Illicit Drugs:
The Media on Drug Policy in Canada

Social norms and, by extension, Canadian law, send mixed messages on the topic of drugs. Alcohol is an acceptable party drug; cocaine is not. Cigarette smokers are tolerated (provided they huddle together outside public buildings); marijuana smokers are jailed. Mood enhancement drugs like Prozac and lifestyle enhancement drugs like Viagra are cited as evidence of our society's technological ability to ensure the well--being of its citizens; heroin, on the other hand, is evidence of the moral depravity of its users.

Over the course of the past 90 years, Canadian legislation has sought to restrict access to certain drugs—first opium with the Opium Act of 1908, and then cocaine, morphine, heroin, and marijuana shortly after. At one point, the drug codeine was illegal in Canada. These laws were based on the rationale that government had the obligation to curtail Canadians' drug use for their own good.¹

Recently, these laws have come under fire. Within the last six months an Ontario judge granted Terry Parker the right to grow and use marijuana for treatment of epilepsy, the North Vancouver District council passed a resolution calling for the decriminalization of marijuana, The Fraser Institute sponsored a conference on public policy solutions to the drug problem, and a 15--year veteran of the Vancouver Police Department spoke out in both the Vancouver Sun and the Globe and Mail about the high price our society is paying for its war on drugs.²

As debate over Canada's drug policy moves into the mainstream, the arguments are becoming more sophisticated. Predictably, support for drug reform includes such comments as “Great idea, man ... Totally into it.”³ However, cheek by jowl with this endorsement are arguments such as those in a recent Globe and Mail editorial that prohibition amounts to “a state--dictated subsidy to gangsterism” with the perverse effect of actually increasing the availability of illicit--drugs and the social costs associated with drug use.⁴

This issue of On Balance examines media reports aired on the “Magazine” segment of CBC's “National” or published by the Globe and Mail and selected regional newspapers throughout 1997: the Vancouver Sun, the Montreal Gazette and the Halifax Daily News. In examining these stories, our purpose was to identify the arguments being made concerning Canada's drug laws, the basis on which the arguments were being justified (social, health, or economic), and the model of reform, if any, that was being advocated.

Click Here to View Figure A

Media attention favours reform

The most surprising result of our survey of media attention to Canada's drug laws was the preponderance of arguments favouring broad reform. The On Balance survey of 1,366 statements from 5 media outlets during 1997 found that a full 82 percent of coverage (1,118 statements) advocated reform of current drug laws, either legalization, decriminalization, or other less drastic reforms, compared to 18 percent (248 statements) favouring the continued criminalization of illicit drugs.

This held true within all categories of media coverage. Within news reports, 85 percent of the evidence and arguments presented favoured reform. Within features, 81 percent of commentary endorsed reform, and within columns, 75 percent of statements called for reform. Editorials were the most supportive of reform, at 93 percent, while letters were least supportive, at 70 percent.

Globe foremost proponent of drug reform

The Globe and Mail was the number one proponent of drug law reform with 93 percent of coverage either advocating reform or citing evidence that supported changes to the current system (see figure A). Similarly, the Halifax Daily News published arguments favouring reform in 90 percent of its attention to this issue, the Vancouver Sun presented pro--reform evidence and commentary in 79 percent of its coverage, and the Montreal Gazette favoured reform in 78 percent of its news, features, columns, editorials, and letters. CBC's “National Magazine” provided the most even--handed attention to the illicit drug debate, with 61 percent of coverage advocating reform. The Vancouver Sun provided the most attention to drug policy reform of the newspapers examined, while the Halifax Daily News provided the least coverage (see figure B). CBC's “National Magazine” produced only one report in 1997 on drug policy reform, a documentary on the medicinal use of marijuana.

Popular opinion lags behind media

The overwhelming support for drug law reform provided by the various newspapers and one TV news magazine show examined in this study was clearly out of alignment with popular opinion. A Gallup poll released in April 1998 found that 23 percent of respondents favoured no change to current laws, 45 percent favoured reduced penalties (i.e., fines) for possession of small amounts of marijuana, and only 28 percent thought that possession should not be an offence at all.¹

An Angus Reid poll in which respondents were asked whether they favoured decriminalization or continued criminalization (the question did not give respondents the option of reduced penalties) found that opinion was split 51 percent to 45 percent in favour of decriminalization.¹

Popular support recorded in both the Gallup poll and the Angus Reid poll approached "media" support only when respondents were polled on the issue of medical marijuana. In this case, 81 percent of Gallup respondents and 83 precent of Angus Reid respondents favoured either legalization or decriminalization.

Click Here to View Figure B
Click Here to View Figure C

CBC debated medicinal marijuana

Currently, onle one individual in Canada is legally allowed to grow and use marijuana. Terry Parker, an epileptic who uses marijuana to control seizures, won his court battle on the grounds that Canada's drug laws are an infringement of his constiitutional rights. Currently under appeal, the Parker case is being closely watched by pro-legalization advocates who believe that it may be the first step towards full-scale legalization.

Although polls indicate that Canadians do support legalization of marijuana for medical use, the media discussed this aspect of the debate in just 16 percent of total coverage (see figure C). Illicit drugs as a treatment for chemotherapy-induced nausea in cancer patients, glaucoma, and epilepsy, as an antibiotic salve, sedative, and pain relief for the terminally ill was discussed, with 87 percent of media attention to medical use advocating reform of current laws.

CBC's “National Magazine” focused on the medical uses of marijuana in a Brian Stewart documentary aired July 24, 1997. The story began with a profile of a woman in California who supplies cancer patients with marijuana, and then moved on to brief interviews with advocates of California's recently--passed medical marijuana law and operators of a “buying club” where patient--members can purchase marijuana. The second half of the report offered some Canadian viewpoints on marijuana as medicine, with a debate on the pros and cons of treating serious illnesses with a drug that has not yet been subjected to adequate scientific testing.

Main argument for reform: prohibition has failed

The main argument in favour of drug law reform was that prohibition has been an abject failure (see table 1). For instance, in a Vancouver Sun feature, Gil Puder, a long--standing member of the Vancouver Police Department, contended that the “drug war” is ultimately unwinnable. Reform of drug laws is driven, according to Puder, by “the ludicrous nature of the arguments opponents advance. Drugs in schools? There already. Health concerns? Got an epidemic now. Government's moral responsibility? ... just like booze, gambling and honest budgets”¹

In other words, these arguments focused on the fact that prohibition has not stemmed the drug supply, drug use, or the social costs—addiction, public health, and crime—of drug abuse. A recent Globe and Mail editorial, "What are G8 leaders smoking?" reiterated these arguments, contending that prohibition does "not achieve [its] stated aim—reducing the supply of drugs, making citizens safer or weakening organized crime—but rather the reverse."<$FGlobe and Mail, May 18, 1997, p. A18.>

Drug use is an individual's choice

In contrast with this appeal to common sense, the second most common argument was a rights-based one: that drug use is a matter of individual choice and individual responsibility. For example, Randy Caine was quoted in the Sun commenting that "to disapprove of a behaviour or dislike an individual due to a specific behaviour is one thing, but it is another matter entirely to force those views upon others with the full weight of the law."<$FVancouver Sun, December 15, 1997, p. B4.>

Other arguments focused on high rates of overdose and AIDS or hepatitis infection among intravenous drug users, the involvement of biker gangs and other criminal organizations in the drug trade, and the success of other countries' drug policies in addiction treatment and crime reduction.

Health arguments favour drug law reform

Five of the top 10 reasons to reform drug laws in Canada focused on health concerns. Of these, three dealt with medical uses for illegal drugs: anecdotal evidence of marijuana's ability to alleviate symptoms of AIDS, cancer, glaucoma and epilepsy; the need for scientific research to back up existing anecdotal evidence; and the right of patients to obtain whatever medication best relieves their symptoms.

Arguments in favour of the medical use of drugs usually proposed making currently illegal drugs available by prescription or under a doctor's supervision. For example, on November 21, 1997, the Montreal Gazette reported a motion introduced in the House of Commons by an opposition MP "to debate the decriminalization of marijuana `for health purposes, explicitly for the purpose of providing pain relief for the terminally ill.'"

Other health arguments stressed the role of legal reform in delivering more efficient and more cost-effective addiction treatment and preventing infection. Finally, advocates of reform claimed that, especially when compared to alcohol and cigarettes, there is insufficient evidence of harmful effects to justify the illegal status of various drugs.

Click Here to View Table 1

Governments responsible for law and order

The most frequent argument in support of continued criminalization was that government has a responsibility to fully enforce all existing laws. Proponents of this position contended that social order could not be maintained in conjunction with selective enforcement of laws; they argued against any sort of incremental or de facto relaxation of current laws.

Arguments against judicial amendments to legislation, such as the decision by Justice John McCart in a recent Charter challenge case that "it's up to Parliament and not provincial judges to change the laws of the land," were also prevalent.<$FGlobe and Mail, August 15, 1997, p. A6.>

Advocates of continued criminalization claimed that prevention and addiction treatment could be efficiently administered without legalization or decriminalization. Those opposed to relaxing drug laws also made reference to the health dangers associated with certain drugs or the possibility that legalization would lead to increased drug use.

Vancouver Sun concerned with public health

The Vancouver Sun focused extensively on the health problems rampant in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside where, in addition to having the highest rate of HIV transmission in the developed world, Canada's highest number of heroin overdose deaths, 297, occurred in 1996.¹ Much of the Sun's coverage cited Vince Cain, former B.C. coroner, whose 1994 report on solutions to the heroin overdose problem in BC recommended decriminalizing drug possession on the grounds that public health, not crime fighting, should be the focus of government drug policy.

Economic considerations not a priority

Economic considerations formed a relatively small proportion of the debate about Canada's drug policy. The only economic argument that made the top ten list was that public funds allocated to health and policing can be spent more rationally if we rethink and reform our current drug laws. Not as frequently cited, but nonetheless compelling, were arguments that society must address “money made in the drug trade and laundered into straight society, the common belief that hemp is BC's largest agricultural export, ... and the drug trade as the financial basis for motorcycle gangs.”² Interestingly, one of the stories that featured economic arguments reported a Health Canada memo in which department officials inquired: “Would it be possible to regulate cannabis to ... obtain tax revenues?”³

Cultivating the more convincing argument

As pragmatic arguments such as public health and crime fighting paved the way for ideological rights--based arguments, traditional advocates of drug law reform appear to be gaining ground, at least in the press. For example, in 1970 the LeDain Commission recommended regulating marijuana under the Food and Drug Act “since cannabis is clearly not a narcotic.”⁴ Eight years later, the Canadian Bar Association adopted the position that “possession and cultivation of marijuana for an individual's own use, and the non--profit transfer of small amounts of the drug between adults, should be decriminalized.”⁵

Drug reforms in other countries, notably Switzerland, Australia, and the Netherlands, suggest that public health issues can be treated more effectively with no adverse effect on rates of crime or drug abuse. Swiss programs, for example, suggest that homelessness, unemployment, crime, disease transmission, and risk--taking or antisocial behaviour on the part of the addict all decrease under a system in which drug use is not criminalized. The Swiss system has also been advocated from a economic standpoint as the cost per patient is less than current enforcement and public health costs.⁶

“1 in 10" smoke pot says North Van District

The resolution recently passed by the District of North Vancouver to research and report on the possible decriminalization of marijuana, has been sent to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for debate at their annual conference. This resolution focused on five reasons: one, widespread support for decriminalization from other segments of Canadian society; two, the estimate that 1 in 10 “with the vast majority being otherwise law--abiding citizens” smoke marijuana; three, better use of public funds; four, the medicinal use of marijuana; and five, the link between illicit drugs and criminal activity. That Canada needs a debate on changes to drug laws is an attitude publicly shared, although perhaps reluctantly, by Health Minister Allan Rock and Justice Minister Anne McLellan who have “encouraged officials in their departments to examine the matter,” according to the Montreal Gazette.¹

Legalization, decriminalization, harm reduction, or status quo?

While there is a great deal of support for drug law reform in the Canadian media surveyed for this study, the model of reform to be followed is still very much a matter of debate. Legalization is advocated on the grounds of freedom of choice and the individual's right to privacy. Criminalization rests on claims about government's moral responsibility to protect its citizens and maintain law and order. However, the growing body of pragmatic arguments for drug law reform suggests the possibility of a compromise between these two extremes.

Many people drawn to and convinced by practical arguments are uncomfortable with the legalization model because of the stamp of approval it may confer upon drug use. This middle ground between the polarized legalize--criminalize camps is less charged, both politically and morally.

Click Here to View Figure D

The compromise models

The first of these two compromise models is decriminalization, sometimes referred to as a “medicalization” or “public health” model. Decriminalization eliminates the criminal penalties currently in place for drug use and possession, and concentrates instead on developing more effective and accessible treatment programs for addicts and researching the medical benefits of drugs such as marijuana.

To maintain their distance from the pro--legalization camp, and by implication their credibility, some proponents of reform have chosen to support a second position, the “harm reduction” model, which is de facto decriminalization in which enforcement of certain laws are relaxed without actually changing the law. This model is also known as the “British system” because it seeks to reintroduce the method of treatment for drug use and drug users which used to be standard in Britain. Harm reduction focuses on addiction as a medical problem and treats the addict with medical maintenance doses.

Media commentary was divided into one of four camps, namely, continued criminalization, harm reduction or general comments calling for debate, decriminalization, or full--scale legalization. Overall, just 18 percent of media attention surveyed advocated continued criminalization, 28 percent called for harm reduction, 34 percent supported decriminalization and 20 percent recommended legalization (see figure D).

Halifax Daily News tops the RadScale

The extent to which the arguments presented in the media supported each model of reform determined our assessment of how radical or progressive each media outlet was on the issue of drug policy reform. We developed a RadScale to present these results, in which a zero score indicated support for the status quo—continued criminalization—and a score of 100 was awarded to those who totally supported legalization (see figure E). Overall, the five media outlets examined received a score of 52. The Halifax Daily News was the most “radical” of the newspapers, with a score of 66, and CBC's “National Magazine” the least radical media outlet with a score of 21. This scale took into account news reports, editorials, columns, features and letters. The Halifax Daily News was the most “radical” both within news and letters, a surprising result given that polls consistently find Atlantic Canadians to be highly conservative on such issues as drug policy reform. CBC's focus on harm reduction and criminalization to the exclusion of the other reform models resulted in it receiving the lowest RadScale score.

Click Here to View Figure E

Conclusion

Overwhelmingly, the newspapers examined in this study—the Globe and Mail, the Vancouver Sun, the Montreal Gazette and the Halifax Daily News—provided evidence and commentary supporting reform of Canada's drug laws. The exception was CBC's “National Magazine” which focused exclusively on the medicinal use of marijuana and provided arguments on both sides of this narrow debate. The editorial stance of the newspapers was also squarely behind reform, with over 93 percent of commentary advocating changes to Canada's drug policy.

Methodology

“Illicit Drugs: The Media on Drug Policy in Canada” examined 122 reports in five media outlets: the Globe and Mail (24 reports), the Vancouver Sun (44 reports), the Montreal Gazette (30 reports), the Halifax Daily News (23 reports) and CBC's “National Magazine” (1 report)—that contained the keywords “drug,” “drugs,” “legalize,” “legalization,” “decriminalize” and “decriminalization” during 1997.

All statements that contained an argument concerning the legal status of prohibited substances were coded according to 12 possible categories. Content statements were coded according to the public policy model discussed: legalization, decriminalization, harm reduction and reform, or criminalization. Within each model, statements were coded according to variables representing the type of argument: social, health, or economic. A total of 164 social arguments, 101 health arguments, and 53 economic arguments were identified.

The National Media Archive makes available the coding procedures and methodology used in this study, as well as access to the database, on a cost-recovery basis. Please contact the National Media Archive for more information.

Correction

The most recent edition of On Balance “Energy and the Environment: A Report on the Vancouver Sun” inaccurately reported the findings of a 1992 Gallup Poll of members of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union. The poll, conducted for the Centre for Science, Technology and Media, found that 60 percent of respondents believe that global average temperatures have increased over the past century, and of those respondents, less than 32 percent felt that the increase was attributable to human activities. However, when asked if “human--induced greenhouse warming [is] now occurring,” 66 percent of respondents said, “yes.”

info@fraserinstitute.ca You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems.

If you know someone who would be interested in this web page, please enter their email address below, and we will forward this URL to them: Email Address:

Last Modified: Wednesday, October 20, 1999.