According to this sample of drug policy experts, the continued emphasis on supply reduction in Canadian drug control policy is best explained by some combination of pro-drug war pressures from the US and influence from bureaucratic interests in Canada that benefit from the enforcement-dominated approach. Tough on crime political posturing, hidden agendas, and distributive politics all weigh-in with somewhat less of an influence, and social judgements/social control is the least important with a score of 5.50 out of six.

Assessing the Historical and Contemporary Records

It is possible to further assess the contributions of the six potential explanations discussed above by looking at the historical and contemporary record of drug control politics in Canada. The table below sets out the types of evidence that may be used to assess relative contribution of these six explanations.

Explanation Relevant Data
Bureaucratic Imperatives Growth and size of drug enforcement bureaucracy. Political preferences and lobbying efforts of organizations and agencies that benefit from drug enforcement efforts. Evidence of enforcement policy preferences showing up in legislation.
“Tough on Crime” Political Posturing Evidence of “law and order” policies promoted by Canadian politicians in national elections. Evidence of tough on crime parliamentary initiatives. Evidence of tough on crime planks in platforms of major political parties.
Exportation of US War on Drugs Timing of Canadian drug enforcement initiatives relative to US initiatives. Evidence of pressure from US promoting prohibitionist policies in Canada. Evidence of US promotion of international treaties endorsing the prohibitionist approach to drug control.
Hidden Agendas Evidence of connections between the CIA and the global drug trade. Evidence of connections between major western politicians and the global drug trade.
Distributive Politics Evidence of class-based divisions in preferences for responses to the drug problem. Data comparing political participation of upper/middle-class citizens and those from the inner-city.
Social Judgments/Social Control Evidence of political elites using drugs to pit upper/middle class against “dangerous classes” and minorities. Racist elements of the war on drugs. Propaganda and reporting that stigmatizes drugs and drug addicts. Evidence of drug warriors depicting drugs and drug users as threats to the social order.

Bureaucratic Imperatives. As clearly documented in Giffen et al. (1991), the enforcement lobby in Canada enjoyed an virtual monopoly with regard to drug control policymaking until the late 1950’s when organizational and social changes allowed the treatment lobby and others to gain inroads into this issue area. Over time, non-enforcement interests have gained some influence relative to the enforcers but, as the prohibitionist Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (1997) reveals, their increasing presence in the policymaking process has not translated into significant reform of Canada’s drug control laws. Is this outcome explained by the continued dominance of the enforcement lobby in Canadian policymaking or by legislative inertia?