skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 136206 Find in a Library
Title: Narcotics: A Case Study in Criminal Law Creation (From Criminology: A Reader's Guide, P 177-195, 1991, Jane Gladstone, Richard Ericson, et al, eds. -- See NCJ 136200)
Author(s): C N Mitchell
Date Published: 1991
Page Count: 19
Sponsoring Agency: University of Toronto
Toronto, Canada
Sale Source: University of Toronto
Centre of Criminology
Toronto,
Canada
Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
Language: English
Country: Canada
Annotation: This essay challenges the factual basis for the assumptions that underlie Canada's drug laws.
Abstract: There are four assumptions that are implied in the coverage and penalty structure of the Narcotic Control Act and the Food and Drug Act, the two major Federal statutes that criminalize the sale and possession of drugs. One assumption is that some drugs (cannabis, cocaine, heroin) are extremely dangerous and crime-causing because of their inherent chemical properties; whereas, other drugs (alcohol, tobacco, coffee) are much less dangerous or not dangerous at all. The second assumption is that the Opium Act of 1908, the Opium and Narcotic Control Act of 1920, and the two modern statutes were enacted in response to these inherent chemical dangers. A third assumption is that the drug-control authority of law enforcement agents and physicians promotes public safety by ensuring that legally available drugs are safe and effective and are being used wisely. The fourth assumption is that Canada's drug statutes reflect public concern and voter demand expressed through free and democratic elections. This essay draws upon scientific evidence to show that these assumptions are false. This essay proposes that a constitutional rule be passed that will compel legislators to demonstrate with reliable evidence the necessity of any new criminal offense. Legislators should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a proposed law is based on factually accurate premises. 56-item annotated reading list
Main Term(s): Drug laws
Index Term(s): Canada; Criminalization; Jurisprudence; Political influences
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=136206

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.