Canada’s “New Opium War”: How Drug Policy Is Destroying a Country

BY Mike Wu 

At one time, the First Opium War in 1840 was not only the beginning of modern Chinese history, but also the starting point of a century of national humiliation. Triggered by the opium trade, China fell into poverty and weakness and was invaded by Western powers, becoming a semi-colonial and semi-feudal society. This situation lasted until the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, when the country was finally able to overcome that humiliation.

Today, history seems to have come full circle. The opium war was originally launched by Britain, and Canada at the time was part of the British Empire. Now, however, Canada’s drug policies have completely failed, and what some call a new “opium war” is unfolding across North America.

 

From Prohibition to Tolerance: The Evolution of Canada’s Drug Policies

In fact, since the founding of Canada in 1867, the government maintained a tough stance on drugs for a long period of time.

In 1908, Parliament passed the Opium Act, making the importation, manufacture, possession, and sale of opium criminal offenses. Three years later, the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act was enacted, expanding the definition of narcotics to include morphine, cocaine, and cannabis. Violators could face up to seven years in prison, corporal punishment, or deportation.

However, after the end of World War II, as Canada entered a period of economic prosperity and development, voices advocating more lenient and tolerant approaches to crime began to emerge in society.

In the 1950s, Ernest Winch, a provincial legislator from British Columbia representing the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (the predecessor of today’s New Democratic Party), first proposed that drug regulation should be considered from a public health perspective, rather than relying solely on criminal punishment.

His reasoning was that drug users should be guided toward legitimate medical institutions for treatment so they could reintegrate into society. Winch also argued that most drug users in Canada at the time came from poorer social classes. Once imprisoned, their lives were essentially ruined, while wealthier people could often avoid punishment by exploiting legal loopholes or obtaining substitute drugs—creating a new form of inequality.

 

Cultural Change in the 1960s

Beginning in the 1960s, the counterculture movements triggered by the Vietnam War protests and civil rights activism spread throughout Western Europe and North America. One symbolic aspect of this movement was the use of cannabis and other “soft drugs.”

Canada also experienced conflicts between young people and police over drug use.

After Pierre Trudeau, leader of the federal Liberal Party, became Prime Minister, the government established a national commission in 1969 to study drug policy. In 1972, the commission concluded that criminal charges for the use of marijuana and other soft drugs should be reduced, and that previous convictions should be pardoned.

From that point onward, Canada’s official drug policies began to move toward a more permissive direction.

Notably, in 2018, Canada formally legalized cannabis. The prime minister at the time, Justin Trudeau, is the son of Pierre Trudeau—demonstrating a historical continuity between the two.

 

Vancouver’s Approach to the Drug Crisis

Although Canada stopped aggressively cracking down on drug crimes beginning in the 1970s, health and social problems related to overdose became increasingly severe.

In 1997, Bud Osborne and Ann Livingston founded Canada’s first drug users’ organization, the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users (VANDU).

In 2001, then-Vancouver mayor Philip Owen announced the “Four Pillars Drug Strategy”, which aimed to address the drug crisis through four approaches:

  • Prevention
  • Enforcement
  • Treatment
  • Harm reduction

One of the most notable initiatives was the establishment of supervised injection sites beginning in 2003 in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside and nearby Chinatown areas. The idea was that drug users could inject small amounts of drugs under the supervision of nurses in order to reduce harm.

 

Decriminalization in British Columbia

By 2022, the federal Ministry of Health granted an exemption to British Columbia under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

This allowed adults in the province to legally possess up to 2.5 grams of drugs, including heroin, methamphetamine, and cocaine. This controversial policy continued until it officially ended in January 2026.

Ironically, although the government claimed that such measures would encourage addicts to seek treatment and reduce overdose deaths, Lisa Lapointe, the province’s Chief Coroner, reported that nearly 8,000 people in British Columbia died from drug use or overdoses over the past decade.

Among people aged 19 to 39, drug overdose has become the leading cause of death. The average age of those who died was only 44 years old.

 

The Death of a Chinese Teenager

After the federal pilot program in British Columbia ended this January, Ms. Lin, a Chinese immigrant mother from Surrey in Metro Vancouver, said the policy change came far too late.

Her 14-year-old daughter, Emmy Liu, died after becoming addicted to drugs.

According to Ms. Lin, her daughter began associating with troubled youths in 2021 and soon became involved with drugs. Despite the family moving homes, personally driving their daughter to and from school every day, and arranging psychological counseling, they were unable to stop the situation from worsening.

Eventually, the girl began skipping school frequently and appeared mentally confused, unable to study or live normally.

Ms. Lin reported the situation to the school and worked with the school district and the Fraser Health Authority in hopes of sending her daughter to a rehabilitation program.

However, the authorities only agreed to provide two counseling sessions, one of which was conducted online, and parents were not allowed to attend.

Later, when Ms. Lin attempted to arrange treatment at a rehabilitation facility, she was told that the child’s consent was required. By the time her daughter’s condition deteriorated further and admission was finally arranged, the program was canceled after just one hour because the girl did not want to stay overnight.

When Ms. Lin later applied for outpatient rehabilitation services, her daughter died before she could even receive an appointment—resulting in a devastating family tragedy.

 

The Chinese Community and the Memory of Opium

Because of the historical experience of the Opium Wars, many Chinese Canadians strongly oppose drugs.

Early Chinese immigrants in North America also suffered greatly from drug use—especially opium.

For example, during the gold rush era, Chinese laborers earned about $1 per day, or roughly $30 per month. Much of their income was spent in opium dens, leaving them impoverished despite years of hard work. Combined with racial discrimination that limited their access to medical treatment, many died young.

 

China’s Historical Anti-Drug Campaign

China often cites the destruction of opium at Humen in 1839 as a defining moment in its anti-drug history.

The national hero Lin Zexu ordered trenches dug along the coast of Guangdong’s Humen area. Confiscated British opium was cut into pieces, soaked in saltwater, and then mixed with lime to chemically destroy it.

As smoke rose from the pits, it symbolized the end of the opium shipments.

This event later became an important symbol of Chinese resistance to Western imperialism. It is commemorated in monuments and historic sites across China.

 

Conclusion

Whether through the Humen opium destruction memorials or China’s continued enforcement of international anti-drug conventions today, many in China believe the moral lesson of history is clear.

Meanwhile, critics argue that Canada—once seen as a leading nation in North America—is gradually declining and being dragged into crisis by its own drug policies. 

Disclaimer
Voices & Bridges publishes opinions like this from the community to encourage constructive discussion and debate on important issues. Views represented in the articles are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the V&B.