Archive for the ‘Police Corruption and the ‘War on Drugs’’ Category

“To protect the sheep you gotta catch the wolf, and it takes a wolf to catch a wolf.” (Berman, Guggenheim, & Silver, 2001) *See Video Link 1* One of the many memorable quotes from Training Day (2001) the police thriller that has captivated popular culture and has cemented the cast and crew in Hollywood. The movie follows a typical narrative story line involving police work and corruption. Starring Denzel Washington as Detective Alonzo Harris of the Los Angeles narcotics unit and Jake Hoyt, a rookie cop fresh out of training joining the narcotics unit, played by Ethan Hawke.

As the title suggests this is literally Jake Hoyts (Ethan Hawke) first day – training day – in the narcotics unit. The progression of the Jakes training day reveals the culture within the narcotics unit in Los Angeles as Detective Alonzo Harris (Denzel Washington) presents it to his new recruit (and us). The legal norms are illustrated through Jakes actions throughout the movie – the consensus perspective – the rules of policing that are clearly defined and yet we get a glimpse of the group norms of the narcotics unit depicted through the actions and words of Detective Alonzo.

In the first scene of the movie, in the diner, the nervousness seeps through Jakes body language and tone as he speaks. We also meet Detective Alonzo and right away we are shown his blatant demeanor; his excessive use of profanities does not uphold the universal CORE value of professionalism. But perhaps this is the culture in the plain clothes division of the L.A. narcotics unit. When Jake enters the 1979 Chevy Monte Carol ‘Office’ of Det. Alonzo, he gets the spiel from Detective Alonzo of what is required of him and what it takes – which is to forget the academy training “because that shit will get you killed… you gotta hear the street, you gotta smell it, you gotta taste that shit – feel it”, according to Detective Alonzo (Berman, Guggenheim, & Silver, 2001). “Informal norms and rules that govern everyday decisions and practices,” (Loftus 2010) are mandatory to survive in the streets as we learn right off the bat.

ear grab training day

(more…)

Advertisements

Corruption is an extremely broad word, and can be defined in numerous ways. If one looked up the word corruption in the dictionary it will read, “dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery “(Merriam-Webster Dictionary). I quite like this definition, except, it leaves out so many other contributing factors, and solely basis it on bribery. A more comprehensive definition of corruption is illustrated by Punch, when he states, corruption can be classified as: The abuse of authority, of the oath of office, of trust and it involves the misuse of police power and authority (Punch 2009).

In keeping with the misuse of police powers, Punch explains in-depth three typologies of deviance and corruption, grass-eaters, birds and meat-eaters (Punch, 2009). First we do a general overview of grass-eaters. Grass-eaters do not look for kickbacks, such as free coffee at Tim Hortons, or a free meal; however, when offered, these officers who engage in grass-eating do not decline. The birds are officers who do not indulge in deviant behaviors, they “fly high above it”. However, being a “bird” does not come without scrutiny, perhaps one does not participate in deviant ways, but perhaps they are well aware of the practices going on but fail to report it, due to the blue wall of silence (Punch, 2009). The blue wall of silence is something most officers uphold strongly. Police officers do not whistle-blow on each other and they have each others backs, even in the most corrupt ways. Finally, we have the meat-eaters, they are proactive carnivores. Meat eaters go out looking for ways to get graft (forms of money and or benefits) and organize arrangements to facilitate this (Punch,2009). They set out deals with drug dealers for mutual benefit, they compromise homicides, they are illicit in bribery, extortion and run illegal enterprises (Punch, 2009).

A prime example of meat-eating took place within the 25th district of the Philadelphia police department on July 13, 2010. Three officers, Mark Williams, Robert Snyder and James Venziale orchestrated an elaborate scheme to act outside the law with three drug dealers in a $15, 000 heist of Heroin (FBI, Philadelphia Division, 2011). The three Philadelphia police officers, ranging from 4-9 years on duty, organized a plan to place a traffic stop in downtown Philadelphia. They had worked with confidential informants and other drug dealers who told them where and when this car would be that was carrying 300 grams of Heroin. They were to stop the car, in a routine stop, arrest 1 drug dealer who was in the car and complicit in this deal and seize the drugs. However; there plan backfired when they tried to sell the heroin to an undercover Drug Enforcement agent who had been tipped off about this illegal seizure. The DEA had numerous audio and visual recording of these three police officers engaging in over 14 indictable offenses (FBI, Philadelphia Division, 2011).

These three officers engaged in something Punch calls, Meat-eating: predatory (strategic) corruption. Punch explains this as proactive aggressive efforts to regulate criminal markets and extort money from illegal enterprises. They also engaged in direct criminal involvement preying on competitors (stealing their drugs to resell them for their own personal gain). Williams, Snyder and Venziale all committed “direct criminal activities”, this is when one commits a crime that is in clear violation of criminal norms. They also committed “ opportunistic theft”, this can be defined as, stealing from arrestees, victims of crime, dead bodies, and from scenes of crimes (Punch, 2009).

The charges against Williams, Snyder and Venziale ranged from Conspiracy to attempted robbery. Williams was found guilty and sentenced to 16 years 3 months in state prison. Snyder pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 13 years in state prison. Venziale provided the FBI with information leading to more aggressive charges being laid against Williams and Snyder. For this cooperation, Venziale received 42 months in state prison (FBI, Philadelphia Division, 2011).

This is a photo of all 3 men. link: http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/photogallery/bad-cops.html?curPhoto=6

In summation, there are many categories and theoretical approaches to corruption; however, the most important thing to take away from this is, how not to fall prey to it.

link : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCinB4Yc9_c

References

Punch, Maurice, 2009, Police Corruption: Deviance, accountability and reform in policing, Routledge, NY.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. Philadelphia Division. Retrieved Jan, 24, 2013

http://www.fbi.gov/philadelphia/press-releases/2011/former-philadelphia-police-officer-sentenced-to-16-years-for-drug-conspiracy

Police corruption

Posted: January 29, 2013 by alishakhan13 in Food for Thought, Police Corruption and the 'War on Drugs'

 3 Chicago cops accused of robbing drug dealers, and selling drugs for cash incentives

            Police corruption is a controversial subject at the heart of policing debates and policing mandates everywhere around the world. According to Punch, police corruption refers to “an officer knowingly doing or not doing something that is against his or her duty for some form of financial or material gain or promise of such a gain (Punch, 2009). Although it took me quite a bit of time to find an article regarding police deviance, there was one news article that caught my attention. The article constitutes three Chicago-suburb cops robbing drug dealers of their stash while performing search warrants, and selling heroin, cocaine and marijuana for cash incentive.

Any police officer, who aggressively misuses their police powers for personal gain is a form of corruption. In the illegal act of the three Chicago men who stole from crooks for their own personal gain, they are visibly perceived as “meat-eaters.” Being labelled a meat-eater exemplifies an individual who makes deals either of mutual benefit to the parties involved or disobeying police power for their own personal gain. This article shows a clear understanding of how the three officers stole from crooks to by selling drugs to gain cash incentives for themselves, as they executed search warrants on homes and cars. Not only are these officers viewed as meat-eaters, but they are also perceived as a typology by Barker and Roebuck referred to as “opportunistic theft.”

According to Barker and Roebuck, opportunistic theft is stealing from individuals who have been arrested and crime victims or their corpse. In this article, the three Chicago police officers were stealing from crooks. As these officers were on duty executing warrants on homes and cars, they would rob local dealers of drugs and cash, and later sell the drugs for money. It is quite detrimental that these individuals would partake in illegal activities as a result their behaviour is consequently labelled as deviance and law-breaking. This form of behaviour leads to typology 3, which is known as “crusaders.”

Crusaders are known to be officers who detest criminals and search for these criminals with remorse. In addition, this leads to a one-sided war against crime which can then lead the officer into an act of deviance and law-breaking. The three police officers portray the typology crusaders, because their job is to protect their city and prevent crimes, they are the ones that are the criminals in this instance. As a result, these police officers are engaged in a one-sided war against crime and they have encountered acts of deviance and law-breaking.

References

Punch, M. (2009). Police corruption: Deviance, accountability and reform in policing. New York, NY: Routledge.

New York Daily News (2013, January 17). 3 Chicago-suburb cops accused of robbing drug dealers, selling cocaine. Retrieved from http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/trio-charged-robbed-dealers-sold-cocaine-article-1.1241750

Image

From left: Matthew Hudak, Terrance O’Brien and John Cichy

    On January 16 2013, in Schaumburg, Illinois; three police officers were arrested after a two week DEA investigation took place. During the investigation, video and audio surveillance captured John Cichy, Matthew Hudak, and Terrance O’Brien robbing drug dealers of money, cocaine, heroin, and marijuana in the time legal search warrants were to be carried out. Authorities located a storage locker in which the officers tucked away the confiscated drugs. Upon seizing the storage locker, 275 grams of cocaine were discovered.  A fourth unidentified man allegedly obtained the drugs from the storage locker and assisted the officers in re-selling it in the streets.

    Many connections can be drawn from this example of corrupt behavior by police officers, to the three level typology presented by Maurice Punch. The first typology explains types of officers; Cichy, Hudak, and O’Brien would identify as meat-eaters.  According to the Knapp Commission Report, meat-eaters are police officers who actively watch for situations that could extract them financial gain. Not only did the three officers rob drug dealers of illicit drugs and cash, but they also had a system set up to re-sell the drugs back into the community; definitely some meat-eating going on here. In Chicago, the minimum age requirement to become a police officer is 21 years of age; Hudak is 29 years old, Cichy is 30, and O’Brien is 47. It is unsettling to know that police officers who haven’t even been on the job for ten years could potentially fall down the wrong path so early in their career. I always knew that police corruption existed, but I had imagined it being police officers that had worked for 20-30 years on the police force before falling down a corrupt path.

    The second typology explains police corrupt practices as classified by Barker and Roebuck. This example of police deviance falls under the category ‘direct criminal activities’. According to Barker and Roebuck, direct criminal activities are clear violations of criminal norms committed by police officers.  Stealing is a criminal violation, and re-selling confiscated drugs makes this situation even worse. The third typology describes three levels of deviance; of the three, this example falls under ‘corruption within police domain.’ Corruption within the police domain describes a meat-eater as an officer that searches aggressively for ways to extort money from legal and illegal enterprises. The police officers are also involved in incriminating activities themselves. Obtaining a storage locker to reserve confiscated drugs only strengthens the belief that these officers were actively searching for enterprises to extort money from and that there were not any signs of slowing down.

    Cichy, Hudak, and O’Brien are being held in lieu of $750, 000 bails each, pending the result of the investigation.

References:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/trio-charged-robbed-dealers-sold-cocaine-article-1.1241750
https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath

Police corruption in its narrow, legalistic sense generally refers to: an officer knowingly doing or not doing something that is against his or her duty for some form of financial or material gain or promise of such gain (Punch 2009). The roots of police corruption can be traced back to the early 1750’s and has evolved into a growing epidemic not only in third world countries but also in developed countries such as the U.S and Canada. Rampant police corruption is an important widespread concern in various countries such as Russia, India, Mexico, Brazil, etc.,

Police officers can engage in various forms of corruption such as accepting bribes to facilitate certain crimes, turn a blind eye to certain illegal activities and openly disregard the official police “code of conduct” to secure convictions. These are the most commonly prevailing forms of police corruption. Very rarely do police officers themselves systematically take part in organized crime activities. On August 24 2012, Mexican federal police agents attacked and opened fire on a United States embassy vehicle, resulting in the injury of two U.S Embassy employees and a Mexican navy official. 12 federal officers are being investigated in relation to five charges which includes attempted murder, making false statements and accusations of covering up the attack. The accused officials claim that it was a case of mistaken identity and they fired upon the wrong vehicle while pursuing a kidnapping case but circumstantial evidence put forward by Mexican prosecutors prove otherwise. The U.S. Embassy has called the attack an “ambush” as photos of the grey Toyota SUV, a model frequently used by DEA agents and other U.S. Embassy employees working in Mexico, showed it to be riddled with heavy gunfire. Prosecutors have said that the police officers were wearing civilian clothes and driving private cars during the attack and afterwards they changed into their uniforms and used their patrol cars before driving to the police station, which strongly lends credibility to the fact that it was a planned attack rather than a duty operation. Though this brazen daylight attack might come as a surprise for many viewers among the public, systematic police corruption have reached epidemic proportions in Mexico. The recent sacking of more than 150 police officers in northern Mexico for having links with “organised crime”, highlights the extension to which corruption is embedded within the broader Mexican police organisations.More on this issue can be found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-21095012

According to the three-level typology of police deviance/corruption explained by Maurice Punch, this would represent a classic example of “police institutional failure”, which comes under the broader context of System failure. Prosecutors opened an investigating into whether the U.S embassy car shooting was a targeted assassination made on behalf of the Beltran Levya Cartel operating in the area. Officers in the Mexican police are often offered bribes or threatened by the country’s powerful cartel’s to work for them and tip them off about upcoming raids while many of them moonlight as “hitmen” carrying out extrajudicial killings for the cartel’s. According to the typology of officers based on the Knapp Commission testimony, these officers can be classified as the worst form of “meat-eaters” as they are out to make profit illegally through a myriad of methods such as through mutual benefit, extortion, enforcing, offering protection and removing competitors on behalf of criminal enterprises. One can argue that they are mere criminals in a police uniform. The typologies of police corrupt practices based on the work of Barker and Roebuck, can be used to classify this example as “direct criminal activities”, as the officers are committing a crime in clear violation of criminal norms. It can also be considered as “protection of illegal activities” as the officers were protecting the interests of the cartel’s that were involved in drug-dealing. By trying to cover up their actions in-order to avoid being detected they were involved in a corrupt practice known as “the fix”. The overall issue can be analysed from a socio-economic perspective. As the average wage of a police officer in Mexico is $350, many officers supplement their salary with bribes. Many of the states are directly under the cartel’s grip which gives them immense power to influence the local officials either by bribes or through intimidation. Hence “police institutional failure” is prevalent with officers from all ranks engaged in systematic corruption and deviance. Due to these reasons the public have lost faith in the Mexican police which has led to the mobilization of the Mexican army to fight the cartels. The attack on the embassy car can be considered as an extremely deviant form of “meat-eating” as it involved assassinating foreign diplomats on Mexican soil which could jeopardize international relations and the credibility of the Mexican government, causing overall tensions with the U.S. Though the perpetrators tried to cover up the attack, such a high risk operation mounted in broad daylight depicts the extremely corrupt practices adopted by the notorious “meat-eaters” present within police organizations.

References

Punch, M. (2009). Police corruption: Deviance, accountability and reform in policing. Cullompton, Devon: Willan Publishing.

http://www.cnn.co.uk/2012/08/28/world/americas/mexico-us-shooting/index.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-20276097

Pair wounded in embassy car shooting were CIA, officials say. (2012, Aug 30). Kamloops Daily News. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.kwantlen.ca:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1037548492?accountid=35875

Attack on U. S embassy car in mexico likely targeted. (2012, Oct 03). Prince George Citizen. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.kwantlen.ca:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1086352744?accountid=35875

Police Corruption “is a specific form of police misconduct designed to obtain financial benefits, other personal gain, or career advancement for a police officer or officers in exchange for not pursuing, or selectively pursuing, an investigation or arrest.”  In order to find recent examples of police deviance I went online and I searched newspaper articles. One that caught my attention involved five former members of the Toronto Drug Squad who were sentenced to only 45 days of house arrest after the lengthy trial and investigation.

This investigation took over 15 years and cost over 12 million dollars before this case came to a conclusion. There is a time line of what occurred prior to case which can be seen. The initial charges included conspiracy, assault, extortion, and theft. They were all found to be guilty of obstruction of justice because they covered up entering the apartment of a heroin dealer without a warrant and three out of five officers were also convicted of perjury.

There were a series of events, which led up to this case. It started initially from 1992-1997, when 16 complaints were launched against one of the officers for “assaultive conduct“. The police public complaint bureau completed investigations for how a few of the officers arrested and detained two individuals. As the years passed there were several other issues, which came up that, had to be investigated. One of those was that the officers had searched the apartment of a heroin dealer without a warrant. In their notes they added that they had obtained a warrant when this was not the case. The dealer stated that over $2000 had been taken from him but the court dismissed this claim. These officers lied to the courts so it could be possible that they did take the money, however, it was never proven. With the evidence that was given the only charges that went through were perjury and obstruction of justice.

Looking at the first typology in evaluating the officers they had nothing to gain from searching the apartment without a warrant. The only thing they got out of it was a much quicker search, which became invalid without having a warrant. There were complaints launched against one of the officers for assaultive conduct. These officers also abused their power by making false notes, which obstructed justice. These officers can be seen as meat eaters, as they abused the power they had.

When looking at the second typology we can see this example as being “the fix.” The courts were lied to in order to make the outcome how the officers wanted. They were not honest, in their police notes they wrote down that they had warrants when really they did not.

Finally since they all went in on this together they all were corrupt and lying to the justice system as a collective. They falsified their notes and abused the power that they had. There are other allegations as well however; those cannot be proved 100% such as taking money from the heroin dealer’s apartment. However, if they lied to the courts about having a warrant before entering they may have lied about many other things as well.

References

CBC NEWS. (2013, January 4). Toronto police officers get house arrest for corruptionRetrieved January 20, 2013, from CBC News:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2013/01/04/toronto-police-officers-sentencing.html

Mackenzie, P. (2013, January 4). Timeline of the police corruption case: 15 years to a sentence. Retrieved January 20, 2013, from thestar.com:  

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/crime/article/1310869–timeline-of-the-police-corruption-case-15-years-to-a-sentence

Recently, there have been two opposing paradigms used to deal with the substance abuse problem. On the one hand, there is the criminal justice model, which is used to prohibit, criminalize, and control drug use. And on the other hand, the public health model, based on harm reduction, which is used to reduce the negative consequences of drug use for the individual, the community, and the society while allowing that a person may choose to continue to use drugs. Currently, Canada is dominated by the prohibitionist drug laws and law enforcement over perspectives of health and harm reduction.

The history of Canada’s drug laws is closely linked to the to the 1908 Opium Act and the public fear of Chinese immigrants. This group was considered a cheap source of labour for the railroads and mining in British Columbia. During this time period, The Chinese became an “economic threat” to other Canadians. Hostility towards Chinese immigrants reflected in the first Canadian anti-drug legislation (Dias, 2003).

In 1986, the U.S. president Ronald Reagan declared the “war on drugs” that started a new era of drug prohibition in Canada and worldwide. Levine (2002) argues that drug prohibition has been adopted throughout the world for a number of reasons. Firstly, the spread of drug prohibition and anti-drug ideology were politically and financially useful to many politicians, the media, and religious institutions. Secondly, drug prohibition has given governments additional police and military powers. For instance, government officials have used anti-drug squads to conduct surveillance operations and military raids that would not otherwise have been able to justify (Levine, 2002). In addition, within the United States, drug users are considered to be anti-American, foreign, and/or diseased (Grayson, 2003). At the domestic level, drug laws have been used to define the American national identity, often in combination with a racist ideology. Grayson (2003) notes that various American counter-cultures have been the targets of the “war on drugs”.

Specifically, the jazz musicians of the 1940s, the Hippies of the 1960s, and the ravers of the 1990s, have all found themselves victims of the U.S. drug laws. According to Grayson (2003), at the international level, the “war on drugs” demonstrates the U.S. power and leadership. These drug laws have facilitated the process of surveillance and numerous countries are monitored by the United States to ensure that they are complying with the American drug control regime. As a consequence, the “war on drugs” has legitimated American influence in the internal affairs of Columbia, Bolivia, Peru, and Panama.

Levine (2002) suggests that the varieties of drug prohibition can be seen as a continuum. The author calls the most punitive end of the continuum a criminalized drug prohibition and the other end a decriminalized drug prohibition. For instance, U.S. drug policy is an example of criminalized drug prohibition because it uses criminal laws, police, and imprisonment for possession, personal use, and a small-scale distribution of psychoactive substances. In contrast, the cannabis policy of the Netherlands illustrates a decriminalized and regulated form of drug prohibition. The Netherlands has specific laws prohibiting the production and sale of forbidden drugs, however, certain cafes and coffee shops are licensed to sell minute quantities of cannabis for personal use (Levine, 2002).

Since 1980s drug prohibition has faced a series of crises. The research  identifies three turning points, specifically, the growth of opposition to punitive drug policies, the inability of drug prohibition to prevent the cultivation and use of cannabis throughout the world, and the emergence of harm reduction movement.

Harm reduction provides an alternative to the classic prohibition and criminalization options. The meaning of the term harm reduction is still disputed and there is no generally accepted definition of harm reduction.

The history of harm reduction can be divided into several phases. In the pre-1980s era, the UK started the “medicalization” approach in which drug users were prescribed heroin and cocaine. The Rollestone Committee of 1920s recommended that in certain cases addicts can be prescribed narcotics in order to reduce the harm of their drug use (Marlatt, 1996).

In the post 1980s era, harm reduction has emerged primary as a “bottom up” approach based on addict advocacy rather than a “top down” policy (Marlatt, 1996). Harm reduction was founded by grassroots advocacy among drug users themselves. In 1980 the “Junkiebond” was established in Rotterdam as a kind of trade union for Dutch drug consumers. Input from the “Junkiebond” led to the development of the first needle exchange program in Amsterdam in 1984.

As an ideology, harm reduction is a non-judgemental approach that minimizes marginalizing the “powerless” and facilitates the individual’s integration into communities (Einstein, 2007). In addition, harm reduction is an ongoing process that is situated within an advocacy system and people who are engaged in harm reduction must take a political position and change from passive recipients to active partners (Einstein, 2007). Some scholars define the harm reduction as a proto-political civic and civil movement for drug users (Lenton and Single, 1998; Tammi, 2007).

The harm reduction movement considers drug consumers as sovereign citizens and normal, responsible, and active members of community. This position is against the punitive prohibition perspective in which the user is perceived as either morally, criminally or medically deviant person. In addition, the harm reduction movement argues that drug policy should be based on practice and science, not on ideology and dogmatism. Tammi (2007) argues that harm reduction is an emancipating movement to liberate users and eliminate unreasonable suffering caused by punitive prohibition control.

Harm reduction constructs drug use as normal action that inevitably occurs in modern society. Marlatt (1996) suggests that harm reduction accepts the fact that many people use drugs and engage in high risk-behaviours and the visions of a drug free society are unlikely to become reality. The harm reduction approach recognizes that abstinence as an ideal outcome but adopts alternative procedures that reduce the harmful consequences of addictive behaviour. Lenton and Single (1998) note that while harm reduction measures do not necessarily reduce drug use, some harm reduction measures involve using drugs in safer ways or lower dosage. The harm reduction perspective informs some types of services including, education, overdose prevention, training, referrals to treatment and social services, needle exchange programs, substitute medications, and safe injection rooms.

Over the last 20 years in Canada, harm reduction rhetoric has played a prominent role  in substance policy and programming. Vancouver’s four pillar drug strategy is an example of the attempt to balance the goals of harm reduction, law enforcement, treatment, and prevention (Heathaway and Tousaw, 2008).

Within the city of Vancouver, injection drug use activity is highly concentrated in the Downtown East Side (DTES) neighbourhood. The DTES faces a wide range of challenges, including the increasing rate of the homeless population, deteriorating single-room occupancy hotels, and an active sex trade. It has been estimated that approximately 17% of the injection drug users are HIV positive and more than 80% are infected with the Hepatitis C virus. The majority of drug users in the DTES inject heroin (51%) and 32% cocaine ( Campbell, Boyd, and Culbert, 2009).

In 2003, Health Canada granted an exemption under Section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substance Act to establish a supervised injection site in downtown Vancouver. In August 2007, Insite announced provincial funding for expansion of their services to include 12 medically supervised detoxification beds and 18 temporarily housing units. On September 29, 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously to uphold Insite’s exemption from the Controlled Drugs and Substance Act, allowing the facility to stay open indefinitely (Heathaway and Tousaw, 2008).

Scientific research indicates that medically supervised injection of illicit drugs reduces needle-sharing and deaths from overdose, improves public order and uptake of addiction treatment. Although evidence of the effectiveness of Insite has been overwhelming, the federal government remains politically opposed and questions the constitutional legality and medical advantages of the facility.

So what is the future of a harm reduction policy in Canada given that a conservative federal government strongly supports law enforcement, prohibition, and “tough on crime” provisions?  These reforms suggest that treatment strategies developed under an umbrella of harm reduction approach are unlikely to be promoted by federal government. The “war on drugs” adopted by the conservative government is a political was waged not by scientists and doctors, but by police officers and politicians there is almost universal agreement that prohibition policies based on criminalization of consumption have not worked. Therefore, it is time to replace an ineffective strategy with more humane and efficient drug policies.

On-line recourses:

Organizations with web links to news articles, publications, and other resources on harm reduction include:

Canadian Harm Reduction Network

http://canadianharmreduction.com/

International Harm Reduction Association

http://www.ihra.net/

Insite, Supervised Injection Site

http://supervisedinjection.vch.ca/

References:

Campbell, L., Boyd, N. and Culbert, L. (2009). A thousand dreams: Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside and the fight for its future. Vancouver: Greystone.

Dias, G. (2003). “Canada’s Drug Laws: Prohibition is not the Answer”. In Perspectives on Canadian Drug Policy, Vol. 1, The John Howard Society of Canada, pp. 9-24.

Einstein, S. (2007). “Harm and risk reduction: history, theories, issues, and implications”. Substance Use and Misuse, pp. 267-265.

Fischer B, Bibby M, Argento E, et al. (2012).  “Drug Law and Policy in Canada: Torn between criminal justice and public health”, in Ismali K, Sprott J, Varma K, (eds.), Canadian Criminal Justice Policy: Contemporary Perspectives

Grayson, K. (2003). “Discourse, Identity, and the U.S. ‘War on Drugs’”. In Beare, M. Critical Reflectiond on Transnational Organized Crime, Money Laundering, and Corruption. Ed. University of Toronto Press. pp. 145- 169.

Hathaway, A., Tousaw, K. (2008). “Harm Reduction headway and continuing resistance: Insights form safe injection in the city of Vancouver”. International Journal of Drug Policy, 19, pp. 11-16.

Levine, H. (2002). “The Secret of Worldwide Drug Prohibition. The Varieties and Uses of Drug Prohibition”. The Independent Review, Vol. 8, pp. 165-180.

Levine, H. (2002). “Global drug prohibition: its uses and crises”. International Journal of Drug Policy, Vol. 14, pp. 145-153.

Marlatt, A. (1996). “Harm reduction: come as you are”. Addictive Behaviours, Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 779-788.

Tammi, T.(2004). “Harm reduction school of thought: three fractions”. Contemporary Drug Problems, 31 (3), pp. 381-399.