In our attitudes on crime and punishment, for instance, Americans and Canadians appear to have a common belief that our systems of justice are too lenient with offenders (Roberts and Stalans 2000, Doob, Sprott, Marinos and Varma 1998). Research also indicates that most North Americans are ill informed about both the operation and penalty structure of their countries’ criminal justice systems (Roberts and Stalans 2000, Doob 2000). In addition, both populations express levels of concern about crime that, at times, appear unrelated to its actual incidence or the threat that it poses to them (Roberts and Stalans 2000, Doob et al. 1998).

Similarly, north and south of the border there appears to be a consensus that the consumption of and trade in certain intoxicants is and should be criminal and both countries have chosen, from the array of options available to them, to respond to the problem of illicit drug use in a punitive manner--a choice that seems to have tacit, and often unambiguous, public support.

POINTS OF DEPARTURE

Similarities between Canadian and American public sentiments and attitudes can create a demand for similar public rhetoric, which, in turn, can affect policy directions. But differences in the two countries’ symbolic environments limit how much citizens are prepared to back their expressed policy choices with real dollars and commitment. What separates Canadian and American beliefs and attitudes in key areas is as striking as their affinities and can have significant implications for public policy. Although Americans and Canadians can express similar attitudes on issues, differences arise when intention moves from the rhetorical sphere into the world of practice.

Majorities of Americans agree that their federal government should guarantee health insurance for its citizens. Yet, Americans have been stunningly unsuccessful at coming up with the collective will to provide themselves with the protections of a government-sponsored health insurance program of the type enjoyed by most other Western nations. Canadians, on the other hand, express deep commitment to their publicly funded, universally accessible health care system and define it as a core value of their society (Klatt 2000).

By the same token, while Americans have backed their punitive attitudes to illicit drug use with significant public dollars, Canadians have not. As U.S. justice expenditures rose to dizzying heights throughout the drug war days of the 1980s and1990s, Canadian justice expenditures actually decreased (Besserer and Tufts 1999). This divergence in Canadian and American responses to illicit drugs is a relatively new and significant development that is examined in detail below.

The differences in Canadian and American responses to the drug and health care issues highlight important differences between the two countries’ conceptions of the purpose of government and of individual relations to the state--both in terms of state authority and in terms of the state as nation or defining collectivity. Lipset describes the contrasts between the two countries this way:

...Canada has been a much more conservative, traditional, and hierarchical-elitist society than the United States. These differences stem from the varying histories of the two nationals. The United States is a result of a victorious revolution against British rule; Canada is an outgrowth of the triumph of the counterrevolution. The disparate results of the revolution meant the creation of two very different national ethos. One took pride in being the result of a revolution and emphasized egalitarian and populist elements in its self-image. Canada justified itself in not being like the United States; it took pride in its ties with Britain, its monarchical institutions, its elitist character. Following the American Revolution, Tories migrated north of the new border, supporters of the revolution moved south. The established Anglican Church was strengthened in the north; the Congregational Church was reinforced by the migration of its ministers south (Lipset 1968:xvi).