Law Canada MJ News

[momofthegoons]

There are two short videos that could not be downloaded here in this article. Just click on the title to go to the original article.

Trudeau government avoids defeat on key pot bill vote

The Liberal government avoided a disastrous result for its marquee marijuana bill Thursday, as the legislation to legalize recreational cannabis passed a key stage in the Senate. It's now headed to five separate committees for further study.

Senators voted 44 to 29 to pass the bill, largely along partisan lines, at second reading. A defeat would have killed the bill, forcing the government to start over again in the House of Commons with new legislation, all the while jeopardizing plans for full legalization by summer.

All 28 Conservative senators present in the chamber voted against the bill. Virtually all Independent senators — most of them appointed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau — sided with the government.

Independent P.E.I. Sen. Mike Duffy was the lone hold-out and voted with the Conservatives. And, in a rare move, Speaker George Furey, who usually refrains from voting, voted to move the bill to committee.

"I think it's an important statement by the majority that this bill must advance," Peter Harder, the government's representative in the Senate, told reporters after the vote.

"This is a bill that is of high interest to the Senate. There are many issues to be dealt with, and it's important that second reading passed tonight so the Senate could get on with its study, meeting with experts, and deciding if the bill can be improved in any fashion."

Independent Ontario Sen. Tony Dean, the bill's sponsor in the Red Chamber, said he's happy the "exceptionally unusual" move by Conservative senators to block the bill failed.

"I'm happy that we have the decision I think Canadians expect of us. We're here to do work, examine the legislation, hear from experts, provide our advice and judgment," he said.

Larry Smith, the Conservative leader in the Senate, said his caucus stood against the bill on principle, adding it's "not our job" to support government legislation. He said the Tories plan to move amendments to address some of their key concerns.

Some in government were worried about the prospect of a loss because two Senate committees are out of town this week, meaning some Independent and Liberal senators who support the bill were not scheduled to be present for the crucial vote.

But some senators flew back to Ottawa late Wednesday night and early Thursday morning so they could be on hand to back the bill and stave off an embarrassing defeat for the Liberal government.

Non-affiliated Alberta Sen. Grant Mitchell, the government's liaison — who works as a whip without some of the same coercive powers normally afforded to a partisan caucus — and Independent Quebec Sen. Marc Gold, the liaison for the Independent Senators Group, were busy working the phones encouraging senators to show up in Ottawa Thursday.

Non-affiliated Alberta Sen. Grant Mitchell, the government's liaison, was busy working the phones Wednesday night to ask Independent and Liberal senators to come back to Ottawa for a vote on the cannabis bill. (Patrick Doyle/Canadian Press)

"They are making a special effort to fly back here if they need to, so they can be here and vote according to how they believe the vote should go," Sen. Yuen Pau Woo, the leader of the Independent Senators Group, told reporters earlier Thursday.

"As soon as we heard that there was a possibility of a blocked vote on the part of the Conservatives and that there was the possibility that they, the Conservatives, might run the risk of defeating a bill at second reading — which would be extraordinary — we wanted to communicate that with our members so they could make their own decision about coming back and be part of this historic decision."

• Government's cannabis bill faces live-or-die vote in Senate today
• First Nations demanding a cut of cannabis tax after pot legalization
• Senate deal on cannabis bill timeline means no sales before August

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had urged senators to pass the bill, saying illegal cannabis use — a $7 billion industry that funnels funds into the hands of organized crime, according to government figures — will continue unabated without the benefit of federal regulations.

"It does not protect our young people, and it sends billions per year to organized crime and street gangs. We need a new system," he said. "That's why we are pushing forward with legalization and control of marijuana and I'm confident that all Canadians, including the senators, will understand that."

Peter Harder, the Liberal government's point-man in the Senate, said Thursday morning he simply wasn't sure he had the votes to get the bill over the line today.

When asked after the vote if he was relieved the result went his way, Harder said, "I always breathe a sigh of relief when the Senate acts responsibly."

Scathing reviews of cannabis bill
Conservative senators have delivered scathing condemnations of the legislation that will legalize the recreational use of cannabis in this country.

Tory senators say they worry the legislation will endanger youth, increase smoking rates, complicate the work of police officers, lead to a backlog of court cases for possession offences and do little to curb black market sales of the drug.

"It's a piece of shit. It doesn't protect people, it will not exclude organized crime from the production. So, most senators say this bill was written badly," Conservative Quebec Sen. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu told reporters Thursday ahead of the vote.

"We have to rewrite the bill. It will be a good exercise for us. Every article must be amended."

Smith balked at Independent Que. Sen. Raymonde Saint-Germain's claim that the Conservatives' opposition is motivated strictly by partisanship.

"I think that is inappropriate. The issue is, it's up to the government if it wants to progress its legislation. It has to get its members to come and vote," he said. "They have to get their troops organized to make sure they get the vote they want."

A defeat at this stage in the Senate would kill the cannabis bill. (Evan Mitsui/CBCNews)

Conservative Sen. Don Plett, the caucus whip, said government efforts to marshal Independent senators — and fly them back to Ottawa for a vote — prove that the 'Independent' label is a farce.

"Justin Trudeau's biggest problem is his independently appointed senators have been told they're independent for so long that now some of them are starting to believe that," he said.

"Tell me how they are not whipped. Senators were out of the province and they were flown home today for the vote. That's what I would call being whipped. You check the definition of what a whip does and that's exactly what they do, and that's exactly what they did."

 

[momofthegoons]

Second Cup plans to convert some coffee shops into pot dispensaries

Second Cup says it signed a strategic alliance with marijuana clinic operator National Access Cannabis to develop and operate a network of recreational pot stores.

THE CANADIAN PRESS/Paul Chiasson

Second Cup wants to convert some of its coffee shops into cannabis dispensaries.

The Canadian retailer says it signed a strategic alliance with marijuana clinic operator National Access Cannabis to develop and operate a network of recreational pot stores.

The companies say the NAC-branded stores will initially be located across Western Canada, expanding to include additional provinces where legally permissible.

NAC will apply for licenses to dispense cannabis products and, upon receipt, work with Second Cup and applicable franchisees to construct retail stores carrying cannabis products.

Conversion of any Second Cup cafes to dispensaries will be conditional on obtaining a retail license from provincial regulators as well as the and the approval of and the applicable franchisee and landlord.

As well, NAC has issued to Second Cup warrants to purchase an aggregate of 5,000,000 common shares of the company, at an exercise price of 91 cents per common share that expire in April 2023.

 

[Killick]

The whole country is going to get rich selling little weenie bits of medication so people can experience simple, non-toxic, side effects of a plant they can grow in their own home. Not enough to heal, but enough to titillate...

(cough HACK cough)

 

[momofthegoons]

Doctors' group wants to scrap Canada's medical cannabis program

A few weeks ago, at a medical conference for the Canadian Consortium for the Investigation of Cannabinoids in Toronto, things got heated. And that's putting it nicely.

In attendance were scientists who study cannabis, physicians, pharmacists, and nurses. They were all there to discuss what should happen with medical cannabis policy, when the drug becomes legal for anyone to use.

When the Canadian Medical Association started to explain their position, things got ugly. That position in a nutshell? The powerful medical body wants to wash their hands of the medical cannabis program, once the drug is legal.

"Our view is really that now that the government is obviously intending to legalize this, once this is a substance that's available to all Canadians, there's really no need for physicians to continue to serve in that gatekeeper role." - Dr. Jeff Blackmer , Canadian Medical Association
Others strongly disagree, which led to booing, hissing and ultimately the CMA representative walking out.

Differing opinions about medical cannabis
The CMA representative who walked out of that conference is Dr. Jeff Blackmer, the vice president of medical professionalism. He says the CMA has been vocal about its opposition to the medical cannabis system since the very beginning.

"Our view is really that now that the government is obviously intending to legalize this, once this is a substance that's available to all Canadians, there's really no need for physicians to continue to serve in that gatekeeper role."

Whereas on the other side of the debate, Dr. Mark Ware — who was the executive director of the consortium that organized the conference and a medical cannabis researcher at McGill University —says Canada already has a Cannabis Act, which addresses medical uses.

"The worry I see with losing a medical program is it really completely takes the need for a clinician oversight out of the equation," says Dr. Ware.

City reviewing recommendation to charge cannabis retailers $2,500 a year for a business licence. (Frederic J. Brown/AFP/Getty Images)
"You're likely to have questions about the potential interaction of cannabis or cannabinoids with those other medications."

Dr. Ware says other questions patients might have for physicians include:

• How much you should take?
• When to take it?
• What kinds of risks might be associated with taking it?

"We think that that's the kind of thing that you should talk to your doctor about before you embark on that. And then that you should have access to a product, which is at least regulated to the point where you can be sure that when you purchased it, it contains what the label says it contains."

"The worry I see with losing a medical program is it really completely takes the need for a clinician oversight out of the equation." - Dr. Mark Ware, McGill University
Scientific evidence behind medical cannabis
According to Dr. Ware, who studies the effect of medical cannabis on pain, strong evidence exists to suggest that cannabinoids, the active ingredient in the cannabis plant which give it its therapeutic potential, have been shown to be effective in various medical ailments.

"THC, the psychoactive ingredient, looks like it's effective in managing some forms of severe neuropathic pain, spasticity, and neuropathy in association with multiple sclerosis, appetite loss in patients with HIV wasting syndrome, nausea and vomiting in patients with chemotherapy. And also CBD, the non-psychoactive ingredient, appears to be looking very promising in the treatment of epilepsy in young children with severe convulsive disorders."

Dave McKnight plays with his son Fin as his older son Liam plays and his wife Mandy looks on at their home in Constance Bay, Ont. Liam suffers from Dravet syndrome which causes severe seizures and uses medical cannabis oil as a form of treatment. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)
There are also many other medical issues that cannabis reportedly provides relief for, such as:

• Anxiety.
• Insomnia.
• Depression.

But the science behind how effective medical cannabis is in providing relief to these symptoms is less well established.

The endocannabinoids system, a system of receptors that exists in our bodies, provides tremendous scientific rationale as to why cannabinoids might help in some of these conditions.- Dr. Mark Ware, McGill University
"The endocannabinoids system, a system of receptors that exists in our bodies, provides tremendous scientific rationale as to why cannabinoids might help in some of these conditions," says Dr. Ware.

The challenges medical cannabis presents for physicians
When a patient goes to see their physician to ask about medical cannabis, Dr. Blackmer says this puts them in an awkward position.

"It's important to recognize that by and large, that level of evidence doesn't reach the quality that we demand for every other product that physicians prescribe."

For that reason, according to Dr. Blackmer, eight out of nine physicians in Canada do not feel comfortable discussing or providing access to medical cannabis.

But Dr. Ware says it's hard enough to find a physician in Canada. "We're hearing from patients across the country that they're having a hard time even engaging their physicians in this discussion and I think that's a barrier that we need to start to break down."

Cannabis derived products versus the plant
Health Canada has already approved a number of cannabis derived products, including synthetic cannabinoids, for medical uses where the evidence is strongest: pain, nausea, and epilepsy.

Dr. Ware says, many physicians don't even realize those drugs exist — let alone how to prescribe them.

That said, none of these approved drugs can provide immediate relief like inhaling the dried herbal form or vaping it can.

The other issue that exists is that it doesn't appear as though the cannabis-derived products are as effective as the plant buds seems to be.

Some scientists worry that without physicians being involved in prescribing cannabis to their patients, that patients won't know exactly what they're getting when marijuana becomes legal. (Brennan Linsley/Associated Press)
"By virtue of purifying those resins, isolating them, and putting them into pharmaceutical products, you sort of give rise to a more standardized and clean product," says Dr. Ware. "The challenge is, that even though we have these existing prescription cannabinoids, that these prescription medicines don't seem to work in the same way that the herbal product does."

There's something known as the "entourage effect," which hypothesizes that the many 100 plus cannabinoids contained in the plant, as well as the terpenes that give it its flavour and smell, work together in some way that to increase its effectiveness.

"That's a hypothesis that we desperately need to test," says Dr. Ware.

In the meantime, Dr. Ware says he thinks we already know enough about cannabis' ingredients, the pharmacology, and metabolism to be able to safely prescribe access to the cannabis buds or oils.

Do I think clinicians have enough to be able to authorize a severely affected patient to possess cannabis. Yes I do.- Dr. Mark Ware, McGill University
"Do I think clinicians have enough to be able to authorize a severely affected patient to possess cannabis. Yes I do. And I think we have a lot to learn," says Dr. Ware, "but I think that with what we do know it's possible to be done safely."

Dr. Blackmer disagrees. "The short answer is no. Certainly, there's not enough evidence from the science that is being done. I think there are, to be fair, challenges in doing studies on cannabis. And it's something that I know the industry has been discussing for a number of years. It's difficult, for example, to patent a specific strain. And obviously there's a cost to doing these trials, so we recognize that it is a little bit unique."

I think there are, to be fair, challenges in doing studies on cannabis. And it's something that I know the industry has been discussing for a number of years. It's difficult, for example, to patent a specific strain. And obviously there's a cost to doing these trials, so we recognise that it is a little bit unique in that way.- Dr. Jeff Blackmer , Canadian Medical Association
A new paradigm for regulating medical cannabis
Cannabis is an extremely complex plant with at least 115 known cannabinoids. Even if you take a clone from a plant, genetics alone aren't solely responsible for the chemical profile that exists in the buds.

"A lot of the chemistry is genetically determined, but there's also an environmental role," says Dr. Jonathan Page, an adjunct professor of botany at the University of British Columbia and the CEO of Anandia Labs.

Soil, indoor versus greenhouse growing conditions, lighting systems and fertilizer regimes can all change the chemistry by modifying the environment, Page says.

The cannabis plant's complex chemistry is the result of its genetics and growing environment. (Eric Gay/Associated Press)
The plant's variable nature makes it extremely difficult to test in a traditional way.

"It's not the same as a synthetic pharmaceutical, which typically is developed and designed in a laboratory," says Dr. Ware. "It's put through a host of animal studies and then eventually gets into humans."

It's kind of like we're always trying to put a square peg in a round hole.- Dr. Jonathan Page, University of British Columbia
Dr. Page says applying the same regulatory and scientific standards to cannabis is like, "trying to to put a square peg in a round hole."

He thinks that since this complex plant has been in use for such a long time with only relatively minor negative effects that it's time to change our expectations when it comes to the level of science required to prescribe medical cannabis compared to regular drugs.

Physicians, like Dr. Blackmer, look at medical cannabis the same way they do natural health products. "If a patient wants to go get a type of cream or a type of vitamin, they can do that at a pharmacy or other type of store, and they can take it for specific conditions for which it's advertised or for which their friends take it, but it won't have the same scientific evidence."

Dr. Ware says natural health products tend not to be particularly strong drugs, whereas cannabis has a strong psychoactive potential and abuse potential, so he doesn't feel it fits in the natural health product category.

"Cannabis, despite everyone's attempts to push it into different buckets, doesn't really fit any of our existing paradigms," such as alcohol or tobacco, says Dr. Ware. "But it doesn't really fit either of those. So in many ways, cannabis deserves to be handled in its own right."

Like Dr. Page, Dr. Ware wonders if there's another way to regulate medical cannabis that might meet the requirements of physicians writing a prescription, but which also recognizes the unique challenges of cannabis.

That's not good enough though, Dr. Blackmer says. "I think when patients go to a doctor and they want information and they want advice they want only the highest standard of evidence."

Health Canada says they will be maintaining a distinct system to continue to provide patients with reasonable access to cannabis for medical purposes, but they say there are proposed adjustments to it, "create consistency with rules for non-medical use, improve patient access, and reduce the risk of abuse of the system."

 

[momofthegoons]

A Citizen’s Guide to Rights When Dealing With Police (in Canada)

Know your rights
When dealing with the police, it is important to know what your rights are. This document will provide you with information about what you must do, what you do not have to do, and what you may wish to do in situations involving the police.

This pamphlet contains general information only. It is not a substitute for legal advice and is not intended to replace legal advice from a qualified lawyer. Persons seeking legal advice or guidance with a particular problem should consult with a qualified lawyer.

What if I am stopped by the police?
Police officers can stop you under three general circumstances:

• If they suspect that you have committed a crime
• If they see you committing a crime
• If you are driving

If the police do not arrest you or if they do not have grounds to detain you, they must let you be on your way. To find out if you are under arrest or detention, politely ask the officers, “Am I under arrest?” If they say yes, you can ask why. Alternatively, you may ask the officer “Am I free to go?”, and if the answer is no, ask “why not?”

Do I have to answer their questions?
The police are allowed to approach you and ask you questions. In most cases, you do not have to answer their questions if you don’t want to. However, it is always a good idea to be polite.

If you have been involved in a car accident, and the police ask you questions about the accident, you could be charged with an offence if you do not provide any answers.

If you are detained by the police, they must inform you that you can talk with a lawyer and provide you with an opportunity to do so. It may be a good idea to not answer questions from the police until you have spoken with a lawyer.

Anything you say to the police could be used as evidence in court. Under some circumstances, statements that you are required by law to provide, such as accident reports, cannot be used against you, but this rule is not absolute.

What if the police ask who I am?
If stopped by the police, they will likely ask for your name and address. They may also ask you for identification. In most cases, you are not required to provide this information.

However, if you lie about your name or address you may be charged with obstructing justice or obstructing the police.

If you are stopped while driving, the police may ask to see your driver’s licence, car registration and insurance. You are required to provide this information, and if you fail to do so you may be charged with an offence.

If you are riding a bicycle, and the police see you commit an offence (such as failing to stop at a red light), they can stop you.6 If asked, you must provide your name and address to the police in these circumstances. They can arrest you if you refuse to do so.

What if I am stopped by the police while driving?
The police can stop cars at any time to determine if a driver has consumed alcohol or drugs, to see whether a car is mechanically fit, to check whether a driver has a valid licence, or to make sure a driver has insurance. The police may also stop your car if they suspect that you have committed a driving offence.

If the police ask to see your driver’s licence, car registration and insurance, you are required by law to produce these documents. If any of these documents are in the glove compartment, tell the officer that you are reaching for the document before doing so.

Can the police check to see if I have been drinking alcohol?
If the police suspect that you have been drinking alcohol, they can make you do a roadside breath test. They can also ask you to do a physical sobriety test, such as walking in a straight line, on the side of the road.12 You do not have a right to speak to a lawyer before taking a roadside test.

If the police have reasonable grounds to suspect that you have more alcohol in your blood than the legal limit, or that your ability to drive has been affected by alcohol, they can take you to the police station to do a breath test, sometimes called a “breathalyzer test”. You do have the right to speak to a lawyer before taking a breath test at a police station.

Can the police search my car?
If your car has been stopped by the police to check your sobriety, the mechanical condition of the car, or your licence, registration or insurance, the police cannot search your car. They are, however, allowed to look in the windows of your car, and may use a flashlight to do this if it is nighttime.

The police are only allowed to search your car if they have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that there are illegal drugs or alcohol or evidence relating to the commission of a crime in the car. They must also believe that the evidence, drugs or alcohol would be removed or destroyed if they were to get a search warrant.

When can the police search me?
In most cases, the police can only search you only if you have been placed under arrest or if you have consented to the search. However, there are exceptions. These include:

• If the police find you in a place where they are searching for drugs, and they have reason to believe that you have drugs.
• The police find you in a vehicle where people are transporting or drinking alcohol illegally, and they believe that you have alcohol.
• The police believe that you have an illegal weapon or one that was used to commit a crime, and suspect that it might be removed or destroyed in the time it would take to get a search warrant.

If the police search you for any of these reasons, you must allow the search. If you believe that you have been wrongly searched, tell the police that you object to the search, and speak to a lawyer afterwards about your concerns.

If the police search you in relation to one offence, and find evidence that you may have committed another offence, you can be charged in relation to the second offence.

For example, if they search you on suspicion of having drugs, but find an illegal weapon, you can be charged with possession of the illegal weapon.

What if I am detained?
The police have a right to briefly detain you if they are investigating a crime and have reasonable grounds to believe that you are connected to that crime. This type of detention is different from being placed under arrest.

If you have been detained but not arrested, and a police officer believes that there are reasonable grounds to think that his safety or the safety of others is at risk, the officer may do a “pat-down” search of you to check for weapons.

If you are being detained, you do not have to answer any questions posed by the police.

What if I am arrested?
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is part of Canada’s constitution, sets out the rights that individuals have when they have been arrested.

If you are placed under arrest, the police may search you, your clothes and anything you are carrying. They can also search your “immediate surroundings”, which could include your car if that is where you are arrested.

The police are allowed to search you after you have been arrested as long as they believe that the search is necessary for the safety of the police and the public, to protect evidence from destruction, or to discover evidence that may relate to your guilt or innocence.

Will the police tell me why I am under arrest?
You have the right to be informed promptly of the reason for your arrest. If you are unsure, you should politely ask the police officer why you are being arrested.

Do I have to speak to the police if I am arrested?
If you are arrested, you have the right to remain silent. This means that you do not have to answer any questions asked by the police.

Can I speak to a lawyer?
Once you are arrested, you have a right to speak to a lawyer, and the police must advise you of this right as soon as possible. The police must also tell you about Legal Aid and your right to free legal services.

If you wish to contact a lawyer, the police must provide you with a telephone. They must also allow you to make more than one phone call in order to reach a lawyer, if necessary. The police must also stop questioning you until you have been given an opportunity to contact a lawyer. You have the right to speak to a lawyer in private.

Once you have spoken to your lawyer, the police may continue to ask you questions. You do not have to answer these questions.

What if the police come to my home?
The police are allowed to come to your home to talk to you, but you are not generally required to answer their questions or grant them access to your home.

When can the police enter my home?
There are a number of circumstances in which the police are allowed to enter your home. These include:

• The police have a warrant to enter your home to arrest someone
• The police have a search warrant
• The police have permission from you or someone else in authority in your home
• There are urgent circumstances that require the police to enter your home

The police may also enter your home if they suspect that a crime has been committed in relation to property in your home. In this case, the suspected criminal activity must have been committed against you, not by you.

What are my rights if the police have a warrant?
A search warrant allows the police to search your home and take certain items that they find. Police are allowed to take items that you are not legally allowed to have, such as illegal drugs, or items that may be evidence of an offence. If the police take something that was legally in your possession, they are generally required to return it to you within 3 months. If it is not returned to you, contact the police.

If the police come to your home with a search warrant, they must identify themselves and ask permission to come in. If they have a valid search warrant, you must let them in. If you refuse, they may enter your home without permission. If you try to prevent them from coming into your home, you may be charged with obstructing the police.

In most cases, the police must also show you a copy of the warrant. If they do not offer to show you the warrant, you can ask them to see it. Make sure that the information on the warrant is correct. For example, check that the correct name and address are listed and see if there are any time limits about when the police can use the warrant.

The police are expected to act reasonably in their search. This means that they are not allowed to use excessive force or damage property for no reason.

In what urgent circumstances can the police enter my home?
The police can enter your home without your permission in the following urgent circumstances:

• A 911 call has been made from your home, and the police believe that entry is necessary to prevent death or serious injury.
• Where the police believe that someone in the home is in need of emergency services.
• To help someone who has reported a domestic assault to safely remove their belongings.
• To protect people from injury if the police suspect that there is a drug laboratory in the home.

 

[momofthegoons]

Senate votes to pass recreational legalization of pot, amended bill now goes back to House of Commons

Liberal MPs must now decide which amendments to keep and which to toss before sending bill back to Senate

The Liberal government's bill legalizing the recreational use of cannabis has passed third reading in the Senate and now returns to the House of Commons where Liberal MPs will decide which amendments to accept and which to reject. (CBC)

Senators have voted to pass the Trudeau government's landmark legislation to lift Canada's 95-year-old prohibition on recreational cannabis by a vote of 56 to 30 with one abstention.

Despite the resolute opposition of the 32 Conservative senators, and trepidation among some independent senators, Bill C-45 now moves back to the House of Commons.

MPs there will now have to decide what to do about the the almost four dozen amendments to Bill C-45 that were made in the Senate.The government will have to decide whether to approve, reject or modify the changes before returning the bill back to the Senate for another vote.

Health Minister Petitpas Taylor has said that, once the bill is passed, provinces and territories will need two to three months to prepare before retail sales of legal cannabis are actually available.

Most of the Senate's amendments are minor, but a handful are significant. One amendment would allow provinces to prohibit home cultivation of cannabis if they so choose, rather than accept the four marijuana plants per dwelling allowed under the bill.

Another amendment would impose even more stringent restrictions on advertising by cannabis companies, preventing them from promoting their brands on so-called 'swag', such as T-shirts and ball caps.

Yet another is aimed at recognizing that marijuana is often shared socially. It would make it a summary or ticketing offence for a young adult to share five grams or less of cannabis with a minor who is no more than two years younger, and it would allow parents to share it with their kids, as they can wine or other forms of alcohol.

A testy debate
Petitpas Taylor has refused to say how the government views the many amendments, but it appears to have given its blessing to at least 29 of them, which were proposed by the sponsor of the bill in the upper house, Sen. Tony Dean.

In their final speeches, Conservative senators betrayed frustration that most independent and Liberal independent senators appear poised to support the bill.

Before the vote Sen. Jean-Guy Dagenais predicted the vote would demonstrate "unprecedented acts of political blindness" as senators overlook the testimony of doctors, police and other experts about the serious health, social and public safety consequences of legalization in order to help Prime Minister Justin Trudeau deliver on an election promise. He accused them of "fickle partisanship."

"I don't believe for an instant that you have all together at the same time lost the independence that you claim to have," Dagenais said.

Like his Conservative colleague, Sen. Carolyn Stewart Olsen, Dagenais questioned the speed with which independent Indigenous senators abandoned plans Wednesday to propose an amendment that would have indefinitely delayed implementation of the bill until such time as the government files a report detailing how it is addressing the concerns of Indigenous communities that have complained about inadequate consultation.

Indigenous senators — who had been the Conservatives' best hope for getting the numbers needed to stymie the government's plan to have legal cannabis available by late summer — dropped the amendment after Petitpas Taylor and Indigenous Services Minister Jane Philpott sent a letter promising a full report to Parliament in September and another within 12 months. The ministers also promised more funding for Indigenous mental health and addiction treatment services, special help for Indigenous businesses to navigate the licensing process to grow marijuana and consultation on jurisdictional and revenue-sharing issues.

On Wednesday, Stewart Olsen told Indigenous senators they held "the hammer" that could have defeated or delayed the legislation but had, instead, chosen "seeming capitulation to the government" — remarks that were quickly denounced as patronizing by Sen. Murray Sinclair, former head of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission on residential schools.

Olsen's comments 'undeniably condescending'
Her intervention continued to reverberate Thursday and actually seemed to galvanize Indigenous senators to support the legislation.

Independent Liberal Sen. Lillian Dyck, to whom Stewart Olsen's remarks were addressed, said she "felt attacked personally." She called the comments "undeniably condescending," "unparliamentary" and "objectionable."

Dyck said Indigenous senators used their hammer "in a precise and focused action with great aim and achieved our objectives without undue collateral damage that a delay (in implementation) would precipitate."

Other Conservative senators predicted that Canadians will eventually rue the day cannabis is legalized.

"Legalization should be a last resort if incremental approaches to address cannabis-related harms fail," said Sen. Judith Seidman. "Instead, the government has chosen to conduct a grand experiment on the Canadian public, an experiment that cannot be undone."

Conservative Sen. Carolyn Stewart Olsen accused Indigenous senators of 'capitulation' on pot bill. (Fred Chartrand/Canadian Press)

She accused the government of creating "a multibillion-dollar, predatory cannabis industry overnight, with the provinces taking on the role of drug dealer and the federal government taking its cut."

But other senators argued that almost a century of criminalization has done nothing to stop Canadians, particularly young people, from using marijuana illegally and, thereby, creating a lucrative black market dominated by organized crime.

"There is one thing I know for certain," said Liberal Independent Sen. Art Eggleton. "Our current system is broken. It needs to be fixed."

Independent Sen. Andre Pratte said C-45 takes a pragmatic approach to regulating cannabis that is preferable to continuing the failed war on drugs.

"Do we take a deep breath, close our eyes and stick with a demonstrably failed, hypocritical, unhealthy, prohibitionist approach of the past or do we move forward, eyes wide open, and choose the alternative? ... I choose to open my eyes, rather than put on blinders," he said.

 

[momofthegoons]

There are two videos that could not be imbedded in the original article.

Trudeau battles provinces, Senate for right of Canadians to grow cannabis

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has embarked on a political battle with the Senate and a potential legal fight with Quebec and Manitoba in order to give all Canadians the right to grow their own cannabis.

Mr. Trudeau and his government formally rejected the Senate’s key amendment to Bill C-45 on Wednesday, vowing to proceed with a regime for legal cannabis that will allow adult Canadians to have up to four plants at home. The Senate, which is a protector of provincial rights, wanted to confirm that Quebec and Manitoba would have the ability to prohibit home cultivation.

Before a caucus meeting, Mr. Trudeau asserted the federal government’s responsibility for creating rules that will push organized crime out of the cannabis market. Health Canada is licensing the companies that will produce recreational cannabis, but Mr. Trudeau does not want to criminalize those who grow small quantities at home.

“We’re making the changes to keep Canadians safe and one of the strong recommendations by experts was that we ensure personal cultivation of four plants at home,” Mr. Trudeau told reporters. “We have heard what the senators had to say on this matter, but we will go ahead with the recommendations from experts.“

The government’s position could prompt a power struggle between the House of Commons and the Senate in coming days. The 32-member Conservative caucus in the Senate will continue to fight for the provinces’ right to prohibit home cultivation, but it remains unclear how the 46 members of the Independent Senators Group will react.

Convention has it that the Senate will ultimately defer to the House of Commons and will not refuse to pass a bill, especially one that fulfills an election promise. The case of Bill C-45 could be a test of that convention.

None of the senators appointed by Mr. Trudeau voted against the bill, including two who were sworn in the day of the vote.

“We have time in front of us,” said independent senator André Pratte, who had proposed the amendment on home cultivation.


Independent senator Tony Dean, who sponsored Bill C-45 in the Senate, said he was disappointed by the rejection of the amendment, while defending the government’s right to design a new production system.

“My view on this is that at the end of the day, government makes decisions and they are the decision maker in our context. Importantly, accountability goes along with that; the government is responsible for the bill and its outcomes,” Mr. Dean said.

Saying it will be hard to police, Quebec and Manitoba have both decided to prohibit home cultivation in their respective legislation dealing with recreational cannabis. This nearly guarantees that the matter will eventually end up in front of the courts.

“If there is a legal battle to wage, we will wage it,” Quebec Health Minister Lucie Charlebois told reporters in Quebec City.

Federal Health Minister Ginette Petitpas Taylor said Bill C-45 needs to be harmonized with laws dealing with alcohol, tobacco and medical marijuana.

“Canadians can grow their own tobacco and make their own beer and wine at home. ... People can already grow cannabis for medical purposes. We think it is logical for the proposed legislation to be consistent when it comes to recreational cannabis,” she told reporters.

Ms. Petitpas Taylor said that if individual provinces want to impose further restrictions on home cultivation, they have the necessary leeway to make up their own rules, within certain limits.

“Provinces and territories have the right to bring down the number to one plant for home cultivation,” she said.

Ms. Petitpas Taylor declined to speculate on the Senate’s reaction to the government’s refusal to accept its amendment on home cultivation.

“I hope they will accept the government’s decision,” she said. “I cannot comment on something that may or may not happen.”

The Conservative senators will try to convince Liberal and independent senators to stick to their guns, especially on home cultivation and efforts to force more transparency on the identity of investors in the cannabis industry. On home cultivation, Conservative senator Claude Carignan said the government’s position will only lead to unnecessary court battles with Quebec and Manitoba.

“It’s one of our key responsibilities in the Senate to defend the powers of the provinces, it’s a fundamental issue,” he said.

There have been a number of political battles between the House and the Senate in recent months, but the one over cannabis stands to be the most closely watched as Ottawa seeks to lift the prohibition on the drug that goes back to 1923.

The date for the vote in the House on Bill C-45 has not been set.

 

[momofthegoons]

This is an older article, but speaks to the importance of testing...and to my knowledge is an ongoing issue. @Killick can you shed some light on this?

Sick veterans urge Health Minister to further probe tainted medical marijuana


A group of Canadian military veterans who say they are suffering from health problems after consuming tainted medical marijuana is calling on Health Minister Jane Philpott to launch a formal investigation, saying the department has failed to examine the problem properly and fairly on behalf of patients.

A group of Canadian military veterans who say they are suffering from health problems after consuming tainted medical marijuana is calling on Health Minister Jane Philpott to launch a formal investigation, saying the department has failed to examine the problem properly and fairly on behalf of patients.

Scott Wood, a retired military policeman whose career involved investigating military wrongdoing and guarding heads of state, said he believes Health Canada is trying to sweep the problem under the rug without a proper investigation.

The group's call for Ms. Philpott to get involved comes after Health Canada issued a public statement Friday saying it determined there was "low health risk" posed by several banned pesticides found in medical marijuana sold by two federally licensed companies.

"Here are the facts," Health Canada said, stating that its findings determined the amount of the banned chemical myclobutanil found was not enough to pose a "risk of serious adverse health consequences."

But Mr. Wood says the facts he has collected differ from Health Canada's and there needs to be further examination. He began reaching out to dozens of affected patients, including veterans, after he came down with sudden and mysterious health problems last fall after consuming medical marijuana that was later recalled.

Mr. Wood, who used the products to help with severe back pain, says he has since catalogued about 100 patients, and counting, who have each come down with significant – and oddly similar – health problems that had no explanation, other than they had each consumed the same tainted products.

However, when some of these patients, including Mr. Wood, contacted Health Canada, he says they received no help. In a recording of Mr. Wood's phone call to Health Canada, which was provided to The Globe and Mail, he is told to send his concerns to a department e-mail address.

Mr. Wood, 53, says he's spoken with dozens of veterans who gravitated to medical marijuana instead of prescription drugs to ease pain from injuries suffered while serving, or to deal with post-traumatic stress disorder, who are now experiencing problems. He figures there are thousands of people exposed, and questions how Health Canada can dismiss the problem without talking to many of those affected.


"There's a commonality – you have people who used the contaminated stuff, and they're all showing very similar symptoms," Mr. Wood said. "There's the evidence. You've got reasonable, probable belief to say there's something going on here."

When asked for comment on the veterans' concerns last week, a spokesman for Dr. Philpott did not respond to The Globe.

Symptoms being reported by patients who consumed products that were later recalled by Mettrum Ltd. and OrganiGram Inc. include persistent nausea and vomiting after taking the product, followed by ongoing breathing problems, rashes and body pain.

Mr. Wood, who stopped using the products after the first symptoms emerged, has been taken to the emergency room at his local hospital three times since then due to sudden breathing difficulties. He says his investigation has turned up several unusual symptoms that are consistent across dozens of patients, including severe itching, joint pain and periodic abdominal pain. Mr. Wood has also collected photographs from patients, including himself, who have suffered painful rashes, and sometimes blistering, around their necks and other areas of the body.

The situation poses an interesting question: Was Health Canada's assessment of the problem accurate, or are these symptoms due to something else? Mr. Wood believes the sudden emergence of his symptoms after consuming the products is no coincidence.

"They're not doing a field test, they're not going out and saying: 'Let's go check these people and see what happened.' Basically they're hiding behind numbers, and they're just hoping everybody goes away and doesn't question it," he said. "These symptoms didn't come out of nowhere. They have to be caused by something."


Mettrum and OrganiGram are now the subject of two proposed class-action lawsuits that seek to force the companies to refund money collected from the recalled products. Mr. Wood said he is not part of those lawsuits, but is instead trying to get to the bottom of the medical issues for the group of veterans and others affected.

The banned chemical myclobutanil is known to emit hydrogen cyanide when combusted. In its statement Friday, Health Canada said the risks from the tainted products were deemed to be low because the trace amounts of myclobutanil found would not have produced enough hydrogen cyanide to cause a concern. Health Canada also said hydrogen cyanide is a by-product of smoking cannabis, and it believes the levels from the myclobutanil would have been less than what is produced normally when the plant is combusted.

However, Mr. Wood believes that in focusing solely on the hydrogen cyanide issue, Health Canada is ignoring other health risks posed by myclobutanil, which has never been fully studied for inhalation safety, as well as the risks of pyrethrin and bifenazate, which were also found in the recalled products, and are not approved for use on cannabis.

Scientists in the United States and Canada have told The Globe and Mail not enough is known about the effects of these chemicals on medical marijuana to understand what the true risks are when inhaled.

Dr. Jonathan Page, who runs Anandia Labs in B.C., says some of the symptoms being reported don't make sense to him based on what is known of hydrogen cyanide exposure. But Dr. Page said he can't rule out health risks from the banned pesticides because little is known about them. Much of the science on safety is derived from testing on food, rather than on plants that are smoked.

"We can't really tell," Dr. Page said. "This is the heart of the issue – each of these pesticides need to be evaluated in the cannabis system, rather than extrapolation from a food system. … Everybody is operating on an absence of evidence and data."

Health Canada monitors drug side effects through documents called Adverse Reaction Reports, which are filed by patients and doctors. The department said Friday that, as of March 6, it received 24 reports relating to the tainted cannabis problem. Of those, 13 were received after the announcement of a Canada-wide recall.

The reports list symptoms such as weight loss, nausea, vomiting, throat irritation, difficulty breathing, swelling, heart palpitations, movement disorder, pain and discomfort.

Health Canada added that the reports are "the opinion or observation of the individual making the report, and are not, on their own, proof of a specific substance causing a reaction."

While the companies involved have cited the low number of Adverse Reaction Reports as evidence that the issues have not been significant, the statistics on these filings are not a good indicator of the severity of a problem, since many Canadians do not know they should send such complaints to the department, or know how to do so.

Mr. Wood believes Health Canada should properly investigate the problem before dismissing it, because there are people who have become inexplicably sick. "People are going to their doctors and their doctors don't know how to handle it. They aren't sure because they've never experienced it before," he said.

 

[momofthegoons]

Canadian Military Will Be Allowed to Smoke Marijuana
Cannabis will be treated like alcohol when it comes to military use.

Imagine, if you will, Canadian soldiers during the Second Battle of Ypres in 1915 smoking marijuana in the doomsday trenches of World War I rather than gasping for air through the urine-soaked handkerchiefs they used protect their lungs against the German’s poison gas attacks.

Well, we don’t have to tell you that the 1st Canadian Division, rather than “holding the line” against the Germans during this crucial battle, would have suffered a savage blow before the British arrived. Cannabis is a lot of things to many people, but a protective agent against the sidewinding whipping post that is chemical weapons — let’s just say we have not seen any research that leads us to trust its effectiveness.

But this doesn’t mean that Canadian soldiers wouldn’t have been grateful for the freedom to smoke weed to calm their nerves during this tumultuous time. The good new is that if ever another uprising of terror threatens our planetary sanctity and Canadian troops are called into action to support the nation’s allies, they may be well within their rights to fight with a little more THC coursing through their veins than most.

It seems that Canada’s Armed Forces will not have the power to impose a full-blown ban on the recreational use of marijuana once the northern nation takes the leap to legalize later this summer.

A recent report from CBC News indicates that soldiers will likely be held to similar guidelines already in place with respect to alcohol. Only the rules for pot consumption could be more far-reaching, according to Lieutenant General Chuck Lamarre, chief of military personnel.

We will “respect the law,” he told the news source. “But at the same time, I think Canadians are expecting our operational readiness and our ability to do our business must never be compromised.”

Although cannabis will no longer be considered criminal, the Canadian military will still need to keep its soldiers in line. To do this, the new policy will impose certain restrictions on cannabis consumption, the same as it does for alcohol. The current policy on alcohol consumption allows troops and civilian employees with National Defense to drink on their own time. But even booze is even subject to zero-tolerance policies in certain situations. For example: Getting trashed before special operations is not allowed.

Cannabis will be no different, Lamarre says. He admits it would be impossible for the military to ban the herb completely.

“There’s no total ban at this point,” he said. “We can’t do that. If the law says it’s no longer criminal to have it in your possession, it’s not a criminal act. You just can’t ban it outright.”

But not everyone is happy with the idea of Canada’s military forces walking around with THC in their systems. Although he refused to divulge any particulars of this controversy, Lamarre says there has been some discussion about holding certain positions within the military, like pilots and Special Forces, to a total ban. Branch commanders for the Army, Navy, Air Force and Special Forces have been asked to identify specific jobs for which restrictions should apply. It will be a situation where they say, “I need to restrict the following occupations for these periods of time, under these circumstances,” Lamarre explained.

Canada is set to become the second country in the world to legalize marijuana for recreational use. Lawmakers are still hashing out the details of the bill, but legal pot sales could begin around August, according to the latest reports. When this happens, adults, including military service members, will be allowed to purchase cannabis (and eventually edible pot products) from retail dispensaries in a manner similar to beer. The market is expected to become a huge business, raking in $22 billion once it is all set into motion.

But even in a legal climate, Lammarre does not foresee a newfound enthusiasm for getting stoned among military service members. “I don’t anticipate a whole whack of sparking up,” he said.

Until cannabis is officially legal nationwide, the Canadian military will maintain a zero-tolerance policy on the use of marijuana. But even this policy does not stop soldiers from getting high from time to time. The results of random drug screens conducted by National Defense since 2007 indicates that pot is still the military’s favorite illegal drug.

 

[Killick]

A 'total ban' for some occupations would likely be knocked down in any Human Rights challenge, especially for anyone who has a prescription...

 

[BD9]

This makes me very happy for all the Canadian Vapor Asylum inmates. It's early, and you're dealing with govt., but I'm hopeful for those of you north of the border!

Canada's House Votes To Legalize Marijuana, Sending Bill To Senate.

http://nepr.net/post/canadas-house-votes-legalize-marijuana-sending-bill-senate#stream/0

Recreational marijuana use is a step closer to being legal in Canada, after the House of Commons approved the Cannabis Act on Monday. The legislation is now in the Senate, where it has been the subject of debate and proposed amendments.

"The Senate had proposed 46 amendments to The Cannabis Act but the Liberal government rejected several major ones last week," the CBC reports, "including one provision that would have affirmed the provinces' right to ban home cultivation of marijuana."

A reminder: In Canada's parliamentary system, the House of Commons is the more powerful of the two chambers. The Senate, whose members are appointed rather than elected, plays a somewhat controversial role and is often the subject of talk about reform — similar to Britain's House of Lords.

Sen Pete Harder says,

"Passing this bill will mean the end of an historic era of prohibition that has punished Canadians with a criminal sanction for what is essentially a health decision. Over the years, how many Canadians have needlessly been given the social stigma and employment barrier of a criminal conviction?"


One expert told O'Dowd that because of America's more restrictive laws, "We are literally giving the next multibillion-dollar industry ... to the Canadians."

 

[Killick]

This makes me very happy for all the Canadian Vapor Asylum inmates. It's early, and you're dealing with govt., but I'm hopeful for those of you north of the border!

One of the interesting things, for those that don't know, but it's been legal for medical patients for a number of years now. A few years ago some pioneering veterans managed to get the cost of medical cannabis covered through the Department of Veterans Affairs. Canada will be legal-ish, and there is already a large number of Military and RCMP veterans who are quite knowledgeable about the why's and how's of medicating, and we're happy to help others learn how to help themselves. Part of this is due to people like @momofthegoons , and a whole bunch of people in this forum, and a couple of others - you know who you are. Send a note and I'll mail you a 'thank you' gummy :)

The world is changing...

 

[momofthegoons]

Canada's Legislature Votes To Legalize Marijuana; Sales Will Begin In Weeks


Canada's House of Commons voted to legalize recreational marijuana use, sending the bill to the Senate. In this photo from April 20, smoke rises during the annual 4/20 marijuana rally on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Ontario.

Chris Wattie/Reuters
Updated at 8:05 p.m. ET

Recreational marijuana may soon be legal in Canada, after both the House of Commons and the Senate approved the Cannabis Act. Legal sales are likely to begin before the end of summer after the Senate voted 52-29 Tuesday night to approve the bill, [URL='http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate-passes-government-pot-bill-1.4713222']the CBC reports.

"We've just witnessed a historic vote for Canada. The end of 90 years of prohibition," Sen. Tony Dean, one of the bill's sponsors, told the CBC. "Transformative social policy, I think. A brave move on the part of the government."

Canada's minister of justice sponsored the cannabis bill; the government announced its push for legalization last spring with an official news release that stated, "The current approach to cannabis does not work."

The government said that making marijuana illegal "has allowed criminals and organized crime to profit, while failing to keep cannabis out of the hands of Canadian youth."

It added, "In many cases, it is easier for our kids to buy cannabis than cigarettes."

Those points were echoed by Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau last fall, when he welcomed the news that the bill was making its way to the Senate.
The proposed law would make it legal for anyone over the age of 18 to possess marijuana, provided that it is less than 30 grams (just over an ounce). It also allows Canadians to grow up to four marijuana plants in their home.

During the debate, Sen. Peter Harder, the government representative in the Senate, said:

"Passing this bill will mean the end of an historic era of prohibition that has punished Canadians with a criminal sanction for what is essentially a health decision. Over the years, how many Canadians have needlessly been given the social stigma and employment barrier of a criminal conviction?"

Canada's government has also published the results of a cannabis survey, based on more than 9,000 responses from people across the country, ages 16 and up.

In the survey, "About half of all respondents indicated that cannabis had a positive effect on a person's mood (51 percent), creativity (45 percent), anxiety (50 percent), and sleep (49 percent)," Canada's Health Ministry said.

The government also said "77 percent of all survey respondents thought that using cannabis could be habit forming."

Medical marijuana has been legal in Canada since the early 2000s. If it legalizes recreational use now, it would give America's northern neighbor another competitive edge in what is widely seen as an emerging and lucrative industry.

"You've got big American alcohol and tobacco companies making investments in Canadian pot firms, because they see an opening," as Peter O'Dowd reported for NPR's Here & Now last month.

One expert told O'Dowd that because of America's more restrictive laws, "We are literally giving the next multibillion-dollar industry ... to the Canadians."[/URL]

 

[momofthegoons]

More on the story...

Canada just legalized marijuana. That has big implications for US drug policy.

Canada has become the first wealthy nation in the world to fully legalize marijuana.

The Senate approved Bill C-45, also known as the Cannabis Act, on Tuesday. The measure was already approved by the House of Commons, so the Senate’s approval means it’s now set to become law.

The measure legalizes marijuana possession, home growing, and sales for adults. The federal government will oversee remaining criminal sanctions (for, say, selling to minors) and the licensing of producers, while provincial governments will manage sales, distribution, and related regulations — as such, provinces will be able to impose tougher rules, such as raising the minimum age. The statute largely follows recommendations made by a federal task force on marijuana legalization.

Canadian and provincial governments are expected to need two to three months before retail sales and other parts of the law can roll out.

None of this may seem too shocking in the US, where already nine states have legalized marijuana for recreational use and 29 states have allowed it for medicinal purposes. What sets Canada apart, though, is it’s doing this as a country. Previously, the South American nation of Uruguay was the only one that legally allowed marijuana for recreational purposes.

Canada, like the US, is part of international drug treaties that explicitly ban legalizing marijuana. Although activists have been pushing to change these treaties for years, they have failed so far — and that means Canada will be, in effect, in violation of international law in moving to legalize. (The US argues it’s still in accordance with the treaties because federal law still technically prohibits cannabis, even though some states have legalized it.)

For Canada’s ruling party, this fulfills a major campaign promise. When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party was elected in 2015, one of the main promises he ran on was to legalize marijuana.

“We will legalize, regulate, and restrict access to marijuana,” the Liberal Party declared on its campaign website. “Canada’s current system of marijuana prohibition does not work. It does not prevent young people from using marijuana and too many Canadians end up with criminal records for possessing small amounts of the drug.”

But the process languished as Trudeau and his allies waited for a federal task force’s recommendations and as the Senate debated several provisions in the bill.

In moving forward, the Canadian government is now walking a fine line: It’s hoping to legalize marijuana to clamp down on the black market for cannabis and provide a safe outlet for adults, but it’s risking making pot more accessible to kids and people with drug use disorders. It is taking a bold step against outdated international drug laws, but it could upset countries like Russia, China, and even the US that have historically adopted a stricter view of the treaties. And while Canadian lawmakers may feel marijuana legalization is right for their country, there’s a risk that legal Canadian pot will spill over to the US — perhaps causing tensions with Canada’s neighbor and one of its closest allies.

Whether Canada is successful in its legalization attempts will depend on how it strikes a balance between these concerns. And depending on how it pulls this off, it may provide a model to other countries interested in legalization — including the US.

The risks and benefits of legalization
For Canada, marijuana legalization has been a balancing act from the start.

On one hand, marijuana prohibition has a lot of costs. In Canada, tens of thousands of peopleare arrested for marijuana offenses each year, ripping communities and families apart as people are thrown in jail or prison and gain criminal records. Enforcement of these laws also costs money, while legalizing and taxing marijuana could bring in extra revenue — although typically not that much, based on Colorado’s experience, where marijuana taxes make up less than 1 percent of the general budget.

The black market for marijuana fuels violence around the world — not only can it lead to conflicts and violence within Canada, but the money from illegally produced and sold pot often goes back to drug cartels that then use that money to carry out brutal violence, including murders, beheadings, kidnappings, and torture. Legalization shifts marijuana out of the illicit, potentially violent market toward a legal one that can produce legitimate jobs.

Legalization carries risks too. It could lead to more use and misuse by making pot cheaper and more available. Mark Kleiman, a drug policy expert at New York University’s Marron Institute, estimates that in the long term a legal marijuana joint will cost no more to make than, say, a tea bag — since both products come from plants that are fairly easy to grow. It would also be available to anyone (of legal age) in retail outlets after legalization — meaning it would no longer require a shady or secretive meeting with a drug dealer. Those are benefits for people who use marijuana without problems, to be sure, but easier access could also pose a risk for people who can’t control their cannabis consumption.

Although marijuana isn’t very dangerous compared to some drugs, it does carry some risks: dependence and overuse, accidents, nondeadly overdoses that lead to mental anguish and anxiety, and, in rare cases, psychotic episodes. Still, it’s never been definitively linked to any serious ailments — not deadly overdoses, lung disease, or schizophrenia. And it’s much less likely — around one-tenth so, based on data for fatal car crashes — to cause deadly accidents compared to alcohol, which is legal.

Among the risks, drug policy experts emphasize the risk of overuse and addiction. As Jon Caulkins, a drug policy expert at Carnegie Mellon University, has told me, “At some level, we know that spending more than half of your waking hours intoxicated for years and years on end is not increasing the likelihood that you’ll win a Pulitzer Prize or discover the cure for cancer.”

A balancing act
To this end, Canada is striking a balance unlike that of the US’s legalization experiments so far.

So far in the US, the eight states that have legalized pot sales have done so with a model similar to alcohol. (Vermont has only legalized possession, not retail sales.) Basically, they’re setting up their systems to allow a for-profit pot industry to flourish, similar to the alcohol industry.

Drug policy experts, however, often point to the alcohol industry as a warning, not something to be admired and followed for other drugs. For decades, big alcohol has successfully lobbiedlawmakers to block tax increases and regulations on alcohol, all while marketing its product as fun and sexy in television programs, such as the Super Bowl, that are viewed by millions of Americans, including children. Meanwhile, alcohol is linked to 88,000 deaths each year in the US.

If marijuana companies are able to act like the tobacco and alcohol industries have in the past, there's a good chance they’ll convince more Americans to try or even regularly use marijuana, and some of the heaviest users may use more of the drug. And as these companies increase their profits, they’ll be able to influence lawmakers in a way that could stifle regulations or other policies that curtail cannabis misuse. All of that will likely prove bad for public health (although likely not as bad as alcohol, since alcohol is simply more dangerous).

There are policies that can curtail this, some of which Canada’s plan will allow.

For example, Canada’s measure restricts marketing and advertising. In the US, this is generally more difficult because the First Amendment protects commercial free speech. (Tobacco marketing is largely prohibited due to a massive legal settlement.) But in Canada, the restrictions could stop marijuana companies from marketing their product in a way that targets, say, children or people who already heavily use cannabis.

“It’s a no-brainer,” Caulkins previously told me. For public health purposes, “every serious researcher around the world thinks it’s a very good idea to restrict advertising of tobacco, alcohol, any dependence-inducing substance.”

Canada’s bill also lets provinces entirely handle the distribution and sales of marijuana — up to letting provincial governments directly manage and staff all pot stores by themselves. While state-run liquor stores aren’t unheard of in the US when it comes to alcohol, it’s widely seen as risky in America with marijuana: Since cannabis is illegal at the federal level, asking state employees to run marijuana shops would effectively ask them to violate federal law. But since Canada is legalizing marijuana nationwide in one go, it can do this — and several provinces are expected to take up this option.

The promise of government-run marijuana shops is that they could be better for public health. In short, government agencies that run shops are generally going to be more mindful of public health and safety, while private companies are only going to be interested in maximizing sales, even if that means making prices very low or selling to minors and people with drug use disorders. Previous research found that states that maintained a government-operated monopoly for alcohol kept prices higher, reduced youth access, and reduced overall levels of use — all benefits to public health.

Again, this is about balancing the risks and benefits of legalization: Maybe legalization is the better approach on net compared to prohibition, but that doesn’t mean that for-profit, private companies have to be given free rein over the market.

This isn’t important just to Canada. If Canada shows that these policies — and the many other quirks that will make it different to the US — are the right approach to legalization, it could provide a legalization model to the rest of the world that’s very different from what America has done so far.

Canada’s legalization bill could violate international treaties
From the 1960s through the ’80s, much of the world, including the US and Canada, signed on to three major international drug policy treaties: the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961, the Convention on Psychotropic Drugs of 1971, and the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988. Combined, the treaties require participants to limit and even prohibit the possession, use, trade, and distribution of drugs outside of medical and scientific purposes, and work together to stop international drug trafficking.

There is some debate about whether these treaties stop countries from decriminalizing marijuana — when criminal penalties are repealed but civil ones remain in place — and legalizing medical marijuana. But one thing the treaties are absolutely clear on is that illicit drugs aren’t to be allowed for recreational use and certainly not for recreational sales. Yet that’s exactly what Canada has now moved to allow.

Canada’s decision to legalize pot is the most high-profile rebuke of the international treaties since they were signed — since Canada is a relatively large developed country and is fairly active in the international arena.

In theory, Canada could face diplomatic backlash by legalizing pot. But it’s unclear who would lead such an effort, given that the US, the de facto enforcer of the treaties over the past few decades, is currently allowing states to legalize pot without federal interference.

There’s one way Canada could get around the treaty problem. In the early 2010s, Bolivia moved to allow coca leaf chewing, which was banned from the treaties. To get around this, the country effectively withdrew from the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and then rejoined with a “reservation” allowing the use of coca leaves within its own borders. The move could have been blocked by one-third of the parties to the treaty — which would amount to more than 60 nations — but only 15 joined in opposition.

Canada could use a similar process — of withdrawing and then rejoining with a reservation for legal pot — to meet its treaty obligations.

It could also follow Uruguay, which has essentially refused to acknowledge that legalization violates the treaties. Despite warnings from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, no one has taken significant action against Uruguay for its decision.

As for the US, it claims to respect the drug treaties, despite some states’ move to legalize marijuana, with a clever argument: It’s true that multiple states have legalized pot, but the federal government still considers marijuana illegal, so the nation is still technically in line, even if a few states are not. Canada could not try this route if it legalizes nationwide.

If Canada pulls this off, it could provide a model for other countries to relax their drug laws — and particularly their marijuana laws — without violating international treaty obligations or, at the very least, without getting punished for disobeying the treaties.

Such a move would come at a very crucial time in international drug policy: After the UN’s special session on drugs in 2016, drug policy reformers are putting more pressure to reform the global drug control regime. Canadian legalization gives these reformers an opening by showing that if the treaties aren’t changed, they may soon be rendered meaningless as countries move ahead with their own reforms anyway — even if it puts them in violation of international drug law. And that could open up the rest of the world to legalizing pot.

It’s not just, then, that Canada is changing its own drug laws. Canada’s steps — from its rebuke of international drug treaties to how it will regulate cannabis — could affect the future of marijuana policy worldwide.

 

[Baron23]

Yep....this is huge and, given even a little bit of time, will exert influence around the world on MJ.

 

[momofthegoons]

Ottawa isn't putting a cap on the potency of many cannabis products

Health Canada has released its new regulations for the legal recreational marijuana market, but they don't include a clear limit on how much tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) — the main psychoactive component in cannabis — can be sold in many products.

As of Oct. 17, Canadians will be permitted to legally buy fresh or dried cannabis, cannabis oil, plants and seeds, and to possess up to 30 grams of dried cannabis or its equivalent in public.

Government officials, speaking on background, updated reporters on the regulations for producing and marketing those products during a conference call Wednesday morning.

The regulations, which will be officially published July 11, say THC cannot be added to a dried product and place limits on the net weight of dried cannabis products, but do not impose a cap on the potency of dried cannabis.

The officials said the lack of a threshold fits into the goal of the government's bill.

"There are significant varieties of cannabis, some with high levels of THC. This is consistent with the medical regulations that exist today. There is not a hard cap on the potency of dried cannabis," one official said.

"(It's) a means to move to a regulated, diverse marketplace that can compete with the illegal marketplace and successfully achieve the government's objectives."

However, there are strict potency rules for cannabis products other than dried marijuana.

For example, cannabis products intended to be "administered orally, rectally, vaginally or topically" must not exceed a maximum yield quantity of 10 milligrams of THC.

Cannabis products "intended to be used in the human eye" will be banned.

As the official legalization date looms, some have questioned whether there will be enough product to serve the new legal recreational market.

Federal licences will be required to cultivate and process recreational cannabis, but they won't be processed until after legalization comes into effect.

Still, officials say they're pretty confident they'll have enough legal marijuana to meet the demand when legalization kicks in this fall.

Provincial governments are responsible for determining how and where recreational cannabis is sold. In some provinces — including Ontario, Quebec and most of Atlantic Canada — the stores will be run by the provincial governments. Elsewhere, the private sector will take the lead.

When asked about supply, officials speaking on background said they're pretty confident there will be enough cannabis for opening day.

According to the regulations, licence applications will be assessed on merit and a record of previous drug-related offences, including trafficking, won't automatically disqualify an applicant. So having a criminal background won't necessarily prevent Canadians from getting into the industry.

In March, Health Canada unveiled its proposals for the packaging and regulation of recreational cannabis.

The regulations released Wednesday confirm that cannabis products will have to be sold in plain packaging, with strict guidelines on logos, colours and branding, and must include health warnings.

The packaging also would have to indicate how much of the primary active compounds in cannabis — THC and cannabidiol (CBD) — are in a particular product.

Limits for micro growers
The rules outline how the federal government would regulate small cultivators and processors.

A micro-cultivator — someone growing pot on a small, boutique-like scale — will be restricted to a "plant canopy area" of no more than 200 square meters.

The regulations also impose rules on security and state where growers can set up shop. For example, a producer can't grow and harvest plants outside if the operation is adjacent to a school, a public playground, a daycare facility or any other public place frequented mainly by people under 18 years of age.

 

[Killick]

How many gummy bears are in 30 grams of dried cannabis equivalent?

 

[momofthegoons]

How many gummy bears are in 30 grams of dried cannabis equivalent?

I'm too high to answer that at the moment......

 

[momofthegoons]

This article is from Feb/2017..... and I'm wondering if anything has changed. @Killick are they still not testing for chemicals in mmj over there?

Are you smoking pesticides? Canada decides against chemical testing of medical marijuana

If there’s one thing you want to be sure of when you’re smoking cannabis for medicinal uses, its that the plant you’re using hasn’t been treated with chemicals that can make you even sicker. While this concept may seem like an obvious statement, Health Canada has recently admitted that they do not know how widespread the use of banned pesticides is in the medical cannabis growing industry.

Apparently, the regulatory agency has been allowing growers to police themselves when it comes to the use of potentially hazardous chemicals, like myclobutanil.

During a briefing with The Globe And Mail, a senior Health Canada official confessed that the department had not been testing cannabis growers to ensure they were not, in fact, using myclobutanil — which is prohibited and known to create hydrogen cyanide when heated.

Myclobutanil is often used in the cannabis industry to save plants that have become wrought with mold or mildew. Often seen as “Eagle 20” or “Nova 40″ on store shelves, the pesticide is approved for use on some fruits and vegetables. Due to its toxic nature when heated, it is not approved for use on plants that are smoked. In California, it is considered a carcinogen, and other U.S. states like Colorado and Oregon have banned it.

The senior official stated, “Up until this point, we have not required licensed producers [LPs] to test for any unauthorized pesticides, nor have we been testing all LPs, and it is because we expect their companies to be pro-actively watching and taking the appropriate measures to ensure non-authorized products aren’t used.”

Can you imagine the effects this laissez-faire attitude would have in other industries? We’d all be green with radiation by now.

Dangerous pesticide found in cannabis

Considering Health Canada’s recent admission, it comes as no surprise that in the last few weeks, three of the 38 federally licensed marijuana growing companies have had to recall their products due to the presence of myclobutanil.

Customers battling with cancer and other conditions that lead to compromised immune systems were among those angered by the dangerous find.

In December, The Globe revealed that the presence of myclobutanil was the real reason behind the cannabis recall — something manufacturers and Health Canada alike had neglected to report to the public when it was first announced. Apparently, another banned pesticide was found in Mettrum’s products initially, and it prompted further investigation. It was the subsequent testing that revealed the presence of myclobutanil.

Shortly thereafter, more pesticide problems began to emerge. OrganiGram and Aurora Cannabis also announced their own recalls — again because of myclobutanil. Aurora Cannabis discovered the presence of the hazardous chemical after conducting testing on a shipment of product received from OrganiGram.

Even several jurisdictions within the United States have banned the use of myclobutanil for cannabis crops. And the U.S. has been lagging behind its peers when it comes to pesticide regulation, we all know that for sure.

At least one woman, Dawn Rae Downton, has come forward to speak out about the harm tainted cannabis has caused her. She is one of several people to have reported an adverse reaction to OrganiGram’s cannabis.

“I am living proof there have been very adverse effects. I lost eight months of my life,” she said. “I’m living proof that Health Canada is not protecting medical marijuana patients.”

Will Canada take sufficient action?

In an effort to quell the growing issue of banned pesticides being used by cannabis growers, Health Canada has announced that they are now “preparing” to begin random testing on licensed producers. Letters will reportedly be sent to each of the 38 approved cannabis growers, to inform them of the new system that will be in place.

Random testing is not mandatory, regular chemical testing. Government officials say that while producers are required to test for mold, bacteria, and heavy metals, testing for pesticides regularly will still be optional. When asked how patients could be confident that the cannabis they buy is safe, Health Canada stated that they “believe the system works.”

Right. That’s why myclobutanil was literally just found in cannabis — because the system works.

Health Canada has said that it is open to possibly looking into regular, mandatory testing in the future, but only “if additional problems persist.”

Rodger Voelker, the lab director at OG Analytical in Oregon and the man credited with making the discovery of myclobutanil in U.S. cannabis, says that random testing simply isn’t enough to put a stop to the problem.

Voekler explains that cannabis crops can be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, and it is often worth it to the grower to try to save the crop in any way they can — even if it means using banned chemicals. He believes leaving cannabis companies to simply police themselves is not a good idea.

 

[CarolKing]

I would think that there will be organic cannabis available in Canada. It may cost a little more. For the most part I usually buy certified organic cannabis. There are several companies that have the organic cannabis here in WA. There have been times where cannabis that has been tested had mold or inferior in some way and it had to be discarded,

There probably is cannabis that gets out into the market place that shouldn’t be out for human consumption but we just don’t know it. I don’t know if every single plant is tested for contaminants or do they do random samples?

A while back I bought some shatter at the cannabis shop and when I used it, the vapor taste was terrible. It actually made my lungs feel like I needed to cough something up for several days afterward. I threw the rest away. I didn’t take it back because I didn’t use it right away and I had thrown away the packaging. I just had the plastic little container. There was obviously something wrong with it. A very bad vaporizing experience. For someone with a weakened system it could be life threatening.