Pubdate: Tue, 29 May 2001
Source: Winnipeg Free Press (CN MB)
Section: Editorial pages
Copyright: 2001 Winnipeg Free Press
Contact:  http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/502

MARIJUANA RISKS DETAILED

B.C. Court Ruling Assesses 'Harm' From Using Marijuana

Conservative Leader Joe Clark, Immigration Minister Elinor Caplan and the 
Canadian Alliance all seek parliamentary debate as to whether Canada should 
decriminalize, or even legalize, the use of marijuana in Canada.

This debate is at least in part being spurred by a Supreme Court of Canada 
decision to review the merits of Canadian marijuana law. A ruling on the 
constitutionality of the prohibition is expected this winter. The decision 
might uphold the law, or it might force the federal government to limit its 
interest in the drug to regulation, as is done with alcohol and tobacco.

One of the cases the court will review involves Randy Caine, a British 
Columbia man who was charged in 1993 with possession of a "roach" of marijuana.

His initial trial before Provincial Court Judge Francine Howard lasted five 
years and ended in April 1998 with a conviction, which was then appealed to 
the British Columbia Appeal Court, which upheld the conviction in a 
two-to-one decision.

That ruling is now before the Supreme Court.

In its 56-page decision, the B.C. Appeal Court included a summary of Judge 
Howard's findings as to the "harm" caused by marijuana; findings it notes 
mirror those found in numerous other court decisions.

The following is the Appeal Court's summary of Judge Howard's findings of 
the harm caused by marijuana.

IN order to provide a "sound factual foundation" relating to the purpose 
and background of the Narcotics Control Act, including its "social, 
economic and cultural context," Judge Howard analyzed a wide array of 
written material. She considered scientific findings, reports and studies 
and heard from six expert witnesses. Five expert witnesses were called by 
the lawyers for Mr. Caine and one, Dr. Kalant, for the Crown.

The learned trial judge noted that an estimated four to five million 
Canadians have tried marijuana. Statistics suggest that in 1993 (the year 
in which Mr. Caine was charged) 4.2 per cent of Canadians over 15 years of 
age had used marijuana in the past year. In addition, statistics show that 
95 per cent of marijuana users are "low/occasional/moderate users," while 
five per-cent are "chronic users," meaning that they smoke more than one 
joint per day.

On the basis of the evidence put before the court, Judge Howard made the 
following findings of fact:

1. The occasional to moderate use of marijuana by a healthy adult is not 
ordinarily harmful to health, even if used over a long period of time.

2. There is no conclusive evidence demonstrating any irreversible organic 
or mental damage to the user, except in relation to the lungs. Reports of 
lung damage are limited to chronic, heavy users such as a person who smokes 
at least one and probably three to five marijuana joints per day.

3. There is no evidence demonstrating irreversible, organic or mental 
damage from the use of marijuana by an ordinary healthy adult who uses 
occasionally or moderately.

4. Marijuana use causes alteration of mental function and should not be 
used in conjunction with driving, flying or operating complex machinery.

5. There is no evidence that marijuana use induces psychosis in ordinary 
healthy adults who use marijuana occasionally or moderately. In relation to 
the heavy user, the evidence of marijuana psychosis appears to arise only 
in those having a predisposition towards such a mental illness.

6. Marijuana is not addictive.

7. There is a concern over potential dependence in heavy users, but 
marijuana is not a highly reinforcing type of drug, like heroin or cocaine. 
Consequently, physical dependence is not a major problem. Psychological 
dependence, however, may be a problem for the chronic user.

8. There is no causal relationship between marijuana use and criminality.

9. There is no evidence that marijuana is a gateway drug and the vast 
majority of marijuana users do not go on to try hard drugs.

10. Marijuana does not make people aggressive or violent, but on the 
contrary it tends to make them passive and quiet.

11. There have been no deaths from the use of marijuana.

12. There is no evidence of an amotivational syndrome. Chronic use of 
marijuana could decrease motivation, especially if such a user smokes so 
often as to be in a state of chronic intoxication.

13. Assuming current rates of consumption remain stable, the health-related 
costs of marijuana use are very, very small in comparison with those costs 
associated with tobacco and alcohol consumption.

The trial judge also referred to the findings of the LeDain Commission of 
Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs (1972-73), chaired by Gerard 
LeDain (later LeDain J. of the Supreme Court of Canada). After almost four 
years of public hearings and research, the majority of the commissioners 
concluded that simple possession of marijuana should not be a criminal 
offence. The commission made the following findings with respect to marijuana:

1. Cannabis is not a "narcotic."

2. Few acute physiological effects have been detected from current use in 
Canada.

3. Few users (less than one per cent) of cannabis move on to use harder and 
more dangerous drugs.

4. There is no scientific evidence indicating that cannabis use is 
responsible for other forms of criminal behaviour.

5. At present levels of use, the risks or harms from consumption of 
cannabis are much less serious than the risks or harms from alcohol use.

6. The short-term physical effects of cannabis are relatively insignificant 
and there is no evidence of serious long-term physical effects.

Despite these findings, the trial judge also concluded that marijuana is 
not a "completely harmless drug for all individual users." She referred to 
these findings of the LeDain Commission:

1. The probably harmful effect of cannabis on the maturing process in 
adolescence.

2. The implications for safe driving arising from impairment of cognitive 
functions and psychomotor abilities.

3. The possibility, suggested by reports in other countries and clinical 
observations on this continent, that the long-term heavy use of cannabis 
may result in a significant amount of mental deterioration and disorder.

4. The role played by cannabis in the development and spread of multi-drug 
use by stimulating a desire for drug experience and lowering inhibitions 
about drug experimentations.

JUDGE Howard also reviewed an Australian government report completed in 
1994 known as The Hall Report: Hall, Solowij, and Lemon, National Drug 
Strategy: The Health and Psychological Consequences of Cannabis Use, 
(Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1994).

On the authority of the Hall Report, Judge Howard made the following 
conclusions about the "acute" effects of cannabis use:

1. Naive users should be careful and if they choose to smoke cannabis, they 
should do so with experienced users and in an appropriate setting.

2. No one should be studying, writing an exam, or engaging in other complex 
mental activities while in a state of intoxication induced by cannabis.

3. Pregnant women should not smoke cannabis.

4. The mentally ill or those with a family history of mental illness should 
not use cannabis.

5. No one should drive, fly or operate complex machinery while under the 
influence of marijuana.

Judge Howard also referred to what the Hall Report called "chronic 
effects:" the adverse effects that might occur from the daily use of 
cannabis over many years. Despite the "considerable uncertainty" regarding 
this research, the trial judge made a number of conclusions. She was 
satisfied that the "major probable adverse effects" for chronic use include 
respiratory diseases, the development of a "cannabis dependence syndrome," 
and "subtle forms of cognitive impairment, most particularly of attention 
and memory, which persist while the user remains chronically intoxicated 
and may or may not be reversible after prolonged abstinence from cannabis."

Judge Howard also referred to the Hall Report's findings on "major possible 
adverse effects" from chronic use. These effects need to be confirmed by 
further research and, indeed, two of the Hall Report's findings had already 
been disproved by the time of trial.

The trial judge listed the remaining findings:

1. An increased risk of developing cancers of the aerodigestive tract, i.e. 
oral cavity, pharynx and esophagus.

2. A decline in occupational performance marked by underachievement in 
adults in occupations requiring high-level cognitive skills, and impaired 
educational attainment in adolescents.

The Hall Report also identified three traditional "high risk groups":

1. Adolescents with a history of poor school performance.

2. Women of childbearing age.

3. Persons with pre-existing diseases such as cardiovascular diseases, 
respiratory diseases, schizophrenia or other drug dependencies.

Judge Howard noted at paragraph 48 of her reasons for judgment that, apart 
from the "rare and transient" acute effects noted above, a healthy adult 
who is a low/occasional/moderate user of marijuana would not face 
significant health concerns from smoking marijuana.

The trial judge also considered the "risk of harm to others or to society 
as a whole" from smoking marijuana. She found that the only such risk could 
be from a person in a state of intoxication should he or she drive, fly or 
operate complex machinery. However, the trial judge noted that Sec. 253 of 
the Criminal Code already prohibits such activities.

The trial judge also considered the "burden upon society" brought about by 
smoking marijuana. She concluded that current rates of marijuana 
consumption have not caused any burden on the health-care system, 
particularly when compared with the costs associated with alcohol or tobacco.

The learned trial judge also considered the harm caused by the prohibition 
of marijuana possession in the Narcotics Control Act. She made the 
following summary at paragraph 63 of her reasons for judgment:

1. Countless Canadians, mostly adolescents and young adults, are being 
prosecuted in the "criminal" courts, subjected to the threat of (if not 
actual) imprisonment, and branded with criminal records for engaging [in] 
an activity that is remarkably benign (estimates suggest that over 600,000 
Canadians now have criminal records for cannabis-related offences); 
meanwhile others are free to consume society's drugs of choice, alcohol and 
tobacco, even though these drugs are known killers.

2. Disrespect for the law by upwards of one million persons who are 
prepared to engage in this activity, notwithstanding the legal prohibition.

3. Distrust, by users, of health and educational authorities who, in the 
past, have promoted false and exaggerated allegations about marijuana; the 
risk is that marijuana users, especially the young, will no longer listen, 
even to the truth.

4. Lack of open communication between young persons and their elders about 
their use of the drug or any problems they are experiencing with it, given 
that it is illegal.

5. The risk that our young people will be associating with actual criminals 
and hard-drug users who are the primary suppliers of the drug.

6. The lack of governmental control over the quality of the drug on the 
market, given that it is available only on the black market.

7. The creation of a lawless subculture whose only reason for being is to 
grow, import and distribute a drug that is not available through lawful means.

8. The enormous financial costs associated with enforcement of the law.

9. The inability to engage in meaningful research into the properties, 
effects and dangers of the drug, because possession of the drug is unlawful.

Judge Howard summarized her findings on the "harm" posed by marijuana use 
at paras. 122-6 of her judgment:

THERE is a general risk of harm to the users of marijuana from the acute 
effects of the drug, but these adverse effects are rare and transient. 
Persons experiencing the acute effects of the drug will be less adept at 
driving, flying and other activities involving complex machinery. In this 
regard, they represent a risk of harm to others in society. At current 
rates of use, accidents caused by users under the influence of marijuana 
cannot be said to be significant.

There is also a risk that any individual who chooses to become a casual 
user may end up being a chronic user of marijuana, or a member of one of 
the vulnerable persons identified in the materials. It is not possible to 
identify these persons in advance. As to the chronic users of marijuana, 
there are health risks for such persons. The health problems are serious 
ones but they arise primarily from the act of smoking rather than from the 
active ingredients in marijuana. Approximately five per cent of all 
marijuana users are chronic users. At current rates of use, this comes to 
approximately 50,000 persons. There is a risk that, upon legalization, 
rates of use will increase, and with that the absolute number of chronic 
users will increase.

In addition, there are health risks for those vulnerable persons identified 
in the materials. There is no information before me to suggest how many 
people might fall into this group. Given that it includes young adolescents 
who may be more prone to becoming chronic users, I would not estimate this 
group to be minuscule.

All of the risks noted above carry with them a cost to society, both to the 
health-care and welfare systems. At current rates of use, these costs are 
negligible compared to the costs associated with alcohol and drugs. There 
is a risk that, with legalization, user rates will increase and so will 
these costs.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth