By Joy Davies

“Don’t Kill My Family”. Those were the words on the sign that hung around David’s neck as he paced back and forth in the bitter cold rain on this Feb. morning, on the lawn of his Member of Parliament’s office. He joined the BC Medical Cannabis Partners and others who came to a national day of protest against Health Canada’s MMAR changes. These changes could cause the death of the second member of this family in just over two years. David, a retired British military pilot and father of four, lost his wife to breast cancer. They knew nothing of cannabis or its medicinal properties, such as how it caused cancerous tumours to eat themselves. The traditional barrage of doctors did not save his wife. They never offered cannabis. The day he had to put his loving wife into palliative care, their teenage daughter Beth was diagnosed with a rare type of brain tumour. His wife died not knowing of the tragic diagnosis of her daughter. David never had time to mourn her death, as he immediately had to find a way to safe Beth’s life. Beth was 17.

While researching, David came across the word “cannabinoids”. That night, a new journey began for him—a journey that brought hope for Beth. He brought the information to Beth’s oncologist. After a long discussion, Beth’s oncologist agreed to sign her Health Canada MMAR papers, which would allow David to grow her medicine and make the oil that he hoped would save her life. The oncologist had never signed any other patient’s papers before. Beth turned 20 last month. Statistically, Beth should have left this earth 18 months earlier. There have been highs and there have been lows. The lows include four brain surgeries, and her dropping out of university. The highs have been negative MRIs, meaning no tumours. The cannabis oil is working, and there is hope, but she is not completely out of the woods. More experimental natural treatment is coming, and hopefully will be the missing piece to her life-saving puzzle.

David has been spending about $200 a month to grow Beth’s licensed medicine and make the high-grade cannabis oil. Now, with the proposed Health Canada changes, David faces having to spend about $3000 a month, and he will not be allowed to make the oil. How can he possibly afford to pay this? What are his choices? Go into debt to pay for the Harper government’s program that stops patients from growing their medicine? Pick a seller from an Internet site and pay the “new prices”? Stop giving the oil to Beth and lose hope? Become a criminal and grow the plant that could save his child’s life? Not one of those choices is rational.

Now, on the eve of a provincial election, the Canadian Medical Cannabis Partners (CMCP) are urging taxpayers to support a provincial medical cannabis program. Real leaders facilitate improvements, not penalties for patients. Medical Cannabis has been legal in Canada for past 12 years, but the program has been poorly run by the federal government.

CMCP is polling all MLAs and candidates before the May 14 vote. B.C. needs a compassionate program that puts the health needs of patients first. “Let them know you want a better health system,” David said, adding, “Your voice can change the direction of health care in this country.” David, a key member, urges you to write your MLA, asking for their position on a Provincial Medical Cannabis Program. He says a message must be sent to all candidates in all ridings that, “it’s time for government to stop abusing its most vulnerable people—the sick and the weak.”

This past Feb., the Partners sent every B.C. MLA a proposal for a provincial program, asking them to step up to the plate and fight for the lives of their constituents. David says that “some MLAs are listening”. Privately, many MLAs have expressed their strong support, but none have requested that an exploratory committee be struck to further the idea. Notably, B.C. opened the door to such a program with the precedent-setting “Insite” supervised injection site, which has saved many lives.

The Canadian Medical Cannabis Partners is a nonprofit organization of volunteer patients and caregivers who have been lobbying provincial governments to strike a task force to set parameters for a provincial medical cannabis program under Section 56 of the CDSA (Controlled Drugs & Substance Act). They are now active in six provinces, and continue to grow. Their goal is to keep the legalization of cannabis for medical purposes federal law while the provinces administer their program for their patients. The program would include patients’ recommendations, and have patients at the decision-making table. Patients are the biggest stakeholders in the change going on, but they were not consulted.

The CMCP’s proposal is designed to start a process that will develop a system that puts the needs of patients first while meeting the needs of government; a program that will eliminate patients, police, fire department staff, and citizens from being placed in dangerous situations due to the criminalization of this medicinal plant. Of course, repealing cannabis prohibition would resolve criminal activity issues, as it would no longer be profitable for criminals to be involved. Note the results in Portugal after 10 years of anti-prohibition—lower crime rates; lower drug use, including a significant drop in drug use amongst youth; and medical treatment for addicts instead of criminalization.

Non-prohibition is a long way off in our country, if it ever comes. David would love that point to be proven wrong. In the meantime, we need to find a way to remove our most vulnerable citizens from harm’s way. We need to provide education to doctors on all aspects of medicinal cannabis. We need reduce our health care budgets and give people a better quality of life.

In 2010 at UBCM, and in 2011 at FCM, our municipal leaders endorsed a resolution to “Decentralize the MMAR (Medical Marihuana Access Regulations) program into the province(s)”. It was a compassionate decision from municipal politicians across Canada. A proposal was written and submitted to both the B.C. and Federal Ministries of Health in 2011. There has been no action from either level of government.

Health Canada’s newly proposed program is worse than the existing one. Our Premier and Minister of Health continue to defer to the federal government. The lobbying efforts have been ongoing for four years, respectfully, through proper protocol. Two levels of government provided letters of support in principal. Still, our provincial leaders continue to say, “this is federal jurisdiction”. Many federal programs are delegated to the provinces, including another controversial one—meat processing. Canadians died due to the federal government’s inability to safely run the program. How many Canadians will die unnecessarily before the provinces step up to the plate with a medical cannabis program? How many more British Columbia citizens will commit suicide because they can’t cope with the pain they have been living with for so long, as they continue to use the numerous pharmaceuticals their physicians prescribe? And yet they don’t offer cannabis, which has been legal in Canada for 13 years, as an option.

In B.C. there were 10 thousand suicides in a 20-year period. According to the Vancouver Sun, in 2006, that was nearly four times more than the murder rate, and more than the number of deaths caused by car accidents. According to Dr. Raymond Lam, head of the Mood Disorders Centre at the University of B.C. Hospital, the most common reason for suicide was “an overwhelming sense of hopelessness”.

Cannabis provides hope. Cannabis leaves, juiced through a wheat grass juicer, is effective medicine, and delivers no euphoric high. But due to the attitude of our governments, which discourage research, this fact is only now being discovered. This harmless plant has been lied about and propagandized for so many years that most believe the lies are truth. Cannabis was listed in the doctors’ pharmacopeia from 1850 to 1943. Since it was removed and pharmaceuticals were included, western doctors lost their education in the power of the cannabis plant. There are over 20 thousand peer-reviewed studies on the benefits of cannabis. In 2011, more people were killed by pharmaceutical drugs than by car accidents. (See “The New Epidemic Sweeping Across America [and it’s Not a Disease]”, Dr. Joseph Mercola, Oct. 26, 2011).

Get engaged in this election!

Write your MLA. Share your story. Go to the All Candidates meeting. Ask each candidate how they will support a provincial medical cannabis program.

Sign the Avaaz petition started by the B.C. chapter of the Canadian Medical Cannabis partners :

<www.avaaz.org/en/petition/We_want_to_see_the_decentralization_of_the_Medical_Marijuana_Access_Regulations_MMAR_program_to_the_provinces>

Contact: Joy Davies, Director Cell: 604-910-8443

Email: <bcmedicalcannabispartners@gmail.com>

The post Group Fights for Patients in BC appeared first on Cannabis Digest.

By James Kerr, M.A. Clinical Counselor

Care of the Weed Blog

As a mental health therapist, I am conflicted when considering recent progress within the cannabis movement. Legalization in Washington and Colorado is historic. And campaigns such as British Columbia’s Sensible BC make it seem that it is only a matter of time before society as a whole comes to awareness about this miraculous plant. Yet every day in my role as a therapist, I am aware of the stigma and judgment cannabis users face when seeking health services.

This article will examine the stigma in two parts. Part I is a fictional portrayal of a CTP (Cannabis for Therapeutic Purpose) user attempting to access health services. Part II will examine the effects stigmatization has on the CTP user, as well as actions underway to expose, educate and empower the cannabis movement.

Part I:

Allow me to paint a picture familiar to many readers, which plays out every day between patient and health care professional. I will draw the example of a cannabis user seeking mental health treatment.

Pat is a cannabis user who has been struggling for years with mental health concerns (possibly depression, anxiety, self-esteem, work or relationship concerns). He has finally gathered the significant courage required to seek help for his problems.

Pat does not feel his CTP use negatively impacts his life in any way. His wife is an occasional user and is well aware of her husband’s use. If asked, Pat would identify a change of perspective and relaxation as the main benefits of his CTP use.

All is going smoothly as the therapist gathers information, when the question arises, “Tell me of any alcohol or illegal drug use.” At this point Pat has a decision to make.

Let’s explore two scenarios:

Scenario #1

Pat has been completely honest throughout the intake interview and decides to admit to his CTP use. Disclosing his cannabis use seems minor compared to some personal information he has already shared. Pat replies, “Yes I use cannabis regularly.” The tone of the counselor’s voice changes, there is an energy shift in the room, and Pat is shocked by the amount of follow-up questions he is asked, “How often?”, “How much?”, “How long?” and “Do you use any other illegal drugs?”

Scenario #2

Pat lies and denies using cannabis for fear of being stigmatized. He tests the waters by saying, “May of have tried marijuana once or twice but nothing major.” The therapist breathes an audible sigh of relief and the initial interview finishes up shortly thereafter.

In Scenario #1, it is likely Pat will be refused treatment. Even though the reason he sought out therapy in the first place has nothing to do with his cannabis use he will be advised to seek addiction counseling.

In Scenario #2, Pat significantly downplays the role cannabis plays in his life. From this perspective the therapist has no reason to explore major aspects of Pat’s physical, mental, and spiritual life as they relate to CTP use. As a result, the counselor-client relationship where trust, openness, and honesty should be paramount, has already been damaged due to Pat’s legitimate fear that he will be stigmatized because of his medicinal cannabis use.

These are just two scenarios out of many possible outcomes, based on my experience in health care and the many CTP users that I have interviewed. Honest, balanced conversations about cannabis use rarely occur with health care professionals. Too often such conversations are one-sided, (due to a power imbalance) and are of a punitive nature. Common misinformation includes: gateway drug theory, cannabis and psychosis, increased potency of cannabis, cannabis as bad medicine, etc. A health care professional may encourage the individual to immediately start working to reduce their cannabis use or, worse, refuse mental health treatment until the cannabis user is “clean” or recovered from their “illegal addiction”.

To better understand Pat’s dilemma, one must more closely examine how social stigma affects the CTP user. Social stigma is defined as: “The phenomenon whereby an individual with an attribute which is deeply discredited by his/her society is rejected as a result of the attribute” (Goffman, 1963). The rejection of CTP through social stigma is only now being researched and examined.

Part II

CTP users find themselves in a real life Catch-22: either they reject the benefits of medicinal cannabis in order to conform, or face the threat of stigmatization. In a recent study, “Perceptions of cannabis as a stigmatized medicine”, Bottorff et al., write, “In order to achieve the benefits of cannabis use, participants had to negotiate social censorship, disapproval, threats, and isolation” (2013). Any respite found in the relief of physical and mental health symptoms is quickly replaced by seeming deviant in the eyes of friends, family members, law enforcement and health professionals.

In truth, the stigmatizing label of “illegal drug user” is just one of many unjust labels with which CTP users are burdened. A majority will experience stigmatization on multiple fronts due to: gender, sexual orientation, race, socio-economic status, mental illness, communicable disease, chronic or terminal illness. In his study focusing on the oppression and stigmatization of medicinal cannabis users, Victoria-based Philippe Lucas found such treatment by society can lead to feelings of helplessness, depression, anxiety, and a general lack of motivation to overcome the imposed oppression (2010). One must become educated and empowered in order to combat such oppression.

There has never been a more important time within the cannabis movement. While stigmatization is all too common, access writing and research regarding CTP is only a click away. The Bottorff et al., study quotes the views of CTP users about where the conversation should be headed. They write, “One man (aged 42, daily user, AIDS) argued that if the perception of cannabis was to change to being a therapeutic agent rather than a recreational drug, much would be improved:

“It’s that stigma attached to pot. That lovely word pot has such bad condemnation [sic] to it. Meanwhile people can pop sleeping pills left, right, and center, and nobody thinks anything of it. So it’s a perception. When we can change that perception of what this is and what the approach is [cannabis as therapy], the battle is half won. [It would help for] people to talk about the issue, get proper information out there, and if you can stack the seats with informed people and reach out to a community where you need to reach out to, then you can start the process.” (2013)

This conversation has begun, but education needs to be deliberate and focused if viewpoints can be shifted away from fear and stigmatization and towards knowledge and acceptance.

CTP users today bear the responsibility of demonstrating user behavior that is beyond reproach. That means taking the personal responsibility of being a role-model for cannabis use in spite of resistance. As Bottorff et al., report, “Leading by example was what one participant (aged 42, daily user, HIV/AIDS) believed he could do to change society’s perceptions of him and his CTP use.

“I can only do what I can do for myself and present myself and approach my life in the way that shows that I am not a drug addict. I am not a detriment to society. I’m actually trying to be a part of society but I am kind of running into a lot of roadblocks. I know how the world works. It happens slowly, very slowly, and usually it’s one or two or three people who start and take it somewhere and then other people build on it. That’s all you can do.” (2013)

As ever, educating society can be achieved in various ways: informing government officials about shifts in perspective, writing letters to the editor and other submissions to news outlets, and participating in informed discussions. As an example, the Sensible BC campaign has the potential to dramatically change the cannabis policy in British Columbia permanently. I feel it is the duty of every cannabis user to become involved.

By helping the movement you will in return help yourself. Philippe Lucas asserts that users who, “regain a sense of control over their conditions and treatment options [...] are much more likely to successfully adapt to the physical, mental and social challenges they face, including social stigma and resistance from the medical community” (2010, p.163). Many individuals have chosen to become CTP users for a variety of reasons; once they accept themselves as users, they become an inspiration to others.

In summary, be proud of what you have accomplished and that you have made the right choices for your needs—acknowledge that you are pioneers. You are living in a time where you can change history. Accept that you are stigmatized against but gather strength from knowing a critical mass has been reached—and when we unite our voices, we will have power to change the way the world views cannabis.

Bottorff JL, Bissell LJL, Balneaves LG, Oliffe JL, Capler NR and Buxton J, (2013). Perceptions of cannabis as a stigmatized medicine: A qualitative descriptive study. Harm Reduction Journal 2013, 10:2.

Goffman, E., 1963. Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Lucas, P., 2010.Patient-centered strategies to counter stigma, oppression and forced incarceration in the C/S/X and medical cannabis movements. Interface: a journal for and about social movements. Vol. 2 (2), pp. 149-167.

The post Cannabis as Therapy appeared first on Cannabis Digest.

By Kirk Tousaw

In Nov. 2012, the Harper Conservative government ushered in new mandatory sentencing legislation for certain Controlled Drugs and Substances Act offences. Despite criticism from outside and inside government, and clear evidence that such sentences are harmful to the criminal justice system and society, the ideologically-driven rules are now law and are binding on judges throughout Canada.

These draconian punishments radically change the risks involved in producing and distributing cannabis, even for medical purposes. If someone is convicted of the offence of trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking, and the amount of cannabis (or cannabis-based products) weighs over three kilograms, (6.6 pounds) the mandatory jail terms apply. Keep in mind, edible makers, that the entire weight of your product will count—not just the weight of the actual cannabis used in the product.

Offenders will be sentenced to one year in jail if the crime is committed by organized crime, if the accused uses or threatens violence, or if the person has been convicted or imprisoned for a designated substance offense (meaning just about anything but possession) some time in the prior 10 years.

Offenders will be jailed for two years if the crime is committed in or near a school, school grounds, or any public place usually frequented by persons under 18; in prisons or on their grounds; or if the offender uses the services of or involves a person under 18 years of age. The legislation is not clear on what “near” means, nor does it detail what a “place usually frequented by persons under 18” might be.

Cannabis farmers also face long mandatory jail terms. The penalties imposed depend on the number of plants and whether any aggravating factors are present.

The jail term is six months if six to 200 plants are produced for the purpose of trafficking and increases to nine months if factors are present. Produce between 201 and 500 plants, for any reason, and you will spend one year in jail, with the term rising to 18 months if any aggravating factors exist. Finally, producing 501 or more plants will result in a two-year jail sentence, or three years if any aggravating factors are proven.

The aggravating factors applicable to the production offence are: the person used real property that belongs to a third party in committing the offence; if the production constituted a potential security, health or safety hazard to persons under the age of 18 yearswho were in the locationwhere the offence was committed or in the immediate area; or if the production constituted a potential public safety hazard in a residential area; or the person set or placed a trap, device or other thingthat is likely to cause death or bodily harm to another personin the location where the offence was committed or in the immediate area, or permitted such a trap, device or other thing to remain or be placed in that location or area.

The Harper government failed to provide clarity in the legislation, leaving Canadians to wonder precisely what a “potential security” hazard is and what the “immediate area” of the offense might be. With the public, and even some judges, apparently convinced that producing cannabis is automatically a safety hazard, one can envision these aggravating factors being applied with far too much vigor.

As if this was not bad enough, the legislative changes have other effects. It used to be that I could make a strong case at sentencing that medical cannabis producers and distributors should receive a discharge. That is, a finding of guilt but no entry of a criminal conviction. Unfortunately, that is no longer available to anyone who sells cannabis or possesses it for the purpose of selling it (if the amount is over three kilos). Nor is a discharge available to anyone who produces cannabis—even those who produce less than six plants or who are growing it for their own personal use.

Relatedly, offenders convicted of selling (or possessing with the intent of selling) more than three kilograms of cannabis, and producing any amount of cannabis, are also no longer eligible for Conditional Sentence Orders (CSO). A CSO is a custodial sentence served in the community—house arrest, in other words. This was a common sentence imposed on first-time offenders. The idea behind it is to impose a severe sanction, but to also allow the person to be a productive member of society, work, take care of their family, and avoid the devastating negatives experienced in jail. Thanks to the Harper Conservatives, this is simply no longer available to judges.

There are some bright spots in an otherwise bleak future for the Canadian criminal justice system. A judge can refuse to impose the mandatory sentence if the offender is not given notice, before entering a plea, that the Crown intends to seek the punishment and prove any necessary elements of the crime. A judge can also avoid imposing the mandatory prison time if the accused person successfully completes a period of court-ordered drug counseling.

Finally, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms may provide some assistance to citizens facing these draconian punishments. Section 12 of the Charter the imposition of cruel and unusual punishments. The Québec Criminal Lawyers Association has already filed suit in the Québec courts seeking a declaration that the Harper incarceration agenda violates the Charter.Individual accused can make similar challenges when the time comes.

For now, however, the Harper Conservatives’ mandatory sentencing regime is valid law and is being applied to jail Canadians whose only crime is growing or selling a relatively safe plant that a million Canadians consume each year for medical purposes.

Kirk Tousaw, JD, LL.M., is a barrister and social justice advocate practicing primarily in British Columbia, Canada. His work focuses on helping the victims of cannabis prohibition by providing vigorous defence of possession, trafficking, and production charges at all levels of Court. He has litigated several successful Charter challenges including R v. Beren and R v. Smith, both of which resulted in the Court finding that Health Canada’s Marijuana Medical Access Regulations were arbitrary and too restrictive. He can be reached by email at <kirk@tousawlaw.ca> or by telephone at 604-836-1420.

The post Harsh Laws appeared first on Cannabis Digest.

By Jess James

In 1998, a small group of friends started a buyers’ group in order to make their cannabis consumption affordable. Black market prices had shot to a whopping ten bucks a gram on the streets. Heavy hitters who were plagued with poverty and illness were at a loss for safe access.

Fast forward ten years or so to when those same friends met Chris Enns, arriving at their cannabis re-education. Chris was studying to be a physician when he discovered cannabis. With his focus being Immunology, Chris could cite many peer-reviewed papers citing the efficacy of cannabis as medicine. It was not long before the members became cannabis licence holders, to possess and produce under the Medical Marijuana Access Regulations. Newf, Betty Johnson, Chris Enns, David Clarke, and Sherri Reeve, also known as 420jes, all joined the local cannabis-related political pressure group in hope of contributing to change. Anyone could see the cannabis scheduling and subsequent laws were unconstitutional.

It quickly became apparent to this small buyers’ collective that they had enough resources and education to focus on the medical side of cannabis exclusively. This was the point of conception for The Halifax Compassionate Club, or THCC Society. THC Club’s main goal was inspired by Gabor Mate and Insite, the safe injection site in Vancouver; and Rick Simpson and Phoenix Tears in Nova Scotia. They would try to facilitate safe access by helping growers and patients find each other in hopes of collecting donations to provide free cannabin (cannabis resin) to cancer patients.

In Nov. 2011, The Halifax Compassionate Club felt they had no option left but to open a dispensary. The membership had grown to over five hundred, with no sign of slowing down. Physicians and members of the Legal Society had begun to refer patients to THC Club for various reasons. Finding a new physician in the Maritimes is almost impossible, but there are over ninety signing doctors in the province. This may explain why an access to information reported Nova Scotia with the most Medical Marihuana Access Program licences per capita.

THC Club was blessed to have the support of a local head shop in Dartmouth. The owners of Radical 420 Concepts had a commercial location available. Not only did THC Club take up residence there, but Chris Enns and his partner rented the lower half of the building for The Grow-Op Shop garden supply. This was a perfect match for those who ran both businesses, and for the medical patients.

The location was well suited, away from schools, playgrounds, and dense residences; just off the highway, and not far from the main cities. Both businesses were successful, and drew many consumers to the quiet shopping area. That was until Wednesday, Mar. 13, 2013, at the end of the business day. The following week, an information message went to members, then a press release was issued and read for press by Sherri Reeve:

“THC Club membership is dedicated to exploring health care options the standard medical system ignores. We do this through educational programs such as our bi-weekly cancer clinic, our free cannabis growing classes, personal counselling, and events such as Cannabinoid Theatre and The Peace East Festival. Our precepts are focused on protecting the right to privacy, equal access to health care, and most of all, quality of life. This society is a true non-profit organization. THC Club exists solely for the mutual benefit of the membership and education of the public. These goals are made possible by the warm generosity of our members, friends, and by the amazing efforts of our volunteers.

“Occurring on the very same day, a warrant to search 5106 Highway 7, Porters Lake, and the East Chezzetcook residence, was issued by Justice of the Peace Debbi Bowes, and the raid was led on the Eastern Shore locations by Officer Jamie Payne. The only common denominator between these locations is Chris Enns. Chris is one of two owners of the garden centre, below the THC Club. Chris is also the current vice-president of THC Club, and it was Chris’s residence that was raided. With the exception of sharing some clientele, the two businesses, one for profit and the other not, are otherwise unrelated.

“That afternoon, more than twelve officers arrived in dark blue vans and entered these three premises uninvited. The Integrated Drug Unit proceeded to confiscate most of the medicine belonging to several patients, and all of the cash from Chris Enns and the two businesses. Three persons were arrested, charge with violating section 5(2) of The Controlled Substances Act, trafficking for the purpose. All three released on the spot with paperwork instructing them to appear for fingerprints and plea at a later date. If convicted, the charges would require serving a mandatory minimum sentence of two years in prison, costing the taxpayers more than one hundred and twenty thousand dollars.

“We are very happy to say, The Grow-Op Shop, Indoor Garden, and Hydroponic Supply store is still open and serving patients and/or their growers. Please continue to drop in and show your support.

“THC Club have decided to stop providing certain services at this location because the warrant that refers to this location now authorizes free access to any PEACE OFFICER, at said location, thereafter, and until the case is closed. Our feelings are there is no sense in putting those who are sick in danger of a police enforcement goal. Members are still welcome to their club. We recommend you carry a moderate amount of your medicine on you at all times and carry your possession licence on you, in case this happens to us again.

“Retrospectively, as a collective, our final assessment, our society and its leaders were targets of the most peaceful ‘no knock raid’ that has never been reported in Canada. Members believe the lead investigator, Jamie Payne, deceived our volunteers and posed as a patient looking for help. Witnesses state the original, hard copy of Officer Jamie Payne’s membership was searched for by police, discovered in a binder, and torn up by police during the invasion on the club. We are aware of how innocent people are often harmed in these kinds of police operations and are extremely grateful none of our members were physically injured and our dogs were not shot. Obviously, the respect shown to our members and pets is absolutely incongruent with their intent. We sympathize with the officers who must be suffering from cognitive dissonance.

“We are perplexed by the HRM’s negligence to report this incident to the public. When you visit the HRM Police Department website, it clearly states, ‘Halifax Regional Police, Police Report – March 13, 2013, No incidents impacting public safety’. This reminds us of the police persecution of our fellow Nova Scotian freedom fighter, Rick Simpson, who also provided free meds to the sick… no report issued by authorities.

“By carefully considering what the police took and what they left behind and if we were made to guess why this happened, without question, we believe the objective was threefold: to hide evidence pertaining to the leading investigator, to prevent the delivery of the free medicine destined for cancer patients, and to collect the cash at these addresses. We have trouble understanding how these attacks are justified, so we cannot surmise the moral intent of these officers. Obviously, many officers were ‘just doing their job’ and we certainly hope they will consider finding a more righteous volition than attacking patients with chronic illnesses or terminal diagnoses.

“As a result of this event, we have two great fears. First, that a patient who could be saved with cannabis consumption may die trying to access it. Secondly, that members of our association will now be forced to resort to purchasing cannabis from the streets, from disreputable people, and put themselves at harm. If this happens to our members, it will be directly because of this raid and all those involved in terrorizing our fellowship.

“We are very grateful no one was hurt. THC Club is the most fortunate recipients of any raid that I have know of. This does not mean we were not frightened and continue to be so, with this warrant hanging over our heads. Ask yourself this: if we were acting dangerously or criminally, then why haven’t the police bragged about their conquest, and let the public know they are safe from harm—from us, the evildoers?

“We hope the HRM Integrated Drug Unit doesn’t see us as trying to provoke them. We are definitely scarred from this incident; many of our members are writing impact statements as we speak. Of course, we hope never to experience an encore performance. Our wish is that the crown is blessed with compassion and sees fit to drop these ridiculous charges.

“If you are a patient in need of support at this time, we recommend you contact The Medicinal Patients Alliance Of Canada at <www.mcpaccanada.org> Locally, find THC Club at

<www.facebook.com/THCClub>

Thank you,

THC Club.”

Unfortunately, working with mainstream media doesn’t always work out for those who are trying to be cooperative. CBC News Halifax and reporter Elizabeth Chu have a history of excising sensationalism and misreporting on this group. Ms. Chu had tried to identify this nonprofit as The Porters Lake Compassionate Club, and attempted to jeopardize the patients’ safety by filming the licence plates in their parking lot, and then reporting the club may or may not have something to do with a large bust involving a local physician. The board and managers at THC Club did not know any of those involved in the recent bust.

This time, CBC and Chu misreported that police confiscated 1000 pills and 300 grams of mushrooms. The public response was horrifying. Most who read this automatically assumed the pills were pharmaceuticals. They were cannabin and organic coconut oil in vegetarian capsules. They were donated by the members of THC Club specifically for the cancer patients who attend the Cannabis and Cancer clinics. The amount stolen was approximately 250 days’ worth of medicine for those with terminal diagnoses, at no charge.

The two to three grams of mushrooms (not 300) were in the top drawer of Sherri Reeve’s filing cabinet at the private residence. Sherri is a known advocate for psilocybin for pain, and recommends everyone research the subject.

“It’s been difficult to imagine what my mother thought when she read those lies” Ms. Reeve says with tears in her eyes. Sherri has been overwhelmed with calls and with trying to organize the fallout of what has happened. The public has stated the Club is taking too long to act in response to all these events, but with no staff, and board members away at the time, they have no choice but to act carefully and methodically in order to protect everyone.

During the questioning, Ms. Chu from CBC seemed confused and asked specifically, “Was there illegal activities here?”

Ms. Reeve replied, by informing those who may not know, any time anyone with a licence passes a joint to another licence holder they are breaking the law, and that is unequivocally happening in vapour lounges and dispensaries across Canada and at THC Club. Sherri asks, “Who here has broken the law?” Almost everyone in the room raised their hand.

Bobby-Lee Dillman from Law Enforcement Against Prohibition made an excellent point at the press conference THC Club. “The cannabis that was here—was it meant for patients?” The president answered “Yes,” and referred to a conversation she had with a local RCMP officer. Bobby-Lee asked, “Did the police know that and they took it anyway?” Ms. Reeve responded affirmatively again. Bobby-Lee expressed what we all feel. “Then this is a violation of human rights.”

The post Maritime Crackdown appeared first on Cannabis Digest.

By Clarence Walker

Blocked by a Supreme Court decision from using GPS tracking devices without a warrant, federal investigators and other law enforcement agencies are turning to a new, more powerful and more threatening technology in their bid to spy more freely on those they suspect of drug crimes. That’s leading civil libertarians, electronic privacy advocates, and even some federal judges to raise the alarm about a new surveillance technology whose use has yet to be taken up definitively by the federal courts.

The new surveillance technology is the StingRay (also marketed as Triggerfish, IMSI Catcher, Cell-site Simulator or Digital Analyzer), a sophisticated, portable spy device able to track cell phone signals inside vehicles, homes and insulated buildings. StingRay trackers act as fake cell towers, allowing police investigators to pinpoint location of a targeted wireless mobile by sucking up phone data such as text messages, emails and cell-site information.

When a suspect makes a phone call, the StingRay tricks the cell into sending its signal back to the police, thus preventing the signal from traveling back to the suspect’s wireless carrier. But not only does StingRay track the targeted cell phone, it also extracts data off potentially thousands of other cell phone users in the area.

Although manufactured by a Germany and Britain-based firm, the StingRay devices are sold in the U.S.by the Harris Corporation, an international telecommunications equipment company. It gets between $60,000 and $175,000 for each Stingray it sells to U.S.law enforcement agencies.

[While the U.S.courts are only beginning to grapple with StingRay, the high tech cat-and-mouse game between cops and criminals continues afoot. Foreign hackers reportedly sell an underground IMSI tracker to counter the Stingray to anyone who asks for $1000. And in December 2011, noted German security expert Karsten Nohl released “Catcher Catcher,” powerful software that monitors a network’s traffic to seek out the StingRay in use.]

Originally intended for terrorism investigations, the feds and local law enforcement agencies are now using the James Bond-type surveillance to track cell phones in drug war cases across the nation without a warrant. Federal officials say that is fine—responding to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by the Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) and the First Amendment Coalition, the Justice Department argued that no warrant was needed to use StingRay technology.

“If a device is not capturing the contents of a particular dialogue call, the device does not require a warrant, but only a court order under the Pen Register Statute showing the material obtained is relevant to an ongoing investigation,” the department wrote.

The FBI claims that it is adhering to lawful standards in using StingRay. “The bureau advises field officers to work closely with the U.S.Attorney’s Office in their districts to comply with legal requirements,” FBI spokesman Chris Allen told the Washington Post last week, but the agency has refused to fully disclose whether or not its agents obtain probable cause warrants to track phones using the controversial device.

And the federal government’s response to the EFF’s FOIA about Stingray wasn’t exactly responsive. While the FOIA request generated over 20,000 records related to StingRay, the Justice Department released only a pair of court orders and a handful of heavily redacted documents that didn’t explain when and how the technology was used.

The LA Weekly reported in January that the StingRay “intended to fight terrorism was used in far more routine Los Angeles Police criminal investigations,” apparently without the courts’ knowledge that it probes the lives of non-suspects living in the same neighborhood with a suspect.

Critics say the technology wrongfully invades technology and that its uncontrolled use by law enforcement raised constitutional questions. “It is the biggest threat to cell phone privacy you don’t know about,” EFF said in a statement.

ACLU privacy researcher Christopher Soghoian told a Yale Law School Location Tracking and Biometrics Conference panel last month that “the government uses the device either when a target is routinely and quickly changing phones to thwart a wiretap or when police don’t have sufficient cause for a warrant.”

“The government is hiding information about new surveillance technology not only from the public, but even from the courts,” ACLU staff attorney Linda Lye wrote in a legal brief in the first pending federal StingRay case (see below). “By keeping courts in the dark about new technologies, the government is essentially seeking to write its own search warrants, and that’s not how the Constitution works.”

Lye further expressed concern over the StingRay’s ability to interfere with cell phone signals in violation of Federal Communication Act. “We haven’t seen documents suggesting the LAPD or any other agency have sought or obtained FCC authorization,” she wrote.

“If the government shows up in your neighborhood, essentially every phone is going to check in with the government,” said the ACLU’s Soghoian. “The government is sending signals through people’s walls and clothes and capturing information about innocent people. That’s not much different than using invasive technology to search every house on a block,” Soghoian said during interviews with reporters covering the StingRay story.

Advocates also raised alarms over another troubling issue: Using the StingRay allows investigators to bypass the routine process of obtaining fee-based location data from cell service providers like Sprint, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile and Comcast. Unlike buying location data fro service providers, using StingRay leaves no paper trail for defense attorneys.

Crack defense attorney Stephen Leckar who scored a victory in a landmark Supreme Court decision over the feds’ warrantless use of a GPS tracker in U.S.v. Jones, a cocaine trafficking case where the government tracked Jones’ vehicle for weeks without a warrant, also has concerns.

“Anytime the government refuses to disclose the ambit of its investigatory device, one has to wonder, what’s really happening,” he told the Chronicle. “If without a warrant the feds use this sophisticated device for entry into people’s homes, accessing private information, they may run afoul of a concurring opinion by Justice Alito, who ruled in U.S.v Jones whether people would view unwarranted monitoring of their home or property as Constitutionally repugnant.”

Leckar cited Supreme Court precedent in Katz v. U.S.(privacy) and U.S.v. Kyllo (thermal imaging), where the Supreme Court prohibited searches conducted by police from outside the home to obtain information behind closed doors. Similar legal thinking marked February’s Supreme Court decision in a case where it prohibited the warrantless use of drug dogs to sniff a residence, Florida v. Jardines.

The EFF FOIA lawsuit shed light on how the U.S.government sold StingRay devices to state and local law enforcement agencies for use specifically in drug cases. The Los Angeles and Fort Worth police departments have publicly acknowledged buying the devices, and records show that they are using them for drug investigations.

“Out of 155 cell phone investigations conducted by LAPD between June and September 2012, none of these cases involved terrorism, but primarily involved drugs and other felonies,” said Peter Scheer, director of the First Amendment Center.

The StingRay technology is so new and so powerful that it not only raises Fourth Amendment concerns, it also raises questions about whether police and federal agents are withholding information about it from judges to win approval to monitor suspects without meeting the probable cause standard required by the Fourth. At least one federal judge thinks they are. Magistrate Judge Brian Owsley of the Southern District of Texas in Corpus Christi told the Yale conference federal prosecutors are using clever techniques to fool judges into allowing use of StingRay. They will draft surveillance requests to appear as Pen Register applications, which don’t need to meet the probable cause standards.

“After receiving a second StingRay request,” Owsley told the panel, “I emailed every magistrate judge in the country telling them about the device. And hardly anyone understood them.”

In a earlier decision related to a Cell-site Simulator, Judge Owsley denied a DEA request to obtain data information to identify where the cell phone belonging to a drug trafficker was located. DEA wanted to use the suspect’s E911 emergency tracking system that is operated by the wireless carrier. E911 trackers reads signals sent to satellites from a cell phone’s GPS chip or by triangulation of radio transmitted signal. Owsley told the panel that federal agents and U.S.attorneys often apply for a court order to show that any information obtained with a StingRay falls under the Stored Communication Act and the Pen Register statute.

DEA later petitioned Judge Owsley to issue an order allowing the agent to track a known drug dealer with the StingRay. DEA emphasized to Owsley how urgently they needed approval because the dealer had repeatedly changed cell phones while they spied on him. Owsley flatly denied the request, indicating the StingRay was not covered under federal statute and that DEA and prosecutors had failed to disclose what they expected to obtain through the use of the stored data inside the drug dealer’s phone, protected by the Fourth Amendment.

“There was no affidavit attached to demonstrate probable cause as required by law under rule 41 of federal criminal procedures,” Owsley pointed out. The swiping of data off wireless phones is “cell tower dumps on steroids,” Owsley concluded.

But judges in other districts have ruled favorably for the government. A federal magistrate judge in Houston approved DEA request for cell tower data without probable cause. More recently, New York Southern District Federal Magistrate Judge Gabriel Gorenstein approved warrantless cell-site data.

“The government did not install the tracking device—and the cell user chose to carry the phone that permitted transmission of its information to a carrier,” Gorenstein held in that opinion. “Therefore no warrant is needed.”

In a related case, U.S.District Court Judge Liam O’Grady of the Northern District of Virginia ruled that the government could obtain data from Twitter accounts of three Wikileakers without a warrant. Because they had turned over their IP addresses when they opened their Twitter accounts, they had no expectation of privacy, he ruled.

“Petitioners knew or should have known that their IP information was subject to examination by Twitter, so they had a lessened expectation of privacy in that information, particularly in light of their apparent consent to the Twitter terms of service and privacy policy,” Judge O’Grady wrote.

A federal judge in Arizona is now set to render a decision in the nation’s first StingRay case. After a hearing last week, the court in U.S.v. Rigmaiden is expected to issue a ruling that could set privacy limits on how law enforcement uses the new technology. Just as the issue of GPS tracking technology eventually ended up before the Supreme Court, this latest iteration of the ongoing balancing act between enabling law enforcement to do its job and protecting the privacy and Fourth Amendment rights of citizens could well be headed there, too.

The post U.S. Investigators Listening in on Cell Calls appeared first on Cannabis Digest.

By Diane Walsh

The US Drug Enforcement Agency’s ability to rely on the Controlled Substance Act, (defining marijuana as a Schedule 1 heroin-level category drug, and for which no clear distinction between hemp and marijuana exits) is what allows the DEA to obstruct the proliferation of hemp farming across the fields of America.

Industrial hemp is not marijuana. 

And there is no rational reason to not make that distinction known.

There is no reason not to define hemp in its own right—namely, its farming utility. After all, hemp has negligible THC content.

The question we need to ask is why is the DEA happy to mix up, confuse and misunderstand the differences between hemp—for farming for industrial hemp end-product, and marijuana—the drug.

Could it be, in not accepting the difference between hemp crops and marijuana, the progressive efforts that have taken place at a state levels to advance industrial hemp use and farming initiatives have been frustrated and stonewalled? Indeed as a political issue, this is the story in the U.S.

One Big Hemp Black-Out

At the federal level, hemp was collapsed and combined—erroneously—as one with marijuana. All cannabis became criminalized in the 1970s in the Controlled Substance Act’s legal framework. This is where it still sits today.

Hemp bills have been introduced with degrees of heightened impetus in both the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, including in 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2011. Most recently, a 2013 bill, based out of Kentucky, made what looked like progress, but again this progressive hemp bill became a victim of a “law and order” committee debate.

Law enforcement intervenes, and true to pattern, lawmakers once again have failed to take the hemp dilemma by its horns and compel Congress to make the rational and logical changes to federal law that allows farming of hemp crops for industrial and commercial purposes.

The Camouflage Argument Unpacked

The present stitch-up goes something like this. Whenever hemp bills gather sway and pop up for examination by elected representatives in the U.S., the Office of National Drug Control Policy has revealed an insidious tendency to deeply contaminate public perception of hemp as having no possibility for any legitimate beneficial economic-revival value, and labels hemp a “stalking horse”.

The federal agency’s position, espoused (even out loud) by former director, Barry McCaffrey, is that hemp can be used to camouflage marijuana, which has similar-shaped leaves.

This negative insinuation says that hemp farming is a decoy for the criminal drug underground, and that it therefore follows that any farmer supporting the growing of hemp crops must be a secret, society-destroying criminal.

With the same leap of faulty logic, McCaffey’s former office deliberately sought to damage patient access campaigns and legitimate medically-sought cannabis.

Gil Kerlikowske is now President Obama’s Director of the Office of National Control Policy. The DEA has been told to respect states which have voted for medical decriminalization laws, but a culture of demonization remains.

Kerlikowske was a former Seattle Police Chief. Washington State, along with Colorado, recently voted to legalize the personal use of marijuana. Despite the clear “will of the people” in these two states, the DEA continues to indicate that they will go after and seek prosecution of “large-scale growers and distributors”. Are we to assume categorically that they will exclude targets in Washington or Colorado? Is the agency still keen to send a warning shot in case people get too comfortable with the idea of enjoying both legal pot and legal hemp farming?

The agency has reluctantly had to accept the legality of the recreational user rights in key states, but seemingly it has not backed down from its War on Drugs ethos. It finds itself in a Catch-22. In relation to marijuana “busts”, its funding and reason for being could be under threat. In other words, fewer operations need busting.

In its wilful determination to continue fighting the empty, socially destructive and forever unsuccessful and repugnant War on Drugs, the U.S. federal government continues to confuse hemp farming with marijuana cultivation.

Broadly speaking, police continue to parrot the DEA’s position that “illicit” growers might try to hide marijuana in hemp fields to avoid detection.

Marijuana-purposed plant cultivators, who have no desire to interfere with permits for industrial hemp farming, strike back at the DEA’s spurious argument by stating that there is absolutely no commercial benefit in combining marijuana crops with industrial hemp crops. The crops require very different cultivation approaches and conditions. Attempts to combine crops will actually disturb each grower’s best commercial and industrial interests.

Cannabis plants grown for marijuana tend to be geared for high THC value, so bud production is the key. Cannabis plants that are grown for hemp have much lower THC. A negligible amount, in fact—nearly nil THC content appears in hemp crops. Hemp crops are often packed densely—desirably 35 to 50 plants per square foot. Large, tall stalks are valued. Buds are not necessary in industrial hemp processing.

Hemp does contain psychoactive cannabinoids. But levels are so low that it is unsmokeable. This doesn’t seem to matter to the DEA, which continues to wilfully insist that the connection between hemp and marijuana is sufficient enough to warrant making it painfully difficult to obtain any legal state growing license.

When times were more enlightened, Kentucky provided 94 percent of the nation’s industrial hemp, we’re told. During World War II, the state’s farmers were encouraged to “Grow Hemp for Victory”. They made their contribution to the war effort with the encouragement and support of the U.S. federal government, undoubtedly.

The 10th Amendment (of the U.S. Constitution), mentioning states’ rights, has not proven as useful to hemp activists as, for example, the 2nd Amendment has proven useful to gun owners.

When it comes to speaking of states’ rights as they pertain to hemp, federal law, in classifying cannabis as a Schedule I substance, has perpetually overridden state demands for improved bureaucratic rules in the DEA permit process in sanctioning state hemp licensing.

So, the DEA continues to drag its heels. The United States Supreme Court has ruled in Gonzales v. Raich that the federal government has a right to regulate and criminalize cannabis, even for medical purposes.

In 2009, the Attorney General told federal prosecutors to back away from prosecuting medical marijuana patients in those states with local laws legalizing medical use. Has the DEA followed the AG’s directive to assist in enabling permits for the production of industrial hemp? Quite the contrary. The DEA continues in the advancement, or non-advancement, of the industrial hemp industry in America.

Let’s be clear again about the industrial hemp plant. You don’t smoke it. You make rope, clothing, fuel, and food from it, as well as other useful products. And all with a carbon-negative footprint.

With the laws in the U.S., growing industrial hemp without a permit from the Drug Enforcement Agency is futile. No serious-minded hemp farmer wants to risk a federal raid. There were hopes that 2013 would prove the year of progress. So far, no bill has made it out of committee. Law enforcement has been able to pressure and kill progressive bills. The need for at least a 10-acre crop commitment to harm hemp (as outlined in the Kentucky bill) isn’t making things easier either.

Now there is a further twist to this generally bad news. Rather perversely, the U.S. government has agreed to allow hemp farms, but only with a permit from the Drug Enforcement Agency. The DEA is successfully able to tie “the hemp question” up in red tape.

Some have theorized that in the end, the USDA is poised to control the hemp industry—sort of like the Monsanto, of hemp. So, while the DEA remains in the picture, characterizing hemp as a potential “drug”, it’s likely that little will change and few, if any, permits will be efficiently issued.

The way forward: ongoing advocacy, and activists forcing the issue in law. The U.S. is a litigious country, and that is how things move. So, with this mind, establish a new category for hemp, as a crop for industrial use. As a first step, get that out of the Controlled Substances Act.

A Hemp Industry Resource

The Hemp Industries Association is based out of California, but is forging networks out of state and even in Canada. It’s a nonprofit for sharing information on everything hemp. The names to look out for are: Shaun Crew, president of Hemp Oil Canada; Anndrea Hermann, agrologist and hemp farming expert; Eric Steenstra, executive director of Vote Hemp; and Summer Star Haeske, marketing director for EnviroTextiles, a Colorado-based hemp textile importer.

The post No Hemp Yet? appeared first on Cannabis Digest.

By Al Graham

In Apr. 2008, Matt Mernagh, who uses medical marijuana to deal with his fibromyalgia, scoliosis, epilepsy, and depression, was charged with the production of his medication. Unfortunately for him, he has been unable to find a doctor willing to sign the required MMAR paperwork, in order for him to obtain a license. After he hired Paul Lewin as his lawyer, they decided to challenge Matt’s charges in court. The two did very well, because in Apr. of 2011 they won their case, which almost overturned the MMAR program and the federal government’s prohibition on cannabis out the window. At the time, Justice Donald Taliano ruled that the MMAR was unconstitutional and that if the government didn’t change the program, cannabis would be legal in 90 days. The government didn’t like this decision, and filed an appeal.

On May 7 and 8 of 2012, the cannabis community focused its attention on the Ontario Court of Appeal (OCA) at Osgoode Hall in Toronto. On this day, Matt and his lawyer were joined by interveners for the Canadian AIDS Society, the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, the HIV & AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association who all brought arguments before the court on why cannabis prohibition and the MMAR are failing sick or dying Canadians.

The Past Cases, to the Present

This is not the first time the government has had to go to court to defend its prohibition of cannabis and the MMAR. In 1997, Terry Parker took them to court and won a landmark case which led to the introduction of the medical marijuana program. While it isn’t perfect, it was the hard work of Terry and his lawyers that gave Canadians the right to consume cannabis for medical purposes. The next time the government found themselves before the courts was during the Hitzig case. This case saw things open up a bit, and removed some of the requirements from the program, such as needing more than one doctor signature and the addition of a second category. The new version of the program also allowed for regular physicians to sign the application, but the court did not find the program completely unconstitutional.

This leads us to Matt’s case and where we are today. In Apr. 2008, Matt was charged with producing marijuana contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. According to the court documents, Matt “applied for a declaration that the combined effect of ss. 4 and 7 of the CDSA (the offences of possessing and producing marihuana, respectively) and the MMAR violates his rights under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” The court report went on to say that Matt “did not argue that the MMAR are unconstitutional as they are drafted. Rather, he argued that the MMAR are unconstitutional as they are implemented because physicians have decided en masse not to participate in the scheme”.

During the trial Matt showed that he needed cannabis for medical purposes but he was unable to find a doctor willing to sign the paperwork. He also had nineteen other patients come from across Canada to help him prove that this was not a local problem, but one that was widespread across the country.

Also during this time in court, Matt’s lawyer had argued that “the protection accorded by the MMAR has proven to be illusory, depriving him and others like him of the right to liberty and security of the person in a manner that is contrary to the principles of fundamental justice”. Justice Donald Taliano agreed, as he ruled “that the MMAR made legal access to medical marihuana practically unattainable for those who desperately need it”. He struck down the MMAR, as he found it unconstitutional. This decision left no one with access to a program, which in turn created another problem. With no medical program the existing laws on the prohibition of cannabis would fall. The government then went back to court and won a temporary stay on this, but Matt would still be able to grow and possess his medication until another court ruled otherwise.

When it came time for the appeal, the government provided the court with four reasons why they thought that Justice Taliano made errors in the case. This would include that Matt and his “patient witnesses” who provided evidence on the application were entitled to medical exemptions under the MMAR”. The OCA seemed to agree, as they wrote that “the trial judge erred by: wrongly interpreting Parker and Hitzig to recognize a constitutional ‘right’ to use medical marihuana”. Second, the government disagreed with Justice Taliano when he said “many of the physicians who dealt with the patient witnesses had acted in an ‘arbitrary and biased’ manner in rejecting their requests for medical declarations”. Third, the government felt that the judge was wrong when he ruled that “the ‘vast majority’ of people entitled to exemptions under the MMAR have been unable to obtain them; and Canadian physicians have ‘massively boycotted’ the MMAR, ‘completely undermin[ing]’ the effectiveness of the program.” The OCA justices also felt that this should be reviewed because Justice Taliano relied on “anecdotal evidence” and was “making findings not supported by the record” to decide that Matt and the patient witnesses “qualified for exemptions under the MMAR”. The final reason for reviewing this case was they felt that Justice Taliano was wrong for “finding that the MMAR operate in such a way as to make medical exemptions practically unavailable”.

Before the Court

When it came to expert witnesses, Matt and his lawyer Mr. Lewin brought forward Dr. Joel Lexchin, an expert on how the pharmaceutical industry influences physicians’ prescribing of practices and how this could play a role in a physician’s decision on signing the MMAR paperwork. Also testifying was Dr. David Rosenbloom, who is an expert on the effects of prescription drugs as well as on the use and abuse of opioids. Epidemiologist Lynne Belle-Isle, a co-author on HIV and Cannabis for the HIV/Aids Society of Canada, also testified as an expert witness.

In addition to the experts, Matt also brought forth evidence that included paperwork and transcripts from other cases in which the marijuana program was involved. Within this mountain of information was a copy of the 2002 Canadian Senate report on illegal drugs such as cannabis.

Matt testified that he was young when he started noticing things weren’t right. Matt talked about how the doctors had prescribed him several kinds of painkillers, with many of them making him feel like a zombie, as all he wanted to do was sleep. Matt talked about how at one time, he didn’t have a doctor and was visiting walk-in clinics in order to get help. He did eventually get a doctor who helped him, but this one, like many others, moved on and Matt once again found himself without a physician. Matt told the court that he eventually found a doctor who wrote him out a letter supporting his use of cannabis, but for some unknown reason wouldn’t sign the Health Canada application.

The patient witnesses that came from across the country spoke to the court about their true-life situations that included long delays in getting licenses signed, and the long journeys that they took to try to find a doctor who would support them. Many of these people suffered from various conditions, but all of them experienced some form of benefit by using cannabis. The crown countered with affidavits and paperwork from two directors of the MMAR program: Jeannine Ritchot and Ronald Denault.

Part of Matt’s defence was that the program was not working and was only illusory. To do this, they would have to prove that doctors were not signing the required paperwork, which they tried to do with the nineteen patient witnesses. The government denied this was happening, and brought information forward showing that the program was not stopping doctors from licensing people. To do this, they provided data that shows that the number of doctors signing had gone from four in 1998 to over 2300 in 2010.

When it came to whether patients were having trouble getting authorized to use cannabis, the government produced evidence showing that this was also not happening. They did this by providing data showing that in a 10-year period, 80 percent of the applications that were submitted were approved. To me, though, this only proves that Health Canada approved that percentage of applications, and does not prove that patients were not having trouble getting signatures.

Part of the government’s appeal on this case was because of the evidence supplied by the patient witnesses. As mentioned the government felt that this was hearsay, and that Justice Taliano shouldn’t have accepted it. The court seemed to agree with their concerns, but it also agreed with the government that there was no physical evidence showing the witnesses’ hardships and troubles. It seems as if the patients should have had called a doctor to court in order to testify why they wouldn’t sign a patient’s application.

When it came to the right to use cannabis as a medicine, Matt and his lawyers successfully argued to Justice Taliano that the Terry Parker decision allowed Matt the right to use cannabis, which the government disagreed with. In this appeal, the court agreed with the government, as they ruled that “the correct proposition expressed in Parker is that, given that marihuana can medically benefit some individuals, a blanket criminal prohibition on its use is unconstitutional. This court did not hold that serious illness gives rise to an automatic “right to use marihuana”.

The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that they feel Matt has proved he is not a recreational user but he and the patient witness had failed to prove that they could not get a license because of “bias or arbitrariness on the part of the physicians they consulted. Nor did it establish a widespread lack of co-operation with the MMAR on the part of the Canadian medical profession. Thus, the record does not support the trial judge’s inference that they failed to obtain medical declarations only because Canadian physicians are boycotting the MMAR.”

In their closing statements, Justice Simmons, LaForme, and Doherty wrote that “the appeal is allowed, the trial judge’s orders are quashed and a new trial is ordered.” They also went on to say that, “In light of our decision, unfortunately no Charter remedy is available for Mr. Mernagh. We trust, however, that in exercising its discretion as to whether to reinstate the charge against him, the appellant will take into account that this was a test case and a Crown appeal—and that, if the appellant proposes to proceed with the charge that it will first afford Mr. Mernagh a reasonable opportunity to obtain a medical declaration and an ATP.”

Justice Doherty went on to write that “The MMAR is not intended to provide access to medical marihuana to all seriously ill persons who decide that it is in their best interest to use marihuana to alleviate their symptoms. Nor does the Constitution, as interpreted in Hitzig, demand a medical exemption framed in those terms. The MMAR provides access to medical marihuana to persons who obtain the necessary declaration from a medical doctor.”

What’s Next?
Where do things go from here? Presently Matt and his lawyer, Paul Lewin, are filing for a leave of appeal with the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). How long that can take no one knows. I wrote Mr. Lewin and asked him if there is a time frame on when or if the SCC will hear Matt’s case. I also wondered if it could be longer than the seven months he waited for the Ontario Court of Appeal decision. He replied that “We require leave to go to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). That is no small matter (six percent of cases that seek leave, get leave). We will have our leave application in by the end of the month (Mar.). The crown then has 30 days to respond. At this point, I can’t give you any timelines.” Mr. Lewin also informed me that if they get to the SCC, he will have “Paul Burstein, a Toronto lawyer who has done a lot constitutional litigation” helping him with this case.

As I read through the justice’s decision, I noticed that they had mentioned several times about there being no evidence for the record. This made me wonder if there would be a chance for Matt’s lawyers to address this if they make it to the top court of the land. I had asked Mr. Lewin this when Matt was appearing before the Ontario Superior Court, and I was told he couldn’t, so I was surprised when he informed me that “Further evidence can be added—if it was not available at the time of trial.” Let’s hope they can address the missing evidence concerns of the Ontario Court of Appeal justices if they make an appearance before the SCC.

The ruling by the three OCA justices was unanimous as, all three judges sided with the Government. This left me a bit concerned if the SCC would even entertain the thought of looking at Matt’s case. But Mr. Lewin says, “If one of the three judges had dissented, then we would have an automatic right of appeal. So, in that sense, it would be very helpful. However, if we do get leave, in terms of the ultimate decision, the SCC will do whatever they want to do and they will not feel bound by what those three judges said”. He went on to say that “The SCC is not a court of correction. In other words, their job is not to fix what the Ontario Court of Appeal got wrong. Rather, they address issues of national importance. That’s what it’s all about.”

When Matt’s case went from the Ontario Superior Court to the Ontario Court of Appeal, he was able to maintain his court-ordered right to grow his own cannabis. This time, though, he was not granted such an extension, but instead the court asked the authorities hold off and leave Matt alone while he seeks a doctor to sign his paperwork. If he doesn’t find one, this will leave Matt just as open for arrest as all the other patients who seek a doctor to support their request to use cannabis as legal medication.

The week after the Feb. 1 decision, Matt took to his blog to write that it’s “Been a very long and tiring week, but I managed to get through it just great.” He goes on to say that he was going to visit his lawyer in order to see about the possibilities of a trip to the Supreme Court of Canada. During that week, he also had media from all around the globe follow this decision, as Google News had 71 news outlets covering the verdict. Matt says the best one was from the Globe and Mail, when the editorial stated that “He poses no conceivable threat to society. Whether Mr. Mernagh is right or just deluded that marijuana relieves some of his pain with fewer side effects than other medications doesn’t really matter. There simply is no public interest strong enough that the state should try to throw him in jail.”

The post Mernagh Loses Bad appeared first on Cannabis Digest.

By Andrew Brown

Since last Oct., Dana Larsen and the Sensible BC campaign—the voter initiative to effectively make cannabis possession the lowest police priority in B.C., with no money used to enforce the federal possession laws—have been touring throughout B.C. visiting dozens of communities from Northern B.C. to Vancouver Island and everywhere in between. At every stop, people were inspired to volunteer and sign on to the campaign.

The Sensible BC campaign is “calling upon the B.C. government to pass the Sensible Policing Act, which will redirect all police in the province from making searches, seizures or arrests in cases of simple cannabis possession,” as they state on their website <sensiblebc.ca> Within the Sensible Policing Act, it also calls for the setup of “a public commission to figure out the best path toward a legally regulated and taxed cannabis system in B.C.”

In an exciting show of support, cannabis activist and former B.C. Marijuana Party candidate Bob Erb, who won a $25 million jackpot on the Nov. 2 Lotto Max, has promised to match every dollar donated to the Sensible BC campaign—this after he has already donated $120,000. Donations will be used to help organize volunteers to collect signatures of ten percent of registered voters in each electoral district in the province during the 90-day window which will begin some time in Sept., in order to force the decriminalization referendum. Donations can be made at <sensiblebc.ca/donate>
Another generous donation, in the form of a tour bus, has also found its way to the Sensible side. Johnny “5/0” Marcell of the Sunshine Coast has donated a refitted 1975 MCI, which he has also spent a great deal of time and money ensuring is in perfect running order, to the campaign for transporting volunteers throughout communities in B.C. to collect signatures during the 90-day period beginning in Sept. The interior of the bus was in need of seating, but the Hempology 101 Society has taken on the task of sorting this out. Once the Sensible BC campaign has drawn to a close, the bus will move into the possession of the Hempology 101 Society, who will use the bus to travel across Canada, promoting hemp and cannabis-based industries.

At this point, the most important thing an individual can do to help this initiative get to referendum is to pre-register on <sensiblebc.ca>, so that volunteers can easily obtain your signature on the official petition later this year. If more time can be spared, you are encouraged to click on the box to volunteer while pre-registering, committing to help collect signatures. You can also download pre-registration forms and collect as many signatures in your community as possible.

Has any other initiative successfully made it to referendum? Yes, but only once.

This was recently done with the anti-HST campaign. As many people will remember, signature collectors could be seen regularly in public, but they were not as proactive as Sensible B.C., who have pre-registration to make signature collection easier, and the ability to gauge where volunteers need to be sent out en masse. While media attention is positive regarding the campaign, the anti-HST was a regular staple in most newspapers and news broadcasts. Supporters are encouraged to write letters to media, while continually contacting their MLAs to garner their support.

With the recent introduction of Mandatory Minimum Sentences (MMS) for drug crimes by the Federal Government, and the continually increasing cost of enforcing cannabis laws, the Sensible Policing Act would be a welcome change. Last year, a financial burden of $10.5 million was placed on B.C. taxpayers to simply detain, charge, and convict cannabis users. This figure does not include court and police costs pursuing dealers and growers. Since 2005, the cost has doubled, and is sure to increase as the true cost of MMS begins to be felt. All of this in light of public opinion, according to all recent polls, clearly wanting an end to marijuana prohibition.

While the Sensible Policing Act is essentially a form of decriminalization, it is an important step toward legalization. It is valid to argue that decriminalization is just as damaging as prohibition, as it still allows a criminal element to control the manufacturing and distribution of cannabis, while imposing further financial burdens on people with low incomes, among other things. While these arguments are sound, the other aspects of the Act would help to push toward the next step of legalization. Once the law is passed, besides the police being unable to search, detain, or arrest anyone for possession, the B.C. Attorney General would need to formally demand the federal government change cannabis laws to allow B.C. to legally regulate cannabis. Following that, it will also force the province to form a commission to hold hearings, study mountains of evidence, and recommend rules and laws to properly facilitate a cannabis industry in the province. The change will also allow for police to deal with impaired driving and youth possession in a way that will be less damaging to them in the future while looking for employment or traveling, as they will not hold a criminal record—treating cannabis as they would alcohol.

This is an election issue. We need to press candidates and make them realize that if they don’t support public opinion, and would rather perpetuate failed policy, we will not vote for them. While it is difficult to put our faith in politicians, at least we are able to force the issue by referendum. But it will only work if we all get involved.

To register to vote in B.C. visit <eregister.electionsbc.gov.bc.ca>
For further information on Sensible BC, and to pre-register for the referendum, visit <sensiblebc.ca>

The post Sensible BC Rollin’ appeared first on Cannabis Digest.

Andrew Brown
Editor

I want to branch into a topic an arm’s length away from cannabis/reform activism for this editorial, and speak about a pressing issue facing us on a global level—seed security. I figure that as it appears cannabis is on the cusp of being somewhat legalized for big business, while remaining (and possibly becoming more) illegal for medical users and the public in general, that a seed for a highly profitable plant will be extremely vulnerable to genetic modification and patenting.

While we can hold, plant, and save heirloom seeds, and have farms refusing genetically modified (GM) seeds, the nature of open pollination threatens to contaminate our heirloom crops. Hemp is a perfect example of a highly vulnerable plant. Pollen from hemp fields can be found hundreds of kilometers away from its source, so if a farmer plants a GM hemp crop up wind from an organic farmer another town (or even province) over, the pollen from the GM crop will pollinate the organic crop contaminating its genetics so that the next generation of that line will hold GM properties. Currently, there is a national effort spurred by Canadian farmers concerned about the approval of GM alfalfa being able to be grown in Canada. Beyond the contamination of genetics, the GM alfalfa will make it into the food system through animal feed and and crop mulching.

Why should we be worried about GM seeds? First and foremost, we don’t know the consequences to the human body over generational intake of GM food. In a study by Russian biologist Alexey V. Surov, hamsters were fed a GM soy diet, and by the third generation they were unable to reproduce, suffered higher mortality rates and slower growth as pups. Secondly, crop diversity is imperative. We are unable to predict what forms plant diseases will take in the future, and simply need to crack the history book and look at the Irish Potato Famine to see the effects of relying on a crop without diversity. Look through a catalogue of cannabis seeds and note that some are mould and mildew resistant, and some susceptible. Diversity ensures that we can have plants able to acclimate and evolve naturally to resist any diseases nature throws at them. Corporations are also developing so-called terminator seeds who’s fruit will not reproduce viable seeds, forcing farmers to buy seed stock from them every year.

We must resist our food and medicinal plants falling into the hands of corporations with the only ambition being profit rather than sustainability. As soon as a corporation controls our food and medicine/medicinal plants, they will control us.

The post EDITORIAL: Save the Seeds Like our Lives Depend on it appeared first on Cannabis Digest.

Ted Smith

Recently, I was presented with the Michelle Rainey Award by the community of activists on the <medpot.net> forums. Being the first recipient of this award is a huge honour for me. In fact, it is likely the most meaningful gift I have ever received.

First off, the award was named after one of the most brilliant, inspiring, and beautiful spirits that has graced the cannabis movement with her words, deeds, and hugs. Michelle Rainey passed away a few years ago after a short fight with cancer. We dedicated issue #27 to her in an attempt to give those who never had the opportunity to meet her get a sense of what a wonderful woman she was. She spent the last years of her life fighting and pleading for legalization, saving so little for herself that the end came that much sooner.

Second, it is overwhelming to think that out of all of the people in this country fighting for the legalization of cannabis, that I would be chosen as the first winner of this award. Granted, last year was the best year of my life, for a number of reasons. But there are so many other successful, dedicated activists who deserve to be awarded for their efforts, that is seems unfair to single out any one of us. It was incredible luck that the year many of my dreams came true is the year that this award was organized.

Third, the <medpot.net> community is a special group of online activists. The founder, Marc Paquette, has put together the one of the most active news site in the world, despite dealing with health problems so serious he rarely leaves his property. At the same time, a number of Canadian patients and activists have used this site to network with each other, sharing political insights and helping farmers grow good medicine. While there are a number of prominent activist who occasionally use <medpot.net>, many of the active members are those most affected by the medical cannabis laws in Canada.

Fourth, there are very few occasions where people in the cannabis movement take the time to recognize the work of an individual. Aside from cups that focus on who is growing the best herb, I am not aware of any awards like this, certainly not in Canada. A few years ago Cannabis Health magazine gave out a number of awards, one of which I received, but they did not give out pretty awards like I got, and it only happened once before they folded. Hopefully more groups will consider rewarding the efforts of others using the democratic principles similar to the one used by <medpot.net>

Finally, receiving this award has affirmed my convictions, validating what I have chosen to do with my life. It has also paid tribute to the growing team of people that support me, working at VCBC, writing for the newspaper, organizing club activities, promoting events, and sharing the good word. Most of all, this award means a lot to Gayle, who works so hard at my side. Without the incredible team I have around me my efforts would have little impact, and this award belongs to everyone who helps me as much as it belongs to me.

Ironically, winning this has only made me want to prove I am worthy of such an honour. Not that I want to win again, in fact I will make sure I do not get nominated again. Being the first recipient of the Michelle Rainey Award both acknowledges what I have accomplished and recognizes the great future I have ahead.

The post Publisher’s Note: A Humbling Award appeared first on Cannabis Digest.