Canadian Drug Policy & Indigenous History - The Settler Double-Standard

Written by Yvonne Paquette, MSW (Cand), Practicum Student

While researching the topic of my previous post, Historical Calls for Harm-Reduction: A Brief History of Canadian Drug Policy, I noticed there was almost no reference to Indigenous Peoples in the historical or legal materials I reviewed. The absence of reference to the separate laws and policies the government of Canada imposed upon Indigenous people (in this post: drug policy) is an example of how settler-colonial knowledge and history is privileged in mainstream Canadian culture. Even with access to databases of peer-reviewed academic articles, I had difficulty finding information.

In Canada, the advent of settler-colonialism and the introduction of European alcohol as a trade good caused the Canadian government to enact various policies around alcohol, targeted at Indigenous people. Prior to 1777 alcohol was simply a trade good. Due to pressures from religious conversion missionaries, military desires to control and utilize Indigenous bodies for imperial goals, and Indigenous Peoples wanting to address the damage caused by alcohol in their communities, a discriminatory law was passed that authorized the arrest and penalization of any Indigenous person in possession of, selling, or intoxicated by alcohol. This law became part of the racially discriminatory Indian Act of 1876, and led to the development of seven clauses related to “intoxicants” – more clauses than those addressing funding, governance, or entitlements of Indigenous people. This Act extended prohibition to anyone the government designated as “not-Indians” – meaning those who are of mixed heritage, living off reserve, are not of Indigenous but living a native lifestyle in a native community (Episkenew, 2009). The only way around the prohibitive legislation, was to give up legal status as an Indigenous person by becoming an “enfranchised” citizen.

No other racial or cultural group in Canada was targeted, controlled, or penalized in this way regarding alcohol. An Indigenous person who possessed or sold liquor could face six months imprisonment with the potential for hard labour. After the Second World War, calls for equality increased, and the right to consume alcohol was associated with equality. The Indian Act of 1876 was revised in the 1950’s but did not end prohibition completely for Indigenous people, it just relaxed enough that small amounts of alcohol were permitted on the person, and limited amounts could be purchased. Establishments would circumvent the relaxing of prohibition for Indigenous peoples by refusing to open in Indigenous populated areas, and refusing service to Indigenous people generally. The Charter of Rights in 1982 abolished federally imposed regulatory discrimination regarding alcohol and Indigenous People, and shifted the responsibility band councils.

Experiences of community-driven alcohol policy could hold insights for the development of contemporary policies around psychoactive substance consumption in communities across North America. Canada’s northern territories have been experimenting with community-driven alcohol policies since the 1970s. Data analysis by Davison et al. (2011), shows “communities with regulations tend to have smaller and younger populations, a greater percentage of people of [Indigenous] origin and are more geographically isolated” (p.38). Data also shows community policies towards alcohol fluctuate, indicating communities are adjusting their strategies as new data is revealed and as community needs and capacities evolve.

So, now that we are in the year 2021, what has changed? Externally imposed prohibition is over, and where restrictions exist in communities, they are governed by communities themselves. The double-standard has ended on paper. Unfortunately, many of the attitudes that informed racist prohibitive legislation of the past are still present in contemporary social consciousness and policies. Mainstream Canadian culture still associates substance-use with addiction and criminality, more than it does with spirituality, healing, and self-development. These misguided and fear-based attitudes affect policy development for the growing field of psychedelic medicine, and strengthens the pharmaceutical industry’s grip on therapeutic molecules.

Drug policies of the present and the future have a responsibility to consider the knowledge and practices of Indigenous peoples. As the second renaissance of psychedelic research progresses and alternatives to traditional western pharmacological therapies are increasingly sought, the risk increases for perpetuating the oppression and exploitation of Indigenous Peoples and their knowledges and practices. Though future drug policies are likely to pursue equity, it is important to remember that Indigenous Peoples have unique cultural and legal links to psychoactive substances, and that the pursuit of blanket equity also risks erasing Indigenous Peoples unique positions and concerns. It is not my intention to send an ambiguous message around racial equity in drug policy – it is my intention to show how drug policy is a layered, nuanced, and at times complicated issue, with far reaching effects beyond the realm of substance consumption.


Links to material that informed this post:

Boyd, S. (2017). Busted: An illustrated history of drug prohibition in Canada. Fernwood Publishing.

Campbell, R. (2008). Making sober citizens: The legacy of Indigenous alcohol regulation in Canada, 1777-1985. Journal of Canadian Studies, 42(1), 105-126. https://doi.org/10.3138/jcs.42.1.105

Episkenew, J. (2009). Taking Back Our Spirits: Indigenous Literature, Public Policy, and Healing (1st ed.). University of Manitoba Press.

Leeuw, S., Greenwood, M., and Cameron, E. (2009). Deviant constructions: How governments preserve colonial narratives of addictions and poor mental health to intervene into the lives of Indigenous children and families in Canada. International Journal of Mental Health & Addiction, 8, 282-295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-009-9225-1