Measuring Illicit Cannabis Seizures in Canada
Methods, Practices and Recommendations

Abstract

The measurement of illicit cannabis seizures in Canada was not previously studied in detail. Measuring seizures is important because the data can be analyzed to develop an understanding of many areas of cannabis regulation and enforcement—from trends in criminal methods or enforcement efficiency, to the size and value of illicit markets. This report examines the current methods of measuring the metric of cannabis seizures in Canada, with particular attention paid to the way seizure information is recorded by law enforcement officials. A discussion of potential improvements to the way Canada currently measures the metric of cannabis seizures is presented, including a critical review of which analyses could be undertaken if improvements to seizure reporting were introduced.

Author's Note

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Public Safety Canada. Correspondence concerning this report should be addressed to:

Research Division, Public Safety Canada
340 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0P8
Email: PS.CPBResearch-RechercheSPC.SP@ps-sp.gc.ca

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the members of the Marijuana Data Working Group (MDWG) for their insightful comments on the statement of work for this project. The authors are grateful to colleagues from the Canada Borders Services Agency (CBSA), Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), Health Canada (HC), Public Safety Canada (PS), the Canadian Police College (CPC), and Criminal Intelligence Service Canada (CISC) for taking the time to meet with the authors and share their insightful ideas on cannabis seizures. Finally, the authors are grateful to the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics (CCJS) colleagues Chris Munch and Rebecca Kong for their assistance in the collection and interpretation of information on police-related cannabis policy metrics.

Introduction

The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada was tasked by the Prime Minister in 2016 to "work with the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Health on efforts that will lead to the legalization and regulation of marijuana" (Canada 2016). In support of this commitment, researchers from Public Safety Canada have recently completed a report titled "Cannabis Performance Metrics for Policy Consideration: What do we Need to Measure?" (Maslov et al., 2016). In it, the authors identified some 45 cannabis policy metrics on which policy makers could consider collecting baseline data prior to any shift in policy on marijuana. Collection of baseline data is important because it allows researchers and policy makers to examine the impact of policy through comparing pre- and post-policy data to further inform decision-making.

The Taskforce on Marijuana Legalization and Regulation completed a Discussion Paper on the Legalization, Regulation and Restriction of Access to Marijuana, which outlines that the design and implementation of a new regime for marijuana legalization and regulation requires careful attention to a number of particularly challenging issues grouped into five themes: minimizing harms of use; establishing a safe and responsible production system; designing an appropriate distribution system; enforcing public safety and protection; and, accessing marijuana for medical purposes.

Cannabis^{Footnote 1} is the number one cultivated, produced, trafficked, and consumed illicit drug worldwide (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), 2016). The most recent data from the World Drug Report (UNODC, 2016: 43) states that North America accounts for 37% of seized cannabis herb globally. Most countries around the world consider cannabis to be an illegal substance, though there have been recent shifts in several countries to allow for various forms of use for medicinal, religious, or personal use to be decriminalized or legalized. In Canada, the act of possessing, producing, distributing, and trafficking of cannabis remains an offence under the Criminal Code until legislation that stipulates otherwise is passed in the House of Commons. Thus, from the perspective of the criminal justice system, cannabis remains illegal. It is listed as a Schedule II illicit substance under the Controlled  Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA)(see Appendix A), and is seized by law enforcement as contraband.

Whenever there is a change in policy, it is important to collect information on metrics that will be used by researchers and policy makers to examine the impact of the policy. Legalization of the recreational use of cannabis is a historic policy change for Canada. It is vitally important to create a regime of data collection pre- and post-legalization in order to determine what impact the regime change has had on society. In the example of State of Colorado, where the recreational use of cannabis was legalized in 2012 and the full implementation of the policy occurred in 2014, very little data was collected pre-legalization as well as some time after the legalization (Police Foundation, 2015: 9). While much more attention is being paid to the collection of data in Colorado after the legalization, there exists a wide data gap that does not allow for the comparison of post- to pre-legalization metrics.

Illicit cannabis seizures was brought up as an important concept in Maslov et al. (2016), and one that needs to be examined in much more detail because this source of data can contribute to the development of an array of other cannabis policy metrics. These include metrics to quantify: diversion between markets and exportation across borders; the use of particular shipment methods, such as the postal service; trends in the potency of cannabis; and the effectiveness of efforts to eradicate illicit supply and trafficking. Seizure data can potentially be used to measure metrics in each of these areas, and were all identified as metrics on which it is essential to collect baseline data in Canada (Maslov et al., 2016: 21-22) prior to legalization. The authors discussed how the metrics are currently being measured. They also brought the readers' attention to the current existing statistics on these metrics. Some constructive criticism of the way the metrics are currently measured was also offered.

Measuring illicit cannabis seizures is an important element in understanding the illicit drug market. Data on all of these metrics can be collected through proper measurement of cannabis seizures. Properly measuring these metrics would help explain how efficient law enforcement is at eliminating illicitly-produced cannabis products, or the domestic and international trafficking of cannabis through various means.

Objective

The objective of this project is to examine the current methods of measuring the metric of cannabis seizures with particular attention paid to the way seizure information is recorded by law enforcement as well as to discuss the potential improvements to the way we currently measure the metric of cannabis seizures. In particular, this project will be a critical review of what valuable information could potentially be gathered from seizure reports if improvements were introduced.

Approach

The report titled "Cannabis Performance Metrics for Policy Consideration: What do we Need to Measure?" (Maslov et al., 2016) served as a background paper to the current project. The sections on Diversion to Other Jurisdictions; Transfer Using Parcel Services; Exportation across Borders; Potency; and Eradication were used as a starting point and were expanded upon with additional literature and further insightful critical assessment of the metrics.

The project involved a thorough literature review and examination of the relevant performance metrics that can be applied to the upcoming legalization of the non-medical use of cannabis. The literature that was considered for examination consisted of academic published material, documents originating from governments and law enforcement agencies, and grey literature such as newspaper articles and non-academic discussion pieces in OECD countries. Furthermore, relevant course material literature from the Canadian Police Knowledge Network (CPKN) and the Canadian Police College (CPC) was consulted. A literature sorting strategy consisting of a "literature grid" that was used in Maslov et al. (2016) was applied in the current project. Upon gathering, sorting and analyzing the literature, a critical discussion of the cannabis seizure metric for which the literature was available took place.

Further to the thorough literature review, the results of the consultations led by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics (CCJS) with the members of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) Police Information and Statistics (POLIS) Committee on cannabis-related metrics that are possible to collect through police jurisdictions in Canada was used for the purpose of discussion and analysis. Overall, 11 of 17 police services invited to participate provided a submission. Moreover, attempts to consult experts in relevant fields were made. This resulted in consultations with Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) colleagues who are either performing the seizures themselves, or work in the research and policy areas relevant to seizures; Health Canada colleagues who have expertise in cannabis seizures and the specifics of the functioning of Drug Analysis Service (DAS) laboratories; CPC instructors who teach the courses on drug investigative techniques; and with Public Safety Canada (PS) policy colleagues who are working with the RCMP units who perform seizures of cannabis.

Definitions and Sources

Measuring Seizures

As a Schedule II illicit substance under the CDSA, cannabis seizures only require reasonable grounds to believe that any controlled substance is present. Cannabis can be seized at any point between its production and consumption, including during transportation, exchange, cultivation, or while it is in the presence of any individual who is not authorized to possess it. Points along this spectrum of cannabis possession are governed by different enforcement authorities, which seize cannabis under their jurisdiction and mandate. As a result, there are several databases in Canada that record cannabis seizures under different mandates, including CBSA's ICES, HC's CDSD and LIMS, and the RCMP's RMS databases. Multiple data collection points for measuring cannabis seizures are beneficial in developing a deeper understanding of the context of the cannabis market in Canada. Sources of data are collected and maintained by three key public safety partners and are tailored to meet their operational and data needs: individual police services (including the RCMP), CBSA, and HC. Additionally, this data and internal intelligence is used by PS for policy work related to cannabis legislation. Given the level of resources required to collect data of value for each organization, data collection is generally limited to the data areas that provide the performance indicators necessary to carry out their own particular mandate.

Consulting data from all seizure data points allows for more informed decision-making with appropriate models of the cannabis market in Canada. Comparison across the data sources allows for wider and more comprehensive analysis, but requires data to be reliable and comparable across data sources. Unfortunately, it is often the case that data from the same source may change over time, as the definitions or parameters for the data field evolve over time, or as policing priorities change.^{Footnote 3}

In Canada, the Narcotics Drug Act Amendment Bill made it illegal to possess cannabis in 1923. The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) is the current legislation making the possession of cannabis for non-medical cannabis illegal. In 1999, legal access to dried marijuana for medical purposes was established (Health Canada, 2016a). In R. v. Parker it was interpreted that individuals with medical need had the right to possess cannabis for medical purposes. Under the current cannabis regulation regime, cannabis that is not possessed for medical purposes is still deemed to be illicit. The CDSA outlines powers of state for enforcing the possession of illegal drugs, as well as outlining what is included as a Schedule II drug (see Appendix A). There have also been a number of cannabis strains that have been added or repealed over time, changing what forms of cannabis or cannabis products were to be deemed legal or illegal.

In Allard v. Canada, the Federal Court struck down rules that prohibited Canadian medical marijuana patients from growing a "limited" amount of their own cannabis, or have someone grow it for them (CBC 2016). Following this ruling, the CDSA was updated to include the Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations (ACMPR). The ACMPR regulates legal access to cannabis for medical purposes.

Over time, data collection methods have evolved to capture information on cannabis seizures in several areas in public administration. Specific to their context, it is important that analysis of cannabis seizure metrics takes into account these changes when making inferences and undertaking analyses. Depending on the nature of the evolution, certain trends may not be actually indicative of changes in consumption, production, or distribution patterns, but be more reflective of shifting operational tactics, data collection policies, or level of enforcement efforts.

The primary departments and agencies that were identified as sources for cannabis seizure metrics are: RCMP, CBSA, and HC. PS was identified among users of cannabis seizure metrics. Data on cannabis seizures collected by these different departments and agencies provide different types of information to tackle the issue from the perspective of the responsibilities as set out in their organizational mandates.

Illicit drugs have significant links with organized crime, both nationally and transnationally (World Drug Report, 2016). How organized crime groups operate to profit from the movement of illegal cannabis within Canada is important for policy considerations. Additionally, attention must also be given to cannabis that originated outside of Canadian borders. It is often challenging to identify the originating source of cannabis production, without conducting an extensive investigation. Limited geographic source information for seizures at ports of entry does exist, but may not be representative of the drug situation in Canada.

The RCMP and CBSA are sometimes asked to participate in international cannabis investigations, where the investigations have ties to Canada. These "assistance files" include limited access to international cannabis data or reports. This data and information are spotty and not regularly recorded in databases by either organization. Even with its closest neighbour, Canada and the United States have limited information sharing or access to data on seized cannabis crossing this border.

Media Reporting

Mass media is a powerful tool for bringing awareness to the public on a number of news items. With most media coverage tackling shocking events or dangerous trends, mass media coverage can highlight the profile of a particular issue or can conduct investigative work that exposes the dangers in the everyday. However, disproportionate media coverage on infrequent events may also lead to exaggerated fears of the public on the danger of a particular issue, commonly referred to as "moral panic" (Cohen 2002). Smaller seizures of cannabis occur regularly by law enforcement and often receive little or no media attention while significant (in quantity or value) seizures, or sensational seizures (such as those linked to sophisticated organized crime groups) are reported at a much higher frequency (RCMP Consultation, 2016). Fueled by fear of the danger of significant drug seizures, public pressure may direct the political agenda in a particular direction. Understanding the role and influence of mass media on public opinion is important, as it provides a pulse of public opinion in a particular space and time, and it also plays an important role in shaping public opinion, "often ‘breaking' news and setting or framing the agenda of public debate" (MacNamara, 2005).

Illegal drugs have long been a component of mass media reporting globally. However, emphasis is typically placed on sensationalized events that are not representative of the drug problem and can cause the public to fear the worst possible outcomes. Media coverage is typically triggered by an event. While the event may be captured within data sources on the issue at hand, it can include outliers that are not representative of the dataset in general. Instead, "moral panic" may fuel public opinion that is not representative of everyday numbers for everyday people. Sensational mass media coverage can detract from more pressing issues or trends that may not be as dramatic, but which are more likely to have an impact on the general population.

While a comprehensive and systematic content analysis of media was not possible for this study, the literature search yielded several useful findings. Cannabis seizures are often sensationalized when reported. When reporting on cannabis seizures, the CBSA and RCMP provide raw numbers that do not include details on how representative the seizure is. It is the role of the media to locate and provide that information to the public. This type of reporting does occur, but is uncommon. While the RCMP investigates a number of cannabis seizure cases, it usually provides details to the media only for the most significant seizures or when the seizure presents public safety concerns. In the latter case, the RCMP may collaborate with HC on a bulletin which will receive greater media attention despite its infrequency (RCMP consultation, 2016). A meta-analysis of Australian media revealed that the figures of amount and value of cannabis seizures as presented in mass media were highly inflated. When compared to estimated values using cannabis data on plant yield and price from the research literature, reported values were as much as 11.9 times higher than research estimates times (Simons, Shanahan, and Ritter, 2011). While the authors acknowledge that there might be a number of potential reasons for the discrepancy between values as reported in the media and the estimates from the research literature examined in their study, it is important that greater transparency on the value of cannabis reported by the media, as well as the value used in data collection, to make better inferences about the impact of law enforcement in the illicit drug market.

Language also plays a role in fueling public fears of an issue by the media. Fear-based and speculative language shapes how a cannabis seizure is contextualized. Several RCMP articles include phrases that imply an increase in the danger of cannabis going undetected, "that otherwise might have been trafficked in our communities" (RCMP, February 25 2016; RCMP, 2015, September 30). No reference is made as to the significance of cannabis seizures within the context of the drug problem nationally, such as how typical this size of seizure would be. Other times, the street value of the seized cannabis is presented with large figures that are also presented out of context. Bringing the seizure closer to home increases the perceived impact of the seizure on individuals, their families, and their communities. High figures can be used to add "shock-value" to media coverage, with the effect of increasing public fear through exposure to atypical cannabis seizures. One news report compares typical cannabis with shatter, a highly potent form of cannabis with "THC level between 12 and 15 percent, [while] shatter is significantly higher … as high as 90 percent" (Wong, 2015; see also Davidson, 2016).

Media coverage of cannabis seizures generally take the figures provided by officials at face value, without seeking additional sources or verification (Larsen, 2016). The RCMP and CBSA provide figures on cannabis seizures to the media, but coverage is not necessarily representative of the illicit cannabis market in Canada. The CBSA indicated that seizure information that is released to the media is often produced as raw numbers with little contextualizing or breakdown of the seizures themselves. Value is automatically calculated by the RCMP and CBSA at the street value, resulting in large numbers that trigger public reactions. However, the wholesale value of seized cannabis is also an important measure of the current value of cannabis seized in large quantities, and can be up to 92% lower than the values shared in mass media "This is only about 8% of the RCMP's claimed half-million value. But a press release about a $37,000 bust wouldn't make headlines like a half-million dollar bust!" (Larsen, 2016). Other examples where cannabis seizure values were examined at the street value versus another value (wholesale, domestic/international) revealed similar findings (see CBC, 2014, November 14). A cannabis seizure in Taiwan that was destined for Australia revealed a price difference of $5.9M between the domestic and international value (Associated Press, 2016). Similar price differentials can also be found between separate domestic markets (Boucher et al., 2013).

Cannabis seizures at the border largely involve routine, personal seizures that are not reported on an individual basis. Larger seizures at the border that are sent to the RCMP for investigation occur rarely but garner significantly more media attention, contributing to public fears of the illicit cannabis market generally being dominated by sophisticated organized crime actors. Coupled with data on the number of cannabis seizures that take place at the border, which includes both the small personal seizures as well as fewer but larger cannabis seizures, the public may interpret media portrayal of cannabis seizures at the border as being both significant in the number of occurrences as well as the significance of each occurrence.

Presenting too much information can be just as problematic in creating moral panics as is presenting too little information. A recent coordinated raid of Toronto marijuana dispensaries in July 2016 illustrates this best when stating that 186 possession charges, and 71 profiting from the proceeds of crime charge were laid, resulting in "...270 kilograms of dried marijuana, 30 kg of resin, 25 kg of hash, 27 kg of pills, 73 kg of chocolate, 142 kg of cookies, 129 kg of candies, 101 kg of bars, 135 e-cigarettes, 457 drinks, 127 kg of oils and spreads and 121 kg of other marijuana byproducts" (Global News, 2016). A police raid is by nature, not representative of the general number of cannabis seizures, which can raise public concerns about the pervasiveness of the problem, without contextualizing it in terms of other issues.

Training for Officials

The formal training received by law enforcement officers and forensic employees is an important consideration in determining best practices for data collection on cannabis seizures. Law enforcement officers are often the original source for data collection that provides the baseline metrics on cannabis seizures, before cannabis samples are sent for analysis or used as evidence in court. Front-line police officers are often responsible for conducting the investigation into a drug seizure (if any), conducting the seizure itself, and reporting the data using the relevant forms or databases. Any sworn officer with adequate training is able to conduct a drug investigation. However, larger-scale operations are usually handled by senior officers or speciality units. This study consulted two sources for training material relating to cannabis seizure training for law enforcement officers: the Canadian Police Knowledge Network (CPKN) and the Canadian Police College (CPC).

The CPKN provides online training for police and law enforcement personnel. Consulting the CPKN course catalogue revealed no specific training material pertaining specifically to cannabis, seizures of illicit drugs, or data collection. A 20-minute course titled "Report Writing" is available for law enforcement officers (CPKN, 2016; see Appendix G). This course informs participants of the importance of report writing in the police report pathway. However, given the basic nature of this training, the length of training, and the frequency that police are required to write reports, it is believed that the impact of on-the-job learning, report-writing culture, and demands on police services for resources will have a stronger impact on the quality of police reports than "Report Writing."

The CPC is a national police service of the RCMP that provides in-class training for law enforcement personnel across Canada, as well as internationally. The CPC develops advanced and specialized courses based on identified needs and emerging trends in policing. Two current courses were identified as being relevant to the training of law enforcement officers on seizures: Drug Investigative Techniques (DITC) and Clandestine Laboratory Investigations (CLIC) (see Appendix H; J). An Advanced Drug Investigative Techniques course was previously provided at the CPC (see Appendix I), but was removed from the curriculum, as much of the information is the same as the basic Drug Investigative Techniques training course.

The DITC training is in high demand, with approximately 170 police officers trained annually. Initially, police officers who were already in plainclothes speciality units were the only officers eligible to receive this training. However, due to police rotations, these police officers were often only able to apply the training in their final year of their placement. The DITC training currently targets young candidates who are interested in working in drug enforcement and is being expanded to include officers who work in smaller-sized police jurisdictions.

Training in DITC operates on the assumption that officers have never handled a drug investigation. The course outlines the investigation process from start to finish, and each stage is discussed in detail. DITC offers a separate module for cannabis, while marijuana grow-ops are addressed in another module in the CLIC training course. While the process for investigating cannabis is the same as with other drugs, the analysis is conducted differently. While field tests are used to test for most unknown drugs, cannabis has a very distinct scent and can often be visually- or scent-identified as cannabis. Field tests are costly, and cannabis can be easily identified by police officers, saving time and resources for additional police work. With the exception of identification of cannabis, the investigation of cannabis is treated like any other Schedule II drug.

The formal DITC training includes detailed measurement practices that consider how cannabis estimates vary based on a number of factors, such as if the cannabis is wet or dry, if the seized plants are mature or seedlings, or on which part of the plant that is seized. While there has been increased public concern in regards to cannabis seized in edible forms, there have not been enough cases yet to warrant additions in this area to the course at this time.

While police officers are not asked to estimate or report on the potency of seized cannabis, they do receive formal training that follows HC rules on how to handle illicit drugs. In particular, handling techniques are specified that will preserve the concentration of THC in seized cannabis. The course also provides training on procedures related to extraction techniques, measuring seized cannabis, and counting the number of plants during a grow-op seizure. While the CPC acknowledged that the potency of seized cannabis is valuable information, currently no training is provided in this area. It was acknowledged that there needs to be a balance in how these additional details are reported.

As part of their formal training in the seizure of illicit drugs, police officers are also trained to estimate the value of seized cannabis. Using examples of price lists that are generated through the use of informants, historical data, intelligence reports, as well as police networks, officers are able to estimate the value of seized cannabis. Unfortunately, these price lists are standardized across the country, and do not take into account regional variations or market segment (i.e., retail versus wholesale), sampling method consistency, price fluctuations due to supply and demand, or the need to update variables and price lists regularly. There have been initial discussions in considering teaching newer approaches to how seized cannabis should be valued that take into account more factors, rather than using values that are often inflated or calculated at the highest possible cost, though these have not yet been incorporated into the training received by police officers.

Discussion

Data Accessibility

Consultations revealed that data accessibility was one the biggest challenges in the collection of data and analysis of seizure metric data. More consistent reporting between agencies and with the public is needed. A wealth of information is available and recorded by partners working to achieve the objectives of the National Anti-Drug Strategy. However, the accessibility of this data between departments and agencies continues to hinder a comprehensive analysis of the issue. A number of specific areas for potential opportunities were identified.

Data Linkages

Several opportunities for greater co-ordination of information were identified through the consultations for this research. Data sharing is currently triggered by a need from one organization and is made possible through informal channels such as networks and personal contacts. Data must be extracted from requested databases manually and shared with partners, with personal identifying information removed for confidentiality. Information that is not stored electronically, such as analogue "flowcharts" used by the RCMP, are often not included in the data exchange. Due to the resources that would be required to collect and transfer analogue information, it is usually not feasible to include information that is not electronically stored and accessible. Formalized communication and data sharing methods have the potential to increase the frequency of data sharing outside of specific ad-hoc requests. Furthermore, formalized communication channels are important for ensuring that data sharing is not limited to certain areas within organizations but available more broadly.

Formal agreements between organizations on data-sharing and the ability to link records enable robust data sets to be built and analyzed. Data linkages have the ability to improve the operational effectiveness of individual agencies, and undertake policy and trend analyses that would be impossible with any single database. For example, potency data from HC's LIMS database could be combined with RCMP or CBSA seizure data and be included in CISC's price data to reveal improved price modelling for more appropriate valuation determinations. This would complement more detailed data for research and policy work in the area of cannabis seizures across organizations.

System Interoperability

Each department or agency that is responsible for recording cannabis seizure metric data operates a separate database. Data is captured in proprietary databases according to the objectives of the organization with respect to the data, and particular structures and fields have evolved over time as they work towards fulfilling their mandates. For example, while all fields within the ICES database respond to the operational needs of the CBSA, only certain fields may be useful for partner organizations, such as HC. As data is shared between partner organizations, such as the CBSA and HC, discrepancies in fields used by each database may result in loss of information or data gaps. While the CDSD may contain the most comprehensive data on cannabis seizures, this data is less detailed than the records held by the CBSA. Such discrepancies in database systems may result in data gaps or loss of information in instances of data sharing, hindering their effective use.

As defined by its jurisdictional boundaries, the CBSA's ICES database is designed to act as a repository for data that is collected at Canada's ports of entry. The ICES database is useful for gathering intelligence on cannabis seizures along Canada's borders. The RCMP's RMS database can be used for national intelligence on cannabis seizures that take place inland, or along Canada's borders that are not located at a port of entry. RMS feeds data to the Uniform Crime Reporting Survey (UCR) on a monthly basis via an interface designed in accordance with UCR rules. RMS includes data on investigations of cannabis seizures that are relevant to police services and large cannabis seizures along Canada's borders (typically related to organized crime). Since these systems are not intended to collect the same information, data must be transferred in an alternative format so that it can be used by the receiving organization. In the transfer, data may be excluded or lost. Similarly, neither the ICES nor RMS systems are compatible with HC's CDSD. Data for comprehensive metrics on the total cannabis that has been destroyed is entered manually by HC employees by submitting paper copies of the HC/SC 3515. Some data can be automatically generated by the RMS system into an electronic version of the HC/SC 3515. However, this form is still currently submitted in paper format to HC. System inoperability also increases the potential for error as information is translated from system to system, as well as delays in reporting information in a timely manner. Regardless of any reluctance between organizations to share data, this exchange is further challenged by the lack of system interoperability between existing databases.

Centralization

Cannabis intelligence and expertise on illicit drugs exist across the PS portfolio, within police agencies and at HC. Products such as the RCMP's National Intelligence Reports, RCMP seizure data and trends, CBSA intelligence products, and HC's inventory of all controlled drugs and substances all contain valuable data that is useful for informed policymaking efforts as part of the National Anti-Drug Strategy. All drug seizures at Canada's ports of entry, including those over three kilograms or one litre, are captured within CBSA's databases and intelligence products. However, RCMP National Intelligence Reports only includes data on large cannabis seizures over three kilograms or one litre. While it is possible to cross-reference the RCMP statistics with CBSA statistics to prevent double-counting, it is often only the final reports and not the raw data itself that is being shared for analysis, preventing such analysis from occurring.

There appears to be a disconnect between the data needs of operations and policy across partner organizations. Operational consultations highlighted the need to quantify cannabis seizures in a way that does not overburden the reporting process, which maximizes the ability to triage more serious cases for intelligence purposes, thereby maintaining the integrity of evidence. These considerations result in establishing purposive thresholds for dealing with solid versus liquid substances and practices regarding the inclusion or exclusion of packaging that privileges later operational uses for the sample and collected data.

A horizontal approach to drug enforcement in Canada removes roadblocks imposed by data that is segmented by jurisdictions and mandates. Policymaking that reflects the drug situation across Canada requires that a number of datasets are pieced together before fulsome analysis can occur. In sharing certain information to the RCMP, confidentiality considerations restrict some data from being included. There may be a concern that identifying information that was collected for certain purposes will be used by the RCMP to conduct an investigation. There are several hub models that could be used to meet the need to build a complete picture of the state of cannabis in Canada. During consultations, several experts referred to centralized models, such as the United States' Drug Enforcement Agency model that serves as a centralized information point for all data pertaining to controlled drugs and substances. Moreover, this has the potential to streamline reporting and ensure greater data accuracy which, despite its complexity, is very important. Furthermore, a formalized horizontal or national strategy that synchronizes the data needs for both operational and policy considerations across jurisdictions would contribute to more informed decision-making.

Partnerships

Generally, experts revealed that access to necessary information across organizational jurisdictions is limited. It is possible that data can be shared with different organizations in a number of scenarios: shared unilaterally in a one-way exchange between organizations, reciprocally, or not shared at all. While organizations reported that they were open to sharing information themselves, most organizations indicated that the data received from other organizations was challenging (CBSA Consultation, 2016; RCMP Consultation, 2016; PS Consultation, 2016; HC Consultation, 2016). Lack of formal mechanisms, such as reporting requirements, was cited as a contributing factor to roadblocks in information-sharing.

One area that was identified as particularly problematic is competing legislations that undermine the authority of enforcement agencies to conduct seizures. Both the Customs Act and the Canada Post Corporation Act place limitations on enforcement authorities to examine suspected mail that is under 30 grams without the consent of the sender or addressee. This creates a legal vacuum, since Canada Post does not view its role as a law enforcement body, but to merely comply with its requirements under the Canada Post Corporation Act. This highlights the need for greater cooperation between enforcement authorities responsible for seizing cannabis and auxiliary organizations, and/or legislative reform.

Data Reconciliation

Data reconciliation is the process by which initial data is verified and updated to reflect new information. Cannabis seizure metrics may be transferred between several organizations from the initial cannabis seizure and reporting to the final destruction, depending on the case.

For example, a large cannabis seizure by the CBSA will be initially entered into the ICES database before the responsibility for investigating the case is transferred to the RCMP for investigation, using the RMS database. In anticipation of an investigation going to court, a sample of seized cannabis is sent to DAS as an exhibit for court, where the results of the analysis are recorded in the LIMS database. DAS will also issue a Certificate of Analysis to be included in the court files, along with the final court ruling. Following the completion of a completed seizure, investigation or case, authorization from HC must be obtained prior to destruction. Requests for destruction are captured within the CDSD by HC. Data is generated along several points by different partners and recorded at different stages of the investigation. Overburdened caseloads may prevent information that is generated by other partners to be reconciled with in the original data. This may result in a failure to provide a complete picture of each cannabis seizure. Figure 1 illustrates how the data is captured at different points of the cannabis seizure. Without data reconciliation, the snapshot provided by each database remains incomplete.

Image description

The figure demonstrates the capture of cannabis seizure data for the three enforcement authorities who manage databases holding cannabis seizure data. The type of information captured within each database is reflective of operational. The data generated from a single cannabis seizure is captured within multiple databases. Thus, some information may be lost during the transfer of responsibility of data between enforcement authorities. Not all types of information are available for each cannabis seizure, depending on the circumstances.

Application to Other Metrics

The discussion in this report has thus far focused on how the metric of cannabis seizures is currently being measured, recorded and reported by law enforcement authorities in Canada. Some suggestions for improving the way the metric is currently being measured were offered. The next section of the paper addresses the issue of how the metric of cannabis seizures can contribute to an array of other metrics, if some of the improvements are introduced. The metrics presented below were discussed, to an extent, in Maslov et al. (2016). The discussion highlights the importance of collecting accurate information on cannabis seizures, as cannabis seizures play a crucial role as a root metric for other metrics.

Conclusion

Information that could potentially contribute to the data needs for seizure-based cannabis metrics is currently collected under a number of different authorities in Canada. These include the CBSA, municipal and provincial police jurisdictions, the RCMP, and HC. Four major databases keep information on seizure-based metrics: 1) ICES (CBSA-administered); 2) CDSD (HC-administered); 3) LIMS (HC-administered); and 4) RMS systems (municipal and provincial police jurisdictions and the RCMP).

This paper presented an overview and a critical assessment of the way cannabis seizure data is collected, recorded, reported and shared in Canada. A thorough literature review was conducted along with consultations with federal partners from the fields of operations, policy and education on the way they understand and execute seizures of illicit cannabis. Several strategic recommendations were provided as a result of the work conducted for this project. These include conceiving better ways to link seizure-based data; inter-operationalizing different systems of collecting seizure data (i.e. ensuring that the systems do not double-count or omit seizure data); creating a central point of contact to access the data; formalizing partnerships for a more straightforward data accessibility; and considering approaches for reconciling the data that is being transferred between partners. Several other suggestions for the enhanced counting of seized cannabis products and recording of seizure information were provided.

While Canada is undergoing a historic process of legalizing the recreational use of cannabis, it is important to remember that the illicit market for cannabis may not entirely disappear post-legalization. Illicit production and trafficking of cannabis may still exist after the legalization. Diversion to jurisdictions within Canada or internationally, where cannabis regimes would be different from the future one in Canada's provinces and territories, which may choose to design their own specific cannabis regime (e.g. times of sales, legal age for access, home growth, consumption in public, etc.) might still be occurring. Regulatory and criminal offences, such as the existing ones for tobacco and alcohol, will likely be occurring with legalized cannabis. All of these illicit cannabis-related activities could result in seizures of cannabis by law enforcement. As such, it is important to have a properly set up system of collection of seizure-based data, both pre- and post-legalization because good seizure-based cannabis metrics are one of the major elements required for studying the cannabis market in terms of use, diversion, grey and black markets, organized crime activity and econometric estimates. Having a solid system for collecting seizure data set up in Canada will fill the gap of baseline and trend seizure data. The case of Colorado (Rocky Mountain, 2016) is a good example of how seizure-based metrics can be reported and tracked for research and policy adjustments over time.

It will be important to consider the role cannabis seizure data will continue to play under a different regime in Canada. Existing data sources may not be adequate, as seizure metrics are captured in locations and by partners that are not regularly included. Current seizure metrics by existing partners may need to be adapted as we move from gathering baseline data towards understanding the impact and context over time. Data from sources outside of the current cannabis seizure enforcement model may need to be supplemented by data from administrative or regulatory sources, which will require new partnerships. This may introduce new concerns or highlight existing ones for data sharing. Moreover, differences between adjacent jurisdictions may emphasize discrepancies between cannabis regimes and will need to be taken into consideration when establishing and updating the framework of cannabis metrics that are needed by researchers and policymakers alike.

References

Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations, P.C. 2016-743, 5 August, 2016, SOR/2016-230, Canada Gazette, Part II, vol. 150, no. 17, August 5, 2016. Retrieved from http://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2016/2016-08-24/html/sor-dors230-eng.php on November 16, 2016.

Alberink, I., Sprong, A., Bolck, A., and Curran, J. M. (2014). "Quantifying uncertainty in estimations of the total weight of drugs in groups of complex matrices." Journal of Forensic Sciences, 59(6): 1614–1621.

Allard v. Canada, 2016 FC 236 (CanLII).CanLII: The Canadian Legal Information Institute. Retrieved from https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2016/2016fc236/2016fc236.pdf on November 16, 2016.

Associated Press. (2013, December 11). "KC Police Find 4K Percent More Marijuana in 2013." AP Regional State Report: Missouri. Retrieved from http://www.kmbc.com/article/kc-police-find-4k-percent-more-marijuana-in-2013/3679715 on November 22, 2016.

Associated Press. (2016, September 6). "Thai Police Seize Over 3 Tons of Marijuana Destined for Australia." High Times. Retrieved from http://hightimes.com/news/thai-police-seize-over-3-tons-of-marijuana-destined-for-australia/ on October 5, 2016.

Baks, J. (2014). Inventory & Analysis of Organized Crime Committees in Canada. Prepared by the Ontario Provincial Police for the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police Organized Crime Committee. Unpublished, internal report. Security classification, Protected B.

Barghout, C. (2016, September 30). "Medical Marijuana Patients Using Health Canada Licences to Sell Pot Illegally." CBC News. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/medical-marijuana-licences-1.3784620 on October 27, 2016.

Barnes, G.E., Barnes, M.D., and Patton, D. (2005). "Prevalence and Predictors of ‘Heavy' Marijuana Use in a Canadian Sample." Journal of Substance Use and Misuse, 40, 12: 1849–1863.

Beirness, D. J., Beasley, E., and LeCavalier, J. (2009). "The Accuracy of Evaluations by Drug Recognition Experts in Canada." Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal, 42, 1: 75–79.

Ben Lakhdar, C., Vaillant, N.G., and Wolff, F. C. (2016). "Price Elasticity of Demand for Cannabis: Does Potency Matter?" Addiction Research & Theory, 24, 4. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/16066359.2016.1139699 on October 26, 2016.

Bjerregaard, P. and Becker, U. (2013). "Validation of Survey Information on Smoking and Alcohol Consumption against Import Statistics, Greenland 1993–2010." International Journal of Circumpolar Health, 72. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3590397/ on October 20, 2016.

Bouchard, M. (2007). "A Capture–Recapture Model to Estimate the Size of Criminal Populations and the Risks of Detection in a Cannabis Cultivation Industry." Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 23: 221–241.

Bouchard, M. (2008). "Towards a Realistic Method to Estimate Cannabis Production in Industrialized Countries." Contemporary Drug Problems, 35: 291–320.

Bouchard, M. and Dion, C. B. (2009). "Growers and Facilitators: Probing the Role of Entrepreneurs in the Development of the Cannabis Cultivation Industry." Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 22, 1: 25–38.

Bouchard, M., Morselli, C., Gallupe, O., Easton, S., Descormiers, K., Turcotte, M., and Boivin, R. (2012). Estimating the Size of the Canadian Illicit Meth and MDMA Markets: A Multi-Method Approach. Public Safety Canada: Ottawa.

Boucher, A., Lawrence, A., and Maslov, A. (2013). The Price of Marijuana in Canada: Preliminary Discussion of Using Price Data for Operational and Policy Purposes. Public Safety Canada: Ottawa.

Bowers, K., Johnson, S., Guerette, R., Summers, L. and Poynton, S. (2011). "Spatial Displacement and Diffusion of Benefits Among Geographically Focused Policing Initiatives: A Meta-Analytical Review." Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7(4): 347–374.

Boyce, J. Statistics Canada (2015a). Police-reported Crime Statistics in Canada, 2014. Statistics Canada. Catalogue no. 85-002-X. Ottawa. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2015001/article/14211/tbl/tbl05-eng.htm on October 14, 2015.

Boyce, J., Cotter, A. and Perreault, S. (2014). Police-reported Crime Statistics in Canada, 2013. Statistics Canada, Catalogue no. 85-002-X. Ottawa. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2014001/article/14040-eng.htm on October 5, 2015.

Boyd, S.C., and Carter, C. (2014). Killer Weed: Marijuana Grow Ops, Media, and Justice. DesLibris, University of Toronto Press.

Brooks, A. (2014). Law Enforcement Information Management Study. IDC, Analyze the Future: Special Study. Retrieved from https://cacp.ca/index.html?asst_id=977 on November 10, 2016.

Bryan, M. L., Del Bono, E., and Pudney, S. (2013). Licensing and Regulation of the Cannabis Market in England and Wales: Towards a Cost-Benefit Analysis. Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER). Retrieved from https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/research/publications/521860 on October 30, 2015.

Buscaglia, E. and Van Dijk, J. (2003). "Controlling Organized Crime and Corruption in the Public Sector." Forum on Crime and Society, 3 (1 and 2). Retrieved from http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/forum/forum3_Art1.pdf on October 28, 2016.

Canada Post. (2016). Customs Requirements. Retrieved from http://www.canadabodybuilding.com/archive/index.php/t-4299.html?s=208a0729abf906f4a7412bf28271e3a3on October 25, 2016.

Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP). (2014a). Police Information and Statistics (POLIS) Committee Annual Report 2013/14. Retrieved from https://www.cacp.ca/police-information-and-statistics-polis-committee-activities.html?asst_id=473 on November 26, 2015.

Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP). (2014b). Police Information and Statistics (POLIS) Committee. Retrieved from https://www.cacp.ca/police-information-and-statistics-polis-committee.html on December 7, 2015.

Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP). (2015). Resolutions adopted at the 110th Annual Conference. Retrieved from https://cacp.ca/resolution.html?asst_id=927 on November 28, 2015.

Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA). (2014). CBSA Seizes Suspected Drugs in Postal Packages. (Archived). Retrieved from http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=886749 on November 1, 2016.

Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA). (2016a). About the Canada Border Services Agency. Retrieved from http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/agency-agence/menu-eng.html on October 18, 2016.

Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA). (2016b). Be Ready: Become a CBSA Officer: From Recruit to Officer Trainee: Training and Development Programs. Retrieved from  http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/job-emploi/bso-asf/training-formation-eng.html on October 23, 2016.

Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse (CCSA). (2015). Clearing Up the Smoke on Cannabis: Highlights. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. Retrieved from http://www.ccsa.ca/Resource Library/CCSA-Clearing-the-Smoke-on-Cannabis-Highlights-2016-en.pdf on November 1, 2016.

Canadian Medical Association (CMA). (2014). The Health Risks and Harms Associated with the Use of Marijuana. Canadian Medical Association submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health. Retrieved from https://www.cma.ca/Assets/assets-library/document/en/advocacy/Brief-Marijuana-Health_Committee_May27-2014-FINAL.pdf on October 26, 2015.

Canadian Police College (CPC). (2014). About the CPC. Retrieved from https://www.cpc-ccp.gc.ca/en/about-cpc on October 5, 2016.

Canadian Police Knowledge Network (CPKN). (2016). About CPKN. Retrieved from http://www.cpkn.ca/about on October 5, 2016.

Canadian Press. (2015, August 30). "Police Chiefs Want Power to Seize Contraband in the Mail." CBC News. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/police-chiefs-want-power-to-seize-contraband-in-the-mail-1.3209160 on October 25, 2016.

Carson, Sara. (2010, July 28). "OPP Confirm Large Marijuana Seizure." Orillia Packet & Times. Retrieved from http://www.orilliapacket.com/2010/07/28/opp-confirm-large-marijuana-seizure on November 2, 2016.

Carstairs, C. (2000). "Hop Heads" and "Hypes": Drug Use, Regulation and Resistance in Canada, 1920-1961. (Master's thesis). University of Toronto: Department of History. Retrieved from https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/14452/1/NQ53757.pdf on November 16, 2016.

Carter, Connie. (2009). "Making Residential Cannabis Growing Operations Actionable: A Critical Policy Analysis." International Journal of Drug Policy, 20(4): 371–376.

Caulkins, J. P. (2010). Estimated Cost of Production for Legalized Cannabis. RAND Corporation: Working Paper. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/working_papers/2010/RAND_WR764.pdf on January 14th, 2016.

Caulkins, J. P., Hawken, A., Kilmer, B., and Kleiman, M. A. R. (2012). Marijuana Legalization. What Everyone Needs to Know. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Caulkins, J.P. (1994). "What is the Average Price of an Illicit Drug?" Addiction. 89(7): 815–819.

Caulkins, J.P., Cohen, M., and Zamarra, L. (n.d.). Estimating Adequate Licensed Square Footage for Production. BOTEC Analysis Corporation. Retrieved from http://liq.wa.gov/publications/Marijuana/BOTEC%20reports/5a_Cannabis_Yields-Final.pdf on November 4, 2015.

Cavazos-Rehg, Sowles, Krauss, Agbonavbare, Grucza, and Bierut. (2016). "A Content Analysis of Tweets About High-Potency Marijuana." Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 166: 100–108.

CBC News. (2014, December 19). "Ottawa Trafficking Ring Allegedly Mailed Drugs to Nunavut." CBC News. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-trafficking-ring-allegedly-mailed-drugs-to-nunavut-1.2879089 on November 1, 2016.

CBC News. (2014, June 17). "400 Lbs of Marijuana Worth over $1M Seized by Hamilton Police." The Huffington Post, June 17, 2014. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/06/17/marijuana-seizure-hamilton_n_5503159.html on October 5, 2016.

CBC News. (2014, November 14). "Potent Pot: How Marijuana Got So Strong and What it Means for Legalization." CBC News. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/episode-208-potent-pot-s-preeminence-befriending-racists-sean-michaels-love-of-theremin-and-more-1.2905476/potent-pot-how-marijuana-got-so-strong-and-what-it-means-for-legalization-1.2905483 on October 20, 2015.

CBC News. (2015, September 30). "Saskatoon Top Place in Canada to Be Charged for Marijuana Possession." CBC News. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/saskatoon-top-place-in-canada-to-be-charged-for-marijuana-possession-1.3249579 on October 5, 2015.

CBC News. (2016, May 15). "Snail Mail Still Popular Way to Send Illegal Drugs, CBSA says." CBC News. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/snail-mail-still-popular-way-to-send-illegal-drugs-1.3583208 on October 26, 2016.

Christin, N. (2012). Traveling the Silk Road: A Measurement Analysis of a Large Anonymous Online Marketplace. CyLab, Carnegie Mellon University, July 30, 2012. (Revised November 28, 2012). CMU-CyLab-12-018. Retrieved from https://www.cylab.cmu.edu/files/pdfs/tech_reports/CMUCyLab12018.pdf on November 17, 2016.

Clements, K. W., and Zhao, X. (2009). Economics and Marijuana: Consumption, Pricing and Legalisation. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Cohen, C. (2014, December 4). "Taking Care of Business: The Effects of Marijuana on Productivity." Medical Jane. Retrieved from http://www.medicaljane.com/2014/12/04/taking-care-of-business-the-effects-of-marijuana-on-productivity/ on November 4, 2015.

Cohen, S. (2002). Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers. New York: Routledge.

Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (S.C. 1996, c. 19). Retrieved from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/C-38.8.pdf on November 15, 2016.

Copeland, J., Gerber, S., & Swift, W. (2006). Evidence-Based Answers to Cannabis Questions: A Review of the Literature. Canberra: Australian National Council on Drugs.

Cotter, A., Greenland, J., Karam, M. (2015). Drug-related Offences in Canada, 2013. Juristat, 85-002-x. Statistics Canada. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2015001/article/14201-eng.htm on November 15, 2016.

Criminal Intelligence Service of Canada (CISC). (2014). Organized Crime in Canada: Backgrounder. Retrieved from http://www.cisc.gc.ca/media/2014/2014-08-22-eng.htm on December 2, 2016.

Crone, J. (2015, June 5). "Average House Price Rose by $40,000 in a Year in Denver After City Legalized Marijuana and Thousands of People Moved There." Daily Mail. Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3112172/Legalization-marijuana-boosts-house-prices-ten-cent-thousands-flock-Denver.html on November 3, 2015.

Customs Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. 1 (2nd Supp.)). Retrieved from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/C-52.6.pdf on November 17, 2016.

Davison, J. (2016, January 5). "‘This is Basically Marijuana on Steroids': The Legalization Challenge of High-Potency Pot." CBC News. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/marijauna-shatter-1.3383095 on August 9, 2016.

Diplock, J., and Plecas, D. (2011). The Increasing Problem of Electrical Consumption in Indoor Marihuana Grow Operations in British Columbia. University of Fraser Valley: Centre for Public Safety and Criminal Justice Research. Retrieved from http://cjr.ufv.ca/the-increasing-problem-of-electrical-consumption-in-indoor-marihuana-grow-operations-in-british-columbia/ on January 20, 2016.

Diplock, J., Plecas, D. and Garris, L. (2013). Targeting Marihuana Growing Operations in British Columbia: A Summary Report Highlighting Current Research Findings. University of the Fraser Valley. Retrieved from http://christianregenhardcenter.org/pdfs/TargetingMarihuanaGrowingOperationsinBC.pdf on October 21, 2015.

Dyer, J. (2015) "Good News, Stoners: Legalization Is Driving Down the Price of Weed." Vice News, June 25, 2015. Accessed March 22, 2016, from http://www.floatingsheep.org/2011/08/price-of-weed.html.

Ecological Agriculture Projects. (1997). "Environmental Benefits of Hemp." In Chanvre en Ville. Retrieved from http://eap.mcgill.ca/CPH_3.htm on December 18, 2015.

Ellison, J. M., Spohn, R. M. (2016). "Assessing the Consequences of Colorado's Legalization of Recreational Marijuana on Nebraska." Presented at the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences Conference, Denver, 2016. Representing the University of Nebraska, Omaha and the Nebraska Center for Justice Research (NCJR).

Evans, D. G. (2013). "The Economic Impacts of Marijuana Legalization." The Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice, 7, 4. Retrieved from http://www.globaldrugpolicy.org/Issues/Vol%207%20Issue%204/The%20Economic%20Impacts%20of%20Marijuana%20Legalization%20final%20for%20journal.pdf on November 4, 2015.

Fendrich, M., Johnson, T. P., Wislar, J. S., Hubbell, A., and Spiehler, V. (2004) "The Utility of Drug Testing in Epidemiological Research: Results From a General Population Survey." Addiction, 99(2): 197–208.

Fergusson, D. M., Boden, J. M., and Horwood, L. J. (2006). "Cannabis Use and Other Illicit Drug Use: Testing the Cannabis Gateway Hypothesis." Addiction, 101, 4: 556–69.

Foote, A. (2016, August 11). "Medical Marijuana Patients Can Grow ‘Limited Amount' of Cannabis at Home Under New Laws." CBC News. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/medical-marijuana-home-growing-law-1.3716860 on October 4, 2016.

Gable, R. S. (2006). "Toxicity of Recreational Drugs." American Scientist, 94: 206–208.

Garis, L. (2009). Combating Canada's Marijuana Grow Industry: Stronger Penalties and other Deterrents. Surrey, B.C. Retrieved from https://www.surrey.ca/files/CombatingCanadasMarijuanaGrowIndustrySenateCommittee.pdf on October 26, 2016.

Gerken, J. (2012, August 27). "Cannabis Carbon Footprint: Marijuana Industry's Environmental Impact." The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/cannabis-carbon-footprint-environment_n_1832035.html on November 4, 2015.

Gieringer, D. (1994). Economics of Cannabis Legalization: Detailed Analysis of the Benefits of Ending Cannabis Prohibition. The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). Retrieved from http://norml.org/pdf_files/NORML_Economics_Cannabis_Legalization.pdf on November 2, 2015.

Globe and Mail. (2013, October 3). "By the Numbers: Canada's Medical Marijuana Use." The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/by-the-numbers-canadas-medical-marijuana-use/article14694389/ on October 21, 2015.

Guerette, R. and Bowers, K. (2009). "Assessing the Extent of Crime Displacement and Diffusion of Benefits: A Review of Situational Crime Prevention Evaluations." Criminology: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 47(4): 1331–1368.

Hall, N. D. (2015, March 8). "Surrey Fire Chief Has a ‘Cultural Bias' against Marijuana Grow-Ops, Expert Witness to Testify." Metro Vancouver. Retrieved from http://www.metronews.ca/news/vancouver/2015/03/08/surrey-fire-chief-has-a-cultural-bias-against-marijuana-grow-ops-expert-witness-to-testify.html on October 5, 2015.

Hall, W. D. and Lynskey, M. (2005). "Is Cannabis a Gateway Drug? Testing Hypothesis about the Relationship between Cannabis and the Use of Other Illicit Drugs." Drug Alcohol Review, 24, 1: 39–48.

Hamilton, A., Bergman, B., Blue, L., Daniels, C., Jones, D., and Shannon, E. (2004, August 15). "This Bud's for the U.S." TIME. Retrieved from http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,682290,00.html on October 27, 2016.

Hammersvik, E., Sandberg, S., and Pedersen W. (2012). "Why Small-Scale Cannabis Growers Stay Small: Five Mechanisms That Prevent Small-Scale Growers From Going Large Scale." International Journal of Drug Policy, 23, 6: 458–464.

Health Canada. (2012). Canadian Alcohol and Drug Use Monitoring Survey: Summary of Results for 2012. Retrieved from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/drugs-drogues/stat/_2012/summary-sommaire-eng.php on October 5, 2015.

Health Canada. (2013a). Information for Health Care Professionals: Cannabis (Marihuana, Marijuana) and the Cannabinoids. Retrieved from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/marihuana/med/infoprof-eng.php on September 26, 2015.

Health Canada. (2013b). Drug Analysis Service Training Manual. Health Canada: Cat. H129-2/1-2013E-PDF. Retrieved from http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2014/sc-hc/H129-2-1-2013-eng.pdf on November 16, 2016.

Health Canada. (2014a). Canadian Alcohol and Drug Use Monitoring Survey, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/drugs-drogues/stat/_2012/summary-sommaire-eng.php on October 5, 2015.

Health Canada. (2014b). National Anti-Drug Strategy: About the Strategy. Retrieved from http://www.healthycanadians.gc.ca/anti-drug-antidrogue/about-apropos/index-eng.php on August 30, 2016.

Health Canada. (2015a). Authorized Licensed Producers under the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations. Retrieved from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/marihuana/info/list-eng.php on November 2, 2015.

Health Canada. (2015b). Medical Use of Marijuana. Retrieved from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/marihuana/index-eng.php on November 2, 2015.

Health Canada. (2016a). Understanding the New Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations. Retrieved from http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/publications/drugs-products-medicaments-produits/understanding-regulations-medical-cannabis-medicales-comprehension-reglements/index-eng.php on October 4, 2016.

Health Canada. (2016b). Compliance and Monitoring. Retrieved from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/substancontrol/substan/compli-conform/index-eng.php on Aug 12, 2016.

Health Canada. (n.d.). Drug Offence and Disposition Report. Retrieved from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/substancontrol/law-loi/hcsc3515-eng.php on November 2, 2016.

Healy, J. (2015, January 17). "Odd Byproduct of Legal Marijuana: Homes That Blow Up." The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/18/us/odd-byproduct-of-legal-marijuana-homes-blow-up.html?_r=2 on July 7, 2015.

Hough, M., Warburton, H. Few, B., May, T., Man, L. H., Witton, J., and Turnbull, P. J. (2003). A Growing Market. The Domestic Cultivation of Cannabis. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/default/files/jrf/migrated/files/1859350852.pdf on December 15, 2016.

Hser, Y. (1997) "Self-Reported Drug Use: Results of Selected Empirical Investigations of Validity." In Harrison, L. and Hughes, A. (Eds.). The Validity of Self-Reported Drug Use: Improving the Accuracy of Survey Estimates (320–343). NIDA Research Monograph 167, NIH Pub No. 97-4147, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Rockville, Maryland, USA.

Ingold, J. (2010, January 24). "Analysis: Denver Pot Shops' Robbery Rate Lower than Banks'." The Denver Post. Retrieved from http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14275637 on November 4, 2015.

Ingold, J. and Lofholm, N. (2011, January 24). "Medical-Marijuana Dispensaries' Effect on Crime Unclear." The Denver Post. Retrieved from http://www.denverpost.com/ci_17178820

Ingram, C. (2016). "Legal Marijuana is Finally Doing What the Drug War Couldn't." The Washington Post, March 3, 2016. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/03/legal-marijuana-is-finally-doing-what-the-drug-war-couldnt/ on July 12, 2016.

Jackson, D. (2002). "Freed Weed." Waste Age. 33(9): 82.

Jouanjus, E., Leymarie, F., Tubery, M., and Lapeyre-Mestre, M. (2011). "Cannabis-related Hospitalizations: Unexpected Serious Events Identified through Hospital Databases," British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 71, 5: 758–765.

Justice Canada. (2016a). National Anti-Drug Strategy Evaluation. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cp-pm/eval/rep-rap/12/nas-sna/p1.html on August 25, 2016.

Justice Canada. (2016b). Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations. Retrieved from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2016-230/page-25.html?txthl=plants+plant#s-190 on November 1, 2016.

Kalacska, M., and Bouchard, M. (2011). "Using Police Seizure Data and Hyperspectral Imagery to Estimate the Size of an Outdoor Cannabis Industry." Police Practice & Research, 12(5): 424–434.

Kepple, N. J. and Freisthler, B. (2012). "Exploring the Ecological Association between Crime and Medical Marijuana Dispensaries." Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drug, 73, 4: 523–530.

Kilmer, B. and Pacula, R. L. (2009). Estimating the Size of the Global Drug Market: A Demand-Side Approach: Report 2. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Prepared for the European Commission. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2009/RAND_TR711.pdf on November 17, 2016.

Kilmer, B., Caulkins, J. P., Midgette, G., Dahlkemper, L., MacCoun, R. J. and Pacula, R. L. (2013). Before the Grand Opening: Measuring Washington State's Marijuana Market in the Last Year Before Legalized Commercial Sales. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR466.html on November 1, 2016

Kleiman, M. (1986). "Risks and Prices: An Economic Analysis of Drug Enforcement." Crime and Justice, 7, 289–340.

Larsen, D. (2016). "RCMP Claim of a $500,000 Pot Seizure is Likely not True." Vancouver Sun. Retrieved from http://vancouversun.com/news/community-blogs/rcmp-claim-of-a-500000-pot-seizure-is-likely-not-accurate on November 1, 2016.

Larsen, J. P. (2011). Examining Illicit Cross-Border Drug Flows Within the Pacific Northwest. (Master's Thesis, Western Washington University). Retrieved from http://www.wwu.edu/bpri/files/2011_Larsen_Thesis.pdf on July 22, 2015.

Lau, N., Sales, P., Averill, S., Murphy, F., Sato, S., and Murphy, S. (2015). "A Safer Alternative: Cannabis Substitution as Harm Reduction." Drug Alcohol Review, 34, 6: 654–659.

Lawrence, A. (2016). Ways to Consider Non-Medical Cannabis: Reasoning from Conceptual Analogues. Ottawa: Public Safety Canada. Retrieved from https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2016-r011/index-en.aspx on November 10, 2016.

Leone, S. and Pesce, D. (2012). "Bridging Supply and Demand: Relationship Between Cocaine Seizures and Prevalence Estimates of Consumption." Public Health, 126: 740–748.

Levasseur, J., Marcoux, J., and Kubinec, V. L. (2015, September 30). "Police Report a Pot Possession Incident Every 9 Minutes in Canada." CBC News. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/pot-possession-incidents-1.3247653 on October 2, 2015.

MacNamara, J. (2005). "Media Content Analysis: Its Uses, Benefits and Best Practice Methodology." Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, 6(1): 1–34.

Maslov, A., and Boucher, A. (2014). Estimating the Size of the Illicit Tobacco Market in Canada: Discussion of Possible Methods. Public Safety Canada: Ottawa.

Maslov, A., Lawrence, A., and Ferguson, M. (2016). Cannabis Performance Metrics for Policy Consideration: What Do We Need to Measure? Public Safety Canada: Ottawa.

McFadden, D. (2015, April 15) "Jamaica's Looser Marijuana Laws Go into Full Effect." The Cannabist; Associated Press. Retrieved from http://www.thecannabist.co/2015/04/15/jamaica-marijuana-laws/33298/ on December 4, 2015.

Mertz, E. (2012, August 3). "Border Services Seizes Suspected Hashish Headed for Edmonton." Global News. Retrieved from http://globalnews.ca/news/273085/border-services-seizes-suspected-hashish-headed-for-edmonton/ on November 1, 2016.

Mieczkowski, T. (1989). "The Accuracy of Self-Reported Drug Use: An Evaluation and Analysis of New Data," in Weiner, N. A. and Wolfgang, M. E. (Eds.). Pathways to Criminal Violence (275–302). Sage Publications, Newbury Park, California, USA.

Mills, E. (2011). Energy Up in Smoke: The Carbon Footprint of Indoor Cannabis Production. Retrieved from http://evan-mills.com/energy-associates/Indoor_files/Indoor-cannabis-energy-use.pdf on November 4, 2015.

Mohamed, A.R., and Fritsvold, E.D. (2010). Dorm Room Dealers: Drugs and the Privileges of Race and Class. Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Mohney, G. (2016, April 19). "Colorado Marijuana Report Reveals Increase in Hospital Visits After Legalization." ABC News. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/Health/colorado-marijuana-report-reveals-increase-hospital-visits-legalization/story?id=38514764 on October 26, 2016.

Monte, A. A., Zane, R. D., and Heard, K. J. (2015). "The Implications of Marijuana Legalization in Colorado." Journal of American Medical Association, 313, 3: 241–242.

Morselli, C., ed. (2014). Crime and Networks. New York: Routledge.

Munch, C.  & Silver, W. (2017). Measuring Organized Crime in Canada: Results of a Pilot Project. Juristat, 85-002-x. Statistics Canada. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2017001/article/14689-eng.htm on January 25, 2016.

National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces. (2016). Operation SABOT. Retrieved from http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/operations-canada-north-america-recurring/op-sabot.page on November 18, 2016.

National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). (2011). Drug Facts: Drug-Related Hospital Emergency Room Visits. Retrieved from https://d14rmgtrwzf5a.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/drugfacts_hospitalvisits.pdf on September 4, 2015.

Office of the Auditor General. (2015). Reports of the Auditor General of Canada. Report 2, Controlling Exports at the Border. Ottawa: Office of the Auditor General of Canada. Retrieved from http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201602_02_e_41059.html on December 16, 2016.

O'Hara, M. E. (2014, July 18). "Legal Weed Sellers May Soon Have Way Less Cash Laying Around." Vice News. Retrieved from https://news.vice.com/article/legal-weed-sellers-may-soon-have-way-less-cash-laying-around on November 4, 2015.

O'Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., and Johnston, L. D. (1983) "Reliability and Consistency in Self-Reports of Drug Use." The International Journal of the Addictions, 18(6): 805–824.

Pacula, R. L., and Lundberg, R. (2014). "Why Changes in Price Matter when Thinking about Marijuana Policy: A Review of the Literature on the Elasticity of Demand." Public Health Reviews, 35, 2. Retrieved from http://www.publichealthreviews.eu/show/i/14 on October 30, 2015.

Patriquin, M. (2007). The 'BMW' of Canadian marijuana. Maclean's, 120(49/50): 26.

Plecas, D., Diplock, J., and Garis, L. (2012). "An Updated Review of the Research on the Risks and Harms Associated to the Use of Marijuana." The Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice. Retrieved from http://www.surrey.ca/files/AnUpdatedReviewoftheResearchandharmsAssociatedtotheUseofMarijuana.pdf on October 30, 2015.

Plecas, D., Malm, A., and Kinney, B. (2005). Marihuana Growing Operations in British Columbia Revisited, 1997-2003. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264999163_MARIJUANA_GROWING_OPERATIONS_IN_BRITISH_COLUMBIA_REVISITED_1997-2003 on October 26, 2016.

Police Foundation and Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police. (2015). Colorado's Legalization of Marijuana and the Impact on Public Safety: A Practical Guide for Law Enforcement. Retrieved from http://www.nccpsafety.org/assets/files/library/Legalized_Marijuana_Practical_Guide_for_Law_Enforcement.pdf on February 11, 2016.

Public Safety Canada. (2010). United States – Canada Joint Border Threat and Risk Assessment. Retrieved from https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/archive-us-cnd-jnt-thrt-rsk/archive-us-cnd-jnt-thrt-rsk-eng.pdf on October 27, 2016.

R. v. Parker, 2000 CanLII 5762 (ON CA). CanLII: The Canadian Legal Information Institute. Retrieved from http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2000/2000canlii5762/2000canlii5762.pdf on November 16, 2016.

Ramsey, G. (2012, November 5). "Study: US Marijuana Legalization Could Cut Cartel Profits By 30%." InSight Crime. Retrieved from http://www.insightcrime.org/news-analysis/study-legalization-cut-cartel-profits-by-30 on October 15, 2015.

Reed, J. K. (2015).  "Marijuana Data Collection in Colorado: Successes and Challenges."  Presentation given at a Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) meeting on January 16, 2015.

Reith, I. (2015). "Two Plants Are Better Than One?" Contemporary Drug Problems, 42(4): 259–273.

Reuter, P. (2009). "Ten Years After the United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS): Assessing Drug Problems, Policies and Reform Proposals." Addiction, 104(4): 510–517.

Ridgeway, G., and Kilmer, B. (2016). "Bayesian Inference for the Distribution of Grams of Marijuana in a Joint." Drug And Alcohol Dependence, 165: 175–180.

Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) (2013). The Legalization of Marijuana in Colorado: The Impact: A Preliminary Report. Vol.1, August 2013. Retrieved from http://www.rmhidta.org/html/FINAL Legalization of MJ in Colorado The Impact.pdf on November 17, 2016.

Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area. (2014). The Legalization of Marijuana in Colorado: The Impact, Volume 2, August 2014. Retrieved from http://www.in.gov/ipac/files/August_2014_Legalization_of_MJ_in_Colorado_the_Impact(1).pdf on October 14, 2015.

Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area. (2015). The Legalization of Marijuana in Colorado: The Impact, Volume 3, Preview 2015. Retrieved from http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/02/24/2015.preview.legalization.of.mj.in.colorado.the.impact.pdf on March 21, 2016.

Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area. (2016). The Legalization of Marijuana in Colorado: The Impact, Volume 4. Retrieved from http://www.rmhidta.org/html/2016%20FINAL%20Legalization%20of%20Marijuana%20in%20Colorado%20The%20Impact.pdf on October 25, 2016.

Rotermann, M. and Langlois, K. (2015). "Prevalence and Correlates of Marijuana Use in Canada, 2012." Health Reports, 26, 4: 10-15. Statistics Canada, Catalogue no. 82-003-X. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-003-x/2015004/article/14158-eng.pdf on September 22, 2015.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). (2009). RCMP Brings Criminal Interdiction Program to Australia. Retrieved from http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?m=/index&nid=474919 on October 23, 2016.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). (2012) The Marihuana Grow Initiative: Annual Report 2012. Retrieved from http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/drugs-drogues/msdi-ilcmds/report-rapport-eng.htm on August 4, 2016.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). (2012). Report on the Illicit Drug Situation in Canada, 2009. Retrieved from http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2011/grc-rcmp/PS61-14-2009-eng.pdf on August 12, 2016.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). (2012a). The Marihuana Grow Initiative: Annual Report 2012.  Retrieved from http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/drugs-drogues/msdi-ilcmds/report-rapport-eng.htm on September 26, 2016.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). (2012b). Proceeds of Crime. Retrieved from http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/poc-pdc/index-eng.htm on October 5, 2016.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). (2015, December 11). "Man Charged After Large Amount of Marijuana Seized During Traffic Stop." Retrieved from http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/news/2015/11/man-charged-after-large-amount-marijuana-seized-during-traffic-stop-0 on October 27, 2016.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). (2015, October 30). "RCMP Dismantle Indoor Marijuana Grow and Arrest One." Retrieved from http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/news/2015/30/rcmp-dismantle-indoor-marijuana-grow-and-arrest-one on October 27, 2016.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). (2015, September 25). "RCMP Dismantle Outdoor Marijuana Grow Operation." Retrieved from http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/news/2015/25/rcmp-dismantle-outdoor-marijuana-grow-operation on October 27, 2016.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). (2015, September 30). "RCMP Seize 1300 Marijuana Plants." Retrieved from http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/news/2015/30/rcmp-seize-1300-marijuana-plants on October 27, 2016.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). (2015a). Royal Canadian Mounted Police 2014-15 Departmental Performance Report. Retrieved from http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/royal-canadian-mounted-police-2014-15-departmental-performance-report on October 20, 2016.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). (2015b). Know More to Respond Better: Cannabis. Retrieved from http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/qc/pub/sens-awar/cannabis/cannabis-eng.htm on August 9, 2016.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). (2016, February 25). "Lakeville Man Found in Possession of Approximately 128 Pounds of Marijuana." Retrieved from http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/news/2016/25/lakeville-man-found-possession-approximately-128-pounds-marijuana on October 27, 2016.

Rucke, K. (2014, February 7). "Has Legalized Marijuana Sparked A Crime Wave?" MintPress News. Retrieved from http://www.mintpressnews.com/has-legalized-marijuana-sparked-a-crime-wave/179037/ on November 3, 2015.

Rusch, E. (2015, October 20). "Marijuana Industry Drives Denver Metro Area's Real Estate Recovery." Denver Post. Retrieved from http://www.denverpost.com/marijuana/ci_28993836/marijuana-industry-drives-denver-metro-areas-real-estate-recovery on November 3, 2015.

Sanderson, B. (2016, January 11). "Mail Order Marijuana a Challenging Problem: Police." CBC News. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/mail-order-marijuana-a-challenging-problem-police-1.3396294 on October 25, 2016.

Sankin, A. (2013, April 19). "Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Reduce Crime, Advocates Argue." Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/19/medical-marijuana-crime_n_3114287.html on September 26, 2015.

Schmunk, R. (2015, July 28). "Victoria, B.C. Medical Marijuana Dispensary Robbed at Gunpoint." The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/07/28/victoria-marijuana-robbed_n_7889856.html on September 25, 2015.

Schneider, S. (2009). Iced: The Story of Organized Crime in Canada. Mississauga: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Shum, D. (2016). "90 Arrest, 257 Charges Laid in Toronto Marijuana Dispensary Raids." Global News. Retrieved from http://globalnews.ca/news/2725256/charges-and-seizure-details-to-be-released-in-toronto-marijuana-dispensary-raids/ on October 27, 2016.

Simons, F., Shanahan, M., and Ritter, A. (2011). "Reported Value of Cannabis Seizures in Australian Newspapers: Are They Accurate?" Drug & Alcohol Review, 30(1): 21–25.

Slade, D., Memedic, Z., Chandra, S. and ElSohly, M. (2012). "Is Cannabis Becoming More Potent?" In Castle, D., Murray, R., and D'Souza, D.C. (Eds.). Marijuana and Madness (35–54). Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Smitherman, G. (2016, February 25). "How Canada's Medical Marijuana Ruling Will Affect You." The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/george-smitherman/medical-marijuana-ruling_b_9319098.html on November 29, 2016.

Spithoff, S. and Kahan, M. (2014). "Cannabis and Canadian Youth: Evidence, Not Ideology." Canadian Family Physician Médecin De Famille Canadien, 60(9): 785–7, 793–5.

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. (2009). Disrupting Canada's Marijuana Grown Industry. Retrieved from http://www.surrey.ca/files/DisruptingCanadasMarijuanaGrowIndustry.pdf on Sept 16, 2015.

Statistics Canada. Table 252-0051 – Incident-based crime statistics, by detailed violations, annual (number unless otherwise noted), CANSIM (database). Retrieved from http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/... on May 19, 2016.

Surprise Site. (1997). "Surprise Site for Pot Raid: Mountains of Idaho." Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Weekly, 9(36): 8.

Surrey, City of. (2009). Disrupting Canada's Marijuana Grow Industry: Four Deterrents Intended to Limit a Primary Funding Source for Organized Crime Groups. Retrieved from http://www.surrey.ca/files/DisruptingCanadasMarijuanaGrowIndustry.pdf on October 14, 2015.

Tchir, J.  (2015, 22 December). "How Much Marijuana Can I Have and Still be Safe to Drive?" The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/culture/commuting/how-much-marijuana-can-i-have-and-still-be-safe-to-drive/article27897258/  on October 3, 2016.

Teel, G. (1995). "Green-thumbed Criminals." Alberta Report/Newsmagazine, 22(48): 32.

Toonen, M., Ribot, S., and Thissen J. (2006). "Yield of Illicit Indoor Cannabis Cultivation in the Netherlands." Journal of Forensic Sciences, 51(5): 1050–1054.

Trudeau, J. (2015). Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Mandate Letter. Office of the Prime Minister. Retrieved from http://pm.gc.ca/eng/minister-public-safety-and-emergency-preparedness-mandate-letter on September 21, 2016.

Tsumura, Y., Aoki, R., Tokieda, Y., Akutsu, M., Kawase, Y., Kataoka, T., and Kurahashi, K. (2012). "A Survey of the Potency of Japanese Illicit Cannabis in Fiscal Year 2010." Forensic Science International, 221(1-3): 77–83.

U.S. Department of Justice. (2010). National Drug Threat Assessment 2010. Department of Justice, National Drug Intelligence Centre, Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of State. (2014). "2014 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report: Canada." Retrieved from http://www.state.gov/j/inl/rls/nrcrpt/2014/vol1/222860.htm on Aug 4, 2016.

U.S. Department of State. (2015). "2015 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report: Canada." Retrieved from http://www.state.gov/j/inl/rls/nrcrpt/2015/vol1/238954.htm on Aug 4, 2016.

U.S. Department of State. (2016). "2016 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report: Canada." Retrieved from http://www.state.gov/j/inl/rls/nrcrpt/2016/vol1/253249.htm on November 1, 2016.

United Business Media. (2015, October 5). "Drugs Found In Furniture." The Week.

United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). (2013). Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A Comparative Overview. Retrieved from http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/683 on September 22, 2015.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). (2008). "Review of the World Cannabis Situation." Bulletin on Narcotics, Volume LVIII, Nos.1 and 2, 2006. UNODC: New York. Retrieved from https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/bulletin/2006/Bulletin_on_Narcotics_2006_En.pdf on November 8, 2016.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). (2012). Afghanistan: Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production 2012. Retrieved from http://www.unodc.org/documents/crop-monitoring/Afghanistan/_Afghanistan_Cannabis_Survey_Report_2012.pdf on August 25, 2016.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). (2015). World Drug Report. Retrieved from https://www.unodc.org/documents/wdr2015/World_Drug_Report_2015.pdf on November 8, 2016.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). (2016). World Drug Report: Methodology. Retrieved from http://www.unodc.org/doc/wdr2016/WDR-2016-Methodology-Report.pdf on August 25, 2016.

United States of America (USA). (2014). National Drug Control Strategy: Data Supplement 2014. Washington, D.C: Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President of the United States.

Vartainian, T. (2015, March 27)."Medical Marijuana Users Could Help Researchers Define Risks, Benefits." CBC News. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/medical-marijuana-users-could-help-researchers-define-risks-benefits-1.3012489 on November 2, 2015.

Verhage, J. (2015) "This Survey Says That Marijuana Prices Are Crashing in Colorado." Bloomberg Business, June 22, 2015. Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-22/this-survey-says-that-marijuana-prices-are-crashing-in-colorado on March 22, 2016.

Vivanco, L. (2016, February 25). "Study: Pot-related Visits to Colorado ERs Higher for Out-of State Visitors." Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-marijuana-hospital-study-met-0225-20160224-story.html on March 21, 2016.

Von Lampe, K. (2003). "The Use of Models in the Study of Organized Crime." Paper presented at the 2003 Conference of the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR), Marburg, Germany, 19 September 2003. Retrieved from http://www.organized-crime.de/modelsofoc.htm on October 28, 2016.

Werb, D. (2014, May). "Weeding Out Organized Crime: What Legal Pot in the US Means for BC Drug Gangs." The Walrus. Retrieved from http://thewalrus.ca/weeding-out-organized-crime/ on September 14, 2015.

Werb, Nosyk, Kerr, Fischer, Montaner, and Wood. (2012). "Estimating the Economic Value of British Columbia's Domestic Cannabis Market: Implications for Provincial Cannabis Policy." International Journal of Drug Policy, 23(6): 436-441.

Wilkey, R. (2014, January 25). "California Lawmakers Worry About Pollution Caused By Illegal Marijuana Grows." The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/10/marijuana-pollution_n_4415248.html on November 4, 2015.

Wilkins, C., Bhatta, K., and Casswell, S. (2002). "A 'Demand Side' Estimate of the Dollar Value of the Cannabis Black Market in New Zealand." Drug & Alcohol Review, 21(2): 145–151.

Wong, J. (2016). "Warning after Potent Marijuana Drug Makes 1st Appearance in N.S." Global News. Retrieved from http://globalnews.ca/news/2190628/warning-after-potent-marijuana-drug-makes-1st-appearance-in-n-s/ on August 9, 2016.

Young, M. M., and Jesseman, R. (2014). The Impact of Substance Use Disorders on Hospital Use: Technical Report. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.

Zhang, S. (2015, October 15). "How LEDs are Making Weed Better." Wired. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/2015/10/leds-upended-marijuana-growing-can-upend-agriculture/ on October 20, 2015.

Appendix A: Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, Schedule II

SCHEDULE II (Sections 2, 3, 4 to 7, 10, 29, 55 and 60)

1. Cannabis, its preparations and derivatives, including
   
   (1) Cannabis resin
   (2) Cannabis (marihuana)
   (3) Cannabidiol (2–[3–methyl–6–(1–methylethenyl)–2–cyclohexen–1–yl]–5–pentyl–1,3–benzenediol)
   (4) Cannabinol (3–n–amyl–6,6,9–trimethyl–6–dibenzopyran–1–ol)
   (5) and (6) [Repealed, SOR/2015-192, s. 1]
   (7) Tetrahydrocannabinol (tetrahydro–6,6,9–trimethyl–3–pentyl–6H–dibenzo[b,d]pyran–1–ol)
   (7.1) [Repealed, SOR/2015-192, s. 1]
   but not including
   (8) Non–viable Cannabis seed, with the exception of its derivatives
   (9) Mature Cannabis stalks that do not include leaves, flowers, seeds or branches; and fiber derived from such stalks

Appendix B: Integrated Customs Enforcement System (ICES) Database Seizure Fields

1. Seizure number
2. Date and time of seizure start/end
3. Referral type (i.e. intelligence target)
4. Status of seizure (i.e. open, appealed, closed)
5. Location where seizure is made (port of entry, region)
6. Officers involved in seizure (names, badge numbers)
7. Contact information on individuals involved in the seizure (or importers/exporters as the case may be):
8. Full name
9. Date of birth
10. Address
11. Phone number
12. Passport number
13. Gender
14. Country of origin
15. Citizenship
16. Country of birth
17. Employment status
18. The substances seized separated by type, category
19. Quantities seized
20. Tariff codes
21. Estimated value
22. Vehicle type involved in the seizure (i.e. aircraft type, airline, car, tractor trailer)
23. Detection technology used in the seizure
24. Indicators that led to the seizure (i.e. nervousness in the traveller, smell)
25. A detailed seizure narrative on the proceedings (i.e. when rights were read to travellers, when they called a lawyer, when samples were sent to the lab, what the lab response was, etc.)

Appendix C: Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Database (CSDS) Seizure Fields

1. The case-id number
2. Police file number
3. Police rep number
4. Police name
5. Municipality
6. Province
7. Type (e.g., RCMP)
8. Date of the seizure
9. Drug generic name (e.g. Oxycodone)
10. Drug name (e.g. Oxycontin 5mg SRT)
11. Drug strength
12. Drug strength unit
13. Quantity
14. Seizure unit
15. Destruction confirmation date

Appendix D: Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) Database Seizure Fields

1. Receiving lab (which lab received the exhibit)
2. Analyzing lab (which lab did the analysis)
3. Sample number
4. Police province
5. Received date (corresponds to the date first received by the lab, which is the same for the lab that received and lab that analyzed it)(date the laboratory received the exhibit)
6. Suspected drug code (what the law enforcement agency thinks the substance is)
7. Actual drug code^{Footnote 8} (the substances found in the exhibit)
8. Drug Act code (whether it was CDSA, Food and Drug Act or other)
9. Drug schedule (which schedule of the CDSA it is under)

Appendix E: RCMP Records Management System (RMS) Seizure Fields

Tab 1: Drug

1. Type (e.g. cocaine)
2. Value
3. Common name
4. Quantity
5. Estimated quantity
6. Form
7. Remarks

Tab 2: Property involved in occurrence

1. The classification (Only seizures classified as "disposal approved", "evidence", "found", "held", "seized", "seized with warrant", and "other" will be included in the report)
2. The date the drug was seized (Effective from – this field is auto-generated)
3. ID # (optional)
4. The type of drug (if not prefilled through search function)
5. Remarks (optional)
6. Recovery time (optional)
7. Damage value (optional)
8. The quantity of the drug (the quantity can be changed from the default "1" by clicking on the field and typing the appropriate quantity)
9. The value of the drug (in Canadian dollars)
10. Common name (optional)
11. Estimated quantity (optional)
12. Form (optional)
13. Colour (optional)

Tab 3: Uniform Crime Reporting Survey (UCR)

1. Provincial code
2. Location code

Appendix F: Health Canada, Drug Offence and Disposition Report

Image description

The figure depicts the SC/HC 3515 Drug Offence and Disposition Report, which must be completed and submitted the Office of Controlled Substance and Drugs for authorization to destroy seized cannabis (or other illicit substance). SC/HC 3515 includes 45 fields, requiring details on the illicit substance seizure, defendant, offence and disposition of charges, controlled substances to be destroyed, and police service.

Appendix G: Canadian Police Knowledge Network (CPKN) Curriculum Outline

Report Writing

Upon completion of this course you will be able to:

• Evaluate your report writing and either list or make improvements
• Paraphrase the importance of writing clear and concise reports
• Explain the complexity of writing reports and the volume of writing officers complete on a daily basis
• Discuss how your investigative abilities are expressed through your report writing
• Recognize the link between your notes and your report writing
• Identify potential issues that pose an ethical issue
• Discuss the police report pathway
• Assess your investigation using the Evidence, Belief, Action (EBA) cycle
• Use the EBA cycle to analyze evidence, form your beliefs, and take the appropriate actions
• List all necessary information in your report
• List all charges, the count, criminal code section, date, time, and place
• Provide and describe any evidence to support your charge(s)
• List all persons involved (civilian and sworn)
• Describe the involvement of all persons listed (civilian and sworn)
• Complete an investigative summary by including information about who, what, where, why, and the elements of the charge
• Recall that reports are read and reviewed by others
• Evaluate your reports and determine whether or not they are complete
• Apply the Goals, Objectives, Strategies (GOS) model to report writing
• Recall that reports need to be concise, accurate, and logical
• Demonstrate the GOS model by writing quickly and include a lot of information in a way that is easy to understand
• Construct a clear and concise report that is chronological in order
• Construct a report that links the events to the charges
• Construct a report that describes the events in chronological order
• Construct a report that articulates the occurrence clearly for the reader
• Apply the Relevance, Structure, Precision (RSP) model
• Apply strategies to improve the quality of your report
• Apply grammatical strategies to improve the quality of your writing
• Use information in the module to further improve writing skills
• Use information to further develop investigative knowledge

Appendix H: Canadian Police College (CPC), Drug Investigative Techniques (DITC) Course

Drug investigations differ from traditional criminal investigations as they deal with crimes as they occur. In most cases, the suspects are already identified and the purpose of the investigation is to build a prosecutable case against the suspect, identify other members involved in the drug trafficking organization and seize as many drug-related assets as possible.

This ten-day course is aimed at officers with limited experience in drug offence investigations. The course content follows the natural progression of a drug investigation, which includes classroom lectures combined with exercises that imitate a drug investigation.

The course provides the participants with the knowledge and skills required to improve their capacity to successfully investigate drug files. It is also structured to help participants improve their interpersonal skills to facilitate work in a team environment focused on a common end result.

Selection Criteria

This course is open to:

• All law enforcement officers who have limited experience in drug investigations, whether they work in a plain clothes unit or are assigned to uniform duties.

Priority will be given to officers who have recently been transferred (or who will soon be transferred) to a unit whose main responsibility is to investigate drug offences.

Note to Unit Commanders / Supervisors 

The DITC is a basic drug course. It is intended for officers who have limited experience in drug investigations. All officers are encouraged to apply for this course whether they work on a plain clothes unit or in uniform (patrol) duties.

This provides the opportunity to have trained drug investigators within your services who can be called upon to assist drug units when the need arises. The course can also contribute to minimize the transition period for those who transfer to drug units ("Hit the ground running" theory).

In the past, participants who have attended the DITC had a wide spectrum of experience, from junior officers with no knowledge of drug work to subject matter experts in drug investigations. This has caused two issues:

• Junior members were reluctant to fully participate in the course as they are intimidated by those who have more experience; 
• Expenditures of resources (time and money) on experienced officers who received very little out of a three week long course. 

The feedback received from course participants still supports that the DITC, as designed, continues to meet the needs of those with limited drug investigations experience.

Limited experience, what does that mean? 

By limited experience we suggest: 

• Officers, who have no knowledge, or who are starting to investigate drug offences; 
• For those who are currently working in drug sections, we recommend that they have been doing so for under two years, and have not received any form of drug or covert investigative training i.e.: surveillance course, source and handling course; 
• The amount of service is not important; therefore, senior officers are encouraged to apply for the DITC if they do not have any drug investigation experience. 
• Each applicant will be assessed individually. 

Course Objectives

By the end of this course, participants will be able to:

• demonstrate their ability to handle and recruit sources by applying principles learned through scenarios;
• recognize the involvement of organized crime in illegal drug activities;
• discuss ways to prepare for court;
• explore a variety of drug investigative practices and techniques;
• discuss how major case management principles can be applied during a drug investigation;
• explore different types of clandestine laboratories such as synthetic drugs and Marijuana grow operations; and
• examine the legal requirements for search and seizure. 

Topics

• Human sources
• Clandestine laboratories overview 
• Criminal organizations
• Search warrants 
• Court preparation and testimony
• Officer safety 
• Investigative techniques and practices
• Partners 
• Major case management
• Proceeds of crime

Appendix I: Canadian Police College (CPC), Advanced Drug Investigative Techniques Course

Drug investigations continue to become more complex due to factors such as court decisions, technology advancement and the sophistication of organized crime groups.

The  Advanced Drug Investigative Techniques Course is designed to provide current training in areas such as recent case law, agent led investigations, new drug trends, organized crime trends, assets investigations, and high risk operational planning.
This five day course is aimed at experienced officers who currently are involved in drug offence investigations.  The course content will focus on three core components.

• Legal Applications
• Covert Operations
• Assets Investigations

Course participants will have the opportunity to identify their current challenges in these three areas by completing a pre-course questionnaire, and in a small group setting will have the opportunity to discuss their issues with a Subject Matter Expert, their issues, and collaboratively identify possible solutions.

Selection Criteria

• Experienced investigators who have not received any drug investigational training during the past three years;
• Priority will be given to officers who are currently involved in the expert witness program or who are working towards achieving that designation.
• Must have successfully completed their departments / forces recognized source management and surveillance training.

Course Objectives

By the end of this course, participants will be able to:

• demonstrate leadership skills required to positively impact both the outcome of an investigation and the work environment of a drug unit;
• articulate recent case law related to investigative techniques used in complex drug investigations;
• manage covert operations; and
• acquire functional knowledge in the area of Assets Investigations.

Topics

By the end of this course, participants will be able to:

• demonstrate leadership skills required to positively impact both the outcome of an investigation and the work environment of a drug unit;
• articulate recent case law related to investigative techniques used in complex drug investigations;
• manage covert operations; and
• acquire functional knowledge in the area of Assets Investigations.

Appendix J: Canadian Police College (CPC), Clandestine Laboratory Investigations (CLIC) Course

Clandestine laboratories present numerous hazards to law enforcement personnel, the public and the environment. Extreme potential for fires, explosions and exposure to hazardous chemicals and fumes are but a few of the possible dangers. This [eight]-day course provides participants with the skills, knowledge and investigative techniques essential to successfully investigate and safely dismantle clandestine laboratories. It also enhances the professional approach to clandestine drug investigation.

Selection Criteria

This course is open to:

• police officers who are or are going to be assigned to a full time specialized unit mandated to investigate drug offences or who are or are going to be involved in the investigation of clandestine laboratories.

Potential participants who have successfully completed CPC's Drug Investigative Techniques Course (DITC) are given preference. 

Note:  This course includes practical exercises that require physical exertion. Therefore, participants must be physically fit and exempt of any respiratory conditions that would preclude them from using respiratory equipment.

Prerequisite (optional): Potential participants who wish to familiarize themselves with CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear) content and common terminology used when faced with a CBRN incident are invited to explore the following website: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca (Search Canadian Emergency Management College). Once on the Canadian Emergency Management College site, click "Programs" under "The College" heading, and click on "CBRN First Responder Training Program". The two courses recommended are:

• Awareness course
• Basic level course

Both of these courses are free of charge and available via e-learning.

Course Objectives

By the end of this course, participants will be able to:

• identify various types of clandestine laboratories and their related components;
• apply various investigative techniques associated with the investigation and dismantling of a clandestine laboratory;
• select the appropriate level of personal protective equipment required during the various stages of the clandestine laboratory processing operation;
• employ appropriate safety procedures associated with the investigation and dismantling of a clandestine laboratory;
• use investigative, legislative and prosecutorial tools available to investigate, secure and dismantle a clandestine laboratory; and
• apply dismantling techniques to properly and safely tear down, collect and preserve evidence from a clandestine laboratory.

Topics

• History and types of clandestine laboratories
• Incident Management Systems (IMS)
• Investigative techniques
• Officer safety
• Personal protective equipment
• Laboratory dismantling

Appendix K: Drug Analysis Service (DAS), Client Manual, "When to Submit Exhibits"

Section 1.2 When to Submit Exhibits

In order to manage requests for analysis, the DAS asks for your assistance when submitting exhibits.

Here are some questions you should ask yourself before submitting exhibits. If you answer “No” to any of these statements, it would be better to reconsider sending the exhibits in question.

• I need an analysis result to press charges
• The suspect enter a plea of not guilty
• Charges will be laid
• For samples from the same case, I have made a selection (depending on) the quantity, nature…) of the samples to be analyzed
• When it comes to tablets, I have eliminated the possibility that it is over the counter pharmaceutical tables
• When the nature, quantity and chain of possession of a substance are admitted by the defense, it is still necessary to conduct the analysis
• For quantitative analysis, the request is well founded and supported by my supervisor

Submit your exhibits early enough to ensure they are analyzed in time for court.

If the analysis is urgent and results are required immediately, contact the laboratory to inform them and to ensure the analysis can be completed in time.

If a plea has been changed to guilty after exhibits are submitted, contact the laboratory and request that analysis be cancelled.

DAS Client Manual > 11