Change To Federal Prosecution Of Simple Possession Charges
“The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.” – Hubert Humphrey
What does a good society do with those struggling in the “shadows of life”? If we understand a substance abuse issue to be a health problem, rather a moral problem – i.e. not the kindergarten logic of “if you use drugs you must be a bad person” – what do we do with people who are found in possession of illegal substances? If jail is a place for people who make decisions to break the law, do addicts belong there?
The drug issue is far more complicated than a handful of simple questions. Some may argue that without the “demand” of the user, the “supply” networks would dry up, meaning more safety for the public. But does jailing the user lead to lowering the demand, or are there better ways?
The Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC), is the Federal office responsible for prosecuting drug offences, and have an office in every Province and Territory in Canada. This past Monday, they released a new “Guidelines” for Federal prosecutors – think of it as updated marching orders – setting out a new directive regarding simple possession cases. Specifically, that prosecutors generally save Criminal charges for the “most serious manifestations of the offence” of possession of a scheduled substance. A non-exhaustive list includes:
Conduct posing risk to safety of children or young persons
Ex. possession in vicinity of places frequented by children/young persons
Ex. possession by person in position of trust or authority over children/young persons
Conduct that puts the health or safety of others at risk
Ex. possession while driving a motor vehicle
Conduct that poses a heightened risk to a community’s efforts to address controlled substances according to their own approaches
Ex. isolated or remote communities
Conduct linked to other offences of the Criminal Code or Controlled Drug and Substances Act
Ex. possession in context of “grow-op” or possession of a weapon
Conduct in a regulated setting
Ex. jail or penitentiary
Conduct by peace officer or public officer
The Guideline should be celebrated as a step in the right direction, but still give reason for concern:
Prosecutors are specifically directed to consider alternatives to prosecution where the offender is Indigenous and “their conduct can be addressed through an Indigenous restorative justice response”. Is this not contrary to the recommended prosecution of possession cases in isolated or remote communities, often places with large Indigenous populations?
How will this Guideline be enforced if Federal prosecutors practice discretion that is not in line with the directives? What are the actual “teeth” to enforce their compliance?
If we understand substance abuse issues to be a medical issue and not an issue of bad choices or bad character, how do we justify punishing anyone for possession, regardless of their circumstances?
Change is not a quick process, especially as it relates to established government practices. Decriminalization of all illegal substances will continue to be a hot topic, as the costs of a failed global “War on Drugs” continue to be counted.
What is the sober, sensible approach?
For more reading, please see:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/simple-drug-possession-change-1.5657423