A discussion manual for use with a videocassette of selections from a panel on alternatives to drug prohibition held in Victoria, British Columbia, April 6, 2002.

The panel was sponsored by the Social Responsibility Committee of the First Unitarian Church of Victoria, organized by Matthew McRee Elrod, Webmaster of UUDPR, and in part funded by a grant from the UUA.

Panelists included Prof. Barry Beyerstein, MP Libby Davies, Dr. David Hadorn and Rev. J. McRee Elrod.

BACKGROUND

In 1974 there was a Canadian Unitarian Council resolution in favour of control and rehabilitation rather than harsh punitive measures, and that soft drugs be under Food and Drug Regulations as opposed to the Narcotics Control Act. Several congregations made proposals to this effect before the LeDain Royal Commission.

This statement is intended to build on that position, incorporating later research findings and Unitarian thought on the subject.

A draft Statement of Conscience of the Unitarian Universalist Association on this topic was prepared, building upon four social witness statements on drug policy adopted by the Unitarian Universalist Association between 1965 and 1991, and adopted at the 2002 General Assembly in Quebec City.

In view of the new independent status of the Canadian Unitarian Council, and the fact the the drug policy is of major social concern in Canada, the Canadian Unitarian Council adopted at its 2002 Kelowna meeting this topic as the subject of a one year study, to culminate in a Social Responsibility Resolution to be presented to the May 16-19 2003 CUC AGM in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

SUGGESTED ACTIVITIES

I. View the videocassette (60 min.)

II. Conduct a discussion, using the enclosed questions and others proposed by members of your group.

III. Study the enclosed proposed Social Responsibility Resolution draft and supporting documentation, making suggestions for wording changes to ( mac@slc.bc.ca)

IV. Lobby your local, provincial, and federal officials. Harm reduction efforts and drug law enforcement vary widely from Canadian city to city. Local representations are as important as provincial and federal ones.

V. Contact your local cable television station, to see if they would consider showing the video, perhaps introduced by someone from your study group.

MAJOR DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

Perhaps these questions should be make available in advance, so participants may do web research and investigate local conditions prior to discussion.

1. How may we, in personal conversations, representations to officials, and in the SRR text, make it clear that we favour harm reduction, not either drug addiction or unhealthy drug use?

2. How do we make it clear that we recognize the harm associated with drugs and that we wish to reduce that harm?
3. How does drug law enforcement in our city compare with that in other Canadian cities?
4. What is available locally in terms of harm reduction programs and treatment?

DETAILED QUESTIONS

A selection might be made among the following discussion questions, depending upon time available. Suggested answers to many of these questions are to be found in the Ledain Royal Commission Report, and the recent Cannabis: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy, Report of the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs. If these reports are available from a local library, you might attempt to have them on hand for consultation.

Thanks to Cecil Muldnew of Winnipeg for assistance in question preparation.

The answers to these questions might be incorporated in representations to local, provincial and federal officials. Individually prepared expressions of opinion sometimes have more impact than quoting a prepared statement. References to the Ledain Commission and Senate Committee reports might give more weight to your representations.

Possible Discussion Questions for Cannabis:

1. How might the government regulate distribution? Through stores? Commissions? Clinics?
2. What quantity should be the limit for any one person to have? To buy? To grow?
3. What amount should foreign visitors be allowed to possess? How punished for trafficking?
4. What do studies say about the effect of cannabis on driving? On studies? On job performance?
5. Should smoking cannabis be allowed in public places? Which ones?
6. Should cannabis cultivation be allowed in home gardens? Inside homes? Community gardens?
7. At what age should access to cannabis be allowed? The same as tobacco and alcohol?
8. What taxation should be applied and how should that tax be used? For education? For research? For hard drug clinics?

Possible Discussion Questions for Hard Drugs:

1. Should maintained users be expected to participate in drug education? Group therapy? Job training?
2. Should alternatives such as methadone be encouraged?
3. Should dispensing clinics be concerned with pregnancy? Illiteracy? Other illnesses such as STDs? Depression or other mental conditions?
4. Below what age should special conditions apply? What conditions can be applied?
5. Should drug clinics and drug education be mandatory in all prisons?
6. What U.S. reaction might be expected? Might there be an influx of users from the U.S.?
7. What should be the roles in regulation for federal, provincial, and local governments?