Pubdate: Fri, 5 Mar 2004
Source: DrugSense Weekly
Section: Feature Article
Website: http://www.drugsense.org/current.htm
Author: Philippe Lucas, CSA/VICS/DrugSense
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmjcn.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal - Canada)

THERE'S GOOD NEWS, AND THERE'S BAD NEWS

On the 18th of February, Health Canada organized a large-scale consultation 
on its highly criticized federal medical marijuana program.  For the first 
time since it's creation over 5 years ago, the Office of Cannabis Medical 
Access (OCMA) had the foresight to invite a small number of Canadian drug 
policy reform and medicinal cannabis advocates.  Philippe Lucas, editor of 
the DSW's hemp and cannabis section, was in attendance at this meeting as 
Director of Canadians for Safe Access http://www.safeaccess.ca The 
following feature article is based on an online report he compiled for 
fellow activists.

The good news is that with the collapse of category 2 into category 1 [i] 
we're slowly getting to the point where a simple doctor's recommendation 
will be enough to access cannabis, although it is hard to understand how 
this change is to have any real impact as long as the CMA [ii] and CMPA 
[iii] stay opposed to the MMAR [iv] in theory and principle. Furthermore, 
for those isolated small communities that don't have medical specialists in 
the first place, these policy changes don't mean a thing.

More (sort of) good news is that Health Canada will be looking to contract 
more than 1 cultivator when they put in an RFP[v] at the end of this 
year.  Further details revealed during the meeting suggest that the 
government will be hiring 2 cultivators (PPS [vi] and another, in my 
opinion), as they have suggested that they would like to make 2 strains 
available through drugstores by year's end.

The most frightening developments stemming from this meeting are: 1) HC's 
plans to make disclosure to police a mandatory requirement for joining the 
program; and 2) the threat that HC plans to eliminate all DPL and PPL [vii] 
in the near future, forcing all legal users to use federally-supplied cannabis.

In regards to the first, the concerns are many, but begin with the logical 
assertion that those who use this medicine should not be discriminated 
against through onerous policies that betray their rights to privacy.  This 
proposal stems from pressure from the national police orgs.  who would like 
to continue to bust grow-ops without having to worry about shooting a 
cancer patient. It ignores our rights and our concerns over privacy, and 
continues to place policing concerns over those of Canada's legal 
exemptees. Professionals (teachers, lawyers, doctors...) may have 
job-related concerns over the involuntary sharing of this information, as 
might anyone who travels to the U.S. (where any such info. would surely 
raise alarms at border crossings). Furthermore, insurance companies are 
refusing coverage to homes where cannabis is being stored or cultivated, 
even legally - this is an unsolved dilemma for participants in this program.

In regards to the second, there is little logic in limiting the supply 
options for Canada's legitimate users of therapeutic cannabis.  If 
exemptees can get the strains that help them grown safely and locally, what 
is gained by disallowing this form of self-supply and forcing exemptees to 
use a poor quality, potentially dangerous federally-grown product? Cannabis 
is different than other pharmaceuticals or over the counter-drugs in that 
it can be safely produced by the user; so why impose the cost of the 
federal supply on those who would rather use a known strain grown in a 
method of their own chosing (i.e. organics vs. HC's non-organic 
cultivation)? There is no justification for allowing this kind of federal 
monopoly on cultivation; exemptees will lose much choice and freedom - and 
gain nothing - from this policy shift.

Lastly, it is clear that although compassion clubs and societies have been 
invited to this round of consultation, Health Canada has no plans to ever 
license, regulate, or legalize these orgs. When I asked Beth Pieterson and 
Valerie Lasher [viii] whether they could foresee a role for the clubs 
within the present of future of the HC program, they stated that they 
couldn't, although they expressed that compassion societies may wish to put 
in a proposal to cultivate cannabis for the feds when the RFP comes out 
later this year.

Considering that Canada's compassion clubs are currently involved in far 
more legitimate research than Health Canada, that clubs have a membership 
that is roughly 10 times that of the federal government, and that far more 
exemptees seek out their supply of cannabis from clubs than from the 
government, their reluctance to work with compassion societies is 
inexcusable, and is surely adding to the unnecessary suffering that this 
program should be addressing in the first place.  When I inquired as to why 
HC was not interested in developing a more cooperative relationship with 
the clubs, I was told that it is because they are illegal. After pointing 
out that according to the CDSA they could be legally licensed in a moment's 
time at the sole discretion of the Minister of Health (and that they are 
therefore no more illegal than pharmacies, which will need the same to 
begin to distribute cannabis), Beth changed the subject and stated that 
licensing the clubs would violate our "international obligations".  This 
is, of course, ridiculous since the production and distribution of 
controlled substance is clearly exempt from the UN Single Convention as 
long as it is for medical purposes. In other words, HC's intransigence 
regarding compassion clubs amounts to nothing more than an unjustified 
monopoly, and shows no regard to actually helping sick Canadians. 
Considering the incredible contribution of Canadian compassion clubs and 
societies to medicinal cannabis cultivation, distribution, and safe use, it 
is an inexplicable shame that Health Canada has displayed neither the 
creativity nor the common sense to work more closely with the clubs.

I would like to end by pointing out is that this is Health Canada's vision 
for this program; this is not our vision.  This doesn't anticipate or 
account for future court battles, continued exemptee concerns, or 
constitutional challenges; it doesn't anticipate changes in government, 
increased public pressure, or for a sudden unexpected influx of compassion 
from our federal government. Ever since the start of this program, 
activists and exemptees have worked hard to ensure that the needs and 
concerns of Canada's critically and chronically ill are addressed by our 
federal govt. When they have failed to listen or pay heed to our 
well-meaning advice, we have been forced to go to the press and public, 
and/or to the courts; and more often than not, we have succeeded. As a 
community, we continue to make a huge difference. Until Health Canada 
finally shows the common sense to decentralize this program and to allow 
for non-profit, community-based cultivation and distribution (saving 
themselves money, resources, and legal difficulties), compassion clubs will 
continue to supplement their anemic, ineffective program, and together with 
cannabis reform activists from all over the country, we will work towards 
and fight for a better system for us all.

Footnotes:

[i] Under the MMAR, applicants to the federal program fall into 3 
categories: Category 1 for terminal patients, requiring only 1 physician's 
recommendation; Category 2 for (somewhat arbitrary) serious chronic 
illness, such as AIDS or MS, requiring the support of both a specialist and 
physician; and Category 3, a catch-all for all remaining conditions, 
requiring the support of a physician and 2 specialists.

[ii] Canadian Medical Association, Canada's national medical association.

[iii] Canadian Medical Protection Association, Canada's largest medical 
insurance company.

[iv] The Medical Marijuana Access Regulations are the federal rules 
governing the implementation of this program.

[v] Request for Proposals

[vi] Prairie Plant Systems, the current federally contracted cultivator, 
who's initial crop was widely criticized for it's poor quality.

[vii] Designated Person Licenses and Personal Production Licenses, both of 
which allow for the non-governmental production of cannabis.

[viii] Beth Pieterson is the Director of the Controlled Drugs And 
Substances branch of Health Canada, and Valerie Lasher is the 
Acting-Director of the Office of Cannabis Medical Access.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake