Search

Dans cet article, nous nous interrogeons sur un aspect des débats qui ont eu cours lors de la légalisation du cannabis au Canada, soit la distinction entre les consommateurs autorisés de cannabis à des fins médicales et les consommateurs que plusieurs intervenants des débats ont qualifié d’usagers « récréatifs » ou « non médicaux ». L’objectif est de comprendre comment la séparation des consommateurs de cannabis en deux catégories distinctes avant ces débats a influencé la manière de concevoir les problèmes à résoudre dans ce processus législatif (lois et réglementations fédérales, provinciales, territoriales et municipales) et les solutions proposées. Nous aborderons d’abord l’origine de cette division factice entre deux catégories de consommateurs, l’une dont les usages sont légitimes, l’autre dont les usages demeurent suspects, car l’accès au cannabis à des fins thérapeutiques s’est fait dans une période où les autres usages demeuraient prohibés. Par la suite, nous verrons comment cette distinction a d’une part rendu aveugle les intervenants de ces débats aux effets de l’industrie du cannabis sur le marché qui allait se développer et, d’autre part, comment elle a fait en sorte que l’objectif et les stratégies des politiques sur le tabac furent privilégiés à l’égard de ces consommateurs. Nous verrons notamment qu’au niveau fédéral, la légalisation relative au cannabis fut présentée comme une manière de contrôler autrement cet usage afin de le diminuer au maximum et qu’au niveau des provinces, des territoires et des municipalités, des interdits de consommation du cannabis fumé se sont répandus dans un grand nombre de lieux publics. Dans le même temps, des politiques demandaient d’accommoder adéquatement les consommateurs autorisés de cannabis à des fins médicales dans les milieux de travail et les institutions et s’assuraient que les sanctions en matière de cannabis au volant ne soient pas abusives à leur égard., In this article, we ask ourselves about one aspect of the debates that have taken place during the legalization of cannabis in Canada, namely the distinction between authorized users of cannabis for medical purposes, and users targeted by this legalization, which many people in the debates have characterized as recreational or non-medical users. The goal is to understand how the construction of cannabis users in two distinct categories, long before these debates, influenced how to design the problems to be solved in this legislative process (federal, provincial, territorial and municipal laws and regulations) and the proposed solutions. We first address the origin of this distinction, which has created an artificial division between two categories of users, one whose uses are legitimate, the other whose uses remain suspect, because this access to cannabis for therapeutic purposes occurred at a time when other uses remained prohibited. Subsequently, we see how this distinction, on the one hand, blinded the effects of the cannabis industry on the cannabis market that was about to develop. On the other hand, this distinction has ensured that, in response to the public’s fears about these recreational users, the objective and strategies of tobacco policies have been given priority towards these consumers. Thus, at the federal level, the legalization of cannabis was presented as a way of controlling this use in a more efficient way than prohibition, and at the provincial, territorial and municipal level, prohibitions on the use of smoked cannabis have spread in a large number of public places. At the same time, governments called for an appropriate accommodation of authorized cannabis users for medical purposes in workplaces and institutions and ensured that the penalties for cannabis and driving were not abusive to them., En este artículo nos interrogamos sobre un aspecto de los debates que tuvieron lugar con motivo de la legalización del cannabis en Canadá: la distinción entre los consumidores autorizados de cannabis con fines médicos y los consumidores que numerosos participantes en dichos debates calificaron de usuarios “recreativos” o “no médicos”. Se trata de comprender de qué manera la separación de los consumidores de cannabis en dos categorías distintas antes de los debates influyó en la manera de concebir los problemas que había que resolver en ese proceso legislativo (leyes y reglamentaciones federales, provinciales, territoriales y municipales) y las soluciones propuestas. Abordaremos en primer lugar el origen de esta división ficticia entre dos categorías de consumidores, una de ellas cuyo uso del cannabis es legítimo y la otra cuya utilización sigue siendo sospechosa, puesto que el acceso al cannabis con fines terapéuticos se concretó en un período en el que los otros usos permanecían prohibidos. A continuación, veremos de qué manera esta distinción, por una parte, impidió a los participantes en estos debates ver los efectos que la industria del cannabis tendría en el mercado a desarrollar y, por otra parte, hizo que el objetivo y las estrategias de las políticas sobre el tabaco fueran privilegiados con respecto a estos consumidores. Veremos principalmente que a nivel federal la legislación relativa al cannabis se presentó como una manera de controlar de otro modo este uso con el fin de disminuirlo al máximo y que, a nivel de las provincias, territorios y municipalidades, la prohibición sobre el consumo del cannabis fumado se extendió a una gran cantidad de lugares públicos. Al mismo tiempo, las políticas estaban destinadas a acomodar adecuadamente a los usuarios autorizados de cannabis con fines médicos en los medios de trabajo y en las instituciones y se aseguraban de que las sanciones en materia de cannabis al volante no fueran abusivas para ellos.

This volume commemorates the 40th anniversary of the University of Ottawa’s Department of Criminology, founded in 1968. It relates the history of the department from its origins to today, focusing on the theoretical debates that have influenced its critical and self reflexive approach to criminology. The contributions to this volume continue in that vein by questioning the traditional perspective of criminology on a variety of topics including police studies, mental health, political violence, suicide, and crime prevention. Rights and Voices reveals the significant role that the University of Ottawa has played in redefining criminology to advocate activism, social justice, and compassion. Cet ouvrage souligne le 40e anniversaire du Département de criminologie de l’Université d’Ottawa, fondé en 1968. On y relate l’histoire du département de ses origines à nos jours en mettant l’accent sur les débats théoriques qui ont influencé son approche critique et autoréflexive de la criminologie. Les articles qui le composent s’inscrivent dans cet ordre d’idée en mettant en question la perspective traditionnelle de la criminologie sur divers sujets, notamment les études policières, la santé mentale, la violence politique, le suicide et la prévention du crime. Droits et voix souligne le rôle primordial que joue l’Université d’Ottawa dans la redéfinition de la criminologie et la promotion du militantisme, de la justice sociale et de la compassion. Ce recueil célèbre les quarante ans de vie du Département de criminologie de l’Université d’Ottawa. C’est pourquoi il est dédié à toutes les personnes qui ont contribué à en faire ce qu’il est aujourd’hui : celles qui y ont dirigé, enseigné, supervisé, administré, étudié et cherché.

On October 19th, 2015, the Liberal government of Canada, which was elected with a majority, had in its election promises the legalization of cannabis. He will follow through with this promise. A discussion paper was issued in June 2016 setting the stage for the Working Group on Legalization and Regulation of Cannabis, which issued its Report on November 30th 2016. This Report, the Government explained, will be one of the tools to develop its legislative framework and will serve as a basis for discussions with Provinces and Territories, as well as experts who will have to manage this regulatory framework. In this article, we will see the main political challenges facing the Government in these discussions with the Provinces and Territories, as well as experts, considering the questions posed on the five aspects of regulation in the Discussion Paper. To identify these challenges, in addition to the lessons learned from the studies regarding the situation in Colorado and Washington, will be grafted the learning of the studies on the current management of legal drugs. Firstly, the challenges related to the very arrival of this law are outlined. Subsequently, the challenges related to the public health objective, the production, processing and distribution system, the regulatory framework, and the more specific issue of cannabis for therapeutic purposes will be exposed. We will see why the application of this law will be complex, costly and can easily deviate from the original objectives. Short- and long-term monitoring will be required to ensure that the various levels of government retain the primacy of public health and consider the use of criminal justice as a last resort. O governo liberal do Canadá, que foi eleito por maioria no dia 19 outubro de 2015, tinha em suas promessas eleitorais legalizar a cannabis. Ele manterá sua palavra. Um documento de discussão foi publicado em junho 2016 fundando o Grupo de Trabalho sobre a legalização e a regulamentação da cannabis, que apresentou o seu relatório no dia 30 de novembro de 2016. Esse relatório, explicou o governo, será uma das ferramentas para desenvolver um quadro legislativo e servirá de base para discussões com as províncias e territórios, bem como com os especialistas que irão gerenciar esse quadro regulatório. Neste artigo, nós veremos os principais desafios políticos enfrentados pelo governo nessas discussões com as províncias e territórios, e mesmo com os experts, considerando as questões postas pelos cinco aspectos da regulação neste documento de discussão. Para identificar esses desafios, além de aprender com os estudos sobre a situação no Colorado e em Washington, complementaremos a aprendizagem com os estudos atuais sobre a gestão atual das drogas legais. Em primeiro lugar são expostos os desafios relacionados à chegada desta lei, em seguida, aqueles que tocam os objetivos de saúde pública, o sistema de produção, transformação e distribuição, controle do quadro regulatório e, por fim, a questão mais específica da cannabis para fins terapêuticos. Nós veremos porque a aplicação desta lei será complexa, custosa e pode facilmente se desviar dos objetivos iniciais. Um monitoramento a curto e a longo prazo será necessário para garantir que os diferentes níveis de governo mantenham a primazia da saúde pública e considerem o uso do instrumento penal como último recurso.