Social Morality and the Civil Rights of Canadian Drug Users

Abstract

How far should the state go to prevent drug abuse? This paper rejects H.L.A. Hart's paternalism, and even more strongly opposes Lord Devlin's case for the legal enforcement of morals. It adopts instead, J. S. Mill's argument that only public defence justifies state intervention or coercion. Canadian drug laws, which embody Devlin's position, are abusive of civil rights and ineffective despite their oppressiveness. In particular, the paper examines the violation of rights involved in school and employment drug detection plans, and also in compulsory treatment programs for illicit drug users. Basic legal reform is advocated.

Coping with cannabis in a Caribbean country : from problem formulation to going public

“…5. See Zinberg 1976;Grinspoon 1977;Auld 1981;Himmelstein 1983;Kleiman 1989;Nadelmann 1989;Alexander 1990;Beauchesne 1991;Brownstein 1992;Grinspoon & Bakalar 1993;Elwood 1994. The momentum against the international war against drugs is growing.…”

Les logiques de contrôle de l’usage des drogues illicites : La réduction des méfaits et l’efficience du langage de la périllisation

“…Au nombre des abus signifi és par l'impératif de la « lutte à la drogue », rappelons la corruption, la discrimination et la violation des droits et libertés de la personne. On peut également mentionner, parmi les autres « effets pervers » de la prohibition, le poids considérable des coûts sociaux et écono-miques que suppose le recours au droit pénal pour contrôler l'usage (Zeese, 1999 ;Single et al, 1998 ;Bertrand 1992Bertrand , 1988Erickson et Cheung, 1992 ;Beauchesne, 1991 ;Solomon, Single et Erickson, 1988).…”