Assessing the contribution of tough on crime political posturing to the continued dominance of supply-side drug control policies in Canada is more difficult than for bureaucratic imperatives because we are dealing with the indirect link between a general trend to increase punishment for criminal behaviour rather than on direct, intentional efforts to maintain the enforcement approach to illicit drug control Direct evidence of the influence of tough on crime political posturing on Canada’s illicit drug policies is evident, however, in the highly punitive Controlled Drug and Substances Act (1997) which is a clear manifestation of the “get tough” approach to drug control. For the purposes of this article, then, it is possible to conclude that tough on crime political posturing probably exerts some influence on the observed emphasis on supply side drug control efforts in Canada, but its influence is probably less important than that of bureaucratic imperatives.

Exportation of US War on Drugs. Historically speaking, the US and Canada have agreed more than disagreed on policies to control illicit drugs (Giffin et al. 1991). In some instances (i.e., the prohibition of cannabis) Canada has actually acted before the US to implement strict policies for the control of illicit drugs. Close cooperation between the US and Canada on drug control is necessitated to some degree by their long border, but there is also evidence that their relationship on this issue is based as much on political objectives as on functional necessity (Giffin et al. 1991).¹¹

The historical congruence between US and Canadian drug control policies appears to be breaking down, however. For example, in the summer of 2000 an Ontario Court of Appeals ruling forced the Government to reconsider its restrictive policy on the medical use of cannabis. The ruling stated that the strict prohibition of cannabis violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by forcing citizens with certain medical conditions to “choose between their health and imprisonment.” In July 2001, the government of Canada implemented a program that allows people with certain conditions like cancer, glaucoma, and AIDS to possess and use cannabis for therapeutic purposes if they have exhausted all other potential treatments and their use of cannabis is approved by a medical doctor.¹² Approximately 800 citizens now have clearance to use cannabis in Canada under this program. The US federal government reacted quite negatively to this policy change and has openly pressured Canada to return to a more “responsible” cannabis policy (Global National 2002).¹³

Further, in April 2002, the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs issued a Discussion Paper on Cannabis that openly challenges some of the long-standing myths that the enforcement lobby has used to argue for the continued prohibition of cannabis in Canada (Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs 2002). One such rationale is the so-called “gateway theory” which says that the use of “softer” drugs like cannabis often leads to the misuse of “harder” drugs like cocaine and heroin. After studying the issue of carefully, the Senate Committee appears to be leaning toward suggesting the decriminalization of cannabis in Canada, and this has drawn the attention of high-level drug policy interests in the US who openly disagree with this change in policy. A few weeks after the Senate issued its Discussion Paper on Cannabis, a top US advisor on drug policy, Colonel Robert Maginnis was interviewed by a Canadian reporter and said that the US was planning:

¹¹ For evidence of this observation consider that Prime Minister Mulroney “rediscovered” the drug problem in Canada just days after then US President Ronald Reagan announced a renewal of the “war on drugs” in the States (Fischer 1999:200).
¹²The use of cannabis for medicinal purposes is still uncertain in Canada, however. Recently, the new Minister of Health balked at distributing the first crop of government grown cannabis to authorized users because of questions regarding its quality. In addition, the two largest organizations representing medical doctors in Canada have cautioned its members from prescribing cannabis to patients because the drug has not been put through full clinical trials to document its therapeutic value.
¹³The US federal government is actively combating medical marijuana programs that have been implemented in several states including California, Oregon and Nevada. In some instances, DEA agents have physically raided so-called “compassion clubs” that have legal authority to distribute cannabis to medically authorized users in these states. The California Supreme Court recently ruled that cannabis users with medical authorization are not subject to prosecution under State law even though the US Supreme Court ruled previously that they could be prosecuted under national drug laws.