SNUD Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, June 10, 2002

¹

1540

The Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.))

Dr. Peter Fried (Faculty of Psychology, Carleton University)

¹

1545

¹

1550

The Chair

Professor Barney Sneiderman (Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba)

¹

1555

º

1600

The Chair

Prof. Barney Sneiderman

The Chair

Prof. Barney Sneiderman

The Chair

Prof. Barney Sneiderman

The Chair

Prof. Barney Sneiderman

º

1605

º

1610

The Chair

Mr. White (Langley—Abbotsford)

Dr. Peter Fried

Mr. White (Langley—Abbotsford)

º

1615

Dr. Peter Fried

Mr. White (Langley—Abbotsford)

Dr. Peter Fried

Mr. White (Langley—Abbotsford)

Dr. Peter Fried

Mr. White (Langley—Abbotsford)

Dr. Peter Fried

Mr. White (Langley—Abbotsford)

Dr. Peter Fried

Mr. White (Langley—Abbotsford)

Dr. Peter Fried

Mr. White (Langley—Abbotsford)

Dr. Peter Fried

Mr. Randy White

Dr. Peter Fried

Mr. Randy White

Dr. Peter Fried

º

1620

Mr. Randy White

Dr. Peter Fried

Mr. Randy White

Prof. Barney Sneiderman

Mr. Randy White

Prof. Barney Sneiderman

Mr. Randy White

Prof. Barney Sneiderman

º

1625

Mr. Randy White

Prof. Barney Sneiderman

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ)

The Chair

Dr. Peter Fried

Mr. Réal Ménard

º

1630

Dr. Peter Fried

Mr. Réal Ménard

Dr. Peter Fried

Mr. Réal Ménard

º

1635

Dr. Peter Fried

Mr. Réal Ménard

Dr. Peter Fried

Mr. Réal Ménard

Dr. Peter Fried

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Prof. Barney Sneiderman

º

1640

Mr. Réal Ménard

Prof. Barney Sneiderman

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Dr. Peter Fried

The Chair

Prof. Barney Sneiderman

º

1645

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP)

º

1650

Prof. Barney Sneiderman

Ms. Libby Davies

Prof. Barney Sneiderman

Dr. Peter Fried

Ms. Libby Davies

Dr. Peter Fried

Ms. Libby Davies

Dr. Peter Fried

Ms. Libby Davies

º

1655

Dr. Peter Fried

Prof. Barney Sneiderman

Dr. Peter Fried

Prof. Barney Sneiderman

The Chair

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.)

»

1700

Dr. Peter Fried

Mr. Mac Harb

Dr. Peter Fried

Mr. Mac Harb

Dr. Peter Fried

Mr. Mac Harb

Dr. Peter Fried

Mr. Mac Harb

Dr. Peter Fried

»

1705

Mr. Mac Harb

Prof. Barney Sneiderman

Mr. Mac Harb

The Chair

Prof. Barney Sneiderman

The Chair

Prof. Barney Sneiderman

The Chair

Prof. Barney Sneiderman

The Chair

»

1710

Prof. Barney Sneiderman

The Chair

Prof. Barney Sneiderman

The Chair

Prof. Barney Sneiderman

The Chair

Prof. Barney Sneiderman

The Chair

Prof. Barney Sneiderman

The Chair

Dr. Peter Fried

»

1715

The Chair

Dr. Peter Fried

»

1720

Prof. Barney Sneiderman

The Chair

Mr. Randy White

Prof. Barney Sneiderman

Mr. Randy White

Prof. Barney Sneiderman

Mr. Randy White

Prof. Barney Sneiderman

Mr. Randy White

Prof. Barney Sneiderman

Mr. White (Langley—Abbotsford)

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

»

1725

Dr. Peter Fried

Prof. Barney Sneiderman

Ms. Libby Davies

Prof. Barney Sneiderman

Dr. Peter Fried

Prof. Barney Sneiderman

The Chair

Prof. Barney Sneiderman

Mr. White (Langley—Abbotsford)

Prof. Barney Sneiderman

The Chair

---

CANADA

Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs

---

NUMBER 050

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Monday, June 10, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1540)  

[English]

    The Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.)): I call this meeting to order. We are the Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs. We were struck in May 2001 by the House of Commons with an order of reference to consider the factors underlying or relating to the non-medical use of drugs, and as of April of this year, we were referred the subject matter of Bill C-344, a private member's bill, an act to amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (marihuana).

    We are very pleased to have with us today as witnesses: Dr. Peter Fried, from the faculty of psychology, Carleton University, and from the University of Manitoba, Dr. Barney Sneiderman, who is from the faculty of law. Gentlemen, welcome very much to our committee.

    I think you both have some opening statements. Why don't I go with Dr. Fried first, and then we'll have a good chance for questions and answers.

    Dr. Fried.

    Dr. Peter Fried (Faculty of Psychology, Carleton University): First of all, I'd like to thank the committee for the invitation. All I would like to do in my opening remarks is just give my background, and then I'll be pleased to answer any questions.

    I've been doing research in the area of marijuana since 1974, and in 1978 I started the study looking at the consequences of marijuana use during pregnancy. The reason we started that was that I originally started working with animals, and we found an effect on a pregnant rat being exposed to marijuana. If I ever get a Nobel Prize, it's for teaching a rat to smoke up.

    So we went to the human literature to find out what was known about the human marijuana exposure, and to my amazement there wasn't a single study. Unfortunately, that situation has not changed much in 2001.

    We started the study I'm going to be talking about in 1978, and essentially we've been following the same fetuses--at that time they were fetuses--right up to the present. So the average age of our subjects now is very early 20s. This makes this sample unique in the world.

    It also provides an opportunity to look at the consequences of marijuana use during pregnancy. I'll talk very briefly about that, but I think the reason I was asked to come to this committee is that very recently in the Canadian medical journal we published an article that looked at the consequences of marijuana use on IQ and whether there is a residual effect. That is, I think, whether pro or against marijuana, everybody would make the statement that obviously if you're stoned, it's going to affect other things besides just feeling high. That goes without saying.

    Much more controversial, however, is whether there is a so-called residual effect. That is, once you no longer feel high, is there a continuing effect of marijuana on other faculties, and furthermore, how long does it last? One of the very controversial issues in the realm of marijuana use is its impact on IQ.

    There have been approximately 50 studies that have looked at the so-called residual effects of marijuana on IQ, and they're split just about down the middle. Approximately 25 have argued that there are no residual effects, and an equal number have found residual effects in either IQ or specific domains--memory, attention, things of this nature.

    The big dilemma with these drug studies and any drugs that you're going to be looking at, whether it be crack, heroin, and so on, is if you want to look at the consequences of drug use, to what do you compare it? That is, from a scientific point of view, a real dilemma.

    If we go back to marijuana, do we compare it to other university students, to other members of society in the city of Ottawa, what have you? Do you solicit folks via newspaper ads? Do you go to the general culture of the society in question and look at their general IQ? All of these methods have been used.

    Another method is perhaps to take users and put them in an environment, in a hospital or whatever, for 30 days, so they don't have access to the drug.

    But you can see that in all these cases there's a real dilemma. We don't know what these people's IQ was before they started using. And that is a real dilemma.

    With our cohort, which I've been following since 1978 and assessing literally since a few hours after birth, we have a very unique opportunity. We have IQ measurements on the subjects before they ever heard the word “marijuana”. We have IQ measurements on these subjects while they were using--not while they were stoned, but during the course of their history while they were using--and in some cases, with some of these kids--they're no longer kids, they're 20 years old--after they've quit. That gives us a unique opportunity.

    I want to emphasize that our data are preliminary. I wrote up this article...and without sounding egotistical, our pregnancy and marijuana stuff is far and away the most widely cited. There are only two other studies in the world that look at marijuana and pregnancy, and I'm involved with both of those. We have over 150 scientific publications in this area. I'm just saying this is not just an off-the-cuff type of thing.

    I'm also not going to come down on one side or the other. I will respond to questions, but I'm not going to come down on one side or the other because it's a much more complicated question than the media suggest, and much more complicated, I'm disappointed to say, than the CMA suggests.

    I wrote this article in response to an editorial in which they said it would take “a simple act of Parliament” to change the laws on marijuana. It is anything but simple.

¹  (1545)  

    Let me get back to my findings, which I think prompted this invitation. What I reported was the IQ of, I believe it was, 70 or 75 subjects for whom we had IQ data when they were between the ages of 9 and 12. On those subjects, we also had IQ information for when they were between approximately, for argument's sake, let's say between 16 and 20. We took this IQ and we created a different score. I looked at their IQ between 9 and 12...and IQ scores are what are called standardized, that is, they take into account the age of the subject, the sex of the subject, and IQ is standardized such that in the overall population the average IQ is 100. It doesn't matter, when you look at it, whether you look at it as an adult or as a teenager or as a pre-adolescent.

    So we had standardized IQ scores from 9 to 12 and then we had standardized IQ scores from the same subjects when they were late adolescents. What we did--myself and my staff--was we subtracted one score from the other. If there was an effect of marijuana, would the IQ score go down? Would it stay the same? Would it go up?

    By way of background, my study involves middle-class Ottawa. In middle-class Ottawa, the IQ of middle-class subjects is expected to rise. That is because in the middle class you have good nutrition, you have education, your family has newspapers, and so on and so forth. When I say the average IQ score is 100, that encompasses the entire spectrum of society. So if you're dealing with the middle class, middle-class IQ goes up; lower-class IQ tends to go down with time.

    The bottom line is that we found, first of all, a surprising number of middle-class adolescents used marijuana on a regular basis. This is an important statement because most, in fact almost exclusively, data with respect to use is done from massive surveys. It's often done over the phone or it's done with a person in a suit--I should talk, I'm wearing a suit now--coming in and asking questions of somebody they've never met before.

    We've been involved with these subjects their entire life. I've had the same staff for 20 years. So we've built up a very good rapport. We also have urine confirmation of self-reports and so on. The bottom line is that if we look at marijuana use of those people who've used it on a weekly basis in the past year, on a regular basis, in our 18- to 20-year-old offspring, the rate of those who smoked at least one joint in the past week--this is a combination of self-report and ascertained by urine, so I have total confidence in it--was 32%. This percentage smoked at least a joint a week and had been doing so for the past year. People who smoked that amount on a regular basis in the past five years and who may very well have stopped is over half, 52%. I bring that up because when we talk about decriminalization and so on, we often talk about for personal use. I hope somebody will ask me what is meant by “personal use”.

    The bottom line is that for kids who smoked five joints or more a week and were doing so at the time of testing--again, they were not stoned at the time of testing, but that was part of their lifestyle--their IQ dropped four points between ages 9 and 12 and when we tested them at 16 to 20.

    The IQ of the control subjects who did not smoke marijuana went up 2.5 points. And that was statistically significant, that difference between the control group and what I call the heavy users, those who did five joints a week. What is really intriguing is those subjects who had smoked five joints a week and had done so for several years and then had stopped using for at least six months, their IQ did not show that decline.

¹  (1550)  

    Those were the two major findings in this preliminary report. While they were using, their IQ decreased, but for the 18- to 20-year-olds who stopped using, their IQ, for want of a better term, recovered.

    There are two important points to make. This is a middle-class sample--very low risk. I cannot tell whether one would get a similar recovery from a higher-risk group, one perhaps abusing other drugs, practising violence, or whatever.

    A second important point is that those subjects who were using five joints--and I said their IQ went down--their average IQ was still 103. That is above the average of the general population. If I didn't have their pre-marijuana IQ level, I would have looked at my data and said, by gum--or stronger words--marijuana makes your IQ get above the average. The only way I knew that there was an issue here was that I had their pre-marijuana IQ, and compared to that their IQ had in fact decreased.

    I emphasize that because the literature that is available at the moment doesn't have that information. In saying that IQ impacts either negatively or positively, one has to be really careful in interpreting that. Again, the point I'm going to make over and over again is that the issue of marijuana is so complicated. That doesn't mean you can't make a decision, but it is not clean-cut.

    I said IQ recovers and is affected during use. IQ is a very broad issue, but if you look at the more subtle underpinnings of IQ and the more subtle effects of marijuana, things like memory and attention, would they recover? We're looking at that at the moment in this sample.

    I don't think one can generalize, saying that just because IQ recovered, other aspects would recover. We do know from anecdotal statements and so on that one of the main reasons people give up use of marijuana is--and a lot of people do; in our sample, by the age of 20 almost a third had already given up habits they had been doing for two or three years--they say it impacts on memory above and beyond the stone, and this is reported over and over again. It's not surprising. There's no drug in the world that will produce a unitary effect. Much as we'd like it, there's no drug in the world that just produces a nice stone. That ain't gonna happen.

    You're probably aware, I would imagine from other witnesses, that in the last eight or nine years there have been tremendous advances in the investigation of marijuana. Perhaps the most important is the discovery of so-called cannabis receptors in different parts of the brain. Those receptors are found in greatest abundance in those parts of the brain that have to do with memory and attention, so it's no fluke that this is why we have it.

    Let me just say that in our pregnancy stuff, where we look at the consequences of prenatal exposure, in fact that's where we do find an impact in areas of higher problem solving and attention.

    I think I'll leave it at that, and I hope that will open up at least some interesting questions and so on.

    Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Thank you. No doubt it will.

    Professor Sneiderman.

    Professor Barney Sneiderman (Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba): I've appeared twice before the Special Senate Committee on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, but I've never appeared before a Commons committee and I'd like to thank you for inviting me.

    I'm also going to be focusing on marijuana, although my perspective is different from that of Dr. Fried, because he is a scientist and I am not. I'm a law professor with an interest in criminal law, criminology, and social policy.

    I'd like to begin by referring to an article that appeared in the Manchester Guardian on March 15. I'll read the first paragraph:

Government medical experts yesterday provided the hard scientific evidence that will finally clear the way for a relaxation of Britain's cannabis laws. The official report from the advisory council on the misuse of drugs (ACMD), commissioned by the home secretary David Blunkett last October, comes out firmly in favour of downgrading cannabis from class B to class C legal status but warns that it is not a harmless drug.

    What class C status means is that the maximum penalty for possession of marijuana is two years, but a police officer can give an offender a warning or a caution or a court summons. There is no arrest. It warns that it is not a harmless drug. I say of course it isn't, but really, so what.

    There is a marvellous book, a classic, entitled Licit & Illicit Drugs: The Consumers Union Report on Narcotics, Stimulants, Depressants, Inhalants, Hallucinogens & Marijuana- including Caffeine, Nicotine and Alcohol. Published in 1972 by the consumer watchdog organization, the Consumers Union, it remains a valuable, comprehensive, and objective study of its subject matter. As the book makes clear, there is no correlation between the harm potential of a drug and its legal classification. As it says, no drug is safe or harmless at all dosage levels or under all conditions of use. There are really no totally harmless drugs. After all, even the wonder drug Aspirin can cause gastric bleeding, mental confusion, and a host of other unpleasant and sometimes life-threatening side effects.

    In the 1960s I worked at a drug treatment and research centre in New York City, and I remember my first confrontation with an Aspirin junkie. In the course of perhaps a 20-minute interview, I can't even tell you how many Aspirin tables he just chewed and swallowed.

    One must understand that when a drug is criminalized, whether the drug harms the user is legally beside the point. By definition, then, one cannot use an illicit drug; one can only abuse, and surely abuse is wrong in itself. In other words, the public at large has been conditioned to accept illicit drug use as evil in itself. The Latin phrase that we use in criminal law is malum in se, evil in itself.

    Those who insist that marijuana remain illegal so long as it is not totally harmless are imposing a burden of proof that, if applied across the board, would wipe out drug stores, because how many prescriptions, let alone over-the-counter drugs, could pass the no harm test?

    By the way, as an aside, how would the public react to evidence that the smoking of marijuana has caused an epidemic of obesity among adolescents, and even younger children, so that children are presenting with heart disease, strokes, and diabetes caused by smoking marijuana? Can you imagine the public reaction? Even the death penalty would be too lenient for the purveyors of a substance that could wreak such havoc. As you may know, this horrendous crime is being perpetrated by your friendly neighbourhood McDonald's and other fast food outlets, which doesn't stop a squeaky clean Wayne Gretzky from appearing in McDonald's commercials

¹  (1555)  

    What determines which recreational drugs are legal and which are illegal is explained by an acquaintance of mine, the renowned psychiatrist Dr. Thomas Szasz. He uses the phrase “ceremonial chemistry”. He illustrates his point with a metaphor. He points to two bowls of water. One is ordinary tap water and the other is holy water, which means it is sanctified by the church. How can you determine which is which? Both would test chemically as ordinary tap water. The difference between them is ceremonial. In other words, it is not the inherent properties of a drug that determine whether it is legal or illegal.

    To try to understand the war on drugs by studying the effects of the drugs themselves would make as much sense as trying to understand the difference between tap water and holy water by comparing samples of each under a microscope. The war on drugs is really an exercise in ceremonial chemistry, or, one could say, political pharmacology, or pharmacological McCarthyism. We have learned that the behaviour in which people indulge is often less important than the social category to which they belong.

    Why do certain drugs get labelled as deviant whereas others do not? It is necessary to understand that the drugs of choice of the so-called moral center--the solid citizens, the professional and business classes, the police, and the politicians--don't get criminalized. It is only the drugs whose primary indulgers are the so-called morally susceptible that are placed beyond the pale. Of course, the so-called deviants also consume alcohol and tobacco. But the fact that these are also the drugs of choice of the moral centre ensures that they remain legal.

    I presume you have some information about the criminalization of marijuana in 1923, and Emily Murphy and the sensationalist articles in Maclean's Magazine, published in book form as The Black Candle.

º  (1600)  

    The Chair: No, we do not.

    Prof. Barney Sneiderman: You don't?

    The Chair: We had some references from the British example.

    Prof. Barney Sneiderman: Okay.

    The Chair: But we'll get those.

    Prof. Barney Sneiderman: Emily Murphy is a heroine to Canadian feminists. In the early 1920s--

    The Chair: For some of her work.

    Prof. Barney Sneiderman: --she was one of the early pioneers advocating for women's suffrage. She published a series of sensationalist articles in Maclean's Magazine, which were then published in book form in 1922 under the title, The Black Candle. Professor Fried told me about his involvement with the LeDain Commission in the 1970s. It was the LeDain Commission that republished the The Black Candle, with an introduction describing the book as reeking of popular racial bias, fables, and sensationalism. Although her views were widely published and endorsed in newspaper editorials across the country, the chapter titled, “Marijuana, A New Menace”, is replete with documented cases reported by police officials of the most horrific crimes committed by crazed marijuana addicts. Most of the horror stories involve Mexicans, although none is said to have happened in Canada. Still, The Black Candle was of sufficient influence to lead to the banning of the drug in Canada. It was added to the schedule of prohibited drugs in the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, and approved by Parliament in 1923, with no discussion whatsoever.

    I mention this because the public has been conditioned to think that if a drug is banned, there's good reason for it. It is simply accepted as a fait accompli, without any thought to the reason for its legal classification.

    It is well to recall what was said in 1973 by the U.S. National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse:

The imprecision of the term “drug” has had serious social consequences. Because alcohol is excluded, the public is conditioned to regard a martini as something fundamentally different from a marihuana cigarette, a barbiturate capsule or a bag of heroin. Similarly, because the referents of the word “drug” differ so widely in the therapeutic and social contexts, the public is conditioned to believe that “street” drugs act according to entirely different principles than “medical” drugs. The result is that the risks of the former are exaggerated and the risks of the latter are overlooked.

    Have you had any witnesses who have spoken about the Dutch policy with illegal drugs?

    The Chair: It has been referenced several times, and we're hoping to see it firsthand on Thursday and Friday of next week.

    Prof. Barney Sneiderman: Oh, are you going to the Netherlands?

    The Chair: Yes.

    Prof. Barney Sneiderman: Lucky you.

    The Chair: If you saw the agenda, you might not say that, but we'll leave it at that.

    Prof. Barney Sneiderman: I've been there a number of times because of my interest in euthanasia and assisted suicide, although I did have the opportunity to interview Dr. Peter Cohen. I believe he spoke before this committee, did he? Perhaps it was the Senate committee.

    The Chair: The Senate, perhaps.

    Prof. Barney Sneiderman: Okay.

    The Dutch policy is oriented more toward a health model than a police model. Its pillar is what they refer to as “harm reduction”. What's interesting about the Dutch--and this was the case with euthanasia and assisted suicide until the Dutch parliament acted--is that you can look at the penal law, but the penal law doesn't necessarily tell you what the social practice is.

    For example, marijuana is criminalized in the Netherlands, as is cocaine, heroin, and so on. The possession of marijuana is an offence, but it is simply never prosecuted. In fact, possession offences generally, for whatever drug, are simply not prosecuted.

    The rationale is as follows. If the person's use of an illicit drug is not dysfunctional, then there is no rationale for state intervention. If the drug use is dysfunctional to the user, then the arm of the state that should be involved is not law enforcement but rather public health.

    That certainly makes good sense to me. If someone is having a drug problem, then what do we accomplish by labelling him as a criminal? In any event, we would much sooner get him into treatment, wouldn't we? It would seem that if we treat him as a person who has a health problem, we are more likely to do so than if we brand him as a criminal.

    There was a recent item published in The New York Times, “Study Calculates the Effects of College Drinking in the U.S.” It begins:

On an average day, according to a new study, 4 college students die in accidents involving alcohol.

It also says that 23% reported three or more episodes of binge drinking in the previous two weeks.

    Last month this article appeared in the Globe and Mail under the headline “Stats confirm key role alcohol plays in crime”:

Close the liquor stores. Ban those pre-dinner cocktails. The federal government has proved it: It's the drunks, not the druggies, who should really scare us.

A new study confirming the link between substance abuse and crime has found the real demon lurking behind the homicides and violent assaults in this country is the one drug Ottawa lets us buy.

    Of course, there is more than one.

“Everybody's scared of drug-crazed people slitting their throats in the street. It's more likely to be a good old-fashioned drunk.” said...a spokesman for the Canadian Centre for Substance Abuse and the author of the report. “If you look at this study, the first thing you would do is prohibit alcohol,” [he] said.

    And of course the baneful effects of alcohol pale in comparison to those of tobacco.

    If you say, “Well, then, we should ban alcohol”, most consumers don't abuse the drug, so why should their drug use be banned because of the minority who do abuse? If you ban alcohol, it would be like prohibition in the United States in the 1920s, the lawless decade featuring the likes of Al Capone. It's all true, but my question is, why don't our policymakers draw the same conclusion about the war on drugs?

    A question that we really have to consider is whether there are feasible alternatives to a social policy that, to my mind, wallows in hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy. The drug warriors and their allies have buried their heads in the sand because they cannot abide a different way.

º  (1605)  

     The point is that we'll never know about alternatives until we come up for air and start looking. For those who are prepared to extricate their heads and brains from the sand, I suggest that we consider the following points.

    There is a need to guide the public policy of drug control according to the harm principle. Each drug, regardless of its label as licit or illicit, must be considered on its own merits. What is the particular drug's relative potential for both personal and social harm, and what can we do to minimize the harm? In other words, we need a policy that is tailor-made for each drug. For example, in Canada we have done a fairly good job along that line with regard to tobacco, as a combination of public education and high taxes has served to decrease consumption.

    We must keep in mind not only that every drug has the potential to cause harm, but also that what determines any drug's impact upon the consumer and society is not simply the chemistry of the drug; it is rather the interaction between the drug and the consumer. As the authors of the Consumers Union report explain in their introduction:

Readers who traditionally think in terms of the effect of a drug will learn here that even the simplest drugs have a wide range of effects--depending not only on their chemistry but on the ways in which they are used, the laws that govern their use, the user's attitudes and expectations, society's attitudes and expectations, and countless other factors.

    If we focus upon decriminalization, which of course does not have a precise definition--generally speaking, I believe it refers to the decriminalization of possession--one clear distinction between marijuana on the one hand and heroin and cocaine on the other is that there is no domestic manufacturer of heroin and cocaine. If we are going to decriminalize possession, I think one could make a good argument that it be legalized, that it be regulated along the same lines as are tobacco and alcohol.

    I do have a strong libertarian streak, and I frankly find it offensive that the personal possession of any drug for one's own use is a criminal offence. To me that serves no practical purpose, and it is a total affront to any meaningful concept of personal freedom that the state brings down the heavy hand of the criminal law because you ingest one recreational drug rather than another.

    If I say we should decriminalize the possession of all drugs, the standard response is that we're sending the wrong message. We haven't criminalized tobacco. We haven't criminalized alcohol. The message we have sent very clearly with respect to tobacco, less so than with alcohol, is that this drug has a potential for harm. You see on packs of cigarettes, of course, “Cigarette smoking causes cancer”, etc. I believe you now see the warning “Cigarette smoking may cause erectile dysfunction”. I think that could be a very effective warning.

    What I'm saying, in conclusion, is that for the past nearly 100 years we have focused our attention almost exclusively upon the police model of drug control. I'm not saying that we abandon the police model. I think there is something to be learned from the Dutch. There is a health model out there, and one that I think we should pay considerable attention to.

    Thank you.

º  (1610)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Professor Sneiderman.

    I'll now turn to colleagues for questions. I'll start with Mr. White. There are only two of you, but if the question is asked to one person and the other person would like to indicate....

    Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Dr. Fried, I would like to ask you whether or not you concur with the comments I'm going to make. I got them out of the National Institute on Drug Abuse from the States. It's about marijuana and the properties of it: “All forms of marijuana are mind-altering.” In your opinion, is that a factual statement?

    Dr. Peter Fried: Yes.

    Mr. Randy White: I'm not trying to stick you with anything here. I've just been reading it, and I wanted to get a Canadian confirmation, if I could.

º  (1615)  

    Dr. Peter Fried: Before I do, I'd like to just elaborate a little on my answer. When you say different forms, I presume you mean hash and different ways of...?

    Mr. Randy White: Yes.

    Dr. Peter Fried: With respect to the expression “mind-altering”, let me just say that people take marijuana because it alters the mind, their perception. They don't take it because the smoke tastes good. That's an important difference between, in many cases, alcohol and marijuana. Most people, unless they have a problem, do not take alcohol every time to get drunk. With marijuana, the only reason you smoke up--except possibly for medical reasons, but that's a different issue--is to get stoned. It is a mind-altering drug the way it is used, yes.

    Mr. Randy White: Marijuana stays in the body several days after someone has smoked it.

    Dr. Peter Fried: That is such a dicey issue. Yes, it certainly does, and the complexity of that issue is that if you're a regular, chronic smoker, it stays in the body a longer time than it does for an acute, occasional user. That doesn't mean it's having a prolonged effect, but it does stay in the body a long time. The main reason is that it's lipid-soluble. The fats absorb it, and it takes a long time to leech out.

    Mr. Randy White: Right. And marijuana causes problems with memory and/or learning.

    Dr. Peter Fried: While the person is stoned, it creates a problem. As I mentioned in my introduction, it's very controversial as to whether there's a residual effect.

    Mr. Randy White: Marijuana causes a distorted perception. I think that's in the visual--

    Dr. Peter Fried: Time perception is the big one. It seems to alter time. Again, if you're referring to when the person is stoned, I don't think there's any question about that. One can't tell from those statements.

    Perhaps I should have prefaced this by saying that my research is supported by that very agency. I don't think I'm biased, but I should just bring that out in the open.

    Mr. Randy White: You didn't write this, right?

    Dr. Peter Fried: I'll tell you that after.

    Voices: Oh, oh!

    Dr. Peter Fried: So, yes, perception is altered, but again, whether that continues after the stone has left is a controversial issue, and that's what I'm addressing.

    Mr. Randy White: Marijuana causes a loss of motor coordination.

    Dr. Peter Fried: Some people have reported that happening during the stone, but not everybody. Again, there's the same thing: does it persist?

    Mr. Randy White: Marijuana causes an increased heart rate.

    Dr. Peter Fried: While the person is stoned, yes, that happens.

    Mr. Randy White: And finally, marijuana affects driving.

    Dr. Peter Fried: Certainly, while the person is stoned, it effects decision-making. An article that came out last month by Gruber and Pope suggests that the combination of marijuana and alcohol while someone is driving is a very serious issue. One plus one equals three.

    Mr. Randy White: You mention in your presentation that changing the laws of Parliament is anything but a simple exercise, and I would agree with that. I'd like to get your opinion on what the complex aspect of it is. Is it implementing the law? Is it making it a national law all police agencies out there would work on? Are there other complexities about driving cars and that sort of thing?

    Dr. Peter Fried: It's the latter. I can't speak at all with any knowledge about the implementation, or the national versus provincial, and so on.

    I think Dr. Sneiderman alluded a little bit to the issue about whether something is decriminalized and/or legalized, and the public interpretation of it. First of all, the fact that one and a half million Canadians use it is, to my mind, from a scientific point of view, neither here nor there as to the question of whether marijuana is harmful. One can make the same arguments for alcohol and nicotine. What concerns me, however, is that there is really a paucity of knowledge. In spite of the fact that marijuana has been a hot topic for ages and ages, the ability to do research has been rather constrained, for reasons of financial support and so on.

    But just let me raise a few issues that underline what I feel is the complexity of the issue.

    As I mentioned at the outset, the whole issue of residual effect to me is critical. When we deal with personal use--I will raise it, and hopefully folks will ask some questions about it--in our own sample, which is middle-class and low-risk, among the users it ranges from just experimentation, one or two joints a year, to a significant number of what I'll call kids who are using ten to fifteen joints a day. If you use that much, you are stoned throughout your waking time. When you talk about personal use, I know the number of people who are using it. They're not dealing; it is for personal use. That to me is a real issue.

    How long has to pass between a person smoking up and driving, or having any sort of job or vocation where it could impact on somebody else? Certainly if somehow you could lock somebody up in their bedroom while they smoke up, and they don't leave until they're absolutely clean, of course nobody would argue with it. The thing is it goes beyond that.

    Is there a threshold effect? That is, is there a minimum amount that could be defined, where you say, “Okay, if you do this, if you have this amount on you, it's not going to cause a problem”--their individual variation?

    Should all marijuana be treated the same with respect to THC content? When I started my study in 1978, the average joint contained approximately 0.5% of THC. The average joint seized by the police two years ago was 5% to 6%. The average stuff that's on the street now is 8%, 9%, or 10%. It's a different drug.

    Again, I don't want to say it's good, bad, or indifferent, but one has to recognize these sorts of issues.

    Finally, what about pregnancy? Cigarette packages are now containing, I suggest, a whole bunch of cautions. One of them is, “This can harm your baby.” My study is the only major study, aside from one in Pittsburgh, that is looking at that. I don't have enough confidence in my data to say it's innocuous. That's what I mean by complexity.

º  (1620)  

    Mr. Randy White: I have two other short questions.

    You did say the IQ dropped 4%?

    Dr. Peter Fried: No, it was four points; sorry.

    Mr. Randy White: Okay, it's four points--

    Dr. Peter Fried: Right.

    Mr. Randy White: --on whatever point scale that is.

    If that is the case, is it fair to say, because of Holland's more lax rules on the use of marijuana, that their point loss would be now showing after twenty years?

    Dr. Peter Fried: You know, that's a super question.

    I know some of you were teachers in your former life. If you sat in a classroom as a teacher, you would not be able to tell whether this person had an IQ that was four points lower than Johnny on the left and right. But in the general population, a downward shift of four points has a great implication.

    May I just quote from my article? I have to give you a little bit of background information. Just bear with me, please.

    Intervention and special education typically kicks in when the child is identified as having an IQ of approximately 70. In the general population, roughly speaking, 2.5% of the general population have that IQ or lower. If you then shift the IQ by four points downwards, that 2.5% goes up to 5.5%. That's the impact on the general population of a shift of four IQ points. So in an individual, no, you wouldn't notice it, but in terms of the general impact, yes, you would.

    I put to you, if you had a child and knew that something, whatever it is, might lower that child's IQ by four points, would you be concerned?

    So would it be showing up in the general IQ of the Dutch population? Yes, it very well might. How do you prove that? I have no idea.

    My study, where I have “pre” IQ levels and ”post” IQ levels, is a start. Scandinavia, where they have those measurements over many years, could possibly look at it. Holland doesn't.

    Mr. Randy White: One might be able to extrapolate the results to another country, but I agree with that.

    I did want to ask Dr. Sneiderman this question. It doesn't relate to marijuana; it relates to the legality of safe shoot-up sites. If they were to be implemented in Canada, would that not be a contradiction in the Criminal Code? Basically, you would know that people are in a lineup or entering a facility with heroin or coke on their person, shooting up in a facility that is sanctioned by a government organization, presumably. Is that not a significant contradiction of law?

    Prof. Barney Sneiderman: Well, it would require altering the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to remove the contradiction, wouldn't it?

    Mr. Randy White: Do you know whether today, if there were one in Canada, it would be a contradiction in the law the way it exists?

    Prof. Barney Sneiderman: You mean if we were to allow that kind of facility right now?

    Mr. Randy White: Yes.

    Prof. Barney Sneiderman: Of course that would be. But as I've said, that has been the Dutch social policy for over a decade, and there it seems to work.

    Mr. Randy White: No, my point is whether it would be a contradiction in law in Canada today if one were to exist.

    Prof. Barney Sneiderman: Well, if possession is an offence, and you allow someone to shoot up in a so-called safe house or whatever, then it clearly is a contradiction.

    I wonder if I could go back to Dr. Fried's comments for a moment.

    The subject of marijuana has interested me since the late 1960s when I worked in New York City. I've been teaching at a university for 30 years, and I cannot tell you how many students I have spoken to about drug use, the use of marijuana. I really wonder whether it is a different drug today or whether it is simply the case that because the drug is more potent, the user has to smoke much less in order to get stoned. Twenty years ago, let's say, students would tell me they would smoke three or four joints to get stoned. Now, certainly with hydroponic marijuana, I've been told three or four people can get stoned on one joint. So that's something I wonder about.

    Another thing is this. I believe the per capita consumption of marijuana in the Netherlands is less than it is in the United States and in Canada. If marijuana were legalized, it may be that the curve would show a sudden increase, but I would hazard a guess that the curve would then slope downward, because we really live in a so-called booze culture.

º  (1625)  

    Mr. Randy White: Would you like to take that chance and roll the dice on the legalization of it, on behalf of the children of this nation?

    Prof. Barney Sneiderman: The children of this nation have access to marijuana. All you have to do is speak to my two nephews who recently graduated from high school in Winnipeg. I have spoken to many high school students. I've spoken to high school teachers, and they say to me that there really is not a school child around who cannot secure marijuana if the student is so inclined.

    Do we like minors smoking tobacco? Do we like minors drinking alcohol? We prohibit that. Of course, we cannot totally prevent it, but there we've come to the conclusion that we don't live in a perfect world. What we try to do is cut our losses, and a policy that produces a lesser evil than another is preferable.

    I think perhaps the notion of the forbidden fruit explains a considerable amount of the attraction toward marijuana, that is, it's because the drug is illegal that many youngsters experiment with it.

    The Chair: Thank you very much. Merci beaucoup.

    Monsieur Ménard.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Thank you.

    Of course the perspectives set out for us by our witnesses are really very interesting. Before asking a question, I want to make sure that we will be getting a written summary of the research in psychology which was presented by the witness. Will we be receiving a written document?

    The Chair: Can you give us a copy of that study?

[English]

    Dr. Peter Fried: I have a single copy here. Obviously you are more than welcome to take this and reproduce it. This refers to the IQ change, if that's the data you're asking about.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: I would like us to have a copy of this document in both languages so that we may refer to it to understand the data you have presented to us this afternoon correctly. Here is my premise: Several witnesses we met with from the beginning of our hearings have told us that there can be a psychological dependency to it, but that there is no physiological dependency to marijuana and that it has very few consequences. The Nolin consultation document seems to be saying the same thing. You, however, seem to be presenting some facts that are, in their own way, revolutionary. You say that it is not accurate that there are no consequences and that there may even be some on people's intelligence and cognitive skills. The members of the committee must have this data, which is important, and understand it as well as possible. That is why I want to make sure that we have this information.

    Here's my first question. You are a psychologist and you are interested in people's behaviour. Beyond the consequences that marijuana may have on people's cognitive skills, are there any comments or knowledge you would like to impart to us concerning the individual motivations that lead people to use marijuana?

    I don't believe that people use drugs simply because they are forbidden. I think there are much deeper motivations and I would like to know whether as a psychologist, you have some information on that.

º  (1630)  

[English]

    Dr. Peter Fried: Let me address the first question and then the second one.

    I want to emphasize that the data I reported showed there was a residual effect on cognition that lasted beyond the stone. But importantly, when you just looked at IQ, it reversed and went back to normal. So my data on IQ did not show a long-term permanent effect.

    I also added the important proviso that I didn't know if the same recovery occurred with things like memory and attention. That's in the article I'll leave here. Obviously you're welcome to reproduce that.

    The second issue was whether I noted in our subject users and non-users, beyond cognition, any impact psychologically, and so on. I don't want to be at all facetious, but all psychologists are not the same. I'm not a clinical psychologist. My expertise is in what's called neuropsychology. I deal with the assessment of cognition; I'm not an expert, in any sense, in the clinical interpretation.

    But we have collected a lot of information about these subjects. One real problem with marijuana usage is there have been a lot of reports that long-term chronic adult marijuana users can be described as unhappy campers. The issue is whether they were unhappy campers before they started using. I don't have information on that.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Insofar as dependency on drugs is concerned, what is the difference between Ecstasy and marijuana in terms of their effect on behaviour and learning capacity?

[English]

    Dr. Peter Fried: I would not. That's apples and oranges. However, as I mentioned, approximately one-third to one-quarter of our 20-year-olds who were using heavily, daily, stopped using on their own. They stopped using because they felt it was impacting on their memories, their social lives, as they described it, and so on. The users were aware of marijuana's impact.

    It doesn't make any sense to compare marijuana to Ecstasy, in terms of the age of the person who uses those two drugs.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: But age has nothing to do with the substance. You can't say something like that. There are researchers who have received public funds, for instance in Newfoundland, who have made these comparisons. You were saying yourself that each drug has to be examined or compared individually, but any drug affects the central nervous system.

    You stated that in the case of marijuana, there were more receptors that are related to memory. These comparisons can be made and they must be made. This is why there are degrees of control, and criminal law also reflects this. So you cannot say that we can't make that comparison, and this has nothing to do with people's age.

    I'm asking you this question because there are some scientists at Memorial University, among others, who showed us some tables demonstrating that morphologically speaking, the part of the brain that was affected by Ecstasy could be identified, and explained what this meant in terms of memory. You yourself referred several times to the effect the use of marijuana may have on memory and cognitive skills. Other witnesses, scientists like you, also mentioned those things in relation to Ecstasy. That is why I asked you that question. It seems to me that it is a bit cavalier on your part to say that we are comparing apples and oranges.

º  (1635)  

[English]

    Dr. Peter Fried: I'll stick by it. I'm a scientist and I work with facts; I don't work with comparisons. I said age was important because the average age of the Ecstasy user is before the brain, the CNS, has fully developed. The average age of the marijuana user is after full development. Age is critical when you look at the impact on the central nervous system, as you pointed out. You can't compare those two.

    Ecstasy is typically taken for a short period of time in the lifespan of an individual--three or four years. Marijuana is a lifetime habit. With due respect, age is extremely important when you take that into account. Is the nervous system developing or not?

    Let me just follow up on that a little. I mentioned cannabis receptors and the parts of the brain. If I can come back to the pregnancy data, we found an impact only when the children were about four or five years of age. That's the first time we found an impact. I was very surprised at that, until we realized the cannabis receptors are found very much in the front part of the brain. The front part of the brain doesn't start to develop until a child is four years of age. Bingo! We had a reason why we didn't see anything at four years of age. Age is critical.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Very well, but let's talk about the use of Ecstasy so that we can tease each other a bit, you and I. This will put a little thrill into your life, but I'm sure that you already have that.

    According to you, what is the average age of those who use Ecstasy? It is about the same as that of the young adults who use marijuana. People who use Ecstasy are not senior citizens. Even if we are told that there has not been any national study done on drug consumption since 1994 and thus that we cannot know exactly how many people use marijuana in Canada, based on your intuition and what you know of this, what is the average age of the Ecstasy consumer in Canada at this time? I remind you that this is the third most prevalent drug in seizures by the Correctional Service and other authorities responsible for enforcing the law.

[English]

    Dr. Peter Fried: Monsieur Ménard, my expertise is in marijuana. You probably know more than I do about Ecstasy. I can only report here about marijuana. I can only report that in our own sample, any adolescent who tested positive for Ecstasy was excluded from our study because I didn't want to confound the marijuana findings. So I can't speak about Ecstasy. All I can tell you is the average age for starting marijuana use is about 14 or 15, if that helps.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: My other question concerns marijuana. According to your study, can marijuana be a gateway drug in the sense that someone who uses marijuana will move on to cocaine or heroin?

[English]

    Dr. Peter Fried: From a pharmacological point of view, there's no evidence whatsoever. Again, I want to emphasize I'm really on the fence with respect to decriminalization and legalization, but to me this is the strongest argument for decriminalization. It's a gateway drug because it is an illegal drug, and therefore there's the association with other illegal drugs. I totally agree with that. But it's no more a gateway drug than milk. Everybody has milk, etc.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Do I have time for another question to the witness, Madam Chair?

    The Chair: I believe that Dr. Sneiderman also wants to reply.

[English]

    Prof. Barney Sneiderman: I was going to comment on the so-called gateway theory. When I was an undergraduate, one of the most valuable courses I took was called logic. We studied logical fallacies, one of which is post hoc, ergo propter hoc--before the fact, therefore after the fact. Most consumers of cocaine and heroin have smoked marijuana, have smoked cigarettes, have consumed alcohol, and have drunk orange juice and milk.

    The Dutch policy is based upon two foundations. One is the reduction of harm. The other is the separation of markets. In other words, if marijuana is criminalized, then the consumer who is dealing with the trafficker may at some point be asked whether he'd like to try something that's more potent than marijuana.

    I have something else I'd like to say. Because marijuana is criminalized, you really do not have the opportunity to receive any kind of perspective from long-term users of marijuana, of whom I know many--physicians, dentists, lawyers, professors of various kinds, businessmen. They don't toke up every day, but that is their recreational drug of choice, along with alcohol. They are people who do smoke marijuana. They've been doing it since the sixties and seventies. They are very productive people. But you never hear from them, because for obvious reasons they're not going to come forward and describe their experience to you.

º  (1640)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: You are saying that one can be a professional, involved in society, and use marijuana, and that this has no consequence on one's capacity to actively participate in society. So, logically speaking, as legislators, we should review the issue of marijuana to make the law less prohibitive and less punitive.

[English]

    Prof. Barney Sneiderman: I think if someone is upset with the libertarian streak, I find it morally offensive to criminalize anyone for a substance that he ingests into his own body. To me that smacks of George Orwell's spectre of Big Brother. I simply see nothing that is gained by the criminalization of possession of any drug. By the way, during the so-called “noble experiment” with alcohol in the 1920s with Prohibition, possession was never criminalized. If it had been, then the disastrous social effects of the criminalization of alcohol would have been compounded, because aside from going after bootleggers, the police would have been apprehending consumers.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard: I'd rather you be a libertine than a liberal, but in the philosophical sense of the term. Madam Chair, come on! I'm asking you to be more liberal, not a libertine.

    The Chair: I am very liberal.

[English]

    Dr. Fried, briefly.

    Dr. Peter Fried: Do you mind if I just raise two points?

    Mr. Ménard, you raised the issue a little bit earlier about dependence and addiction. I wonder if I could just comment a little bit about this and also respond a little bit about doctors and lawyers who use.

    Again, I want to emphasize that in our own work, the average IQ of our heavy users was above average. It was only because I had pre-marijuana IQ that I knew there was a detrimental effect. I have no idea whether those lawyers or doctors would perform better if they did not smoke up, but just because there are successful lawyers and doctors who smoke up does not mean that marijuana is innocuous. I want to emphasize that. One cannot lead to that conclusion.

    Secondly, I'd like to very briefly address the issue of dependence on marijuana, because you raised it and I think it's terribly important. You're quite right as to pharmacological dependence. There may be some sort of withdrawal, but compared to the other drugs it's not a major issue.

    But as to psychological dependence, which is just as important as pharmacological, we have evidence in our own study, and just today I received a study from Australia. The bottom line in their study, and it's so similar to ours, is that if somebody uses marijuana more than once a week, a significant percentage, roughly speaking 15%--let's be conservative--show a number of signs of psychological dependence.

    I'll just mention a couple of them. It's not going to upset the world, but it's important to recognize that it can create a problem. They spend a lot of time thinking about when they are going to smoke up next. They have a persistent desire for it, and as a psychologist--and here I will put on my hat as a psychologist--it's their way of coping with stress and anxiety. If that's a good thing or a bad thing, I don't know. But the heavy users develop no other way of dealing with stress, anxiety, and so on. I would suggest this is something we have to be aware of if we change the laws.

    The Chair: Do you think, Professor Sneiderman, you might be able to answer Ms. Davies' questions?

    Prof. Barney Sneiderman: I agree with Dr. Fried that marijuana is not innocuous. In my hand I am holding my favourite drug--I'm an asthmatic. This drug can cause harm if it is overused.

    I think the kind of research Dr. Fried is doing is extremely important. If we focus upon a health model, what is really important is education.

    But I simply want to stress that there is the health model and there is the police model. The police model really is not concerned with education. Where we need people like Dr. Fried is if we begin to treat seriously the health model approach.

º  (1645)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Professor Sneiderman.

    Ms. Davies, for real.

    Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Thank you.

    First of all, thank you to both of you for coming today.

    I'm sure this whole debate about marijuana--decriminalization, legalization, etc.--will rage on forever, even if this committee can come to any conclusion. I just want to move the debate a bit, because I'm not even sure this is where the debate is at. To me, what's important is your study; it's how we use the information you have provided to us.

    You may know we just came back from Washington and New York. A couple of people with whom we met in Washington, one a Republican congressman, told us that “B.C. Bud” was as dangerous on the streets of the U.S. as cocaine. That raised my eyebrows, in terms of its credibility, but that was his opinion.

    Then we heard from many people, but one who struck me was someone who's very key in the inter-Americas drug control strategy--I may have it slightly wrong. Somebody asked, ten years from now, what will the drugs of choice be? He said, “It will be synthetics.” He said this whole issue of trying to control the points of entry, whether of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, whatever--forget it. In fact, even the President's office on the drug control strategy admitted they only inspect 2% of containers.

    To me, this was a very important point, because if it's true that ten years from now we could be facing a totally different situation, it reinforces the point that drugs exist, that they have always been there, and that they will always be there, either legal or illegal. They will always be harmful in varying degrees. To me, the critical issue is how we go about providing proper and real education to people.

    I'm very struck by your comments that, for example, in your study, we don't know how long after you've been high from marijuana you should wait before you drive a car, or what the real impact is on pregnancy. It seems to me that at least with tobacco and alcohol we do have that information and we're able to communicate it to people and say, “Okay, drinking is not good for you, generally speaking, but if you are going to drink, this is what you should be aware of”, etc.

    As long as these substances are illegal, whether it's marijuana or whatever, there's just no way this information is getting through. In fact, we're actually pushing young people--and older people too--to the margins where you can't even get that information.

    I wanted to put that to you: how we look at this issue in terms of education. You've touched upon it, Professor, and I think the Dutch have shown that their use has actually gone down. They've actually separated out the market for marijuana from the other, more hard-core drugs. That's one point.

    The second point is on the issue of IQ. To me, the context is everything. I don't doubt your results, that you have found that the impact on the general population could be harmful in terms of lowering the IQ. But we have to put this in context, surely. I wouldn't dispute what you say, but how does it stack up, for example, against the effects of poverty on IQ, or not having adequate access to post-secondary education? It seems to me one could argue that there's a much more pervasive, dramatic effect on the population's IQ from that. I get really worried when we just isolate this one thing of marijuana. It's how we apply it as a general rule, and what we learn from it.

    I wonder if you both concur with that or whether you have a different opinion.

º  (1650)  

    Prof. Barney Sneiderman: One thing I would pick up on what you said is that the use of drugs for recreational purposes is part and parcel of the human condition. As anthropologists will tell you, you cannot find a society anywhere that does not resort to recreational drug use. It isn't something that is going to go away. It is part and parcel of the human condition.

    When we declare a war on drugs, we are declaring a war on ourselves.

    Ms. Libby Davies: And mostly poor people, I would argue.

    Prof. Barney Sneiderman: I think with marijuana too, because we border on the United States, we cannot escape the impact of the propaganda that emanates from the United States. When William Bennett, who was President Reagan's drug czar, refers to marijuana as “the most dangerous drug in the world”, that should give one pause.

    I really believe that, particularly in the United States where the law against marijuana is pursued with far more zeal than here, the war against marijuana is a war against the 1960s, because marijuana was the drug of the 1960s. I really believe that what certainly explains the American position on marijuana is that what is involved here is this generational conflict between the early 21st century and a decade that has been perceived as wallowing in permissiveness.

    Dr. Peter Fried: Can I address the issue? Let's change from subjectivity to objectivity. Let's move from--forgive me--don't you think it's poverty, or don't you think it was the 1960s?

    Here are some facts, and you're absolutely right. I'll use some jargon here because I don't know how to get around it, but the amount of variance that prenatal drug exposure causes on IQ, the amount that it uniquely contributes or subtracts, in the best of circumstances, the best study is 3% or 4%. Poor socio-economic status is 18% to 20%.

    You're absolutely right, but that doesn't negate the importance of looking at other aspects. Of course we have to look at the gestalt. Nobody is in isolation. Of course we have to look at the multitude of drugs, and so on.

    Let me give you an idea, because again I want to focus on marijuana. I'm sure you're aware of the controversy of lead. Lead, in the general population, roughly speaking, produces a decrement of 2.6 points in IQ. We have changed the whole attitude in North America of leaded gasoline and unleaded gasoline because of that. Of course it happens that if you live in a poor housing development, you're going to have leaded paint. Those things go together.

    As far as what's going to happen in 10 years with drugs--I can't remember whether he's Democrat or Republican--that is wrong.

    There's a fascinating history--

    Ms. Libby Davies: He was neither, actually; he was a bureaucrat.

    Dr. Peter Fried: Well, I can't comment on that.

    There's a great book called “Marihuana: The First Twelve Thousand Years”. It's not going to disappear in 10 years.

    Ms. Libby Davies: No, he didn't say that. He just said there would be a huge rise in synthetics.

    Dr. Peter Fried: They're called designer drugs. Designer drugs have become vogue perhaps since Freud's time, and yes, every time there's legislation against a particular drug, they're going to change a molecule and it's going to be legal for a little bit. But that doesn't mean that tobacco is.... It's the most addictive drug we know, compared to crack. It's going to be around.

    Ms. Libby Davies: I don't think we disagree. Surely the question is, though, with the information we have already from your study and from everything else that has been done, what resources do we then apply to deal with these questions?

    To get back to the poverty question, here we have in the States, $17 billion or $20 billion that is being poured into enforcement, where there has to be some sort of spectrum in terms of the harms that are created. Meanwhile, as you say, the incidence of poverty is having a far greater impact, but the resources that are applied there are nothing compared to what it is in terms of the war on drugs.

    I'm not saying we ignore the harm created by marijuana or any other drug. We shouldn't. What we should do is use your information and all the other information to provide real information to people, just as we've done with tobacco and alcohol, and address some of the more underlying systemic issues that may cause people to go to drugs. And make people aware that they are making healthy choices, because there are two groups here. One group is kids who go to drugs because it is like an experiment; they have everything going for them, and for whatever reason they want to take the risk. But there are a lot of other people who, I think because of poverty, because of trauma, are in effect self-medicating.

    So there are different situations that exist in terms of drug use. Again, where do you apply those resources, given that we have limited resources?

º  (1655)  

    Dr. Peter Fried: What you're saying is absolutely--and I don't mean this facetiously, of course--a motherhood statement. Obviously it's a limited resource. There are only so many slices of the pie. All I'm saying is, when I hear subjective statements, which are so difficult to refute, I would just....

    Ms. Libby Davies: What subjective statement are you talking about?

    Dr. Peter Fried: You're absolutely right that we pour billions of dollars into drug enforcement, and so on. I know this is opening up a terrible red herring. Absolutely more money, if we have it, should go into, let's say, improving or decreasing the number of people, families, at a poverty level, but I'm not quite sure if we know what....

    Don't misinterpret me. I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, but as a scientist I've yet to see statements that show that if you do such and such, there will be remedial action. At this stage, we are supposing that if we pour x dollars into something, it's going to result in measurable change.

    All I'm saying is that I come here trying to show exactly your point, that there is a paucity of objective scientific information that is available to the public, and I totally agree with you. I totally agree, as I indicated with this variance thing, which is a fact, that in the grand scheme of things, poverty has much greater impact on the measures I'm looking at--absolutely.

    Prof. Barney Sneiderman: With regard to evidence, we know with respect to tobacco that consumption has dropped dramatically because people are educated.

    Dr. Peter Fried: I'm just going to interrupt for a second. There is one group where it hasn't dropped and that's women of reproductive age. With that group there has been a lot of education. I just want to show that we have to be so careful about these general statements.

    Prof. Barney Sneiderman: But the per capita consumption of tobacco has dropped considerably, right?

    Dr. Peter Fried: Absolutely.

    Prof. Barney Sneiderman: You take physicians. I have many physician friends. I don't know of one who smokes. When you address the question of substance abuse and pregnancy, I can tell you that coming from Manitoba there's fetal alcohol syndrome. I certainly don't have any impression that the government is really doing anything to attempt to tackle it. I think it is a social problem that is so horrific, it is really beyond articulating how horrific it is. I certainly can't do that.

    The Chair: Thank you. We'll make sure to send you information on the Healthy Start program.

    Now over to Mr. Harb.

    Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much for your excellent presentations, both of you. Listening to what you both were talking about triggered a question.

    First, Peter, you spoke about the study you are doing and the fact that it's far-reaching. Probably there are very few, if any, similar studies around the world. It struck me that there's a lack of data in a sense in the field. We're talking about tailored drugs. Barney spoke about all of these designer drugs and all those things.

    I want to get your reaction to--I have been thinking of this a bit--whether or not there is a need in a sense to have some sort of a mechanism or organization or databank or system whereby you will monitor and collect the data of all of the different drugs that exist. You will do analysis. You disseminate information. You do research. You fund people like yourself who are doing this wonderful research at Carleton University and so on.

    Is there something that exists now that could do that? In your view, is this perhaps something we should explore as a committee?

»  (1700)  

    Dr. Peter Fried: There are in fact several organizations like that in Canada and in the States that are collecting this information. I'm sorry, I can't think of the names off the top of my head. I know there's.... Gosh, I go to umpteen conferences. There were several held very recently here in Ottawa at the Chateau Laurier. One was on the issue of smoking, and then two weeks later there was another conference they asked me to go to on drugs in general. These do exist. In fact, there are perhaps too many in the sense that it's scattered.

    Absolutely, that is a benefit. Again, as long as--and this is obviously a hobby horse I ride a lot--it's objective. So many of them have a preconceived approach--one way or the other, pro or against. But when I read the literature, when I read the press, that of course moulds public opinion and obviously has to influence you.

    Just the day before yesterday there was a two-line summary of a report of somebody from the Toronto Addictions Research Foundation, who basically said--and I'm sure it was taken out of context because I know this man--that if alcohol and tobacco and marijuana were suddenly discovered, there's no question which one would not be banned. If you don't mind me, what a stupid statement was quoted there. I'm not attributing that, but that was in quotes. Statements like that are so uninformative and misleading. Yes, I think it would be extremely useful, and the CIHR, the new research area, is now certainly doing work in this area.

    Yes, Mr. Harb, I think you're absolutely right, it would be useful.

    Mr. Mac Harb: Now there's a catch-22. Canada signed some international agreements--a number of treaties. Quite a few countries have signed these treaties. As a parliamentarian, I want to pick your brain on how we can, for example, as a country, say to ourselves, yes, we are fulfilling our duties under those international agreements, but yet we have the approach of laissez-faire.

    Let's say, for example, a police officer found somebody with a small amount of marijuana or whatever, and we let them go through the fine lines without charging them. That's one scenario. Are we fulfilling our commitment under those circumstances?

    On the other hand, there is a flip side of it. How can we do it? How can we manage the de facto situation we have right now in trying to do it through some change of a law through Parliament? How can we have it both ways, in other words, and do it like others are doing it, but do it in the Canadian way, which is above board, straight, without blushing?

    Dr. Peter Fried: The only thing I can think of is that's like being almost pregnant. It ain't gonna happen.

    Could you give me an example of a particular international treaty or--

    Mr. Mac Harb: It's our obligation under international laws, all the narcotics legislation that specifically tells countries who are signatories to those treaties that....

    Dr. Peter Fried: I think there's a huge gap between what Parliament might choose or not choose to pass as a law and the reality at the moment, as emphasized by Dr. Sneiderman. It is at the moment illegal to have marijuana, but I know that in my middle-class sample, half the people use it on a regular basis.

    As a scientist, again, I can't comment. I think we can have all the best intentions, and we could pass all the--

    Mr. Mac Harb: I want to stop you there. As a scientist you can't comment, but you have users of drugs and you are doing tests on them now. Did you get a licence in order to do that? How did you manage that?

    Dr. Peter Fried: Yes, I do have clearance from the RCMP. All the data we collect is confidential.

    Mr. Mac Harb: Obviously, then, in a sense it's already been there. You know yourself that it's already widespread. You must have an opinion as a scientist in terms of what would be in the best interests of your clients in the long run.

    Dr. Peter Fried: That's a different question. I thought your original question was, how can we have it both ways? How can we live within our treaties? That I cannot comment on, but I think Ms. Davies raised a very important question: how do we get there? I think it's by disseminating objective information so we don't have, as alluded to, a recurrence of the marijuana scare of the 1920s and so on.

    We do know, for example, that warning labels do help. There's ample evidence to show that, but I think it's imperative that it be realistic so that we don't go with the scare, so that people can make an educated choice. I think that's the point you were making.

»  (1705)  

    Mr. Mac Harb: Barney, what you brought up was interesting. Now consider a situation where, for example, somebody who is in a mental institution moves out of the institution and into the community and commits a crime. It's not because he or she wanted to do it, but because the mental capacity is not there and they end up confronting the law. As soon as they come before the justice system, the judge will look at the situation, do an assessment, and send them back for treatment. Well, we hope that's what will end up happening, so that they don't get taken to jail.

    Your point is that what you want to see happening is if somebody is addicted to a drug and we know that person in fact has an addiction problem, it is society's problem to address the issue from a health rather than a legal perspective. We don't want to take the person, charge them in court, jail them, and then throw them back into the community after putting them in jail for a few days, or whatever the time might be. Is that what you're trying to address, that you have to look at the issue from a health perspective rather than from the perspective that we have somebody who is contravening the law?

    Prof. Barney Sneiderman: I would say there are recreational drug users who don't require treatment. What they would like is to be left alone.

    I would also say that, as Dr. Fried mentioned, probably the drug with the most addictive properties is nicotine, while most consumers of heroin and cocaine are casual users. Then there are obese people around. They eat too much. It's not the food that explains their obesity, right? Is there such an entity as an addictive personality? I don't know.

    What I'm saying is, if the use is functional, it's not the government's business. If the use is dysfunctional, it is the government's business, but I don't see what is accomplished by taking someone who has an illicit drug problem and branding him as a criminal.

    That makes as much sense to me as the provision in the Criminal Code, abolished in 1972, that criminalized attempted suicide. It dawned on Parliament that someone who is attempting to commit suicide has problems enough without being branded as a criminal. Let us deal with the problems that caused the person to commit suicide. In other words, it's a public health issue, not a police issue, and I feel the same here.

    Mr. Mac Harb: Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Okay, but pursuing your current line of comment, we certainly are trying to educate people more about the concern about obesity because of the horrible increase in Type 2 diabetes, and there are specific populations we're targeting.

    In terms of attempted suicide, there are certain provisions within the law that you can be committed after so many attempts. So there are still some parameters around that.

    How does that extend to your comments on marijuana, then, if you're going to make that analogy?

    Prof. Barney Sneiderman: The vast majority of people who attempt to commit suicide, if this is known, are treated medically.

    The Chair: But there's an intervention by the law to ensure they're treated medically.

    Prof. Barney Sneiderman: But they don't wind up with criminal records. They don't wind up in prison.

    The Chair: So would you suggest that someone who continues to use drugs illegally could be committed to treatment?

    Prof. Barney Sneiderman: If the use is dysfunctional.

    The Chair: Who defines that? Pregnant women?

»  (1710)  

    Prof. Barney Sneiderman: First let me say that the history of coerced treatment for drugs such as heroin and cocaine has produced dismal results.

    The Chair: What's your definition of “coercion”?

    Prof. Barney Sneiderman: Mandatory civil commitment, which has been the experience in the United States with heroin going back to the early part of the last century. The recidivism rate was extremely high. There's the phrase “You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink”. People will benefit from treatment if it is something they desire. If it's forced upon them, they won't.

    The Chair: We've had experience observing at the Toronto Drug Court. Some people think it's coercive that the people who go through that process have to get treatment, although they do clearly have an option, which is to just do the time or take whatever other sanctions there are. In fact, the results are showing pretty great successes, perhaps because of some of the things they are including, some of the social supports. I would argue that it is because of the social supports, and the fact that they recognize people are going to relapse in the process of getting to where they want to be.

    Are you opposed to that kind of coercion?

    Prof. Barney Sneiderman: Well, it returns us to the question of whether use is dysfunctional, and there are certainly social parameters that can determine that. For example, with alcohol, we can say that a particular consumer's use of alcohol is dysfunctional because of how it impacts upon him or his family.

    We do know that there are users of morphine.... For example, Dr. William Halstead, who is considered the father of American surgery, was addicted to morphine for most of his life. He received it through his medical colleagues. It apparently didn't affect his career, and you wouldn't have known it simply from his behaviour. Was his use of morphine dysfunctional? Apparently not.

    So I think it really depends upon whether the drug is getting the better of the person. If the person uses the drug, enjoys the drug, and functions, that's different.

    The Chair: Before I turn back to Mr. White to see if he has any further questions, I'll just say that this committee has to make some recommendations to the Canadian public and to the House of Commons in November. We are probably going to be recommending some changes to the current policies, and that could be very broadly interpreted.

    Do you have any specific proposals for what you would like to see in a new drug strategy, new legislation, new education programs, or anything else you might think of?

    That's to both of you.

    Prof. Barney Sneiderman: There are approximately 1.5 million users of marijuana in Canada. There is a book called The Limits of the Criminal Sanction by the renowned Stanford law professor, Herbert Packer. He has argued that the criminal law is an inappropriate mechanism of social control when substantial numbers of citizens engage in a behaviour that they do not regard as morally wrong. And I ascribe to that proposition.

    We are labelling 1.5 million Canadians as criminals. To my mind, that should stop.

    The Chair: And that's on the marijuana file particularly?

    Prof. Barney Sneiderman: Correct.

    The Chair: Dr. Fried.

    Dr. Peter Fried: Thank you for this opportunity.

    I really struggle with this because this has been my life's work, and I've been involved in the States in umpteen hearings on this sort of thing. The only message I would really like to get across to the legislators is that I totally agree with you that the laws have to be changed. I think, though, it's imperative that with that change comes across the clear message that with some change with decriminalization and so on, it doesn't give a sanction to usage. When I speak with umpteen groups and so on, that always goes in lockstep: if the government does decriminalize, it's basically saying this drug is innocuous, virtually harmless, and it's not.

    I really think if you look at the objective evidence, it is clear that there is a.... I agree with the implicit statement anyway that for the vast majority of folks who use it, it doesn't result in self-harm or it doesn't incapacitate them. It might do some harm, but it's a balance scale. The reason people smoke up is it makes them feel good. That's the reason. That's hedonism. Hedonism isn't bad, goodness gracious, but there may be a price for it. That's the issue, in my head.

    The message I am always concerned about is that if there is a move to decriminalize it to an extent, going along with that there has to be--and I absolutely agree with you--a vigorous campaign of education, not a scare. It's a simple little thing. You put money in a bank account and you take a certain amount out. If you put more in than you take out, the account is going to grow. If you smoke more than about two or three joints a week, it's going to accumulate in your body. That's a fact. Nobody's going to dispute that. Well, there are certain things that follow from that.

    This is a long-winded answer. What I would like is that if there is a change, it absolutely is clear that it doesn't mean the government thinks it's okay or the public should interpret it as okay. I absolutely agree that there should be an objective, not of overwhelming the public with information, but to show that if you do use it and it is your only way of coping, that can be a serious problem.

»  (1715)  

    The Chair: Just on that point, it does concern me that governments and educators and people at all levels in our society try to deliver certain messages, but they're very siloed. There's a message about drinking and driving, there's a message about alcohol use after 19, there are some messages on cigarettes. Yet as a society there doesn't seem to be much support for appropriate use of whatever the substance is.

    You mentioned prescription drugs earlier. In our society, if you have a headache, you take a pill. You don't look at any alternatives. We have people who think prescription drugs or over-the-counter drugs are inherently safe because they are medicine. Somebody mentioned Aspirin earlier. You have to look at the context. You have to look at what's going on in your body versus my body and what's appropriate.

    Do you see that messaging on marijuana, since that's the thing you're mostly focused on, needs to be part of a broader debate about appropriate use of any substance and taking care of ourselves in a different way? Do you think that would be more successful as a message, or do we need to do marijuana education if we made a change on marijuana, and not worry about some of the other drugs?

    Before you answer, I actually just wanted to finesse that a little bit. The Office of Applied Studies guy was specifically talking about dealing with cocaine as a problem that would rise in crystal meth. That's what they're already seeing, because those are more equivalent drugs. Marijuana and crystal meth are not in the same category.

    Dr. Fried.

    Dr. Peter Fried: If I could rephrase your question a little bit, should it be focused or should it be a generic type of thing? I think the psychological evidence is pretty clear on this. A focused education is much more effective than a generic one. Generic education loses the forest for the trees.

    There are statements about a healthy lifestyle and moderation and so on. To be absolutely blunt, the government shouldn't spend a penny more on those sorts of statements; it's just speaking to the converted. The people who are receptive to that sort of input are already aware of it. What has to happen now, to my mind, is a focus on the facts, the issue of pregnancy and marijuana, for example. I work with cigarettes also. The two drugs of interest--and Ms. Davies knows that--are cigarettes and marijuana.

    The one segment of society that I can see being fairly successful in quitting is the pregnant woman. She may very well resume afterward. So with marijuana and pregnancy, the honest statement we can make is that two studies--my study and the one in Pittsburgh--do suggest that there are effects of marijuana and pregnancy, although they are subtle. We can list a couple of them. This would get to that important group.

    With respect to the residual effect, for example, when we know that, we can make that statement: “Look, if you're using two or three joints a week, it's going to hang in your body. Your body will never be able to clear it fast enough.” So yes, I think a focused approach is better than a generic one.

»  (1720)  

    Prof. Barney Sneiderman: All I would say is that the one thing we have to do is get the police out of drug education.

    The Chair: Okay. That would be a question one of our colleagues who isn't here might have asked you.

    Mr. White.

    Mr. Randy White: I too have always been concerned about contradictions and mixed messages--zero tolerance for drugs in prison and we hand out bleach to sterilize the needles. I don't know what kind of message this sends those who broke the law in the first place.

    Prof. Barney Sneiderman: Maybe it sends the message that a zero tolerance policy is an exercise in futility.

    Mr. Randy White: Maybe it does. I'd be a little more concerned about the message you're sending people about the law, though, sir. There are safe shoot-up sites, yes, but possession is illegal. I don't think these kinds of mixed messages are helpful in a society, regardless of what the changes are. We should be careful not to send those mixed messages. I do agree with those comments.

    I'd like to ask you, Dr. Sneiderman, did you say, just for clarification, it's your opinion that we should legalize the use of cocaine and heroin?

    Prof. Barney Sneiderman: No. What I said was I am personally offended by criminalizing the possession of any drug for personal use.

    Mr. Randy White: So for an addict who is “personally using” heroin, would you be opposed to a law that prevents him from using it?

    Prof. Barney Sneiderman: Well, if he's addicted, then by definition the law has not prevented his use. The Dutch send buses around and look for people, because they have very excellent contacts in communities. They look for people who have drug problems. They hand out clean needles. They aggressively search out people whose drug use is dysfunctional and say to them, look, let's see what we can do to help you. But they don't arrest them as criminals, even though the possession of cocaine and heroin is also a criminal offence in the Netherlands.

    The arm of the state is involved with personal drug use, but the arm of the state focuses upon use that is dysfunctional and proceeds according to a health model, not a police model.

    Mr. Randy White: Does the state have any role or responsibility at all in protecting an individual from themselves?

    Prof. Barney Sneiderman: First, you've asked a philosophical question that philosophers such as John Stuart Mill have dealt with. Second, there is the question of the efficacy of the law. Does the law protect a person from self-harm if the person's inclination is to use an illicit drug? I don't know what the evidence is that the law has served as an effective deterrent. Keep in mind that the vast majority of users of a drug will never have any kind of contact with the law. Drug users know this, that the odds of being apprehended are quite slim.

    So I don't know how effective a mechanism the law is to deal with the concerns I share with you, because we both have concerns about people whose drug use is dysfunctional. The question is, how do we attempt to deal with dysfunctional drug use? In other words, how do we attempt to reduce the harm it causes in society?

    Mr. Randy White: Thank you.

    The Chair: Ms. Davies, the final question.

    Ms. Libby Davies: Thanks.

    It seems to me that we do need to have some sort of significant shift or change. The committee will be grappling with this. Part of the debate we have is about what are the barriers that are preventing change from taking place. Here we've had a very good, rational debate. We've generally had some incredible witnesses come before us.

    I'm just curious about what the barriers are. So I'd just like to put this little questionnaire to you. Are the barriers that you perceive: (a) politicians who are in denial; (b) politicians who would like to use the war on drugs to get re-elected; (c) just a lack of information; (d) that it's really a moral issue and therefore that we refuse to deal with it; or (e) that drug prohibition is needed as a form of political and social control? Or all of the above or none of the above?

    I'm being a bit facetious.

»  (1725)  

    Dr. Peter Fried: To be frank, and to give credit where credit is due, the answer is that there's no black and white answer. It's a very difficult question; otherwise it would have been solved. Truly, the answer is none of the above.

    The problem is that there are arguments or facts on both sides. Whatever decision is made by the government or members of Parliament, most people are going to be unhappy with it, because it's not going to go far enough in one direction or the other. I can absolutely take a bet on that. The reason is that it's like the abortion issue, and so on. To my mind, one of the problems is that there's too much of an emotional aspect to it. The other is that there are problems with the drugs, and there are problems with the present status.

    After your first three items, I lost track of them. But basically you were implying that the fault was with the politicians. In this case, it's the fact that there's no clear answer to it. I really think this is what the issue is. This is why it has been around--as I think Ms. Torsney said--forever. It's going to be around for a long time, no matter what legislation there is.

    Prof. Barney Sneiderman: If you asked me this question with respect to the drug policies of the United States, I would say to you that it is clearly politician-driven. The war on drugs really began with Richard Nixon, was accelerated by Ronald Reagan, and George Bush followed in his footsteps. It was an issue that Clinton wouldn't touch. And now we have the current incumbent in the White House. It clearly is a political issue in the United States. I have no doubt about that.

    I also believe that if there were significant reform of the drug laws in this country, the Americans would be very much perturbed. But we are a sovereign nation and we should do what we believe is right.

    Ms. Libby Davies: So what are the barriers in Canada, then?

    Prof. Barney Sneiderman: As I mentioned, I think simply because a drug is criminalized, a mindset is cemented in stone. If a drug is criminalized, it must be because it is a dangerous drug.

    Dr. Peter Fried: Is there a danger, though, that it will be considered an innocuous drug if it's decriminalized?

    Prof. Barney Sneiderman: Of course not. The question is whether we cause more harm than good by criminalizing drugs. Do you think we would accomplish anything if we criminalized tobacco, which is a major public health disaster? What would we accomplish if we criminalized tobacco? The black market that we have now would probably pale in comparison to what would happen if we criminalized tobacco.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. LeBlanc, you and Mr. White win the prize for getting the right answer, in unison.

    Mr. White, I don't think you asked Dr. Fried the question, are you a medical doctor as well as a doctor of...?

    Dr. Peter Fried: Psychology.

    The Chair: Psychology. Okay.

    Prof. Barney Sneiderman: By the way, you have been calling me a doctor. I'm not. I have an LL.M. in law.

    My late mother, who was a typical Jewish mother, would have been thrilled to hear me called “Doctor”.

    Voices: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Randy White: You are a lawyer?

    Prof. Barney Sneiderman: A law professor, yes.

    Mr. Randy White: Ah, yes. I thought you were.

    Prof. Barney Sneiderman: By my slippery answers, right?

    Voices: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: No, by your ability to look at all points of the question.

    On behalf of all the committee members, both the ones who are here and the ones who were unable to attend today, thank you both very much for your presentations, and for encouraging us to think differently. Certainly all of the testimony has been very interesting. It has been good food for thought.

    If you have anything else to send to this committee, we will be hearing witnesses for another week or so, and we would be happy to receive any information--even over the summer. Carol Chafe, our wonderful clerk, will make sure everything is distributed in both official languages.

    Thank you very much. This meeting is adjourned.