…[t]o antagonize government leaders and grass roots leaders [in Canada] because you insist on having a radical drug policy that we will not ignore in the long term, then its going to have adverse consequences and I hope we would be able to rectify it before it comes to blows (Global National 2002).

The “blows” that Maginnis mentions appear to relate to possible trade sanctions against Canada. The article goes on to state that: “the US is closely watching the Canadian marijuana debate and is working behind the scenes to influence the outcome” (Global National 2002). ^{14, 15}

In attempting to investigate exactly how US interests are “working behind the scenes” to influence Canadian drug policy, I spoke with a member of the Senate Committee’s staff who told me that the Committee had several meetings with high-level drug policy representatives from the US in June, and that the US representatives “politely” shared their data which pointed to the continued need to prohibit the use of cannabis. In reaction to these meetings, the Chair of the Senate Special Committee Pierre Nolin recently suggested in the media that Canada would need to consider US policy preferences in any reformulation of Canadian drug policies.

While the US appears to be exerting substantial influence on Canadian drug policies on a bi-lateral level, it is important to recognize that US pressure often acts through multilateral channels as well. A well-established regime for the control of illicit drugs exists in the form of the various UN drug conventions (such as the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961)). It is well known that the US has long been an active architect and staunch supporter of such agreements. As mentioned previously, in the past Canada has also stood out as a “leader” in the prohibitionist approach to illicit drugs, but the direction of influence appears to be reversing in recent years. Evidence of this fact can be found in the discussions surrounding the Controlled Drug and Substances Act (CDSA, 1997). In attempting to justify the fact that long-standing calls for reform were not being considered in drafts of the CDSA, members of parliament repeatedly suggested that the law was never meant to significantly reform Canadian drug policy, but that an “update” of Canadian drug policy was necessary to bring domestic laws into better alignment with existing international agreements (Fischer 1999:203).¹⁶ Given the disproportionate influence that the US has in international policymaking forums, it is reasonable to suggest that our neighbour to the south uses these conventions to indirectly pressure Canada into maintaining its current enforcement-dominated approach to drug control.

In assessing the contribution of exportation of the US “war on drugs” to the continued dominance of supply side drug control policies in Canada, then, it does indeed appear as though the US has (and continues) to exert direct and substantial pressure on Canada to maintain the strict prohibitionist approach to drug control. Especially in light of Senator Nolin’s comment about the need to factor US policy preferences into any reformulation of Canadian drug policy, this explanation appears to be a significant factor explaining the observed emphasis on supply control in Canadian drug policy.

¹⁴ In a recent news story, the US appears to be backing off somewhat from the “tough on Canada” approach suggested by Maginnis in May. A National Post story of July 18, 2002 reports that the US drug “czar” Asa Hutchinson stated that although the US will continue to strictly prohibit the use of cannabis, “its not our job to tell Canada what to do” (Tibbits 2002). Hutchinson did express concern about recent moves toward decriminalization in both Canada and the UK suggesting that policy changes in these countries would likely lead to increased pressure on the US government to reform its laws on cannabis.
¹⁵ Update: The Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs issued it final 600 page report on September 4, 2002 which explicitly calls for the controlled legalization of cannabis in Canada. This recommendation is based on a two year exhaustive study that, among other things, suggests that the social costs related to the enforcement of the prohibition of cannabis far out-weigh the harms associated with the use of the drug. The report can be viewed at:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/Committee_SenRep.asp?Language=E&Parl=37&Ses=1&comm_id=85
¹⁶ Defenders of the prohibitionist status quo often suggest that because Canada has signed and ratified the UN drug conventions, reforms such as the decriminalization of cannabis are not possible because of the requirements set out in international law. Those who argue this point apparently have not read these agreements carefully as they explicitly allow for “alternative” non-enforcement measures such as the diversion to treatment in the case of cannabis. It is this “loophole” that has allowed the Netherlands, and more recently the UK, to decriminalize their domestic cannabis laws.