Canadian pot laws struck down

[Papa_Complex]

Pot laws ruled unconstitutional (http://www.thestar.com/news/article/973886--pot-laws-ruled-unconstitutional?bn=1)

Jennifer Yang Staff Reporter

An Ontario Superior Court judge has ruled that the federal medical marijuana program is unconstitutional, giving the government three months to fix the problem before pot is effectively legalized.

In an April 11 ruling, Justice Donald Taliano found that doctors across the country have “massively boycotted” the medical marijuana program and largely refuse to sign off on forms giving sick people access to necessary medication.

As a result, legitimately sick people cannot access medical marijuana through appropriate means and must resort to illegal actions.

Doctors’ “overwhelming refusal to participate in the medicinal marijuana program completely undermines the effectiveness of the program,” the judge wrote in his ruling.

“The effect of this blind delegation is that seriously ill people who need marijuana to treat their symptoms are branded criminals simply because they are unable to overcome the barriers to legal access put in place by the legislative scheme.”

Taliano declared the program to be invalid, as well as the criminal laws prohibiting possession and production of cannabis. He suspended his ruling for three months, giving Ottawa until mid-July to fix the program or face the prospect of effectively legalizing possession and production of cannabis.

The judge’s decision comes in a criminal case involving Matthew Mernagh, 37, of St. Catharines who suffers from fibromyalgia, scoliosis, seizures and depression.

Marijuana is the most effective treatment of Mernagh’s pain. But despite years of effort, he has been unable to find a doctor to support his application for a medical marijuana licence.

Mernagh resorted to growing his own cannabis and was charged with producing the drug.

Taliano found doctors essentially act as gatekeepers to the medical marijuana program but lack the necessary knowledge to adequately give advice or recommend the drug. He also found that Health Canada has made “no real attempt to deal with this lack of knowledge.”

Taliano said the issue is Canada-wide.

Twenty-one patients from across the country testified in the case, saying they were rejected by doctors a total of 113 times.

One Alberta patient was refused by 26 doctors; another in Vancouver approached 37 physicians without finding a single one to sign off on the form.

Patients also face lengthy delays — as long as nine months — in having their medical marijuana applications processed by Health Canada.

“The body of evidence from Mr. Mernagh and the other patient witnesses is troubling,” Taliano wrote. “The evidence of the patient witnesses, which I accept, showed that patients have to go to extraordinary lengths to acquire the marijuana they need.”

Lawyer Alan Young, a longtime advocate of marijuana legalization, said the ruling is a step in the right direction.

“It’s significant because it’s a Superior Court ruling which has binding effect across the province,” Young said.

“By enacting a dysfunctional medical program the government now has to pay the high cost of losing the constitutional authority to criminalize marijuana.”

He said the real test, however, will be whether the judgment stands up in the Ontario Court of Appeal.

“If the government is not successful on appeal, they are going to be caught between a rock and a hard place because they don’t have an alternative program in mind,” he said. “They don’t have a plan B. They’re in trouble.”

The medical profession has been wary of the medical marijuana program since it came into effect in August 2001.

On May 7, 2001, the Canadian Medical Association wrote a letter to the federal health minister expressing concerns with recommending a drug that has had little scientific evidence to support its medicinal benefits.

“Physicians must not be expected to act as gatekeepers to this therapy, yet this is precisely the role Health Canada had thrust upon them,” the letter stated.

[Particle Man]

Afterwards, the judges demanded Doritos...

[Papa_Complex]

Afterwards, the judges demanded Doritos...

... and commented on just how huge their hands were.

[Dave]

Canada legalizes and our population problems go away :lmao:

[dubbs]

Canada legalizes and our population problems go away :lmao:

Will never happen.. The world will end if people are allowed to smoke pot legally. :wtfru:

[Trip]

USA will lean on them hard.

[Papa_Complex]

Will never happen.. The world will end if people are allowed to smoke pot legally. :wtfru:

What am I thinking? That I want to buy stock in a minimart chain.

USA will lean on them hard.

Already have, back when the idea of decriminalizing was floated. It was treated, in the US, like we were going to be legalizing it. The reality was that simple possession would have become a Summary Offence(similar to a misdemeanour), treating it like a traffic ticket. Sale would still have been an Indictable Offence (criminal).

[Kaneman]

USA will lean on them hard.

This. The USA owns Canada and absolutely will not let them legalize pot....yet will continue to export chemical laden tobacco products that kill thousands into Canada.

*Source = The Union.

[Papa_Complex]

This. The USA owns Canada and absolutely will not let them legalize pot....yet will continue to export chemical laden tobacco products that kill thousands into Canada.

*Source = The Union.

One of these days we're going to realize that we can retort with, "OK, get 30% of your damned oil somewhere else."

[Kaneman]

One of these days we're going to realize that we can retort with, "OK, get 30% of your damned oil somewhere else."

You can, but that's not going to happen.

BTW, I'm not pulling the "The US is so much more powerful and awesome than Canada" card here at all, I of course think its complete bullshit that the US controls the world's drug policies. But alas, it is true that the US will not allow Canada to legalize Cannabis.

[dubbs]

What am I thinking? That I want to buy stock in a minimart chain.





Sorry was kind of meant as what is the world thinking that this is actually an issue and this PLANT is illegal in the first place.

[shmike]

Why is the US catching all the blame here? :scratch:

It sounds to me like the Canadian doctors are the anti-pot villians in this story.

[Papa_Complex]

It's actually people in the government who thought that it was a great idea, but didn't provide the infrastructure to support the programme.

[Kaneman]

Why is the US catching all the blame here? :scratch:

It sounds to me like the Canadian doctors are the anti-pot villians in this story.

Canadian activists believe that the doctors won't write the prescriptions out of fear of reprisal from the Government. That Government acts that way because of pressure from the U.S., as they do not have nearly a big a dog in the anti-cannabis fight that the U.S. does.

[shmike]

Canadian activists believe that the doctors won't write the prescriptions out of fear of reprisal from the Government. That Government acts that way because of pressure from the U.S., as they do not have nearly a big a dog in the anti-cannabis fight that the U.S. does.


And Glenn Beck believes that George Soros is trying to cripple the US economy and that President Obama and pot smoking liberals hate America and want to bring us to communism.

Guess that makes it true. :idk:

[Kaneman]

And Glenn Beck believes that George Soros is trying to cripple the US economy and that President Obama and pot smoking liberals hate America and want to bring us to communism.

Guess that makes it true. :idk:

Wow, that was incredibly relevant, thank you for that.

I think its pretty obvious that the Canadian population has a different view of Cannabis than the U.S. population does. Yet it still remains illegal there....

There is actual proof of this BTW, I'm looking for a websource...but I gotta run the dogs. Give me a bit here and I'll see if I can find some info to back up my conspiratorial claims.

[shmike]

Wow, that was incredibly relevant, thank you for that.

I think its pretty obvious that the Canadian population has a different view of Cannabis than the U.S. population does. Yet it still remains illegal there....

There is actual proof of this BTW, I'm looking for a websource...but I gotta run the dogs. Give me a bit here and I'll see if I can find some info to back up my conspiratorial claims.

The point was that beliefs mean nothing unless they can be proven.

Have fun with the dogs. Post the links when you find them.

[Homeslice]

The point was that beliefs mean nothing unless they can be proven.


They're a lot more believeable than Glenn Beck's claims :shrug:

[Papa_Complex]

Wow, that was incredibly relevant, thank you for that.

I think its pretty obvious that the Canadian population has a different view of Cannabis than the U.S. population does. Yet it still remains illegal there....

There is actual proof of this BTW, I'm looking for a websource...but I gotta run the dogs. Give me a bit here and I'll see if I can find some info to back up my conspiratorial claims.

One of the reasons that it remains illegal here is that our current government is led by hide-bound idiots, who seem to believe that the neo-con agenda was handed down, along with the stone tablets. While I tend to lean to the conservative side (pause for laughter from American 'conservatives'), I also believe in a certain amount of expediency.

We also had a rather different view on Prohibition, back in the early part, of the last century.

[Trip]

Want to see how much pressure our government puts on other countries, go look at all the stories from when Portugal decriminalized possession amounts for personal use. We're assholes.

[goof2]

Just to make sure I'm getting this, the Canadian government (and Health Canada) decided to allow prescriptions for medical marijuana, doctors have not jumped on the prescription bandwagon with sufficient fervor, this is due to pressure from the same government that enabled prescribing it in the first place, and that pressure is in response to American disapproval? I must be missing something because that does not strike me as a logical progression.:shrug:

[Papa_Complex]

The programme started in 2001, IIRC, which means that it started under Jean Chretien (a Liberal). The current government is Conservative and led by someone who believes things like draconian drug laws serve a valid purpose. He also wants to create more mandatory minimum sentences, for various crimes, and increase the size of our prison system (something that would definitely be needed, if he continues trying to follow an American model).

The Canadian Medical Association has taken a stand that doctors should prescribe, if they feel comfortable, but that more research is needed.

[shmike]

Just to make sure I'm getting this, the Canadian government (and Health Canada) decided to allow prescriptions for medical marijuana, doctors have not jumped on the prescription bandwagon with sufficient fervor, this is due to pressure from the same government that enabled prescribing it in the first place, and that pressure is in response to American disapproval? I must be missing something because that does not strike me as a logical progression.:shrug:

You obviously don't believe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7v0o27BPIIk

[goof2]

The programme started in 2001, IIRC, which means that it started under Jean Chretien (a Liberal). The current government is Conservative and led by someone who believes things like draconian drug laws serve a valid purpose. He also wants to create more mandatory minimum sentences, for various crimes, and increase the size of our prison system (something that would definitely be needed, if he continues trying to follow an American model).

The Canadian Medical Association has taken a stand that doctors should prescribe, if they feel comfortable, but that more research is needed.

The article said 2001, but has anything changed legislatively concerning medical marijuana since then? I'd also be curious to see if the number of prescriptions issued declined significantly after Chretien left office. At least on the surface it seems to me like doctors are basing their decisions on medicine, not politics. This judge is throwing out all marijuana laws because doctors are not using the legally available means enough to satisfy him.

[Papa_Complex]

The article said 2001, but has anything changed legislatively concerning medical marijuana since then? I'd also be curious to see if the number of prescriptions issued declined significantly after Chretien left office. At least on the surface it seems to me like doctors are basing their decisions on medicine, not politics. This judge is throwing out all marijuana laws because doctors are not using the legally available means enough to satisfy him.

Well I doubt that they declined, since the programme was fairly new, but they didn't increase much either. The simple fact is that the programme is there and how do you obtain more data, if you don't prescribe to the appropriate people?

Ultimately it's an issue of lack of support though. Why would a doctor prescribe something that the person wouldn't be able to get for six months, when alternatives are readily available?

From the CMA website:

CMA Position

The CMA has always recognized and acknowledged the unique requirements of those individuals suffering from a terminal illness or chronic disease for which conventional therapies have not been effective and for whom marijuana for medicinal purposes may provide relief.

The new regulations (introduced in June 2005) reduced the onus on physicians to declare the need for, and dose of, marijuana, focusing instead on an attestation of diagnosis and failure of conventional therapies.

The government has now passed regulations which are an improvement to previous regulations. These regulations reduce the potential impact on the patient-physician relationship.

The CMA provided input to the revised medical marijuana regulations and accepts that physicians who feel qualified to recommend this product to patients do so in accordance with the regulations.

The advancement of scientific knowledge about medical marijuana must be encouraged. In order to encourage the research that is necessary to advance such knowledge, government should develop innovative methods to establish the safety, efficacy, most appropriate amount to be used, and the most effective delivery mechanism for treatment of specific conditions. The same safety standards should apply to medical marijuana as to pharmaceutical health products.

[goof2]

Well I doubt that they declined, since the programme was fairly new, but they didn't increase much either. The simple fact is that the programme is there and how do you obtain more data, if you don't prescribe to the appropriate people?

Ultimately it's an issue of lack of support though. Why would a doctor prescribe something that the person wouldn't be able to get for six months, when alternatives are readily available?

From the CMA website:

CMA Position

The CMA has always recognized and acknowledged the unique requirements of those individuals suffering from a terminal illness or chronic disease for which conventional therapies have not been effective and for whom marijuana for medicinal purposes may provide relief.

The new regulations (introduced in June 2005) reduced the onus on physicians to declare the need for, and dose of, marijuana, focusing instead on an attestation of diagnosis and failure of conventional therapies.

The government has now passed regulations which are an improvement to previous regulations. These regulations reduce the potential impact on the patient-physician relationship.

The CMA provided input to the revised medical marijuana regulations and accepts that physicians who feel qualified to recommend this product to patients do so in accordance with the regulations.

The advancement of scientific knowledge about medical marijuana must be encouraged. In order to encourage the research that is necessary to advance such knowledge, government should develop innovative methods to establish the safety, efficacy, most appropriate amount to be used, and the most effective delivery mechanism for treatment of specific conditions. The same safety standards should apply to medical marijuana as to pharmaceutical health products.

If it is about patient care then prescribing it a lot is fine. If it is about obtaining more data then setting up a tightly managed double blind scientific trial consisting of a control group and a treatment group is what should happen. Doling out prescriptions, even if they are to the appropriate people, produces zero scientific data.

Either way it doesn't matter to me, I think medical, recreational, and commercial marijuana should be legal. From my perspective though the issue here is someone trying to override medical decisions by judicial fiat. Running marijuana through an FDA type drug approval process will do a lot more for increasing prescriptions than any decision issued from the bench.

I also fail to see how this is some sort of conservative/progressive. The article you quote above states the regulations were actually relaxed after a conservative PM came in.

[Papa_Complex]

Incorrect. Harper took office in 2006. Paul Martin, a Liberal and former Finance Minister, was Prime Minister between Chretien and Harper. Harper has been pushing a "law and order" agenda, that completely ignores that our rates of recidivism are a fraction of yours. He's been riding the "all drugs are bad" pony pretty hard, putting it away wet.

Prescribing marijuana might not provide scientific data, but it does provide statistical data. It's better than nothing, but could be done in conjunction with scientific studies.

[goof2]

Incorrect. Harper took office in 2006. Paul Martin, a Liberal and former Finance Minister, was Prime Minister between Chretien and Harper. Harper has been pushing a "law and order" agenda, that completely ignores that our rates of recidivism are a fraction of yours. He's been riding the "all drugs are bad" pony pretty hard, putting it away wet.

Prescribing marijuana might not provide scientific data, but it does provide statistical data. It's better than nothing, but could be done in conjunction with scientific studies.

Yep, my bad about the PM succession. I assumed (obviously incorrectly) that Chretien was replaced with the conservative. That does add a bit more weight to prescription rates depending on conservative vs. liberal PMs though. You have 5 years from enactment with liberals and 5 years after with conservatives to compare to each other. It certainly wouldn't be definitive, but it would be interesting to see none the less.

Just prescribing it provides no data. With all the issues inherent in that "method" it would do nothing more than provide some simple anecdotes. The article states doctors aren't prescribing marijuana because there isn't enough scientific data establishing its effectiveness. Taking the article on its face it seems to me the judge is overruling the doctors' medical opinion.

I don't know how the drug approval process works up there, but down here they run the studies first to determine how effective the drug is compared to its dangers before approving it to be widely prescribed. By no means is that process 100% effective but it does try to inject some dispassionate analysis to the process. I'm guessing Canada has a similar process and, if the original article is to be believed, the judge wants the process to run in reverse, if at all.

[Papa_Complex]

The text of the decision isn't available yet, but my admittedly limited information indicates that he passed judgment based on, among other things, expert medical testimony.

[goof2]

The text of the decision isn't available yet, but my admittedly limited information indicates that he passed judgment based on, among other things, expert medical testimony.

I have no information either, but I'll bet there was competing expert medical testimony and they contradicted each other. I would also bet the experts on each side are advocates for their respective sides. The opinion will be interesting but I'm more curious about what happens on appeal. I'd be very surprised if this ruling doesn't get thrown out.

[Kaneman]

Want to see how much pressure our government puts on other countries, go look at all the stories from when Portugal decriminalized possession amounts for personal use. We're assholes.

It happens all over the world. Mike, sadly I can't find what I was looking for. Sorry to let you down.