In the Canadian and American prohibition movements we see themes that are repeated in their respective drug policies today. In the American experience, the expansion of federal powers into criminal justice matters and specifically the enforcement and control area is an important aspect of today’s drug wars. Similarly, the Canadian prohibition movement captured many of the cultural tensions endemic to Canadian politic--conflicts between the established elites and reformers, class and religious divides, French-English differences, moral panics about immigration and urbanization, and gender issues. And we see the typically Canadian solution--half measures designed to appease powerful and competing interests that rely heavily on the discretionary powers of local authorities. And the final outcome in Canada--strong government regulation--betrays a basic difference in the expectation and view of government between Canada and the U.S.

Out of its organizational roots grew many of the mainstays of the progressive movement in Canada women’s suffrage, the child saving campaign, the agrarian protest movement, the prison reformers to whom the John Howard Society owes its existence. Ironically, it is in the Temperance hall and hymn, not in the ranks of the Family Compact or the moneyed liquor interests who opposed prohibition that one should look to find the origins of the philosophy and political will supporting Canada’s public health infrastructure which has given rise to today’s harm reduction programs.

WAR AND THE THREE R’S: RACE, RELIGION AND THE RIGHT

There is little evidence to suggest that it was popular sentiments that drove America’s presidents onto the battlefield against crime and drugs. When Ronald Reagan declared his war on drugs in 1982, and then renewed it in 1986, fewer than 3% of those polled expressed the view that illicit drug use posed the greatest problem facing the nation. In fact, the incidence of drug use was declining in the 1980s. On the other hand, when drug use and rates of crime were cresting in the late 1970s, the percentage of poll respondents identifying these issues as their nation’s most serious remained quite low (Beckett 1997). Public concerns about crime were similarly low when presidential-hopeful Barry Goldwater made law and order a campaign issue in the 1960s. When George Bush Sr. declared his war on drugs in August 1989, poll respondents reporting that drugs were the nation’s most important problem skyrocketed from 15% in July to 64% in September (Beckett 1997) and dropped again to 10% the following year when the president, CNN, and the American public turned their attention to the Persian Gulf.

The public’s concerns about drug use appear to be unrelated to incidence of the problem itself but is strongly connected to how much elites highlight the issue in public discourse. This is at odds with the democracy-at-work thesis, that claims that concerns about crime are related to the increasing threat of victimization and the anxiety it raises. In the case of illicit drug use, the perceived danger is twofold--victimization by the street crimes that authorities claim are related to the drug trade, and the threat to one’s loved ones, especially children, of becoming engulfed in the drug culture’s seductive embrace. Almost 8 in 10 American parents worry (55% worry a lot) about protecting their child from drugs and alcohol. In fact, this concern tops their list of anxieties. Nearly half worry more about protecting their children from negative social influences than they do about paying bills or spending family time together (Public Agenda 2002).

In Canada, where the threats posed by crime and illicit drugs are statistically lower than in the U.S., the perception of risk is nevertheless positively correlated with greater concern about crime and greater support for punitive approaches. However, Beckett (1997) points out that anxiety and fear only go part way in explaining demands for harsher punishments. As a group, rural white males in the U.S. feel quite safe but are generally strong supporters of law and order policies. Women and African Americans, on the other hand, are more anxious about their own potential victimization, but are generally less supportive of the get-tough punitive approaches. In any case, even if the actual incidence of drug and crime were more closely correlated with levels of anxiety about them, it would not explain why harsher punishment is selected, time and again, from among the menu of choices as the best response to the problem.