and imprisonment for the second offence of not less than 30 days, and not less than 120 days for each subsequent offence.

Impaired drivers who cause an accident can face a maximum 10 year sentence in the case of causing bodily harm, and a life sentence in the case of causing death.

Anyone convicted of operating a vehicle under the influence of drugs, alcohol or both will be prohibited from driving a vehicle for one to three years for the first offence and two to five years for the second offence.

We hope that by creating awareness of the new legislation, its tests and penalties, we can prevent Canadians from getting behind the wheel while they are impaired by drugs, alcohol or both, said Beirness.

Source: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse June 25th 2008

―In this way, Bill C-2 has the potential to reduce the harms associated with drugs by enabling police officers to remove dangerous drivers from Canadian roads, whether they are impaired by drugs or alcohol,‖ said Beirness.
The DEC program has been operating in Canada for 13 years, but only in cases where drivers agree to participate. Research on the DEC program, including studies conducted by CCSA staff, has established the accuracy and reliability of this method in determining impairment from a variety of drugs and drug combinations.
Impaired drivers will face new penalties under the law, including a fine of not less than $1,000 for the first offence, and imprisonment for the second offence of not less than 30 days and not less than 120 days for each subsequent offence.
Impaired drivers who cause an accident can face a maximum 10-year sentence in the case of causing bodily harm, and a life sentence in the case of causing death.
Anyone convicted of operating a vehicle under the influence of drugs, alcohol or both will be prohibited from driving a vehicle for one to three years for the first offence and two to five years for the second offence.
―We hope that by creating awareness of the new legislation, its tests and penalties, we can prevent Canadians from getting behind the wheel while they’re impaired by drugs, alcohol, or both, said Beirness.

Source:

―In this way, Bill C-2 has the potential to reduce the harms associated with drugs by enabling police officers to remove dangerous drivers from Canadian roads, whether they are impaired by drugs or alcohol,‖ said Beirness.
The DEC program has been operating in Canada for 13 years, but only in cases where drivers agree to participate. Research on the DEC program, including studies conducted by CCSA staff, has established the accuracy and reliability of this method in determining impairment from a variety of drugs and drug combinations.
Impaired drivers will face new penalties under the law, including a fine of not less than $1,000 for the first offence, and imprisonment for the second offence of not less than 30 days and not less than 120 days for each subsequent offence.
Impaired drivers who cause an accident can face a maximum 10-year sentence in the case of causing bodily harm, and a life sentence in the case of causing death.
Anyone convicted of operating a vehicle under the influence of drugs, alcohol or both will be prohibited from driving a vehicle for one to three years for the first offence and two to five years for the second offence.
―We hope that by creating awareness of the new legislation, its tests and penalties, we can prevent Canadians from getting behind the wheel while they’re impaired by drugs, alcohol, or both, said Beirness.

Controversial new law takes effect in a week

OTTAWA – Drivers who get behind the wheel while high on drugs will face roadside testing and they could be ordered to surrender urine, blood or saliva samples at the police station under a controversial new law that takes effect one week from today.

Drivers who refuse to comply will be subject to a minimum $1,000 fine — the same penalty for refusing the breathalyzer.

Police will be given their new powers to nab drug-impaired drivers after almost five years of intense debate in the federal Parliament.

The law, passed this year after three failed attempts, has been lauded by law enforcement and groups who say drug-induced drivers are escaping unpunished at a time when their numbers are climbing.

“Love it,” said Gregg Thomson, a father from Kanata, Ont., who predicted yesterday that the new testing will deter people from driving under the influence of drugs, just as the breathalyzer test produced a drop in drunk driving.

Mr. Thomson has been lobbying for a new law since 1999, when his son, Stan, and four of his high-school friends were killed when a 17-year-old who had been smoking marijuana attempted a highway pass that led to a pileup.

The crash became a catalyst for the group Mothers Against Drunk Driving to start pushing for changes to the Criminal Code, which outlaws drug-impaired driving but until now has not included measures that allow police to order a battery of tests.

The new law, however, has sparked warnings about potential court battles from critics who contend that demanding bodily fluids is overly intrusive and scientifically unreliable in detecting drug impairment.

“This is going to be challenged left and right,” predicted Murray Mollard, executive director of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.

Beginning July 2, drivers suspected of being high will be required to perform physical tests at the side of the road, such as walking a straight line. If they fail, they will be sent to the police station for further testing by a trained “drug recognition expert” and then be forced to give blood, urine, or saliva samples if they flunk the second test as well.

Critics say the new law could cause more problems that it solves, particularly because there is no reliable scientific test to detect drug use. Also, while there is a measurable link between blood alcohol levels and driving ability, research is lacking to equate drug quantity and impairment.

Another potential problem in testing bodily fluids is that they can detect marijuana smoked several days or months earlier and the effect has worn off.

“This kind of testing doesn’t test for impairment, it tests for past use of a substance and we know with certain substances they stay for a long time,” said Mollard.

Federal privacy commissioner Jennifer Stoddart and the Canadian Bar Association have also raised alarm bells.

Testing is already happening in Quebec, Manitoba, and British Columbia — but only when the driver voluntarily participates. But that hardly ever happens because nobody “is going to consent to pee in a bottle” when they are not legally required, said Andy Murie, chief executive officer of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

Source http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=612887 June 2008

Alberta Health Services (AHS) and the Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission (AADAC), together with the RCMP, recently announced the launch of a new prevention program called Kids and Drugs — A Parent’s Guide to Prevention. The program is intended to assist parents and other concerned adults in helping school age children avoid alcohol and drug abuse. Kathie Gavin, prevention co-ordinator for AADAC, says the new program goes beyond the basic drug education provided to parents in the past, addressing important protective factors for youth including effective parenting practices.

“In the past, when parents asked about drug information sessions we would give them the good, bad and ugly … The new program broadens the scope of parents’ understanding. It’s about giving your kids confidence, having open communication and giving them support,” says Gavin.

Content of the program is built on known factors that prevent substance abuse, says Gavin, like improved communication, support, decision-making and discipline.
The programs four core areas examine the importance of parental role modeling, enhancing communication skills, decision making, and the final area, “What parents need to know about drugs.” This final workshop provides information on commonly used drugs and their risks, as well as reasons why kids use drugs and the signs and symptoms of a developing problem.

Gavin says different substances are used according to different trends, but a constant remains in that tobacco, alcohol and marijuana are the most likely drugs of choice.
“Other illicit drugs are small in number with regard to use by young people. The really common ones are right in front of us, ingrained in our culture. We need to talk about prevention with consideration of all the substances we use in our culture, and develop some respectful attitudes about that.”

Gavin says prevention is a long-term investment, and it’s an important one that involves consideration of cultural values, attitudes and norms. The focus of the new program is on prevention, not on intervention or treatment, says Gavin, so the program’s workshops are designed for families where there is no significant problem already.

Gavin says input into the new program was gathered from addictions, enforcement and educational specialists then piloted at six sites across Canada. Through formative evaluation, Gavin explains that certain aspects of the program were then revised. For example, because one of the objectives was to give communities flexibility in when and how they offer the program, suggestions like offering it at work sites or through school councils was incorporated into the program’s design.
The Kids and Drugs prevention program was developed over a three year period by AADAC and the RCMP, says Gavin, and replaces an earlier RCMP program called Two Way Street.
For more information about the program, including a free download of the parent’s booklet, go to http://www.aadac.com/565_502.asp. The AADAC website also contains a parent information series, addressing prevention, intervention and treatment of substance abuse in youth (http://www.aadac.com/). AADAC can also be reached toll free;
Source: Prairie Post West. Canada. Jan. 22nd 2009

Six to 10 thousand youth in Ottawa will have a better chance of saying ‘no’ to drugs thanks to a federal government donation. On Feb. 10, Pierre Poilievre, MP for Nepean-Carleton on behalf of the Honorable Leona Aglukkaq, minister of health, announced the federal government will contribute $1 million over a four year period to help eradicate youth addiction and drug usage.
Poilievre announced the government’s support for S.T.E.P. (support, treatment, education and prevention) – a project that provides targeted help for youth in Ottawa who are at risk of engaging in substance abuse. S.T.E.P. is Ottawa’s response to addressing the need for residential addiction treatment, education and prevention for young people aged 13 to 17. It is a fundraising campaign involving community partners such as Ottawa West-Nepean MPP Jim Watson, Ottawa Police chief Vern White, Mayor Larry O’Brien and Michael Allen, president and CEO of United Way Ottawa.
“This project will help to prevent young people in high schools from taking drugs in the first place,” said Poilievre “Activities will be held in those schools for students who are at risk of drinking or taking drugs. This strategy helps to prevent the use of drugs, treats people with drug addictions, and combats drug trafficking. The strategy also emphasizes education for young people and their parents on the damages that drug use can cause.” The initiative was announced at the Ottawa Police headquarters and is part of the government’s national anti-drug strategy, which was introduced in 2007.
“That’s why our Conservative government is providing the project S.T.E.P. with up to $1 million in support—over the next four years—from its drug treatment funding program,” Poilievre added. According to Allen, this initiative “will no less than double the capacity for counsellors and prevention education” and will -double the infrastructure that is already in place in Ottawa schools. “It’s a good day for the future of our community,” said White.
“A number of schools don’t have the resources they need and a number of schools certainly don’t have the capacity to deal with the challenges they are facing right now.” White said six to 6,000 to 10,000 youths in Ottawa will benefit from this programming. Poilievre concluded by saying this initiative is close to his heart since he has seen some of his loved ones battle drug addiction.
“It’s very important that lives are spared from this terrible destructive path and I’m hoping that this million dollar donation will help us to achieve that goal.”
Source: meghan.graham@nepeathisweek.com Feb.21 2009

Executive Summary

Following two decades of progress dealing with alcohol impaired driving, greater attention is now being directed toward the issue of driving while impaired by drugs. Currently, there is far less information related to drug impaired driving than alcohol-impaired driving. This report describes a study on the extent of drug use by drivers. A random survey of drivers was conducted at pre-selected locations in British Columbia from Wednesday to Saturday nights in June 2008. The purpose was to collect information on the prevalence of alcohol and drug use among night time drivers. Those surveyed were asked to provide a voluntary breath sample to measure their alcohol use and an oral fluid sample to be tested subsequently for the presence of drugs. Of the 1,533 vehicles selected, 89% of drivers provided a breath sample and 78% provided a sample of oral fluid.
Key findings include:
• 10.4% of drivers tested positive for drug use
• 8.1% of drivers had been drinking
• 15.5% of drivers tested positive for alcohol, drugs or both
• Cannabis and cocaine were the drugs most frequently detected in drivers
• Alcohol use among drivers was most common on weekends and during late-night hours; drug use was more evenly distributed across all survey nights and times
• Alcohol use was most common among drivers aged 1to 24 and 25 to 34; drug use was more evenly distributed across all age groups
• No drivers aged 16 to 18 were found to have been drinking
• While driving after drinking has decreased substantially since previous surveys, the number of drivers with elevated alcohol levels (over 80 mg%) was higher than in the past

Source: Beirness, D.J., & Beasley, E.E. (2009). Alcohol and Drug Use Among Drivers: British Columbia Roadside Survey 2008. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. 2009

Canadian health officials are hoping that heroin addicts, freed from their daily pursuit of the next fix by a prescription-heroin plan, will find time to make positive changes in their lives.

The researcher will begin gathering applications for the program from addicts during the next few weeks. The experiment already is the talk of the streets in communities like Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside.

“They should have done this a long time ago,” said Debbie Woelke, a heroin user living in a single-room occupancy hotel in the city’s poorest neighbourhood. “Sometimes you need something just to relax and get your mind together, instead of always being in a state of panic. That’s what’s killing everyone down here. They have to do things they wouldn’t normally do.”

The prescription heroin trial will take place in Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal. Researchers are looking to recruit 428 hard-core addicts, half of whom will receive daily doses of heroin for a year, and half of whom will get methadone.

“What if you could say to an addict, ‘For the next little while, you’re not going to have to get your drugs from Al Capone. You can get your drugs from Marcus Welby,’ ” said Dr. Martin Schechter, lead researcher on the project. “You don’t have to worry about this afternoon and this evening. And therefore, you don’t have to go and break in to cars or be a prostitute. You could actually come and talk to a counsellor … get some skills training.”

The experiment is unique in North America, although similar trials have been tried with some success in Europe. However, critics range from those concerned about lack of abstinence as a goal to those who say it is unfair to give addicts free heroin for a year and then cut them off. Overdoses also are a major ethical worry.

A spokesperson for U.S. drug czar John Walters called the trial an “inhumane medical experiment.

“What you’re doing is making it easier to be a heroin addict,” said policy analyst David Murray. “These people won’t get that much better in the long run. They will still be heroin addicts.”

But Vancouver Mayor Larry Campbell, a former coroner and narcotics officer, said current treatments don’t work for hard-core addicts. “The critical thing is to accept this as a medical condition,” he said. “The side effects of this medical condition is that it forces you to … do things that you would never do, be it work as a sex-trade worker, be a B and E [break-and-enter] artist or a purse snatcher. So if I can mitigate that by putting you on heroin, imagine the changes you could have.”