7/12/2016 CPHL612,Module10LearningObjectivesandModuleFocus

LearningObjectivesandModuleFocus
LearningObjectives
ToappreciatephilosophicalaspectsofdiverseconceptionsofcrucialtermsandconceptsinCanadianlaw.

Toidentifyandinterpretthephilosophicallysignificantportionsofinfluentialcourtdecisions(predominantly
Canadianinorigin),andtocomprehendandanalyzethephilosophicalimplicationsofthereasoningofthe
judges.

ToapplythegeneralmoralandlegalprinciplesandtheoriescoveredinthecoursetocontemporaryCanadian
andotherlegalcasesinaperceptiveandfruitfulmanner.

ModuleFocus
ThefocusofthismoduleisontheissuesarisinginthecasesofR.v.MalmoLevineandR.v.Caine,a
combinedcasedecidedbytheSupremeCourtofCanadain2003andinvolvinglegalchallengestothe
criminalizationofmarijuanause.Themajorityanddissentingjudgesdifferedoverwhetherthegovernment
hadprovidedsufficientjustificationforcriminallyprohibitingtherecreationaluseofmarijuana.Inthecourseof
articulatingtheirdivergentreasons,thejudgesdiscussedtheapplicationoftheharmprinciple,andaddressed
thechallengesofbalancingbetweenindividualliberties,socialbenefit,andpreventionofharmtovulnerable
persons.Thedisagreementsbetweenthejudgesreflectbroaderdebatesfoundinthephilosophicalliterature,
whereargumentsbasedonutilitarianism,welfarepaternalism,andrightsandjusticeareusedtosupport
policypositions.

Readings
Module10RequiredReadings
R.v.MalmoLevineR.v.Caine,[2003]3S.C.R.571,2003SCC74(CanLII).Available
onlinethroughCanLII.

SuggestedReading
R.v.Clay[2003]3S.C.R.735,2003SCC75(CanLII).AvailableonlinethroughCanLII.

Introduction
Thetopicofmarijuanausehascontinuedtobeahighprofiletopicinpublicpolicydebatesaswellasa
sourceofinspirationforculturaltropes(asdepictedinthegenreofstonerfilms).Marijuanahasbeenswept
upinthewarondrugsthatbeganintheUnitedStateswhenthenPresidentRichardNixondeclareddrug
abusetobepublicenemynumberonein1971.Sincethattime,asustainedandattimesfiercepublicpolicy
debatehasragedastowhetherornotthatwarisbeingwonorlost.Someeditorialwritersinsistthat"our
drugpolicyisasuccess"(Walters,2008),whileothersinsistithasbeenaresoundingfailure.Commentators
continuetocontendthat"thewarondrugsislost"(Buckleyetal.,1996)andcallforanendtodrugprohibition

https://de.ryerson.ca/de_courses/templates/lti/?c=ED57844FA5E051809EAD5AA7E3E1D555 1/18
7/12/2016 CPHL612,Module10LearningObjectivesandModuleFocus

(seeNadelmann,2008).

NumerouspersonaltestimonialsspeaktothecrisisofconscienceafflictingAmericanpublicofficials,
lawmakers,judges,andpoliceofficerswhohavebecomedisillusionedwithbusinessasusualcrime
strategies(Ferner,2012aMcNamara,1996Reichbach,2012Schmoke,1996Sweet,1996).An
overarchingcontroversyconcernswhetherthepromisedbenefitsofthecriminalprohibitionofdrugsare
actuallybeingrealizedandwhetherwhatbenefitstherearecouldjustifytheexceptionalcostsexperiencedby
manyindividualsandcommunities.Socialjusticeconcernsareveryprominent,giventheoverwhelming
evidencethatdruglawsdisproportionatelyimpactonmembersofvisibleminoritiesandsocioeconomically
disadvantagedpersons(Alexander,2010).Alternativestocriminalprohibitionareoftenadvocatedunderthe
bannerofharmreductionanddefendedthroughevidencebasedpoliciesthatdrawuponpublichealth
data,humanrightsdiscourse,andcriticalperspectivesonthecriminaljusticesystem.
Animportantpartofthecontroversyiswhethermarijuanadeservestobelumpedinwiththeotherdrugsthat
aretargetedbythewarondrugsstrategies.FormanycriticsoftheexistingapproachesintheUnitedStates
andCanada,thetreatmentofmarijuanaisespeciallydisproportionatetotheriskofharmposedbythe
recreationaluseofthesubstance.

Afewselectedheadlinenewsitemscanhelpputahumanfacetotheseissues.In2011a35yearoldNew
OrleansresidentnamedCornellHoodIIwassentencedtolifeinprisonforhisfourthmarijuanarelated
conviction.InthestateofLouisiana,repeatdrugoffenderscanbesubjectedtolifeimprisonmentafterthree
ormoreconvictionsforoffencesthatcarryasentenceexceedingtenyears.Hoodhadbeenchargedwith,
andconvictedof,possessionwiththeintenttodistributemarijuana.Hehadbeenconvictedthreetimes
previouslyforsimilaroffencesandwaspreviouslygivensuspendedsentencesoffiveyearsinprisonandfive
yearsonprobation(Vargas,2011).
DuringFebruaryof2013,Victoria,BritishColumbia,residentMylesWilkinson,aged51,wonaSuperBowl
contestwiththeprizebeingatriptotheSuperBowlinNewOrleans.However,Wilkinsonwasdeniedentry
intotheUnitedStatesduetoaconvictionformarijuanapossessiondatingfrom1981(whenhewas19years
old),whichinvolvedtwogramsofmarijuanaforwhichhepaida$50fine(CBCNews,2013c).Commentators
havenotedtheironythattheSuperBowlcontestwonbyWilkinsonwassponsoredbyabrewery(MacQueen,
2013).

EchoesoftheAmericandebatesoverthecriminalprohibitionofdrugsandmarijuana,inparticularfill
newspapersandacademicjournalsinCanada.KenMacQueen(2013)opinedthatlawsrelatingtomarijuana
havesucceededincriminalizingsuccessivegenerations,cloggingthecourts,wastingtaxpayerresources
andenrichinggangsters,whilefailingtodampendemandforaplantthat,byobjectivemeasures,isfarmore
benignthanalcoholortobacco.Publicopinionisincreasinglyinfavourofthedecriminalizationofmarijuana
inbothCanadaandtheUnitedStates,whilethemajorityremainsstronglycommittedtothecriminalizationof
otherdrugs(AngusReid,2012).
Numerousphilosophersandlegalcommentatorshaveweighedinonbothsidesofthe
criminalization/decriminalizationdivide,aswewilldiscussbelowinTopic1.Onephilosopher(Husak,2003)
hasobservedthatthetopicofdrugpolicyseemstorequirethatthosewhowishtocontributetothe
discussionbewillingtoaddressempiricaldata,sincesomanyofthefamiliarargumentsrestuponclaims
regardingmattersofempiricalfact.Thekindsandtypesofdatathataremarshalledinthepublicpolicyarena
includenumbersofdrugoffences,numbersofconvictions,ratesofincarceration,andthedisproportionate
impactofimprisonmentandcriminalrecordsonalreadydisadvantagedmembersofsociety.Otherissuesthat
aresubjectedtoempiricalscrutinyincludetheratesofusageandthehealtheffects(bothbenefitsandrisks)
ofmarijuana,especiallyincontrasttothoseofalcoholortobacco.

Itisimportanttokeepinmindthatcourtsdonotcommissiontheirownempiricalstudies.Instead,thejudges
relyupontheinformationthatisprovidedbythepartiesinthecase.Inacasewheretheaccusedchallenges
theprovisionsofthelawunderwhichtheyarecharged(aswiththeButler,Keegstra,andMalmoLevineand
https://de.ryerson.ca/de_courses/templates/lti/?c=ED57844FA5E051809EAD5AA7E3E1D555 2/18
7/12/2016 CPHL612,Module10LearningObjectivesandModuleFocus

Cainecases),theCrowniscalledupontodefendtheconstitutionalityofthelawaswellasprosecuteunderit.
Lawyersforeachsideputbeforethecourtvoluminouspackagesofmaterialthatincludetheirlegal
arguments,theirselectionofdecidedcases(theprecedentsmostrelevantandsalientfortheirposition),
andotherdocumentstosupportthelegalclaimsandargumentstheyareputtingforward.Someofthat
documentationwillpertaintofactualissues.

Incomplexandphilosophicallyfertilelegalcases,itisimportanttomakeatleastaninitialdistinctionbetween
thefactualissuesandthevalueissues,althoughthesedobecomeintertwinedthroughouttherulings.One
prominentfactualissueconcernstheharmfulnessofspecificpracticesoractivities.Inthecontextof
marijuanause,formanydecadestherehasbeenasustainedandasyetunresolveddebateoverjusthow
harmfulmarijuanauseisforusers.
Onewaytoframethedebateovermarijuanaistocompareitwithothercurrentlylicitandillicit(i.e.,legaland
illegal)drugs.Shouldmarijuanabelikenedtoalcoholandtobacco,substancesthatmayactuallyposea
greaterriskofharmthanmarijuanaandyetarebothlegallyavailableforadults,withrestrictions?Orshould
marijuanabelikenedtootherillegaldrugs,manyofwhicharehighlyaddictiveandcanleadtooverdose(an
outcomethathasnotyetbeendocumentedformarijuana)?Ouranswerasasocietytothequestionofwhat
marijuanaismostakintowillhaveanimpactonhowwethinkmarijuanashouldbetreatedbythelawthat
is,whethertocriminallyprohibit,decriminalize,orlegalizethedrug.
Afamiliarrefraininthepublicpolicydebatesoverdrugsisthechallengeofdemarcatingboundariesaround
gooddrugs,theonesthatarelegallyavailable(whetherbyprescriptionorotherwise)andbaddrugs,the
onesthatarenot,andhowtotellthedifferenceotherthanbythesimplefactofthelegalstatusofeach.
Anothercommonlymade,albeitfuzzy,distinctionisbetweenharddrugs(thosetheevidencesuggestsare
especiallyaddictiveandharmfulthroughrepeateduse)andsoftdrugs(thosetheevidencesuggestsare
minimallyorcompletelynonaddictiveandhavefewerrisksassociatedwiththeiruse).
ThelegislationunderwhichMalmoLevineandCainewerechargedwascalledtheNarcoticControlActthat
lawhasnowmorphedintotheControlledDrugsandSubstancesAct.Thetermnarcoticisonethatishardto
pindown.Itcanmean,accordingtovariousdefinitionseasilyaccessibleontheInternet,anagentthat
producesinsensibilityorstupor,especiallyanopioidoradrugorothersubstanceaffectingmoodor
behaviorandsoldfornonmedicalpurposes,especiallyanillegaldrug.Itisdifficulttopredict,fromthe
definitionsandpropertiesofdrugsinquestion,whetherthegovernmentwillmakeadruglegallyavailable
overthecounter,availableonlyasaprescriptionmedicine,orbanit.

ThecombinedcaseofR.v.MalmoLevineandR.v.Caineconcernsalegalchallengetotheconstitutionality
ofthecriminalprohibitionofrecreationalmarijuanause.InTopic1,wesurveytheargumentspresentedby
philosophersandotherscholarsinfavourofcriminalprohibition,followedbyresponsestothosearguments,
whichbothcounterandchallengethem,inTopic2.TheninTopic3,wesurveytheissuesatstakeinthe
MalmoLevineandCainecombinedcase.Topic4brieflytouchesonlegalandpoliticaldevelopmentsinNorth
America.
(Note:marijuanacanalsobespelledmarihuana.)
SeeReferencesfollowingSummary

Topic1:DebatesoverDrugPolicy:Positionsand
ArgumentsforCriminalProhibition
Commentatorshaveidentifiedatleastfivedistinctpolicyoptionsforthelegaltreatmentofmarijuana:

https://de.ryerson.ca/de_courses/templates/lti/?c=ED57844FA5E051809EAD5AA7E3E1D555 3/18
7/12/2016 CPHL612,Module10LearningObjectivesandModuleFocus

1.Maintainingthestatusquo,orcontinuedcriminalprohibition,ofmarijuana,alongwithnarcotics
suchascocaine,heroin,andopium.
2.Tacitdecriminalizationordefactodecriminalization(i.e.,infact,whetherwithlawfulauthorityornot)
ofsimplepossession:Policeexercisediscretioninchoosingnottocharge,andCrownexercises
discretioninthenonprosecutionofcasesinvolvingthesimplepossessionofmarijuana.
3.Dejure(i.e.,bylaw)orthelegaldecriminalizationofsimplepossession:Alegalreformtobring
abouttheremovaloftheoffenceofcannabispossessionfromtheControlledDrugsandSubstances
Actandinsteadplacetheoffenceofcannabispossessioninthecontextofsomethinglikethe
ContraventionsAct.Inthatcontext,thesimplepossessionofmarijuanawouldbeaminorticketable
offence(i.e.,onethatwouldnotgarneracriminalrecord,andonethatwouldnothavethepotentialfor
aprisonsentence).Itistobeexpectedthattherewouldstillbeacriminalprohibitionofdrivingunder
theinfluence.
4.Controlledlegalizationandregulation:Alegalizationoftheproductionandconsumptionof
marijuana,withgovernmentcontrolsregulatingquality,distribution,andaccess.Thiscouldbesimilarto
theapproachtakeninCanadaandotherjurisdictionsformedicalmarijuana.Itwouldbeexpectedthat
therewouldstillbeacriminalprohibitionofdrivingundertheinfluence.Thisoptioncouldcomewith
potentiallicensingandtaxation[asisthecasewithalcoholandtobacco],governmentmonopolization
and/orregulationofsupply,controloverthelocationsandtimingofsales,aminimumageforpurchase
anduse,healthpromotioncampaigns,andsupportfortreatmentaswellasrehabilitationinitiatives.
5.Outrightlegalizationofpossessionandsale:Applies,attheveryleast,toadults,withlawsagainst
activitiesthatposeariskofharmtoothers,suchasdrivingundertheinfluence.Underthisoption,
therewouldbemaximalmarketfreedom.

Debatesoverdrugpolicyprovidetheconceptualbackdropforthereasoningofthejudgesinthecombined
caseofR.v.MalmoLevineandR.v.Caine.Toprovidesomecontextforlinkingthepolicypositionsto
philosophicalarguments,wewillsurveysomeselectedissuesthatunderpinthepolicyarguments.

Therearemanysignificantquestionsconcerningcausationandcorrelation,andpolicypositionsreflect
certainassumptionsbeingmadeinresponsetosuchquestions.Examplesincludethefollowing:Doesdrug
usenecessarilyleadtoaddiction?Ifso,iscriminalprohibitionaneffectivestrategytoreducethelikelihoodof
addiction?Arethereotherpotentiallymoreeffectivestrategiestoreducetheharmofdrugabuseand
addiction?Doesdruguseandabusenecessarilyincreasecrime?Orisitthecasethattheoutlawingofdrugs
leadstoanincreaseofcrime,andthusdecriminalizationcouldhelptoreducetheincidenceofcrime?
Thevariousphilosophicalpositionsputforwardforbothsidesofdrug'scriminalization/decriminalizationdivide
allrefertocostsandbenefits.Theseareintertwined,sincewhatcountsas"benefits"aretypicallyavoided
costs.So,forinstance,therecanbebenefitstosocietyfromavoidingthefollowingkindsofcosts:

Costsattributedtodecriminalization:
Additionalcoststoindividualsandsocietyfromincreasedlevelsofdrugaddiction(focusonthe
humancostsofdrugabuse)
Additionalcoststoindividualsandsocietyfromincreasedorganizedcrimeanddrugrelated
violence

Benefitsattributedtodecriminalization(as,ineffect,avoidedcosts):
Reductionofcoststoindividualsfromcriminalization(focusonthehumancostsofdrugcontrol
laws)
Reductionofcoststosocietyfromlawenforcement

https://de.ryerson.ca/de_courses/templates/lti/?c=ED57844FA5E051809EAD5AA7E3E1D555 4/18
7/12/2016 CPHL612,Module10LearningObjectivesandModuleFocus

DefendingCriminalProhibition
Itisimportanttoemphasizethatphilosopherswhoargueinfavourofthecriminalprohibitionofdrugstypically
focusoncocaineandheroinandeitherimplicitlyorexplicitlyseparatemarijuanafromtheiranalyses.Wewill
discussthegeneraltypesofargumentsfoundintheliterature.

Thereareanumberofspecificargumentsthatcanbefoundintheliteraturedefendingprohibitorydrug
policy.DouglasHusak(1989)characterizesthepolicyasCriminalLegislationAgainsttheUseofRecreational
Drugs(CLAURD).Oneargumentisthatcriminalprohibitionisintendedtoprotectthewellbeingofsociety
and,inparticular,thewelfareofthosewhoarenotyetadults(i.e.,childrenandyouth).Embeddedwithinthat
overallargumentistheassumptionthatdruguse,especiallydrugabuse,increasesthelevelofviolenceand
crimeinsociety.

Argumentsinfavourofprohibitiontendtoemphasizetheaddictivenatureofdrugs.Atleastthreedifferent
meaningsofthetermaddictivecanbeidentifiedintheliterature,asDouglasHusak(1989)remindsus.One
meaningisthat,forsomesubstances,usersbuildupatoleranceandneedtotakeprogressivelygreater
dosestoachievethesameeffect.Analternatemeaningisthatpsychoactivesubstancescanhave
psychologicalcentralityfortheuser,suchthattheusercomestopsychicallycraveadrugandprioritize
gettingaccesstoit.Yetanothermeaningofaddictionisthatcertaindrugscanleadtophysicaland
physiologicaldependence,andsymptomsofwithdrawalcanbeexperienceduponcessation.Itisworthnoting
thatsomelegalsubstancesareasaddictiveasotherillegalsubstances,andthatsomeillegalsubstancesare
lessaddictivethanlegalones.Evendefendersofprohibitorypoliciesacknowledgethatmarijuanaisnot
addictiveinthesamewaysortothesameextentasheroinorevennicotine.

Anotherembeddedassumptionisthatdruguseanddrugaddictionwouldincreaseifdrugcontrollawswere
removed.DanielShapiro(1998:353)labelsthelattercompoundassumptiontheStandardView,whichis
comprisedoftwoclaims:(1)legalizationwouldincreaseaccessand(2)increasedaccesswould,inturn,
increaseaddiction.Shapiroalsoassociatesthestandardviewwiththemedicalmodelofaddiction,atopicwe
returntobelow.

Twomainsourcesofargumentsfordefendingcriminalprohibitioncomefromwelfarepaternalismaligned
withutilitarianismandfrommoralpaternalism.JamesWilson(1990)discussesbothofthosearguments.

MoralPaternalism
Onevariantofpaternalismismoralpaternalism,whichalignswithlegalmoralismtosupporttheclaimthat
societyisjustifiedinprohibitingdruguseinordertopreventpeoplefromengagingininherentlyimmoral
conduct.(Forelaborationonmoralpaternalismandlegalmoralism,seeModule6,Topics3and4,
respectively.)JamesWilson(1990:26),forinstance,countersproposalsfordecriminalizationwiththeclaim
thatdruguseisimmoralandtheworrythatlegalizingdrugswouldundercutthemessageaboutitsimmorality.
Hestressesthatdruguseisnotavictimlesscrimebyasking,Willwe,inthenameofanabstractdoctrineof
radicalindividualismandwiththefalsecomfortofsuspectpredictions,decidetotakethechancethat
somehowindividualdecencycansurviveamidamoregenerallevelofdegradation?
Wilsonrecognizesthatwecannotcoercepeopleintogoodness,buthedemandsthatsocietyhastohave
somestandardsbelowwhichitcannotfall.Thatthresholdisreachedwithmindalteringdrugs,likecocaine,
thatleaduserstoneglectdutiestotheirfamilies,jobs,andcommunities(1990:26).

ItisworthnotingthatWilsondoesnotconsideralladdictivesubstancestobeequallyimmoral.Heargues,
Tobaccoshortensoneslife,cocainedebasesit.Nicotinealtersoneshabits,cocainealtersonessoul(26).
Cocaine,unlikenicotine,saysWilson,destroystheessentialhumanityoftheuser.

Inafootnote,Wilson(1990:23)acknowledgesthathehasnotspecificallyaddressedtheissueofmarijuana,
sayingonlythatinhisview,itisadifferentproblembecauseofitswidespreaduseanditslessertendencyto
https://de.ryerson.ca/de_courses/templates/lti/?c=ED57844FA5E051809EAD5AA7E3E1D555 5/18
7/12/2016 CPHL612,Module10LearningObjectivesandModuleFocus

causeaddiction.TheextentoftheuseofasubstanceishighlightedbyWilsonasafactorthatcanprovidea
reasonforsocietytotoleratesomesubstances.Forinstance,Wilson(1990:26)saysofnicotinethatitisso
widelyusedasto[be]beyondthereachofeffectiveprohibition.Othercommentatorsmakethesamepoint
aboutalcohol.Inthisanalysis,wecouldassume,weremarijuanatobeusedaswidelyaseithernicotineor
alcohol,thatsuchusewouldcounttowarditstolerance.

WelfarePaternalism
Argumentsdrawingupontheperspectiveofwelfarepaternalismholdthatinterferencewiththelibertyand
autonomyofindividualscanbejustifiedbyreasonsreferringtotheirwellbeing,orwelfare.Thus,itcanbe
arguedthatapersonwhoisbetemptedtousedrugsshouldbepreventedfromdoingso,inthenameof
benefitingthatperson.Acrucialassumptiondoesneedtobemade,howeverthattherearenomore
effectivewaysofensuringthatwouldbeaddictsareprotectedfromselfharm.Acriminalprohibitionneedsto
showthatthereisagoodprospectofactuallyhelpingtoreduceharmandensuringtherealizationofbenefits
forthosewhomitistryingtohelp.
Insofarastheconcernistoprotectwouldbedrugusersfromselfharm,banningdrugusereflectspure
paternalism.Theuseoflawwouldmakeitnarrow,welfare,andpurepaternalism.Thecriminalprohibitionof
drugusebyminorsorvulnerablepersons,specifically,couldbesupportedbysoftpaternalismhere,the
focusisonvulnerablepersonswhomaynothavefulldecisionmakingcapacityorwhoareatsuchgreatrisk
ofaddictionthattheymaynotbecapableofactinginasufficientlyvoluntarymanner.Ifthefocusisonadults
whodohavefulldecisionmakingcapacityanddonotfaceanyspecialriskofaddiction,banningdruguse
wouldreflecthardpaternalism.Note:iftherationaleisthatpreventingadults(especiallythosewhoarenot
otherwisevulnerable)fromobtainingaccesstodrugsensuresthatnonadultsandvulnerablepersonswillbe
preventedfromobtainingaccesstoo,suchabanwouldbeconsideredatacticalstrategy.Blanketprohibitions
ofdrugusebyanyonecouldthusberationalizedbymergedaccounts,involvingnarrow,pure,soft,hard,and
welfarepaternalism.

Prohibitorydrugpoliciesmayalsobesupportedbyimpure(andnarrow)welfarepaternalismiftherationale
canbecharacterizedintermsofprotectingfamiliesandcommunitiesfromtheemotionalandsocialharmsof
addictionsspillovereffectsorprotectingsocietyatlargefromthenegativesocialimpactsofaddiction.The
concernforoverallimpactsonsocietyleadsusintoadiscussionoftheapplicationofutilitarianmoraltheory.

Utilitarianism
Consequentialism,specificallyutilitarianism,canprovidethebasisforarguingthatthenegativeimpactsof
criminalizationforindividualsareoutweighedbythepositiveimpactsforotherindividualsandsocietyasa
whole.Itisaclassicstrategyforthosewhoadoptandendorseutilitarianapproachestoinsistthatthe
increasesinwelfarefortheaggregatewillcompensateforthelossesinwelfareofsomeindividuals.Thus,
somecommentatorsarguethatdespitethenegativeimpactsofcriminaldruglawsonsomepersons,the
overallbenefitstosocietywouldexceedthose"disbenefits"forindividuals.Someargumentswoulduphold
criminalprohibitionseveninthefaceoflibertyclaimsforindividualstousedrugs.Utilitarianconsequentialism,
itisassumed,canjustifythesacrificeofrightsinregardstotheautonomyandlibertyofindividualsforthe
greatergoodofsociety.(Thegeneralassumptions,claims,andcriticismsofutilitarianconsequentialismare
discussedinModule5,Topic1.)
Withrespecttoevaluatingthebenefitsandcoststosociety,JamesWilsoninsiststhatthesocalledwaron
drugscanbeconsideredsuccessfulintermsofseveralkeygoals.AccordingtoWilson(1990:24),ithas
accomplishedthecontainmentofasocialproblemandresultedinaminimizationofthenumberofvictims.
JohnWalters(2008),thendirectoroftheWhiteHouseOfficeofNationalDrugControlPolicy,supports
Wilsonsassessment,pointingtodataindicatingadeclininguseofdrugs(includingcocaineandmarijuana)
byteens.YetWilsondoesacknowledgethatitisaqualifiedsuccess,inthattherehavebeenconsiderable

https://de.ryerson.ca/de_courses/templates/lti/?c=ED57844FA5E051809EAD5AA7E3E1D555 6/18
7/12/2016 CPHL612,Module10LearningObjectivesandModuleFocus

coststosocietythroughtheexpensesoflawenforcement.

ArgumentsforAutonomy
Somedefendersofprohibitorydrugpolicy,interestingly,makeconnectionstotheprincipleofautonomy.The
generalargumentisthatapersonmaymakeafreeandautonomouschoiceofwhetherornottotryadrug,
butonceaddicted,theaddictbecomesfundamentallyirrational,powerlesstoresisttheirresistibleappealof
thedrug.Theautonomyprinciple,ifinterpretedinsuchawayastoruleoutprotectingapersons"freedomto
beunfree,"couldpotentiallybecombinedwithvariantsofpaternalismtosupportCLAURD(Husak,1989:
378).Notsurprisingly,virtuallyallargumentsalongtheselinesfocusonnarcoticsandhighlyaddictive
substances.
Itisworthhighlightingthatwhatevertractionargumentsaboutaddictionmayhavewithrespecttonarcotics
andpsychoactivesubstancesotherthanmarijuana,thesekindsofargumentswillhavelittlepurchaseinthe
contextofprohibitionsagainsttherecreationaluseofmarijuana.

Wenowturntoavarietyofargumentativestrategiestochallengelegalbansonrecreationaldruguseandto
callintoquestionthephilosophicalsupportfortheCLAURDpolicyoption.
SeeReferencesfollowingSummary

Topic2:DebatesoverDrugPolicy:Counteringand
ChallengingArgumentsforProhibition
ChallengingCriminalProhibition
Contributionstothephilosophicaldebatesoverdrugcontrollawsoftentakethestrategyofattackingand
underminingtheargumentsinfavourofcriminalprohibition,andonlysomethencontinueontoprovide
positiveargumentsinfavourofdruglegalization.DouglasHusak(1989:378)summarizestheobjectionsas
follows:ManyargumentsforCLAURDdependuponcontroversialempiricalassumptionsthatareseldom
explicitlyarticulated,raise'threshold'questionsuncongenialtodeontologicalmoralphilosophy,and
generalizefrom'worstcase'scenariosthatfailtoconformtotherealityoftypicaldruguse.
Thecriticsofcriminalprohibitionrelyuponassumptionsthatdifferconsiderablyfromtheassumptionsofthe
defendersofprohibition.SomeofthoseassumptionsarearticulatedbyEthanNadelmann,executivedirector
oftheU.S.basedDrugPolicyAlliance.NadelmannsetoutthoseassumptionsinanissueoftheNational
Reviewcontaininganumberofpiecesdefendingthepositionthatthewarondrugsislost.Hewrites,"Most
peoplecanusemostdrugswithoutdoingmuchharmtothemselvesoranyoneelse.Nadelmannsays
specificallyaboutmarijuanathatonlyatinypercentageofthe70millionAmericanswhohavetriedmarijuana
havegoneontohaveproblemswiththatoranyotherdrug(hereheisaddressingthe"gateway"argument).
Othercommentsinclude,Drugsareheretostay,Prohibitionisnowaytorunadrugpolicy,and,Thereis
awiderangeofchoiceindrugpolicyoptionsbetweenthefreemarketapproachandthezerotolerance
approach(Nadelmann,1996).
NadelmannsfirstpointspeakstothepervasivenessofwhatDanielShapiro(20031999)identifiesasthe
standardview.Theassumptionisthatlegalizationwillincreaseaccesstodrugsand,inturn,increased
accesswillincreaseaddiction.Shapiroobjectsthattheassumptionsofboththoseadvocatingprohibitionand
thoseadvocatinglegalization(onthebasisofharmreduction)restuponamedicalmodel/addictiontheory.It
assumesthatasfarasdrugsgo,everyusersays,Icanthelpmyself.Shapiro(1998:357)contendsthatno
drugisinherentlyaddictive.Heinsiststhatmostdrugusersdonot,andwillnot,becomeaddictsmoreover,
https://de.ryerson.ca/de_courses/templates/lti/?c=ED57844FA5E051809EAD5AA7E3E1D555 7/18
7/12/2016 CPHL612,Module10LearningObjectivesandModuleFocus

hethinksthatindividualuserscanexerciseselfcontrolandrefuseto"givein"totheircravings(Shapiro,
1998:353).Shapiroiscriticalofwhathecharacterizesastheflightfromindividualresponsibility.Ultimately,
Shapiroreliesuponthenotionsofindividualchoiceandresponsibility,reflectingthecorevaluesofautonomy,
dignity,andselfrespect.
Nadelmann(1996)arguesthatthereisnoreasontodemonizedrugsandtheirusers,andthatthereis
significantsocialharmthatresultsfromthelabelingandstigmatizationofdrugusersascriminals.Heinsists
thatdrugpoliciesneedtofocusonreducingcrime,whetherengenderedbydrugsorbytheprohibitionof
drugs(Nadelmann,1996).Itcanbeseen,saythecriticsofCLAURD(criminallegislationagainsttheuseof
recreationaldrugs),thatfailedprohibitioncancausegreaterharmthanthatcausedbytheconsumptionof
drugs.
Inordertomoreoptimallycapturethestructureofthedebates,thefocusherewillbeonidentifyingspecific
argumentsinfavourofcriminalprohibition,followedbycoreobjectionsandfurtherresponsesandcounter
responsestothosearguments.

UtilitarianismandWelfarePaternalism(Consequentialism)
1.Argumentsbasedonutilitarianismandwelfarepaternalism:Criminalizationisintendedtoprotectthe
overallwelfareandwellbeingofcitizens.
Objection/response1A:Societyallowsadultstoconsumeothersubstancesthatareatleastasharmful,so
welfareandwellbeingcannotbetheonlyconcern.Specifically,itisarbitrary,orhypocritical,orboth,totarget
marijuanaforcriminalprohibition,whenadultsarelegallyallowedtoconsumealcoholandtobacco.
Thecontrastwithtobaccotendstoworkinthefavourofdefendersofmarijuanadecriminalization.The
scientificevidencecontinuestoaccumulate,withtheresultsofa20yearstudypublishedintheJournalofthe
AmericanMedicalAssociationbeingreportedbyCBCNewsinJanuaryof2012.Thatstudyindicatesthat
smokingmarijuanadoesnotseemtobeasdamagingtothelungsassmokingcigarettes.Husak(Husak&De
Marneffe,2005)insiststhatsocietyhastoprovidearationalexplanationofwhyonepleasurabledrug
subjectsuserstotheriskofimprisonmentwhiletheotherisaccommodatedinrestaurants.Asheputsit,one
canbuycigarettesfromavendingmachine,butgotojailforsmokingajoint(Husak,2005).
Objection/response1B:Criminalizationandimprisonmentwillnotleadtooverallincreasesinwellbeing,
sincebeinginprisonandhavingacriminalrecordnegativelyimpactsthehealthandwelfareofthose
imprisoned.Imprisonmentisdegrading,demoralizing,anddangerousandhastobejustified(Husak,2002
2003).Itcanleadtothedenialofotherrights,includingdemocraticrights.InsomeAmericanstates,for
instance,convictedcriminalsaredisenfranchisedandcanlosetherighttovotepermanently,unlesstheycan
receivegovernmentapprovedindividualrightsrestoration(BrennanCenter,n.d.).
Inparticular,iftheconcernisforprotectingvulnerablepersonsfromharm,thosewhoaremostvulnerableto
riskofharmfromdrugabusewillbemostnegativelyimpactedfrombeingcriminalizedandpotentially
imprisoned.
Specifically,withrespecttomarijuana,sincemostuserswillnotbevulnerabletoriskofsubstantialamountsof
selfharm,thethreatofimprisonmentandthestigmaofacriminalrecordwouldgeneratemuchgreater
disbenefits.
2.Argumentsbasedonwelfarepaternalismconcerningchildrenandyouth:Childrenandyouthare
especiallyvulnerableandneedtobeprotected.
Objection/response2A:Punishmentofonedrugusingyouthoradolescentinordertopreventanonusing
youthoradolescentfromusingdrugsisineffective.

Objection/response2B:Punishmentofadultsisnotlikelytopreventyouthoradolescentsfrombecoming

https://de.ryerson.ca/de_courses/templates/lti/?c=ED57844FA5E051809EAD5AA7E3E1D555 8/18
7/12/2016 CPHL612,Module10LearningObjectivesandModuleFocus

drugusers.
Objection/response2C:Societyshouldrelyuponotherpolicyoptionsthatfocusdirectlyonharmreduction
andaremotivatedbythegoalofprotectingadolescentsandyouth.Onlyifthoseareinsufficientforthe
purposesshouldsocietycombinethemwithacontinueduseofmorecarefullycircumscribedanddelineated
criminalmeasures,onesmoreeffectivelytailoredtopreventingadolescentsoryouthfromobtainingaccessto
drugs.
3.Argumentsbasedonutilitarianismandsocialbenefit:Drugsareconnectedtocrime,andprohibitionis
intendedtoreduceratesofcrimeandthusgenerategreateroveralllevelsofsocialbenefit.

Objection/response3A:Drugdecriminalizationwouldlikelylowerdrugcosts,therebyreducingeconomic
crimes.
Objection/response3B:Drugdecriminalizationwouldpreventcrimesarisingfromextrajudicialdispute
resolutionforbusinessdisputes.
Objection/response3C:Empiricalevidencedoesnotsupportanyclaimsthatmarijuanaandheroinare
causesofviolence,whereasevidencedoessupportclaimsofalcoholasaknowncauseofviolence.

Objection/response3D:Puttingpeopleinprisoncouldincreasetheirproclivitytocommitcrime.
Incarcerationiscriminogenicthatis,jailendsupworkingasaschoolforcrime.

ElaborationonResponses
DavidBoaz(1991/1999),inwhatamountstoalmostamirrorimageoftheclaimsmadebyJamesWilson
(discussedaboveinTopic1),insiststhatdrugcontrollawshavefailedtoachievetheirgoals.Hecontends
thatthewarondrugshasbeenanabysmalfailure,inthatithasfailedtodiminishtheavailabilityofdrugsand
decreasetheamountofdruguse(Boaz,1999:260).Inaddition,drugprohibitionhasgeneratedadditional
costsforsociety(overandabovewhatsocietywouldhaveborneintheabsenceofdrugcontrollaws)
becausethedrugtradehasledtogreateramountsofviolenceandcrime.
OthersocialcostsidentifiedbyBoazincludethemanybillionsspentonlawenforcement,thecorruptionof
officials,thedestructionofinnercitycommunities,andtheabusesofcivilliberties.Tothese,Nadelmann
(1996)addstheproblemsofproductquality,sincetheblackmarketcanresultinadulterated,even
poisonous,substancesbeingsold.Blanketprohibition,argueBoaz(1999:259260)andNadelmann,isnot
thesolutiontosocietysdrugproblems.
Boazexpresslyandexplicitlycontradictstheclaimthatdruguseleadstoincreasedviolenceandcrime,and
heassertsinsteadthatitisdrugprohibitionthatleadstoincreasedviolenceandcrime.Itdoessobyreducing
thesupplyofdrugs,andtherebyraisingprices(intheinexorableworkingsofthesupplydemandinteraction).
AsBoaz(1999:261)putsit,Thehighpricecausesaddictstocommitcrimestopayforahabitthatwouldbe
easilyaffordableifobtainingdrugswaslegal.Theriskpremiumattachedtotradeinblackmarketgoods
inflatesthepriceofthosegoods.Inaddition,Theillegalityofthebusinessmeansthatbusinessdisputes
betweencustomersandsupplierscanbesettledonlythroughviolence,notthroughthecourts(Boaz,
1999:261).Ifdrugswerelegalized,userswouldnothavetoresorttocrimeandtheresolutionofconflicts
betweenprofitseekingentrepreneursandtheirclientscouldbedonethroughtheregularchannels.
Anotherwayinwhichutilitarianismcouldbemarshalledinsupportofobjectionstocriminalprohibitionsisto
focusonmaximizingthesatisfactionofpreferencesofallthoseadultswhowishtoconsumerecreational
drugs.Husak(1989:365)makesthepointthatutilitarianargumentsshouldtakeintoaccounttheweightof
consumerpreferencesofwouldbedrugusers.Itiscomplicatedtodifferentiatebetweenpreferencesexante
andpostfacto,sincesomedrugusersenvisagethattheywillsatisfytheirpreferencesthroughconsumption
anddiscover,afterbecomingaddicted,thattheirretrospectivelyrevisedpreferencesdonotmatchtheir
prospectiveandunrevisedpreferences.Yet,ifonlyasmallpercentageofuserswouldliketoquitand/or

https://de.ryerson.ca/de_courses/templates/lti/?c=ED57844FA5E051809EAD5AA7E3E1D555 9/18
7/12/2016 CPHL612,Module10LearningObjectivesandModuleFocus

cannotovercomeaddiction(especiallyifthefocusisonmarijuana),thenitcanbeassumed(andempirical
evidencewouldbearthisout)thatthegreaterproportionofusersreceivepreferencesatisfactionfromthe
recreationaluseofdrugs.Fromautilitarianperspective,thebenefitstobeobtainedbywouldbedrugusers
needstobefactoredintothecalculationsofcostsandbenefitsandmaybesufficienttotipthescales.

PaternalismandHarmReduction
Inadditiontothedebatesovertheharmcausedtousers,andwhetherthatissufficienttowarrantcriminal
prohibition,thereisaconsiderablecontroversyovertheharmthatiscausedbytherelianceuponcriminal
lawratherthanharmreductionmeasurescommontoapublichealthapproach.Quitesimply,many
marijuanausersinsistthattheyareputatsubstantialriskofharmthroughthethreatofarrest,prosecution,
andpotentialjailsentence,alongwiththestigmaanddetrimentalimpactofhavingacriminalrecord.Thegist
ofthepolicyargumentisthatifthegoalistoreduceoverallharm,thenrelianceuponcriminalprohibitionisa
lesseffectiveapproachthanotherpublichealthmeasures.
Thesedebatesraiseissuesrelatingtotheviabilityofimpurepaternalismasarationaleforcriminalprohibition
ofmarijuana,sincethereislimitedevidencetosupporttheclaimthatidentifiableothersaredirectlyharmed
byrecreationaluseofmarijuana,exceptforspecificinstancesinvolvingvulnerablepersons,andinthe
contextofdriving.AsisdiscussedbythedissentingjudgesintheMalmoLevineandCaine(combined)case,
thelatterriskscanbeaddressedthroughalegalprovisioncriminalizingdrivingwhileundertheinfluenceof
marijuana(aparalleltothecriminalizationofdrunkdriving).Andtheimpactofmarijuanauseuponvulnerable
persons,includingpersonswithmentalillnessandfetusescouldbeaddressedthroughsimilarpublichealth
measuresthathavebeenadoptedtoaddress(andprevent)thepotentialharmonfetusesfromalcoholor
tobaccouseofpregnantmothers,andthespecificsituationsofpersonswithmentalillness.
Thereisaprotracteddebateovertheviabilityanddesirabilityofharmreductionapproachestoharder
drugscurrentlygoingoninCanada,inthecontextofthesafeinjectionsitemodelfordealingwithdrug
addiction.[TheseissueswerethefocusoftheSupremeCourtdecisioninCanada(A.G.)v.PHSCommunity
ServicesSociety,2011SCC44.]Thattopicisbeyondthescopeofourpurposeshere.
Weturnnowtononconsequentialistarguments.[Theassumptions,claimsandcriticismsofdeontologyand
nonconsequentialistmoraltheoryareaddressedinModule5,Topic2.]

MoralPaternalismvsRights(Nonconsequentialism)
4.Moralpaternalismorlegalmoralismargument:Druguseisimmoral,andimmoralconductshouldbe
prohibitedbyuseofcriminallaw.
Objection4A:Theuseofalcoholortobaccoisnotconsideredinherentlyimmoral,andeveniftheywere,
theyarestilllegallyallowed.Specifically,itisarbitrary,orhypocritical,orboth,totargetmarijuanaforcriminal
prohibitionwhenadultsarelegallyallowedtoconsumealcoholandtobacco.

Objection/response4B:Thedruguseofonepersondoesnotviolateorinfringeupontherightsofothers.In
fact,itistheinterferencewiththelibertyorautonomyofanindividualwhoseconductisselfregarding
althoughpathologicalthroughtheuseofpenallawthatisunjustified(harmprinciple).Punishmentof
individualswhoseconductdoesnotcausesignificantharm(ornomoreharmthanothercomparablelegal
activities)isitselfimmoral.
DavidBoaz,intheprovocativelytitledarticleADrugFreeAmericaorAFreeAmerica?assumesthatthe
governmentwouldneverbeabletowinthewarondrugsevenifitweretoturnthecountryintoapolicestate.
Attemptstomakesocietydrugfreehave,Boazinsists,onlymadesocietylessfreeandwellonitswayto
beingunfree.Inadditiontoutilitarianargumentsabouttheoveralldisutilitytosociety(costsincurredthat
outweighthebenefitsaccruedbysociety)discussedabove,Boazpresentsotherdeontological,orrights
based,arguments.
https://de.ryerson.ca/de_courses/templates/lti/?c=ED57844FA5E051809EAD5AA7E3E1D555 10/18
7/12/2016 CPHL612,Module10LearningObjectivesandModuleFocus

Boaz(1999:261)arguesthatitisafundamentalrightofindividuals,inliberaldemocraticsocieties,tobeable
toliveoneslifeinanywayonechooses,aslongasonedoesnotviolatetheequalrightsofothers.(The
echoesoftheharmprinciple,discussedinModule6,Topic1,shouldbeclearhere.)Thatrightofliberty,or
autonomy,includestherighttochoosewhatsubstancesonewillputintoonesbody.Boazinsiststhatlaws
regardingdrugsshouldonlypunishpersonswhoviolatetherightsofothers(Boaz,1999:263).Ifindividuals
drivewhileundertheinfluenceofdrugs,thereshouldbelegalconsequencesjustasthereareforthosewho
drivewhileundertheinfluenceofalcohol.Butifapersonsdrugusecanbeconstruedasprivateconduct,
thenthegovernmenthasnobusinessinterfering,especiallywhentherecoursetolegalsanctionswillproveto
befutile.
AnothercriticalperspectiveondrugpolicycomesfrompsychiatristandacademicThomasSzasz(1920
2012).Szasz(1996)turnsthemoralargumentonitsheadwhenhewrites,Druguseanddrugcontrolsare
primarilymoralissues.Butwhereas[defendersofprohibitorydrugpolicyview]selfmedicationaswickedand
drugcriminalizationasvirtuous,Iseeselfmedicationasabasichumanright(withunqualifiedresponsibility
foritsconsequences)anddrugcriminalizationassinful(hypocriticalandunenforceable).Szaszinsiststhat
allbiologicallyactivesubstancesarepotentiallydangerous(incertaindoses,tosomepersons,undercertain
circumstances),andresponsibleadultsshouldhavethefreedomtochoosewhich,ifany,ofsuchsubstances
toconsume.Szaszs(1996)complaintsagainstthedrugwarriors,ashecallsthem,includethechargesthat
theyturndoctorsintodrugmonopolists,pervertthemedicalcriteriaofdiseaseandtreatment,andthat
theyare,ineffect,underminingtheviabilityoflimitedgovernment.
Thegistofthe"justiceargument"iscapturedbyWilliamBuckleyJr.,anAmericanauthorandpublic
commentator.BuckleywroteintheNationalReview(amagazinethathefounded)thatitisoutrageoustolive
inasocietywhoselawstoleratesendingyoungpeopletolifeinprisonbecausetheygrew,ordistributed,a
dozenouncesofmarijuana(Buckley,1996).

Thereisaveryextensiveliteraturedebatingdrugpolicy,withsignificantcontributionsfromphilosophers,
socialscientists,andlegalscholars.Representativeselectionsofthatliteraturecanbefoundinthe
Referencessectionofthismodule.

WeturnnowtoexaminethecombinedcaseofR.v.MalmoLevineandR.v.Caine,inwhichtheSupreme
Courtjudgesconsideredandweighedthevariousargumentsoverthecriminalprohibitionofrecreational
marijuanause.

SeeReferencesfollowingSummary

Topic3:TheMalmoLevineandCaineCases
TheSupremeCourtdecidedtocombinetwoappealsintoonedecision:thecaseofR.v.MalmoLevineand
thecaseofR.v.Caine.Thedecisionprovidesextensivediscussionabouttheapplicationoftheharm
principleinthecontextoftheprinciplesoffundamentaljustice.

BothcaseswerebeingappealedattheBritishColumbiaCourtofAppeal.Thefactsforthetwocasesare
foundonpages27to28(PDFformat),andtheyarealsorecountedinthesummaryofthecasepreparedby
JusticeStephenGoudgeoftheOntarioCourtofAppeal,whopickedthecaseasoneofthetopfivecasesof
thatyear.

Note:Althoughthecombinedcasewasdecidedin2003,theoriginalchargeshadbeenlaidwhiletheNarcotic
ControlActwasstillinforce(beforeitwasreplacedbytheControlledDrugsandSubstancesAct).David
MalmoLevineschargesrelatedtoSection4oftheNarcoticControlAct,whereasVictorEugeneCaines
chargesstemmedfromSection3oftheAct.
https://de.ryerson.ca/de_courses/templates/lti/?c=ED57844FA5E051809EAD5AA7E3E1D555 11/18
7/12/2016 CPHL612,Module10LearningObjectivesandModuleFocus

TheCanadianFoundationforDrugPolicy(n.d.)providesthefollowingsummaryoftherelevantprovisions:

Possession:Section3prohibitedthepossessionofanarcotic.Iftheprosecutordecidedto
prosecutetheoffenceasanindictableoffence,themaximumpenaltywas7yearsimprisonment.
Iftheprosecutordecidedtoprosecutetheoffenceasasummaryconvictionoffence,the
maximumpenaltyforthefirstoffencewas6monthsimprisonmentora$1000fine,orboth.The
maximumpenaltyforanysubsequentoffencewasoneyearimprisonmentora$2000fine,or
both.
Possessionforthepurposesoftraffickingandtrafficking:Section4prohibitedthe
traffickingofanarcoticorthepossessionofanarcoticforthepurposesoftrafficking.The
maximumpenaltywasimprisonmentforlife.Section2oftheActdefined"traffic"tomean:

(a)tomanufacture,sell,give,administer,transport,send,deliverordistribute,or
(b)tooffertodoanythingreferredtoinparagraph(a).

Trafficking,therefore,coveredawiderangeofactivitiesthatapersonmightnotnormallythinkofas
"trafficking"includingdeliveringasmallpackageofmarijuanatoafriendfornomoney.
TheCanadianFoundationforDrugPolicyalsoelaboratesonthedifferenceamongthetypesofoffencesin
theseterms:

UnderCanada'slegalsystem,therearethreetypesofcriminaloffencesindictable,summary
convictionand"hybrid"(sometimescalled"Crownelectionoffences")."Indictable"offencesare
generallythemoreseriousoffences,suchasmurderoractsofseriousviolence,andattractthe
heaviestpenalties.Summaryconvictionoffencesaregenerallylessseriousoffencesfor
example,takingacarwithouttheowner'sconsent.Inaddition,withhybridoffences[,]thelaw
allowstheCrownProsecutortodecidewhethertoprosecutetheoffenceasanindictableoffence
orasummaryconvictionoffence.

Theissuesatstakeinthecasewerearticulatedbythejudgesasfollows(at573):Thequestionsbeforethe
Courtareissuesoflaw,notpolicy,namelywhethertheprohibition,includingtheavailabilityofimprisonment
forsimplepossession,isnotvalidlegislation,eitherbecauseitdoesnotproperlyfallwithintheParliaments
legislativecompetence,orbecausetheprohibition,andinparticulartheavailabilityofimprisonment,violate
theguaranteesoftheCanadianCharterofRightsandFreedoms.

Thechallengetothelawwasbasedontheargumentthatthecriminalprohibitionofmarijuanainfringedthe
Section7righttolife,liberty,andsecurityofpersonandtherightnottobedeprivedthereof,exceptin
accordancewiththeprinciplesoffundamentaljustice
DavidMalmoLevinehadbeenchargedwithpossessionofmarijuanaforthepurposesoftrafficking,andhe
triedtoarguethatfreedomtousemarijuanawasamatteroffundamentalpersonalimportanceprotectedby
Section7oftheCharter.MalmoLevinehopedtochallengethepartsofthelawprohibitingtrafficking.There
weresomeproceduralcomplexitiesinhiscase,sincetheoriginaltrialjudgehadrefusedevidence(i.e.,
legislativefactevidence)thatMalmoLevinewishedtoenterinsupportofhisarguments.Thatevidence
includedgovernmentreportsanddocuments,aswellasexperttestimonyonthedebatesandcontroversies
overmarijuanause.TheBritishColumbiaCourtofAppealheldthatthetrialjudgewasmistakeninthat
refusal,andMalmoLevineagreedthattheCourtcouldconsiderthesameevidencethathadbeensubmitted
inthecaseofCaine.
VictorEugeneCainewaschargedwithsimplepossession,andhemountedalegalchallengetoSection3of
theAct(relatingtosimplepossession)onChartergrounds.Cainearguedthatsinceitwaspossibletoreceive
aprisonsentenceforsimplepossession,andthatmarijuanausecauseslittleornoharmtootherpersons,

https://de.ryerson.ca/de_courses/templates/lti/?c=ED57844FA5E051809EAD5AA7E3E1D555 12/18
7/12/2016 CPHL612,Module10LearningObjectivesandModuleFocus

theprinciplesoffundamentaljusticeareviolatedbythelaw.Libertyrightswereinfringedbythepotentialfor
imprisonment,foranactivitythatposed(atmost)theriskofharmtotheuser.
Inaddition,DavidMalmoLevineattemptedtopresentsomenovelargumentsthatrelieduponallegationsof
infringementofSection15,ortheequalityprovisionoftheCharter.
Itisinterestingtonotethattherewerethreeintervenersforthecombinedcase:theAttorneyGeneralof
Ontario,theBritishColumbiaCivilLibertiesAssociation(BCCLA),andtheCanadianCivilLibertiesAssociation
(CCLA).ThedocumentsubmittedbytheCCLAcanbefoundonline.
Consider,asyoureadthroughtherelevantpassagesofthecombineddecision,howargumentspresentedby
thelitigants(DavidMalmoLevineandVictorEugeneCaine),andargumentsthatformthereasoningofthe
majorityandthedissentingjudges,reflecttheinfluenceofphilosophicalprinciplesandtheorieswehavebeen
examiningandexploringinthiscourse:Autonomy,theHarmPrinciple,andthemanytypesofPaternalism.
ConsideralsotheapplicabilityofthecontrastbetweenKantianDeontology(Nonconsequentialism)and
UtilitarianConsequentialismtodifferentiatethepositionsofthedifferentsetsofjudges.

Topic4:FurtherLegalandPoliticalDevelopments
TBA

SummaryandReferences
Summary
ThejudgesintheSupremeCourtforthecombinedcaseofR.v.MalmoLevineandR.v.Cainewereaskedto
ruleontheconstitutionalityofcriminalprohibitionscontainedintheNarcoticsControlAct(sincereplacedby
theControlledDrugsandSubstancesAct).Theprovisionsprohibitingmarijuanatraffickingandpossession
wereheldtobeconstitutionallyvalid,althoughthreejudgesdissentedwithrespecttotheprovisionsrelating
tosimplepossession.Theissuesraisedbythecaseincludethesignificanceoftheharmcausedbymarijuana
use(andhowthatharmcomparestothatcausedbyalcoholandtobacco),thesuitabilityofpotential
imprisonmentasadeterrent,andtheimpactofacriminalrecord.Issuesrelatingtomedicaluseofmarijuana
werethefocusofcourtchallengestoMarihuanaforMedicalPurposesRegulations(MMPR)[enactedunder
theControlledDrugsandSubstancesAct]inseveralcasesthatworkedtheirwaythroughthecourts(Federal
Court,FederalCourtofAppealforonecase,andBCSC,BCCAforanother),andreachedtheSupremeCourt
in2015.

References
Alexander,Michelle.(2010).TheNewJimCrow:MassIncarcerationintheAgeofColorblindness.TheNew
Press.

AmericanCivilLibertiesUnion(ACLU).(2014).TheWaronMarijuanaInBlackandWhite.Report.Available
online.
AmericanCivilLibertiesUnion(ACLU).(n.d.).MarijuanaLawReform.
https://de.ryerson.ca/de_courses/templates/lti/?c=ED57844FA5E051809EAD5AA7E3E1D555 13/18
7/12/2016 CPHL612,Module10LearningObjectivesandModuleFocus

Reid,Angus.(2012).MostAmericansandCanadiansareReadytoLegalizeMarijuana.
Boaz,David.(1991/1999).ADrugFreeAmericaOraFreeAmerica?U.C.DavisLawReview,24(3).
RepublishedinWilliamH.Shaw(Ed.),SocialandPersonalEthics(3rded.,pp.258264).Wadsworth.
Buckley,WilliamF.,Jr.(1996,Feb.12).TheWaronDrugsIsLost.NationalReview.
CanadianBarAssociationNationalCriminalLawSection.(2009,May).BillC15ControlledDrugsand
SubstancesActAmendments.Ottawa.
CBCNews.(2013a,Sep.30).WaronDrugsFailingtoCurb$350BTrade,SaysStudy.

CBCNews.(2013b,Feb.3).SuperBowlContestWinnerDeniedEntrytoU.S.
CBCNews.(2012a,Feb.14).LegalizePot,SayFormerB.C.AttorneysGeneral.
CBCNews.(2012b,Jan.12).SmokingMarijuanaMayNotHarmLungs.
CBCNews.(2009,Jun.24).IllegalDrugs:CanadasGrowingInternationalMarket.
CBCNews.(2001,May).InDepthUpinSmoke?Canada'sMarijuanaLawandtheDebateover
Decriminalization.UpdatedNov.25,2004.

CBCNews.(2003,May26).InDepthMarijuanaStatistics.UpdatedNov.25,2004.
CanadianFoundationforDrugPolicy.(n.d.).CanadasPreviousDrugLaws.
CanadianMedicalAssociation.(2002,Mar.11).APublicHealthPerspectiveonCannabisandOtherIllegal
Drugs.SubmissiontotheSpecialSenateCommitteeonIllegalDrugs.
CanadianMedicalAssociation.(NoDate).MedicalMarijuana.CMAPolicy,CanadianMedicalAssociation.

CanadianPress.(2011,Oct.24).OmnibusCrimeBill:MandatoryMinimumsCouldDramaticallyHikeNumber
ofPeopleSenttoJailoverGrowingMarijuana,StudySuggests.
CentreforAddictionandMentalHealth(CAMH).(2014).CannabisPolicyFramework.October2014.
Availableonline.
CentreforAddictionandMentalHealth(CAMH).(n.d.).TheLegalSanctionsRelatedtoCannabis
Possession/UsePositionStatement.

Clark,PeterA.(2000).TheEthicsofMedicalMarijuana:GovernmentRestrictionsvs.MedicalNecessity.
JournalofPublicHealthPolicy,Volume21,Number1,pp.4060.
CollegeofPhysiciansandSurgeonsofOntario.(2005/2006/2015).MarijuanaforMedicalPurposes.Policy
Statement115.LastupdatedMarch2015.Availableonline.
CounttheCosts.(2013).TheWaronDrugs:WastingBillions.TransformDrugPolicyFoundation.

Cudd,AnnE.(1990).TakingDrugsSeriously:LiberalPaternalismandtheRationalityofPreferences.Public
AffairsQuarterly,4(1),1731.
DeMarneffe,Peter.(2009/2011).Decriminalize,DontLegalize.InMarkTimmons(Ed.),DisputedMoral
Issues:AReader(pp.188198).OxfordUniversityPress.
DeMarneffe,Peter.(2003).AgainsttheLegalizationofHeroin.CriminalJusticeEthics,22(1),3440.
DeMarneffe,Peter.(1996).DoWeHaveaRighttoUseDrugs?PublicAffairsQuarterly,10(3),229247.

DepartmentofJustice.(2012).Backgrounder:SafeStreetsandCommunitiesAct:IncreasedPenaltiesfor
SeriousDrugCrime.

https://de.ryerson.ca/de_courses/templates/lti/?c=ED57844FA5E051809EAD5AA7E3E1D555 14/18
7/12/2016 CPHL612,Module10LearningObjectivesandModuleFocus

DrugPolicyAlliance.(n.d.).ABriefHistoryoftheDrugWar.
Duke,StevenB.(1996,Feb.12).TheWaronDrugsisLost.NationalReview.
Duke,StevenB.,&Gross,AlbertC.(1994).America'sLongestWar:RethinkingOurTragicCrusadeAgainst
Drugs.Tarcher.

Feinberg,Joel.(1986).HarmtoOthers.OxfordUniversityPress.
Fellner,Jamie.(2009).Race,Drugs,andLawEnforcementintheUnitedStates.StanfordLawandPolicy
Review,20,257291.
Ferner,Matt.(2014,Jan.8).ColoradoRecreationalMarijuanaSalesExceed$5MillionintheFirstWeek.
HuffingtonPost.

Ferner,Matt.(2012a,Sep.20).LawEnforcementCommunityMembersBackMarijuanaLegalizationBallot
MeasureinColorado.HuffingtonPost.
Ferner,Matt.(2012b,Oct.29).OneMarijuanaArrestOccursEvery42SecondsinUS:FBIReport.Huffington
Post.
Fox,Steve,Armentano,Paul,&Tvert,Mason.(2009).MarijuanaisSafer:SoWhyAreWeDrivingPeopleto
Drink?ChelseaGreen.

GlobalCommissiononDrugPolicy.(2012,June).TheWaronDrugsandHIV/AIDS:HowtheCriminalization
ofDrugUseFuelstheGlobalPandemic.
GreenPartyofCanada.(n.d.).4.8:EndingtheWaronDrugs.
HealthCanada.(2014).MarihuanaforMedicalPurposesRegulations.GovernmentofCanada,October16,
2014.

HouseofCommonsSpecialCommitteeonNonMedicalUseofDrugs.(2002).PolicyfortheNewMillennium:
WorkingTogethertoRedefineCanadasDrugStrategy.Ottawa.
Husak,Douglas.(2003).FourPointsaboutDrugDecriminalization.CriminalJusticeEthics,22(1),2129.
Husak,Douglas.(2002).LegalizeThis!TheCaseforDecriminalizingDrugs.Verso.
Husak,Dougas.(1992).DrugsandRights.CambridgeUniversityPress.
Husak,Douglas.(1989).RecreationalDrugsandPaternalism.LawandPhilosophy,8,353381.

Husak,Douglas,&deMarneffe,Peter.(2005).TheLegalizationofDrugs:ForandAgainst.Cambridge
UniversityPress.
JohnHowardSociety.(2009).Ineffective,UnjustandInhumane:MandatoryPrisonSentencesforDrug
Offences.BrieftotheSenateStandingCommitteeonLegalandConstitutionalAffairsforBillC15:AnActto
AmendtheControlledDrugsandSubstancesActandtoMakeConsequentialAmendmentstoOtherActs.
Ottawa.
JohnHowardSociety.(2002).CanadianCannabisPolicyFactSheet1.
Kleiman,M.A.R.,Caulkins,J.P.,&Hawken,A.(2011).DrugsandDrugPolicy:WhatEveryoneNeedsto
Know.OxfordUniversityPress.
LeDain,Gerald,etal./LeDainCommissionofInquiryintotheNonMedicalUseofDrugs.(1973).Final
ReportoftheCommissionofInquiryIntotheNonMedicalUseofDrugs.Ottawa.

Levasseur,Joanne,JacquesMarcoux,andVeraLynnKubinec.(2015).PoliceReportaPotPossession

https://de.ryerson.ca/de_courses/templates/lti/?c=ED57844FA5E051809EAD5AA7E3E1D555 15/18
7/12/2016 CPHL612,Module10LearningObjectivesandModuleFocus

IncidentEvery9MinutesinCanada.CanadianBroadcastingCorporation(CBCNews).Availableonline.
MacQueen,Ken.(2013,Jun.10).WhyItsTimetoLegalizeMarijuana.Macleans.
Makkar,Juhee.(2014).MedicalMarijuanaUpdate:SummaryofRegulationsNewRoleforPhysiciansand
PossibleConcerns.OntarioMedicalReview,March2014.Availableonline.
Mathias,RichardG.APublicHealthPerspective:AddressingDrugUseinCanadaANewPerspectiveon
DrugUseofCanadians.ReportforSenateSpecialCommitteeonIllegalDrugs.

McNamara,JosephD.(1996,Feb.12).TheWaronDrugsisLost.NationalReview.
Miron,JeffreyA.(2004).DrugWarCrimes:TheConsequencesofProhibition.TheIndependentInstitute.
Mulgrew,Ian.(2005).BudInc.:InsideCanadasMarijuanaIndustry.RandomHouseCanada.
Nadelmann,EthanA.(2008,Dec.5).LetsEndDrugProhibition.WallStreetJournal.
Nadelmann,EthanA.(1996,Feb.12).TheWaronDrugsisLost.NationalReview.
NationalAssociationfortheAdvancementofColoredPeople.(n.d.).CriminalJusticeFactSheet.

NationalPost.(2007,Jul.10).CanadianPotUseFourTimesGlobalRate.NationalPost.
Nolin,PierreClaude(Chairman),Kenny,C.,Banks,T.,etal./SenateCommitteeonIllegalDrugs.(2002).Our
PositionforaCanadianPublicPolicy.ReportoftheSenateCommitteeonIllegalDrugs.Ottawa.
Reichbach,GustinL.(2012,May16).AJudge'sPleaforPot.TheNewYorkTimes.
Schlosser,Eric.(2003).ReeferMadness:Sex,Drugs,andCheapLaborintheAmericanBlack
Market.MarinerBooks/HoughtonMifflin.
Schmoke,Kurt.(1996,Feb.12).TheWaronDrugsisLost.NationalReview.
Selley,Chris.(2012,Apr.17).CanadasIncoherentDrugPolicy.NationalPost,.
Shapiro,David.(2003).IndividualRights,DrugPolicy,andtheWorstCaseScenario.CriminalJusticeEthics,
22(1),4145.
Shapiro,Daniel.(1999).AddictionandDrugPolicy.InJohnArthur(Ed.),MoralityandMoral
Controversies(5thed.,pp.353357).PrenticeHall.
Sher,George.(2003).OntheDecriminalizationofDrugs.CriminalJusticeEthics,22(1),3033.
Sweet,Robert.(1996,Feb.12).TheWaronDrugsisLost.NationalReview.
Szasz,Thomas.(1996,Feb.12).TheWaronDrugsIsLost.NationalReview.
Thomas,Gerald,&Davis,Chris.(2009).Cannabis,TobaccoandAlcoholUseinCanada:ComparingRisksof
HarmandCoststoSociety.VisionsJournal,5(4,11,&13).
Vandaelle,Ian.(2012,Jan.17).MajorityofCanadiansSupportLegalizingorDecriminalizingMarijuana,New
PollSuggests.NationalPost.
Vargas,RamonAntonio.(2011,May5).FourthMarijuanaConvictionGetsSlidellManLifeinPrison.The
TimesPicayune.NewOrleans,Louisiana.
Walters,John.(2008,Dec.5).OurDrugPolicyisaSuccess.TheWallStreetJournal.

Will,George.(2012,Apr.14).TheWaronDrugs:TimetoFaceFacts.TheNewYorkPost.
Wilson,JamesQ.(1990).AgainsttheLegalisationofDrugs.Commentary,89(2),2128.
https://de.ryerson.ca/de_courses/templates/lti/?c=ED57844FA5E051809EAD5AA7E3E1D555 16/18
7/12/2016 CPHL612,Module10LearningObjectivesandModuleFocus

Wood,Evan.(2012,Jun.26).TheWaronDrugsHasFailed.NationalPost.

Cases
Allardet.al.v.Canada2014FC280(FederalCourt)Availableonline.
Allardet.al.v.Canada2014FC1260(FederalCourt)Availableonline.
Allardet.al.v.Canada2014FCA298(FederalCourtofAppeal)Availableonline.

R.v.MalmoLevineR.v.Caine,[2003]3S.C.R.5712003SCC74(SupremeCourtofCanada,combined
decision)AvailableonlinethroughCanLII.
R.v.Smith2012BSCS544(BritishColumbiaSupremeCourt)Availableonline.
R.v.Smith,2015SCC34,[2015]2S.C.R.602(SupremeCourtofCanada)Availableonline.

Laws
CanadianCharterofRightsandFreedoms,ConstitutionAct,1982,c.11(U.K.),ScheduleB.
CriminalCodeofCanada,R.S.C.,1985,c.C46.

NarcoticControlAct,R.S.C.1985,c.N1.(Note:TheControlledDrugsandSubstancesAct,S.C.1996,c.19,
hassincereplacedtheNarcoticsControlAct.)

DiscussionBoardandAssignments
DiscussionBoardQuestions

i.AccordingtothejudgesinthecombinedcaseofMalmoLevineandCaine,whatmakes
conductcriminal?
ii.Howmightthecritiqueofovercriminalizationberelevanttotheissuesatstake?
iii.Howmightstrategiesforharmreduction,relyinguponpublichealthmeasuresberelevant?
iv.DiscussthecrucialaspectsofJohnStuartMillsharmprinciple,andconnectthemtothe
issuesatstakeinthe(combined)case.
v.Discussintersectionsbetweendifferenttypesofpaternalism(specifywhichtypes),andthe
reasoningofthejudgesinthecase.
vi.Howarecomparisonsbetweenalcoholuseandmarijuanauseofrelevancetothedebates
overthecriminalizationofmarijuanause?
vii.Discussdiverseconceptionsofharmforindividualsandsocietyatlargethatplayedarole
inthecase.

https://de.ryerson.ca/de_courses/templates/lti/?c=ED57844FA5E051809EAD5AA7E3E1D555 17/18
7/12/2016 CPHL612,Module10LearningObjectivesandModuleFocus

Assignments
ContinueworkingontheSecond/FinalEssay(DuebeginningofModule13).

https://de.ryerson.ca/de_courses/templates/lti/?c=ED57844FA5E051809EAD5AA7E3E1D555 18/18