Legislation is an important determinant of public policy and part of a broad framework that structures the actions of many players. But, in a complex modern society, it is a reality that public policy priorities in different areas conflict, subverting and nullifying the effect of law, often in significant ways. In the case of Canadian drug policy, the Common Law authority of police officers not to act to enforce the law as it is articulated in legislation, for example, is vital to the success of harm reduction strategies like safe injection sites or needle exchange programs that might be employed by public health departments. The same is true in federal prisons where bleach is provided to prisoners to clean needles even though injection drug use is officially barred.

It is in the concept of discretion, and the negotiation and compromise between players that it necessitates, that the true policy priorities of a nation can find expression and, in the case of Canadian drug policy, contribute to a cumulative public policy on illicit drug use different from that which is prescribed in legislation. For any issue, there are many frames besides legislation, and many framers. The rhetoric of claims-makers is an important determinant of how the issue is perceived by the public, the place it occupies on the public agenda, which in turn affects the many smaller, discretionary decisions, that ultimately determine how the policy plays out in the life of the community. The exercise of discretion is sensitive to the temper of public attitude which sets expectations and determines how discretion is used. And it is in how this discretion operates that the differences between the American and Canadian drug policy situations arise.

THE SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE OF WAR

The metaphors used to describe a problem help constrain how we think about it and what we are prepared to accept as its solution. That America has chosen to characterize its drug policy as a war is significant. Amongst other things, wars are symbolic events that are powerful expressions of national ideals and aspirations. Their driving force can be ambitious, acquisitive, expansive, defensive or punitive. Furthermore, the rhetoric of war can mask intentions as much as they reveal them. One does not have to look far in geopolitical events to see offence masquerading as defence, or repression draped in the trappings of justice.

Under conditions of war, a nation’s people and wealth are mobilized towards the achievement of a single purpose. A policy that does not produce the results we want can be amended, circumvented or even abandoned, but a war can only be won or lost. Every consideration must be subordinated to the goal of victory. Every compromise is a defeat, every critic a turncoat, and every dissenter an enemy. If current measures are perceived to be ineffective in achieving victory, then the only recourse is to apply greater resource and rigour. In the context of war, then, it is not shocking that Texas state legislator Al Edwards proposed cutting off offenders’ fingers--one for each drug conviction. Or that Delaware state senator Thomas Sharp wanted to see drug felons flogged. War imposes many disciplines on citizens. Mandatory drug testing, withdrawal of federal education grants, summary forfeitures of property, evictions, disenfranchisement, raids and random searches become some of the sacrifices Americans civilians endure as part of their drug war effort (Husak 1992).

Symbolic or not, war inevitably has real consequences for the populations involved. They normally consume enormous quantities of public resource and their execution claims casualties and creates victims. Indeed, without casualties, war’s utility as a symbolic event even is considerably diminished. By these measures, few can dispute that America’s war on drugs is one involving a considerable mobilization of resources.