After watching the Through A Blue Lens document, there were several things that I found that were interesting. However, there was one issue that I hadn’t thought of before. One of the police officers mentioned an idea that drug possession is a social not criminal issue. This really struck me because I would usually consider drug abuse as a criminal issue enforced by the law. Criminalization worsens the wellbeing of drug users, increases risk behaviors, drives the spread of HIV, encourages other crime and discourages people who use drugs from seeking treatment. When people first use drugs, they should be seeking help, not branded as criminals. The prohibition of drug abuse should not come from law enforcement agencies. Instead, the environment and society that we live in should be in conditions that won’t tempt and lead them into a destructive addiction. For example, family life, school, friends, etc. should be stable and not directing them to drug abuse. Although I am aware that this idea seems far-fetched, it would be a better approach. For instance, in the documentary, Randy, one of the elder drug abusers on Vancouver’s downtown Eastside, started to sober up because his family reached out to him. The social and environmental aspects pushed Randy to stop drug abuse and the criminal laws failed to do so. Through A Blue Lens had good motifs in educating people about drug abuse. It is a better approach to educate and create awareness instead of making people feel threatened and feel like criminals. Another interesting thing that the police officer wondered was when drugs would become unpopular. Growing up in a society that has been so accustomed to drug usage, I haven’t known or thought of a society where drugs aren’t popular. For drugs to become unpopular, we need to be conditioned to think that way through the surroundings that we live in, not from the law enforcement agencies.

In efforts to eliminate the Indigenous people’s culture, the Canadian government was creating a gap in society by silencing them. As Angel mentions in her article, many children were removed from their families and forced to attend Indian Residential Schools across Canada. In these schools, children were “forbidden from speaking their Indigenous languages and practicing their traditional customs, beliefs and religions” (Angel 200).This relates to Carter’s paper which explains “how the powerful can introduce silences into the archives by denying marginal groups their voice” (Carter 217). However, there was a change that occurred in 1991 to 2013. In 1991, victims often preferred to be anonymous when speaking of their experiences. In 2013 victims were more willing to be named. This shows the development of the TRC because Indigenous people feel less threatened or ashamed to be identified. They are an example of marginalized people that went “against the grain” (Carter 224) because of their refusal of staying silent. This testimonial act is an important aspect towards moving forward for multiple reasons. Indigenous people that were victims of this tragedy are able to tell their stories which is part of the healing process. Also, it is an important step towards justice. Lastly, putting a name to a face of the children that have been victimized creates a stronger bond. It allows for people to sympathize on an different level. As Angela mentioned in her response to our trip to the Museum of Anthropology, knowing the name of the students and possibly reading one one of their quotes on their experience at the residential schools make a greater impact than simply looking at a photograph of a bunch of school kids.