Canada’s Drug Film Provokes Protests From Americans

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXVI, Issue 22887, 5 March 1949, Page 5

Canada’s Drug Film Provokes Protests From Americans

(Charles Lynch. Reuter's Correspondent.)

OTTAWA (By Air Mail)

Differences between the Canadian and United States authorities on methods of handling the problem of narcotics have resulted in a note of protest from the State Department to Ottawa, it is stated here. An offcial Canadian Government film has also been banned in the United States.

The American note is described by Canadian officials as "a real snorter.” The incident was touched off by a film entitled “Drug Addict," made by the National Film Board of Canada, with (he assistance of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Department of Health and Welfare, which commissioned the film and paid for it. The film has rounded the wrath of Commissioner Harry J. Anslinger, head of the United States Bureau of Narcotics. His views were conveyed to the Canadian Government by the State Department, through the Canadian Ambassador in Washington, Mr. Hume Wrong. The note was accompanied bv a request that the film should not be shown in the United States. Protest Conies as a Shock.

The protest came as a shock to the Health and Welfare Department here, following as it did closely upon United States praise for two previous Canadian films on health subjects "The Feeling of Reiection" and "The Feeling of Hostility," made by the same production team as "Drug Addict.” The ban on "Drug Addict” went into effect last November.

Commissioner Anslinger’s opposition so upset the Canadian Government that the film was. for a time, withdrawn from circulation in Canada, and today is being shown on a limited scale only, to hand-picked audiences. A drasticallycut version has been released publicly in Canada under the title “Pay-Off in Pain."

Unwilling to risk offending Commissioner Anslinger, the Canadian Department of Health and Welfare wants to change the film in response to his criticism. There is at present, however, a stalemate on this matter between the National Film Board, which wants the film ,lo stand as it is and the Health and Welftre Department.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, it is understood, approved the film when it was completed and still stand by that approval. In the meantime, there are only six prints of the film in existence —and no more are being made for the time being. One print has been sent to the Film Board’s Office in Lon don, and another to the World Health Organisation Office in Geneva to test European reaction. "Enlightened Treatment.”

Officials of the narcotics division of the United Nations who have seen the film, stated in an official letter to the National Film Board: “It is the best technical film relating to the control of narcotic drugs which has been shown to us. The enlightened treatment of the problem of the drug addict must receive specially favourable criticism,” but, in spite of this, the Department of Health and Welfare adhere to their attitude on the ground that they do not want anything to interfere with the close liaison between anti-narcotic agents in Canada and the United States. There is a considerable traffic in illegal drugs from the United States to Canada, and Canadian and American preventive officers work closely to fight it. Should anything happen to upset this co-operation, the Health Department fears, the flow of illegal drugs from the United States to Canada might increase.

The film "Drug Addict,” a three-reel documentary, treats the problem t more from the point of view of the addict than from that of the Preventive Officer. It presents addiction as a sickness rather than a crime. At one point in the film an addict expresses the opinion that public clinics should be set up to enable confirmed addicts to get drugs, under supervision, without having to resort to underworld methods and underworld prices. The filrn. objects to the use of the term "dope fiend” in describing addicts, most of whom are presented as sick and bewildered people. While admitting that many addicts are criminals it implies that they are driven to crime to enable them to pay black market prices for the drugs they crave. “Sickness” Theme Opposed. Commissioner Anslinger’s main obiection was to the “sickness” theme. His official view is that all addicts, as well as those who supply them with drugs, are criminals. He wanted the film changed to “play up" the criminal angle and glorify the work of the preventive agents.

He wanted the film to end with the police emerging "on top,” with all the addicts appearing in the film in custody, “paying for their crimes.” This was the attitude of the Canadian police until a few years ago when Canada instituted reforms in her handling of all types of criminals.

As part of a programme of “enlightened treatment” of all law-breakers, anti-narcotic work was taken over by the Health and Welfare Department, with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police acting as the enforcement agency under the department’s direction. Since then, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police themselves have dropped the strictly police approach to the problem in handling the addicts. They too, now take the view that addiction is a disease rather than a crime. That is at the root of the present difference between Commissioner Anslingcr and the Canadian authorities.

Commissioner Anslinger is an agent of the United States Treasury, combatting narcotics traffic by highly efficient police methods. Much “enlightened” work with addicts is being done in the United States, but this work is livorced from Commissioner Anslinger’s department.

In Canada, on the other hand, the police actually work for the Health and Welfare Authorities. Canadian authorities have asked Commissioner Anslingcr to change his mind, and a print of the film has been sent to him for further study. The next move will not be made until he gives his opinion. Meanwhile, the National Film Board has entered the uncut version of “Drug Addict" 'or the 1943 Canadian Moiion Picture Award.