Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 96, Issue 3, pp 185–188 | Cite as

Crack Use As a Public Health Problem in Canada

Call for an Evaluation of ‘Safer Crack Use Kits’
  • Emma HaydonEmail author
  • Benedikt Fischer


Oral crack use (smoking) is a relatively neglected public health problem in Canada, in comparison to injection drug use (IDU). There are indications that crack use in Canada may be increasing. Crack smoking involves particular risks and harms, including possible infectious disease transmission, which underline the need for targeted interventions. One pragmatic grassroots intervention that has only recently begun or been discussed in several Canadian cities is the distribution of ‘safer crack use kits’, which provide hardware for crack smoking devices along with harm reduction information. In addition to the direct benefits of using them, the kits may also bring previously ‘hidden’ marginalized crack smokers in contact with health and social services. There has been considerable controversy with regards to the distribution of the crack kits, within criminal justice, public health, and the general public; this resistance appears quite similar to that experienced when needle exchange programs (NEPs) were first being established. Systematic evaluation of the crack kits is urgently needed in order to produce definitive evidence of their health and other benefits, and to allow for evidence-based program and policy decisions in the interest of public health.

MeSH terms

Crack cocaine Canada public health harm reduction evidence-based medicine 


La consommation orale de crack (en le fumant) est un problème de santé publique qui reçoit peu d’attention au Canada en comparaison des drogues injectables. Or, il semble que la consommation de crack augmente au pays. Cette consommation a des risques et des effets particuliers, notamment la transmission des infections, qui donnent à penser qu’il faudrait élaborer des interventions ciblées. Une intervention pragmatique récemment amorcée ou envisagée dans certaines villes canadiennes est la distribution de « trousses de consommation de crack à risques réduits »; ces trousses contiennent des pipes à fumer du crack et des conseils pour réduire les méfaits de cette drogue. En plus de leurs avantages directs, les trousses peuvent mettre les services sociaux et de santé en contact avec des fumeurs de crack marginalisés dont on ne soupçonnait pas l’existence. La distribution des trousses suscite toute une polémique dans les milieux de la justice pénale et de la santé publique, ainsi que dans la population générale; la résistance est semblable à celle qui s’était manifestée lors de la mise en place des programmes d’échange de seringues. Une évaluation systématique des trousses de consommation de crack est essentielle et urgente pour établir la preuve absolue de leurs avantages et pour prendre des décisions conformes aux intérêts de la santé publique dans l’élaboration des politiques et des programmes.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Hankins C. Needle exchange: Panacea or problem? CMAJ 1997;157:275–77.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vlahov D, Des Jarlais D, Goosby E, Hollinger P, Lurie P, Shriver M, et al. Needle exchange programs for the prevention of human immunodeficiency virus infection: Epidemiology and policy. Am J Epidemiol 2001;154:S70–S77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fischer B, Rehm J, Kim G, Robins A. Safer injection facilities (SIFs) for injection drug users (IDUs) in Canada: A review and call for an evidence-focused pilot trial. Can J Public Health 2002;93:336–38.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kimber J, Dolan K, van Beek I, Hedrich D, Zurhold H. Drug consumption facilities: An update since 2000. Drug Alcohol Rev 2003;22:227–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Millson P, Myers T, Rankin J, McLaughlin B, Major C, Mindell W, et al. Prevalence of human immunodeficiency virus and associated risk behaviour in injection drug users in Toronto. Can J Public Health 1995;86:176–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Millson P, Myers T, Calzavara L, Rea E, Wallace E, Major C, Fearon M. Prevalence of HIV and other bloodborne viruses and associated risk behaviours in Ontario injection drug users (IDU). Toronto, ON: HIV Social, Behavioural and Epidemiological Studies Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 1998.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Health Canada. I-Track: Enhanced surveillance of risk behaviours among injecting drug users in Canada (pilot survey report). Ottawa, ON: Surveillance and Risk Assessment Division, Centre for Infectious Disease Prevention and Control, Population and Public Health Branch, Health Canada, 2004.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fischer B, Rehm J, Brissette S, Brochu S, Bruneau J, el-Guebaly N, et al. Illicit opioid use in Canada: Comparing social, health and drug use characteristics of untreated users in five cities (OPICAN study). J Urban Health. In press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weber AE, Chan K, George C, Hogg RS, Remis RS, Martindale S, et al. Risk factors associated with HIV infection among young gay and bisexual men in Canada. J Acquir Immun Defic Syndr 2001;28:81–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hoffman J, Klein H, Eber M, Crosby H. Frequency and intensity of crack use as predictors of women’s involvement in HIV-related sexual risk behaviors. Drug Alcohol Depend 2000;58:227–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Theall K, Sterk C, Elifson K, Kidder D. Factors associated with positive HIV serostatus among women who use drugs: Continued evidence for expanding factors of influence. Public Health Rep 2003;118:415–24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McMahon J, Tortu S. A potential hidden source of hepatitis C infection among noninjecting drug users. J Psychoactive Drugs 2003;35:455–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tortu S, Neaigus A, McMahon J, Hagen D. Hepatitis C among noninjecting drug users: A report. Subst Use Misuse 2001;36:523–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nyamathi AM, Dixon EL, Robbins W, Smith C, Wiley D, Leake B, et al. Risk factors for hepatitis C virus infection among homeless adults. J Gen Intern Med 2002;17:134–43.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tortu S, McMahon J, Pouget E, Hamid R. Sharing of noninjection drug-use implements as a risk factor for hepatitis C. Subst Use Misuse 2004;39:211–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Howard A, Klein R, Schoenbaum E, Gourevitch M. Crack cocaine use and other risk factors for tuberculin positivity in drug users. Clin Infect Dis 2002;35:1183–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McElroy P, Rothenberg R, Varughese R, Woodruff R, Minns G, Muth S, et al. A network-informed approach to investigating a tuberculosis outbreak: Implications for enhancing contact investigations. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2003;7:S486–S493.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Faruque S, Edlin BR, McCoy CB, Word CO, Larsen SA, Schmid DS, et al. Crack cocaine smoking and oral sores in three inner-city neighborhoods. J Acquir Immun Defic Syndr 1996;13:87–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Porter J, Bonilla L, Drucker E. Methods of smoking crack as a potential risk factor for HIV infection: Crack smokers’ perceptions and behavior. Contemporary Drug Problems 1997;24:219–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Inciardi JA. Crack, crack house sex, and HIV risk. Arch Sex Behav 1995;24:249–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bourgois P. In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Williams T. Crackhouse: Notes From the End of the Line. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1992.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ratner M. Crack Pipe as Pimp: An Ethnographic Investigation of Sex-for-crack Exchanges. New York, NY: Lexington Books, 1993.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Safer Crack Use Coalition. Wellesley Project: Data From Crack Users in Toronto. Toronto, Safer Crack Use Coalition, 2004.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Perlman DC, Henman A, Kochems L, Paone D, Salomon N, Des Jarlais D. Doing a shotgun: A drug use practice and its relationship to sexual behavior and infection risk. Soc Sci Med 1999;14:1441–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Perlman D, Perkins M, Paone D, Kochems L, Salomon N, Friedmann P, et al. “Shotgunning” as an illicit drug smoking practice. J Subst Abuse Treat 1997;14:3–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ross MW, Hwang L-Y, Leonard L, Teng M, Duncan L. Sexual behaviour, STDs and drug use in a crack house population. Int J STD AIDS 1999;10:224–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ross MW, Hwang L-Y, Zack C, Bull L, Williams M. Sexual risk behaviours and STIs in drug abuse treatment populations whose drug of choice is crack cocaine. Int J STD AIDS 2002;13:769–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network. Injection Drug Use and HIV: Legal and Ethical Issues. Montreal, QC: Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, 1999.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Palepu A, Strathdee SA, Hogg RS, Anis AH, Rae S, Cornelisse PGA, et al. The social determinants of emergency department and hospital use by injection drug users in Canada. J Urban Health 1999;76:409–18.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ottaway CA, Erickson PG. Frequent medical visits by cocaine-using subjects in a Canadian community: An invisible problem for health practitioners? J Subst Abuse Treat 1997;14:423–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Page-Shafer KA, Cahoon-Young B, Klausner JD, Morrow S, Molitor F, et al. Hepatitis C virus infection in young, low-income women: The role of sexually transmitted infection as a potentialco-factor for HCV infection. Am J Public Health 2002;92:670–76.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Logan TK, Leukefeld C. Sexual and drug use behaviors among female crack users: A multi-site sample. Drug Alcohol Depend 2000;58:237–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Metsch L, McCoy H, McCoy C, Miles C, Edlin B, Pereyra M. Use of health care services by women who use crack cocaine. Women Health 1999;30:35–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Landry F. Crack kits condemned: Seen as fueling addiction. Winnipeg Sun August 28, 2004. Reprinted at October 1, 2004).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Polo J. Crack flak: Front line workers worry about the spread of hepatitis C as city refuses to fund safe crack kits. NOW Magazine 2003;23(13):24.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lurie P, Drucker E. An opportunity lost: HIV infections associated with lack of a national needle-exchange programme in the USA. Lancet 1997;349:604–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Fischer B, Rehm J, Blitz-Miller T. Injection drug use and preventive measures: A comparison of Canadian and Western European jurisdictions over time. CMAJ 2000;162:1709–13.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Landry F. Put that in your pipe: WRHA resumes handing out of crack kits. Winnipeg Sun December 4, 2004. Reprinted at (Accessed January 25, 2005).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Carrigg D. Free crack pipes on the way. Vancouver Courier September 19, 2004;8.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Levy S-A. Millions spent feeding addicts their poison. Toronto Sun April 9, 2002;24.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Centre for Addiction and Mental HealthTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations