From: [m--g--s] at [hempbc.com] (Dana Larsen)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs.pot,alt.drugs,alt.drugs.psychedelics,alt.drugs.culture,talk.politics.drugs,rec.drugs.misc,rec.drugs.cannabis
Subject: BILL C-7: how was it passed?
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 1995 15:09:53 -0700

This is the third message in a series about Bill C-7.



The day before Hallowe’en was a very scary day most Canadians. Many of us
were afraid that we would lose our country because of a public referendum
in Quebec. What we didn’t realize was that we were simultaneously losing
our freedom because of a secretive vote in Ottawa.

Late in the afternoon of October 30th, as the ballots were being counted
in the Québec referendum, the Canadian parliament passed Bill C-7, the
Controlled Drugs & Substances Act. The official opposition, the Bloc
Québecois, were not present to speak or vote against the bill, as they had
chosen to boycott Parliament that day because of the referendum. The vote
on Bill C-7 was the last act of parliament before they went home to watch
the TV news and find out if they’d still have a country to try and
imprison in the morning.

Bill C-7 has been a strange affair from beginning to end.What other piece
of legislation can claim to having survived a change in government and
condemnation from almost every group that testified about it, only to be
discreetly passed when the official opposition is absent, as the last act
of Parliament on the day of a possibly nation-breaking referendum

No Debate

There was no debate in Parliament as to the constitutionality of the
search and seizure aspects of the bill. despite the fact that they remain
unchanged from those that were heavily criticized during testimony on Bill
C-7. No member of parliament addressed the issue of the medicinal use of
marijuana, despite the fact that even the US has a dozen citizens who
receive medical marijuana from their government.

Although more than one MP commented on the fact that Bill C-7 makes no
provision for the decriminalization of marijuana, there was no vigorous
attack on the government’s continued prohibition of the herb. Nor was
there any spirited attacks upon the dangers of “streamlining” of the
judicial process to allow for “fast tracking” of marijuana cases.

Reform Fumbles

Without the Bloc Québecois in the House, the Reform party had a
magnificent opportunity to challenge the prohibitionists and shame them
for their attempt to ignore the testimony that had been presented to them
and pass Bill C-7 in the shadow of the referendum.

Instead, Reform Health Critic Grant Hill seemed to have only one complaint
against the bill, that the provision for allowing the Minister of Health
to arbitrarily add or remove any item to any of the drug schedules in the
name of "the public interest”. Dr Hill wanted to add a clause forcing
consultation with “those persons who will be directly affected” by any
potential change. The amendment was of course rejected.

Weak NDP

Aside from the feeble efforts of the Reform party, there was no real
opposition in Parliament to Bill C-7. Nelson Riis, MP for Kamloops BC, was
the only member of the NDP to speak against the bill, and although he
spoke in favour of the decriminalization of marijuana, he also expressed
support for “getting tougher” on “traffickers and drug dealers”. It’s
unfortunate that the NDP could not do a more effective job of speaking out
against the human rights abuses and backroom politics inherent in Bill
C-7.

Liberal Dissent

Ironically, the most cutting analysis of Bill C-7 was delivered in a
speech by Sue Barnes, Liberal MP for Ontario’s London West. Although Sue
concluded her speech by saying that she would support Bill C-7, she was
the only MP to speak knowledgeably about the benefits of harm reduction
over the prohibitionism.
She eloquently described harm reduction as being a system which “seeks to
reduce the harm caused by those who have a problem with substance abuse,
including harm done to themselves, to their families and to other persons.
It takes a public health approach to the problem of drug abuse rather than
a moralistic, punitive one which views such abuse as criminal in and of
itself.”

Later, she contrasted this against what she calls prohibitionism. She
explained that “prohibitionism toward drug users on its own arguably
inflicts greater harms on individuals and families than the harms it
purports to prevent.”. Under prohibitionism, “one treats the consumption
of drugs as a moral evil where criminal sanction is seen as the only
appropriate response. Rather than recognizing the users of illicit
substances as endangering their health and taking appropriate steps to
help them, the prohibitionist perspective would treat them solely as
criminals who require the threat of criminal penalties and a criminal
record to deter them from such behaviour.

“Were this an effective approach, the United States with its heavy
emphasis on interdiction and punishment would be nearly drug free by now.
As we know, the number of prisoners in jail for drug offences in that
country continues to grow with little sign of any stemming of the
insidious drug trade or the use of illegal drugs.”

Sue Barnes gave a very measured speech, carefully supporting Bill C-7 and
the amendments made to it, while still making it clear that she did not
completely support the prohibitionist agenda. Although she was not
courageous enough to openly condemn Bill C-7 in Parliament, it would
appear that she has been acting as a voice for harm reduction policies
within the Liberal party.

Recommendations to Pass the Buck

Paul Szabo, the Liberal Member of parliament for Mississauga South and
chairman of the Bill C-7 sub-committee, gave a speech in support of Bill
C-7 in which he justified his subcommittee’s work on Bill C-7 using a
combination of misdirection, half-truths, and outright lies. He
contradicted Hedy Fry on a number of occasions as well.

Paul Szabo began his speech by describing the one potentially positive
thing that came out of the Bill C-7 subcommittee, their supplementary
recommendations to the Standing Committee on Health. These recommendations
include forming an “expert task force... to establish precise criteria for
the scheduling of substances under this act.”

The subcommittee also recommended that the Standing Committee undertake a
comprehensive review of Canada’s existing drug policies. According to Mr
Szabo, “the Minister of Health has already informally given her
concurrence that a comprehensive review of our drug policy should be
conducted.”

Although these recommendations might seem like positive steps, it must be
remembered that the Standing Committee on Health has no compulsion to act
upon them. Even if the recommendation to have a drug policy review is
adopted, it could be months, if not years, before it is completed and
further recommendations are made. During this process, we would still be
living under the prohibitionist regime enshrined in Bill C-7.

Paul Szabo tells lies

While describing how the Bill C-7 had its origin in the Conservative Bill
C-85, Paul Szabo joked that it used to be a “draconian Mulroney bill,” but
that it now the time to move away from “partisan apprehension,” because
“there are important reasons for Bill C-7 to be passed by this House.”

It is ironic that Mr Szabo chose to speak of putting away “partisan
apprehension” while passing legislation in the absence of the official
opposition. It is perhaps even more ironic that, while Quebecers were
voting on the future of their province, the “most important rationale”
that Paul Szabo could provide for passing Bill C-7 was to satisfy
international pressure.
Mr Szabo explained that although Canada “has been in violation of its
treaty obligations for many years, it has increasingly come under
criticism by its treaty partners and the International Narcotics Control
Board.” However, when Mr Szabo read out excerpts from INCB reports that
mentioned Canada, they were all solely concerned with Canada’s failure to
restrict the import and export of benzodiazepines.

Despite the fact that the INCB is a purely advisory board with absolutely
no authority to dictate Canada’s internal drug policies, the
“embarrassment” that Canada is suffering by not being in compliance with
the international treaties could have easily been rectified, simply by
adding benzodiazepines to the appropriate schedule of the Narcotic Control
Act. It is clearly not necessary to expand police powers of search and
seizure, or to continue restricting the legitimate medical use of
marijuana, to satisfy any of our international agreements.

It is also worthy of note that Holland has signed all of the same treaties
as Canada, and still manages to have a tolerant drug policy, and also that
Canada could withdraw from any of these treaties at any time. There are no
penalties against nations that have not signed the treaties or choose to
withdraw.

Paul Szabo is Misleading

To fight the claim that Bill C-7 is more about criminalization and
interdiction than it is about approaching drug use as a health issue, Paul
Szabo made the claim that about 70% of government spending is directed at
rehabilitation and treatment. This is clearly misleading figure which is
nevertheless endlessly repeated by government members.

During testimony before the Bill C-7 subcommittee of which Paul Szabo was
the chairman, Mark Taylor of the Addiction Research Foundation explained
that, “while it is true that Canada’s drug strategy... does split the
funds 70% to prevention and 30% to law enforcement, if you look at the
total expenditure across our country in terms of the expenditure on law
enforcement versus prevention, the ratio would be approximately reversed,
or certainly well above the 50/50 level.”

It is unfortunate that Mr Szabo chose to willfully repeat this misleading
claim. It is even more unfortunate that no other MP rose to correct him.


Paul Szabo says No Hemp

Paul Szabo concluded his explanation of Bill C-7 with a pair of statements
that should be enough to put aside any false impressions that Bill C-7 is
in some way a progressive piece of legislation.

First, Paul Szabo explicitly stated that despite “substantial lobbying,”
Bill C-7 “does not at present permit the commercial cultivation of hemp.”
Although he claimed that it was possible under the legislation, “this
process could take years...the commercial production of hemp is  a long
way off, if indeed it is appropriate at all.”

Paul Szabo tells two more lies

Even more startling was the brief tirade with which Paul Szabo finished
his speech. After explaining how “fast tracking” certain offences would
unclog the court system, he repeated some common lies about marijuana, as
follows:
“Attitudes of many Canadians toward marijuana were developed many years
ago when many failed to realize the technology of breeding plants has
allowed producers to drastically increase the potency of marijuana by
increasing its THC content, tetrahydrocannabinol.

“Marijuana is about 15 times more potent today than it was 10 years ago.
Marijuana today is as potent as cocaine was 10 years ago. Let there be no
confusion, marijuana is a dangerous drug...”

It is completely irresponsible for Paul Szabo to shamelessly repeat this
kind of nonsense in Parliament. What is even more disturbing is that not a
single Member of Parliament rose to challenge these ludicrous statements.

The Truth on Cocaine

There is absolutely no basis to Mr Szabo’s claim that marijuana is as
potent as cocaine. Cocaine, by itself and in combination with alcohol and
heroin, is responsible for hundreds of overdose deaths every year in
Canada. In comparison, marijuana has no record of ever causing a death by
overdose.

Marijuana also does not affect the brain’s dopamine receptors as does
cocaine, and for this reason marijuana users do not experience the
withdrawal symptoms associated with the regular use of cocaine.

The Truth on Potency

Marijuana potency has not dramatically increased over the past decade.
That is a myth based upon a purposeful misunderstanding of police seizure
statistics.

Even if marijuana growers did somehow manage to increase the THC content
of their crop, this would only mean that users would be exposed to less
tars and particulates, because they would be able to use less to achieve
the desired effect. THC is non toxic and has never been shown to be
harmful to humans.
The fact that the chairman of the subcommittee on Bill C-7 chose to
conclude his speech with such wild exagerrations and unfounded assertions,
should be cause enough to re-examine the work of his subcommittee.

Parliament did a bad thing

By completely ignoring the testimony before them, and then delaying the
passage of this prohibitionist legislation until public attention was
focussed elsewhere, Parliament has committed an indecent and undemocratic
act against the people of Canada.

If Bill C-7 becomes law, more Canadians than ever before will be put in
jail because they like to use marijuana. More Canadians will have their
homes seized because of marijuana plants growing in the basement. More
Canadians will be shot to death by overzealous police during drug raids.

Only you can stop Bill C-7

Canadians must act to stop Bill C-7 now, while there is still some hope of
change. Now that Bill C-7 has been passed by Parliament, it will go to the
Senate for approval. The Senate will send Bill C-7 to the Standing
Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. This committee has the
option of approving Bill C-7 immediately, or they can choose to examine it
at length and ask for more input from experts and the public.

The Chairman of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
is Gerard A. Beaudoin. It is vitally important that he is made aware of
the need for more comprehensive hearings on Bill C-7 and Canada’s drug
policies.
Given that the committee is supposed to focus on legal and constitutional
affairs, it is hoped that they will be more sensitive to the
constitutional problems caused by the search and seizure provisions of
Bill C-7. It could also be possible to convince them to look more closely
at the need for marijuana to be allowed for legitimate medical use.

Print, Sign, Send

At the Cannabis Canada web site we have provided some letters which you
should print out and send to Gerard Beaudoin, the Minister of Health, Hedy
Fry, Paul Szabo, and your local newspaper. I will include some of these
letters in a following post as well.

Ideally, it would be best for you to use these letters as templates and
write your own with different wording. However, even if you just print,
sign and mail these letters, your actions will still have significant
impact, and you will be doing a great service for freedom and tolerance in
Canada.