Background
The United Nations calls for humane and effective “science-based and evidence-based policy decisions.” Existing criminal drugs laws, conventions, and policies are heavily influenced by populist politics. This study examines how drug-related harm is constructed in Canadian case law and examines potential impacts on policy.
Objectives
The purpose of this research was to explore how drug-related harm is understood and represented in Canadian case law pertaining to the importation, possession, production, and/or trafficking of drugs.
Methods
Critical discourse analysis methodology was used to examine judicial reasoning about harm. Westlaw, Lexis Nexis, CanLII, and Supreme Court of Canada databases were used to identify Canadian relevant cases prior to January 30, 2023.
Results
A total of 129 cases were included, with moralization language – defined as “the usage of language cues referencing moral values” (Malik, et al., 2021) – appearing in 64% of the cases. Institutionalized stigma was produced through heavy reliance on judicial tropes (e.g., “scourge to society,” “unfortunate addict,” “predator,” “parasite”) and insufficient integration of evidence-informed law. Reliance on tropes legitimizes value judgments, exacerbates perceptions of harm, and overshadows the need to accurately use empirical research.
Implications
When recorded in judicial decisions, stigmatizing language becomes viewed as appropriate, legitimate, professional truths that are subsequently cited in textbooks, journal articles, and news reports, become embedded in legal curricula, and inform policy and legislation. I conclude with recommendations to promote i) improved research literacy, ii) accurate understanding and representation of harm, and iii) reduced legitimization of stigmatizing language and practices.