Contemporary Canada has been deeply affected by the War on Drugs. Yet drugs and drug law enforcement are not new. How do nation and identity factor into early 20th century Canadian attitudes towards drug usage and law enforcement?
joechliu, Kaitlin, laurenellis, and 4 others are discussing. Toggle Comments
One of the defining elements of Canadian identity has been the country’s social policies, or collection of laws and regulations that govern how Canadians live their lives. Drugs use was associated with all sorts of social ills in early 20th century Canada, however, these outdated beliefs do not reflect contemporary research about drug use, production and markets.
Scientists now understand much more about drug use than they did. A 2007 study measuring the actual harm caused by different drugs found that alcohol was the third most harmful substance, following heroin and cocaine. Why is alcohol legal then? Interestingly, there are higher levels of use in countries, like Canada, with a “zero-tolerance” approach to illicit drugs. Germany, Portugal, Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands are all countries where pot use has been decriminalized, legalized or liberalized, and all have rates of child cannabis use that range from one-third to more than one-half lower than in Canada.
Despite some of the evidence described earlier, and even though Canadians seem to favor a quasi-decriminalization of drug laws (specifically marijuana), the law-and-order Conservative government of Stephen Harper does not advocate a ‘softer’ policy on drugs. Since the Conservatives came to power in 2006, and slammed the door on the previous Liberal drug laws, arrests for pot possession have jumped 41 per cent. In those six years, police reported more than 405,000 marijuana-related arrests, almost equivalent to the populations of Regina and Saskatoon combined. The reason is that despite extensive law enforcement efforts, illicit drugs are still widely used and readily available. Annual illicit drug sales in Canada are estimated to be between $7 and $18 billion with the BC marijuana market bringing in at least $6 billion per year alone. Facts like these and the war on drugs, specifically marijuana, makes Canadians wonder why this new knowledge is not reflected in how drugs are classified and laws are enforced. A 2012 Angus-Reid poll, for example, showed Canadian support for legalization for marijuana at 57%, and other surveys have polled even higher. Not surprisingly, there’s growing consensus as reflected in the ‘war on drugs’, at least outside the Conservative offices, that it’s time to take a hard look at tossing out a marijuana prohibition that dates back to the early 20th century.
Canadian identity has never been static, or fixed. Canadians’ ideas about themselves have continued to evolve since Canada was founded. At the beginning of the 20th century, for example, more than 55 per cent of Canadians were of British heritage. As a result, the British influence was very strong. Yet, over the course of the 20th century and in the 21st, forces that promote change influenced the way Canadians think of themselves, their identity, and their country.
Similarly, nation and identity factor into Canadian attitudes towards drug usage and law enforcement. And are continuously evolving as new knowledge abounds. Although Canadians do not always agree on what social justice involves, they do believe that the right to debate its meaning and to work toward achieving it, is a basic value and an important aspect of Canadian identity.
Wow! Thanks for the contemporary take on Canadian drug policy, Nadir. How can you tie some of your findings in with the articles we read for the week? More specifically, who was profiled as using and pushing drugs in at the turn of the 20th century–and has that changed?
In Steve Hewitt’s article it is clear that there were reasons to enforce drug laws in the early 20th century in Canada in order to maintain a certain vision of how the country should be. Interestingly enough, drug laws also helped create and preserve a symbol that would aid in fostering this vision- the Canadian Mountie.
The Canadian government, and many of the European settlers wanted to create a pure, strong and economically thriving nation. Hewitt points out that the attitudes towards drugs were similar to that of communism, and brought from external non-Canadians. The Chinese people were seen as outsiders who did not contribute to the ideals of what Canada stood for. To the Chinese, the use of opium was not necessarily as horrible for society as the Canadian government had painted it out to be. Yvan Prkachin points out that it could have been a way to cope with the trauma of living in a foreign country. This was an opportunity to cast the Chinese in a criminal light and lead to eventual deportation. The government and other European Canadians were also concerned about the influence the Chinese drug users would have on the white women.
The Canadian Mounties played a large role in drug prosecution and helped nurture the stereotype of Chinese people as the instigators. The image of a white, strong, European man was the epitome of what Canada was trying to create as the symbol of the Mountie. The role that Canadian Mounties played in the war on drugs allowed the RCMP to survive, but also to be depicted as heroes in history.
Some of these ideas about drug use are still strong in our currently conservative government. Being from Alberta (a more conservative province) it was clear to me when I moved to Vancouver that there are a wide variety of opinions on drug use. Issues like legalizing marijuana and the establishment of safe injection sites in Vancouver are continually being debated. A Vancouver organization called Sensible BC recently attempted to have a referendum to pass The Sensible Policing Act. This act would decriminalize marijuana possession in British Columbia, but it did not go through. While the racial undertones of these issues are not necessarily as strong as they were in the 20th century, they are unfortunately still present today. Certain minority groups have been marginalized by society and law enforcement when it comes to drug use- the Vancouver downtown east side being a clear example.
Nice work highlighting the importance of the image of the Mountie to the enforcement of drug laws in the early 20th century, Jenny! Your concluding point, about contemporary drug use, marginalized populations, and law enforcement is particularly insightful. Let’s talk more about this tomorrow.
Drug use was legal before 1907 in Canada, and it was easy to find and get possession of them as well. After the anti-Asian riots of 1907 in Vancouver, drug use became illegal in Canada leading to a prominence of racist attitudes towards Asian-Canadians among Anglo-Canadians. The consequences of drugs becoming illegal in Canada mostly affected Asian-Canadians, who were then seen as a people that did not fit into the Anglo-Canadian vision of Canada was and should be culturally. In 1908, the Opium Act was passed, which made drug use illegal, including opium use, which was the most popular drug among Chinese-Canadians. The desire for Anglo-Canadian identity to be the majority in Canada played a factor in the passing of this bill, and led to what is now known as the War on Drugs. In the early twentieth century, this War on Drugs looks a lot like xenophobia, a fear of foreigners, as Canadians believed that the drug trade in Canada was run mainly by immigrants, or people of ethnic minorities, and were nervous about this possibility. The racist attitudes towards immigrants, and more specifically, Chinese-Canadians, played into numerous other pieces of anti-drug legislation, which led to surges in the prosecution of Chinese-Canadians. Along with the prosecution of Chinese-Canadians in drug related crimes, they were also blamed drug related crimes, even if they were not the people that committed them. The anti-drug legislation introduced attitudes of xenophobia and racial profiling, which led to the attempted assimilation of Asian culture in Canada.
Lindsey, you have some great points here–especially about the xenophobic nature of anti-drug legislation in the 1920s. I’m curious, though, how you see this legislation leading to the “attempted assimilation of Asian culture” in Canada. Can you think of an example of this?
According to Hewitt, drug use in Canada during the early 20th century was very much frowned upon as it was seen to prevent Canada from becoming a stable and prosperous society. Drug use was also condemned as an “external [menace] brought to Canada from abroad,” which can be paralleled to Canada’s hostile views toward the perceived threat of communism. Indeed, while this need to eradicate drug use reflected Canada’s desire to maintain an orderly society, it also rooted itself in rather radical and racist ways.
For instance, Canada’s radical stance towards drugs is clearly evident when looking at the type and the content of legislation which was passed during this time period in order to combat this apparent war on drugs. That is, Hewitt notes the fact that Canada’s early anti-drug legislation took the form of the various Opium Acts in the early 20th century; opium is particularly significant given that it was considered a “Chinese drug,” thus reflecting racial undertones in the laws themselves. Essentially then, Canada’s ideal identity as a stable, prosperous, orderly society and nation explicitly excluded the Chinese and only focused on the white as the dominant and pure culture; opium was targeted as the means with which to accuse the Chinese Canadian population and to eradicate the perceived Chinese menace.
As such, the Canadian Mountie emerged as the key source of Canadian identity in Canadian attitudes towards drug use and law enforcement. Indeed, given the context of the Mounties during this time of uncertainty regarding their jurisdiction and rather, the threat of their abolishment, it was seemingly crucial that they maintained their emphasis and hold on the drug problem in Canada. Moreover, they were portrayed as the image of the ideal Canadian, one that was not only a strong military figure serving for the well-being of his nation, but he was also someone that would keep the rest of the white population safe from those that were labelled as the other, that is, the Chinese. Thus, we can conclude that attitudes toward drug use and drug laws were not “pure” or “genuine” in the sense that it encompassed additional external interests other than the harms of the drugs themselves. Instead, the focus was diverted to framing the Chinese as the enemy of Canadian identity that was to be preserved and kept safe from their supposedly contaminating ways.
Good analysis of the articles, Geena! I’m curious about what you mean about attitudes toward drug use/drug laws not being “pure” or “genuine” if they addressed “external interests” beyond the harmful properties of the drugs–can you explain what you mean in using those words?
Canada, in the 20th century, was a country reluctant to demographic changes. Having a population consisting of northern Europeans seemed to be the ideal national identity for many in Canada. However, the Canadian nation consisted of a much more diverse racial population. It is this hesitance towards the Chinese race that caused government and law enforcement to point the finger at the Chinese immigrants and deem them mainly responsible for the presence of drugs.
Having law enforcement focus on crimes against mainly Chinese immigrants in the name of saving white citizens created a particular image of Canadian policing. It forged this identity of a white police force that was looking out for the pure and good citizens. This positioned them as moral, ethic and powerful. With this particular identity engrained in the police force drastic distinctions were made between drug usage and law enforcement. The usage of drugs and the problems it brings were considered a national problem.
As well, it was a way to control and deport members of the Chinese population. This is because it was seen that the drugs supplied by the Chinese citizens were corrupting the white citizens. As it was affecting the white population it seemed to be important to law enforcement that there be an eradication of drug abuse and dealing.
Therefore, the preservation of a specific Canadian identity in which the white Europeans are situated as the most powerful and right impacted the lead to the presence of drug law and an overbearing enforcement of the law.
Interesting response, Lauren! I’m most struck by your final comment about the drug legislation preserving white (European) Canadians as “the most powerful and right”, and couldn’t help but think that certain white Canadians were simultaneously potential victims (who needed protection) from opium and Asian peddlers. What do you think?
The war on drug can be seen as a mechanism employed by the middle-classes, the government, and the RCMP to achieve their own objectives. Mackenzie might have ignited the fuse on the war for the name of ethics and purity, but this can be seen as a smart political tactic to gain popularity and a fantastic opportunity to assimilate the Asians to become “true Canadians”. The anxiety from the middle-class that propelled the social purity movement served as the fuel for Mackenzie’s suppression motion on drug activities, which were mostly legal prior to the Anti-Asian riot in 1907.
Since drug usage, especially opium, were perceived as a symbol of corruption and feminization, many middle-classes believed it severely contradicts the national identity of Canadians being honest, productive, and masculine. In fact, using opium not only made the user “lazy”, but it also transformed a hardworking white person into a yellow-looking lower class Asian. Thus, it not only made a white individual behaved like an Asian, but it slowly altered his/her facial structure from having round eyes to almond-shaped eyes, a more prominent cheekbone that resembled malnourishment (and hence a lower status because poor people often have difficulty feeding themselves), and most importantly, the skin turned yellow after prolong exposure to opium. This greatly defied the ideology of the social purity movement of building a strong nation with masculine individuals that were tall, white, and possessed superior physical and mental attributes. Thus, the drugs exerted the opposite effect the government wish to achieve with assimilation; on the contrary, it appeared that the Whites were becoming Chinese with the usage of opium. The crackdown on drug can be seen as a tool used by the government and the middle-classes to regain control, to eliminate the Asians from spreading evil (deportation or jail) and to re-establish Canada’s national identity – a white supremacy society.
The law enforcement, especially the RCMP, exploited the anxiety and panic expressed from the public and government. The RCMP was also a clever strategist like Mackenzie – it capitalized on the fear of the public to ensure the organization’s survival. They needed a chance to secure their foundation in southern Canada and ironically the increased in drug issues became a saviour that ensured its survival. The RCMP voluntarily took the “burden” into its own hand, in the name of service to humanity, to aid the Department of Health to manage the concerns over opium. This opportunity allowed the RCMP to demonstrate its relevance not only to the government, but also to the public that their existence resembled justice and purity.
The middle-classes, Mackenzie and the government, and the RCMP all took advantage of the fear expressed by each other and used it to attain their own goal. For the middle-classes and the government, the fear of becoming Asian and losing their superior status due to opium exposure propelled them to take extreme measures to secure their “national identity”. The RCMP used this chance to solidify its presence in southern Canada. Thus the attitude towards drugs wasn’t a concern of national health and preserving national identity. The war on drug was merely a way for the middle-classes, the government, and the RCMP to express their insecurities and took advantage of other group’s fear to accomplish their own selfish objectives by cunningly disguising their motif, justifying that their actions guarantee a brighter future for Canada.
joechliu, 
Kaitlin, 
laurenellis, and 4 others are discussing.
Nadir Surani 5:14 pm on January 27, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
One of the defining elements of Canadian identity has been the country’s social policies, or collection of laws and regulations that govern how Canadians live their lives. Drugs use was associated with all sorts of social ills in early 20th century Canada, however, these outdated beliefs do not reflect contemporary research about drug use, production and markets.
Scientists now understand much more about drug use than they did. A 2007 study measuring the actual harm caused by different drugs found that alcohol was the third most harmful substance, following heroin and cocaine. Why is alcohol legal then? Interestingly, there are higher levels of use in countries, like Canada, with a “zero-tolerance” approach to illicit drugs. Germany, Portugal, Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands are all countries where pot use has been decriminalized, legalized or liberalized, and all have rates of child cannabis use that range from one-third to more than one-half lower than in Canada.
Despite some of the evidence described earlier, and even though Canadians seem to favor a quasi-decriminalization of drug laws (specifically marijuana), the law-and-order Conservative government of Stephen Harper does not advocate a ‘softer’ policy on drugs. Since the Conservatives came to power in 2006, and slammed the door on the previous Liberal drug laws, arrests for pot possession have jumped 41 per cent. In those six years, police reported more than 405,000 marijuana-related arrests, almost equivalent to the populations of Regina and Saskatoon combined. The reason is that despite extensive law enforcement efforts, illicit drugs are still widely used and readily available. Annual illicit drug sales in Canada are estimated to be between $7 and $18 billion with the BC marijuana market bringing in at least $6 billion per year alone. Facts like these and the war on drugs, specifically marijuana, makes Canadians wonder why this new knowledge is not reflected in how drugs are classified and laws are enforced. A 2012 Angus-Reid poll, for example, showed Canadian support for legalization for marijuana at 57%, and other surveys have polled even higher. Not surprisingly, there’s growing consensus as reflected in the ‘war on drugs’, at least outside the Conservative offices, that it’s time to take a hard look at tossing out a marijuana prohibition that dates back to the early 20th century.
Canadian identity has never been static, or fixed. Canadians’ ideas about themselves have continued to evolve since Canada was founded. At the beginning of the 20th century, for example, more than 55 per cent of Canadians were of British heritage. As a result, the British influence was very strong. Yet, over the course of the 20th century and in the 21st, forces that promote change influenced the way Canadians think of themselves, their identity, and their country.
Similarly, nation and identity factor into Canadian attitudes towards drug usage and law enforcement. And are continuously evolving as new knowledge abounds. Although Canadians do not always agree on what social justice involves, they do believe that the right to debate its meaning and to work toward achieving it, is a basic value and an important aspect of Canadian identity.
Kaitlin 9:17 pm on January 28, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Wow! Thanks for the contemporary take on Canadian drug policy, Nadir. How can you tie some of your findings in with the articles we read for the week? More specifically, who was profiled as using and pushing drugs in at the turn of the 20th century–and has that changed?
jbachynski 7:41 pm on January 27, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
In Steve Hewitt’s article it is clear that there were reasons to enforce drug laws in the early 20th century in Canada in order to maintain a certain vision of how the country should be. Interestingly enough, drug laws also helped create and preserve a symbol that would aid in fostering this vision- the Canadian Mountie.
The Canadian government, and many of the European settlers wanted to create a pure, strong and economically thriving nation. Hewitt points out that the attitudes towards drugs were similar to that of communism, and brought from external non-Canadians. The Chinese people were seen as outsiders who did not contribute to the ideals of what Canada stood for. To the Chinese, the use of opium was not necessarily as horrible for society as the Canadian government had painted it out to be. Yvan Prkachin points out that it could have been a way to cope with the trauma of living in a foreign country. This was an opportunity to cast the Chinese in a criminal light and lead to eventual deportation. The government and other European Canadians were also concerned about the influence the Chinese drug users would have on the white women.
The Canadian Mounties played a large role in drug prosecution and helped nurture the stereotype of Chinese people as the instigators. The image of a white, strong, European man was the epitome of what Canada was trying to create as the symbol of the Mountie. The role that Canadian Mounties played in the war on drugs allowed the RCMP to survive, but also to be depicted as heroes in history.
Some of these ideas about drug use are still strong in our currently conservative government. Being from Alberta (a more conservative province) it was clear to me when I moved to Vancouver that there are a wide variety of opinions on drug use. Issues like legalizing marijuana and the establishment of safe injection sites in Vancouver are continually being debated. A Vancouver organization called Sensible BC recently attempted to have a referendum to pass The Sensible Policing Act. This act would decriminalize marijuana possession in British Columbia, but it did not go through. While the racial undertones of these issues are not necessarily as strong as they were in the 20th century, they are unfortunately still present today. Certain minority groups have been marginalized by society and law enforcement when it comes to drug use- the Vancouver downtown east side being a clear example.
Kaitlin 9:29 pm on January 28, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Nice work highlighting the importance of the image of the Mountie to the enforcement of drug laws in the early 20th century, Jenny! Your concluding point, about contemporary drug use, marginalized populations, and law enforcement is particularly insightful. Let’s talk more about this tomorrow.
lindseyaw 2:58 pm on January 28, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Drug use was legal before 1907 in Canada, and it was easy to find and get possession of them as well. After the anti-Asian riots of 1907 in Vancouver, drug use became illegal in Canada leading to a prominence of racist attitudes towards Asian-Canadians among Anglo-Canadians. The consequences of drugs becoming illegal in Canada mostly affected Asian-Canadians, who were then seen as a people that did not fit into the Anglo-Canadian vision of Canada was and should be culturally. In 1908, the Opium Act was passed, which made drug use illegal, including opium use, which was the most popular drug among Chinese-Canadians. The desire for Anglo-Canadian identity to be the majority in Canada played a factor in the passing of this bill, and led to what is now known as the War on Drugs. In the early twentieth century, this War on Drugs looks a lot like xenophobia, a fear of foreigners, as Canadians believed that the drug trade in Canada was run mainly by immigrants, or people of ethnic minorities, and were nervous about this possibility. The racist attitudes towards immigrants, and more specifically, Chinese-Canadians, played into numerous other pieces of anti-drug legislation, which led to surges in the prosecution of Chinese-Canadians. Along with the prosecution of Chinese-Canadians in drug related crimes, they were also blamed drug related crimes, even if they were not the people that committed them. The anti-drug legislation introduced attitudes of xenophobia and racial profiling, which led to the attempted assimilation of Asian culture in Canada.
Kaitlin 9:32 pm on January 28, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Lindsey, you have some great points here–especially about the xenophobic nature of anti-drug legislation in the 1920s. I’m curious, though, how you see this legislation leading to the “attempted assimilation of Asian culture” in Canada. Can you think of an example of this?
geenalee 4:50 pm on January 28, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
According to Hewitt, drug use in Canada during the early 20th century was very much frowned upon as it was seen to prevent Canada from becoming a stable and prosperous society. Drug use was also condemned as an “external [menace] brought to Canada from abroad,” which can be paralleled to Canada’s hostile views toward the perceived threat of communism. Indeed, while this need to eradicate drug use reflected Canada’s desire to maintain an orderly society, it also rooted itself in rather radical and racist ways.
For instance, Canada’s radical stance towards drugs is clearly evident when looking at the type and the content of legislation which was passed during this time period in order to combat this apparent war on drugs. That is, Hewitt notes the fact that Canada’s early anti-drug legislation took the form of the various Opium Acts in the early 20th century; opium is particularly significant given that it was considered a “Chinese drug,” thus reflecting racial undertones in the laws themselves. Essentially then, Canada’s ideal identity as a stable, prosperous, orderly society and nation explicitly excluded the Chinese and only focused on the white as the dominant and pure culture; opium was targeted as the means with which to accuse the Chinese Canadian population and to eradicate the perceived Chinese menace.
As such, the Canadian Mountie emerged as the key source of Canadian identity in Canadian attitudes towards drug use and law enforcement. Indeed, given the context of the Mounties during this time of uncertainty regarding their jurisdiction and rather, the threat of their abolishment, it was seemingly crucial that they maintained their emphasis and hold on the drug problem in Canada. Moreover, they were portrayed as the image of the ideal Canadian, one that was not only a strong military figure serving for the well-being of his nation, but he was also someone that would keep the rest of the white population safe from those that were labelled as the other, that is, the Chinese. Thus, we can conclude that attitudes toward drug use and drug laws were not “pure” or “genuine” in the sense that it encompassed additional external interests other than the harms of the drugs themselves. Instead, the focus was diverted to framing the Chinese as the enemy of Canadian identity that was to be preserved and kept safe from their supposedly contaminating ways.
Kaitlin 9:37 pm on January 28, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Good analysis of the articles, Geena! I’m curious about what you mean about attitudes toward drug use/drug laws not being “pure” or “genuine” if they addressed “external interests” beyond the harmful properties of the drugs–can you explain what you mean in using those words?
laurenellis 5:51 pm on January 28, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Canada, in the 20th century, was a country reluctant to demographic changes. Having a population consisting of northern Europeans seemed to be the ideal national identity for many in Canada. However, the Canadian nation consisted of a much more diverse racial population. It is this hesitance towards the Chinese race that caused government and law enforcement to point the finger at the Chinese immigrants and deem them mainly responsible for the presence of drugs.
Having law enforcement focus on crimes against mainly Chinese immigrants in the name of saving white citizens created a particular image of Canadian policing. It forged this identity of a white police force that was looking out for the pure and good citizens. This positioned them as moral, ethic and powerful. With this particular identity engrained in the police force drastic distinctions were made between drug usage and law enforcement. The usage of drugs and the problems it brings were considered a national problem.
As well, it was a way to control and deport members of the Chinese population. This is because it was seen that the drugs supplied by the Chinese citizens were corrupting the white citizens. As it was affecting the white population it seemed to be important to law enforcement that there be an eradication of drug abuse and dealing.
Therefore, the preservation of a specific Canadian identity in which the white Europeans are situated as the most powerful and right impacted the lead to the presence of drug law and an overbearing enforcement of the law.
Kaitlin 9:44 pm on January 28, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Interesting response, Lauren! I’m most struck by your final comment about the drug legislation preserving white (European) Canadians as “the most powerful and right”, and couldn’t help but think that certain white Canadians were simultaneously potential victims (who needed protection) from opium and Asian peddlers. What do you think?
joechliu 2:12 pm on January 29, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
The war on drug can be seen as a mechanism employed by the middle-classes, the government, and the RCMP to achieve their own objectives. Mackenzie might have ignited the fuse on the war for the name of ethics and purity, but this can be seen as a smart political tactic to gain popularity and a fantastic opportunity to assimilate the Asians to become “true Canadians”. The anxiety from the middle-class that propelled the social purity movement served as the fuel for Mackenzie’s suppression motion on drug activities, which were mostly legal prior to the Anti-Asian riot in 1907.
Since drug usage, especially opium, were perceived as a symbol of corruption and feminization, many middle-classes believed it severely contradicts the national identity of Canadians being honest, productive, and masculine. In fact, using opium not only made the user “lazy”, but it also transformed a hardworking white person into a yellow-looking lower class Asian. Thus, it not only made a white individual behaved like an Asian, but it slowly altered his/her facial structure from having round eyes to almond-shaped eyes, a more prominent cheekbone that resembled malnourishment (and hence a lower status because poor people often have difficulty feeding themselves), and most importantly, the skin turned yellow after prolong exposure to opium. This greatly defied the ideology of the social purity movement of building a strong nation with masculine individuals that were tall, white, and possessed superior physical and mental attributes. Thus, the drugs exerted the opposite effect the government wish to achieve with assimilation; on the contrary, it appeared that the Whites were becoming Chinese with the usage of opium. The crackdown on drug can be seen as a tool used by the government and the middle-classes to regain control, to eliminate the Asians from spreading evil (deportation or jail) and to re-establish Canada’s national identity – a white supremacy society.
The law enforcement, especially the RCMP, exploited the anxiety and panic expressed from the public and government. The RCMP was also a clever strategist like Mackenzie – it capitalized on the fear of the public to ensure the organization’s survival. They needed a chance to secure their foundation in southern Canada and ironically the increased in drug issues became a saviour that ensured its survival. The RCMP voluntarily took the “burden” into its own hand, in the name of service to humanity, to aid the Department of Health to manage the concerns over opium. This opportunity allowed the RCMP to demonstrate its relevance not only to the government, but also to the public that their existence resembled justice and purity.
The middle-classes, Mackenzie and the government, and the RCMP all took advantage of the fear expressed by each other and used it to attain their own goal. For the middle-classes and the government, the fear of becoming Asian and losing their superior status due to opium exposure propelled them to take extreme measures to secure their “national identity”. The RCMP used this chance to solidify its presence in southern Canada. Thus the attitude towards drugs wasn’t a concern of national health and preserving national identity. The war on drug was merely a way for the middle-classes, the government, and the RCMP to express their insecurities and took advantage of other group’s fear to accomplish their own selfish objectives by cunningly disguising their motif, justifying that their actions guarantee a brighter future for Canada.