In 1961 the Canadian government passed the Narcotic Control Act. This was Canada's first governmental acknowledgement of a need for federal drug control. Repealed in 1996, the initial act was replaced with the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Detailed and specific, the latter act stipulated definitions for controlled substances, meticulously developed a categorizing system of eight classes and two precursors, which would denote an illegal drug. Control of narcotics in Canada has garnered national attention for as long as these substances have been available to Canadians. Limitations on the sale, usage and movement of these products to different handlers are not merely a question of government action over the drug, but also over its production and distribution. Narcotic control in North American, therefore, cannot be limited to legislative or social jurisdiction merely within the continent. This is a global issue, one that reaches all socio-economic groups and one that must be controlled across each stage from growth to usage.
[...] It is shortsighted to believe that closing North American boarders would completely end the trade of illegal narcotics. In the twenty first century, boarder control agents have developed new means with which they are able to attack the drug trade, without increasing regulation over business and without slowing down travel. Expedited immigration has allowed people and cargo to register before they travel, thus permitting them to have thorough background checks and removing them from the mass exodus of travelers through immigration lines. With this more modernized system, agents are better able to identify suspicious travelers across borders, and are also able to limit everyone from falling into one group, all of whom would have to be inspected. [...]
[...] This document reaffirmed the civil rights of Canadians; it also reversed some of the harsher aspects of the Supreme Court's mandates for the use and possession of narcotics. Internationally, as drug policy was perceived to be unmanageable on a global level, a shift developed toward treatment, placing less of an emphasis on instruments of punishment during the 1980s. Modern American schools of thought support stopping drug trafficking the boarders; it is the boarders, these commentators steadfastly believe that are leaving the country vulnerable to the trade of narcotics. [...]
[...] By 1911 there was a yearly international conference, with the purpose of establishing control measures for international narcotic trade. The problems and roadblocks that limit the war on narcotics trade are endless. There will always be a demand and, therefore, a serious and costly control will always be necessary. It is not a fight that can ever be won. Page of Works Cited: Angarola, Robert. “Pain Consult: World Narcotics Consumption.” The American Journal of Nursing,” Vol No (Jul., 1988), pp. [...]
[...] They know its against the law and have tried to stop the use of it; but it is well known that the opium habit was not one of easy discontinuance.” There was, thus, an inherent biased toward non-white Canadians, in reference to narcotic use, from the outset of police action against illegal substances. Initially, the goal of the criminal justice system in Canada was not to end drug use, completely, but rather to limit the distribution of narcotics. Much as people who wanted greater governmental regulation over the sale of alcohol spurred the temperance movement, narcotic control was also a response by the government to calls from the Canadian population, which believed itself to be at risk from drug trafficking. [...]
[...] Under the Food and Drug Act classifications were denoted, whereby the sale of such narcotics was limited to prescription holders only. Legal distribution was, therefore, controlled to an extent. A brighter light was now shed on the secondary problem, illegal distribution. Third party outlets were selling legal narcotics, to non-prescription holders on mass. Very few drugs whose origin was developed for medicinal use were actually being consumed or purchased legally; most found their way into illicit trade. Greater documentation was now required of pharmacists. [...]
Online readingwith our online reader
Content validatedby our reading committee