Submission of the Canadian AIDS Society on the Proposed Amendments to the
Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (October 23, 2004)
Introduction and Basic Principles
On behalf of the Canadian AIDS Society, please find herein our submissions on the proposed amendments to the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) published in the Canada Gazette, Volume 138, Number 43, on October 23, 2004.
The Canadian AIDS Society is a national coalition of 120 community-based AIDS organizations across Canada. We are dedicated to strengthening the response to HIV/AIDS across all sectors of society, and to enriching the lives of people and communities living with HIV/AIDS. The following submissions are the product of various ongoing communications with people living with HIV/AIDS who currently use cannabis for therapeutic purposes and with other therapeutic users. We also consulted our Cannabis Community Advisory Committee, which consists of people living with HIV/AIDS that are currently authorized to use cannabis to alleviate their symptoms, and representatives from the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and the Canadian Treatment Action Council. These submissions, however, are made solely on behalf of the Canadian AIDS Society.
Let us begin by expressing our appreciation for the opportunity to be involved in the process to make cannabis accessible on compassionate grounds to seriously ill Canadians who choose to use it as part of their therapy. As a member of the Stakeholder Advisory Committee on Medical Marihuana, we appreciate the complexity of the task at hand to amend the MMAR and realize that such an effort requires the collaboration of a variety of stakeholders that may not necessarily agree. Given the complexity of the issue, and the divergent perspectives expressed, the process of weighing competing regulatory and policy options should be guided by an over-arching principle. In our view, we believe that the interests of seriously and chronically ill Canadians are paramount and should guide this process, given that they have a constitutional right to access an essential therapy for their disabling condition. This constitutional right has been recognized by numerous courts, including the Ontario Court of Appeal (1).
Significant Issues and Direction of the MMAR and the Health Canada Medical Marijuana Access Program
The purpose of the MMAR is to provide a regulatory framework under which seriously and chronically ill Canadians can obtain an authorization to possess cannabis for their own therapeutic purposes, as well as a way to ensure a legal source of cannabis. This said, we have prepared the following comments and recommendations keeping the priority on the compassionate access to cannabis for people with serious health conditions who feel some alleviation of symptoms with the therapeutic use of cannabis, therefore improving their quality of life and overall health.
The Canadian AIDS Society’s Board of Directors (2) favours a controlled legalization system for cannabis in Canada, where the production, distribution, and possession are regulated, designated cannabis distribution centres (or more licenced dealers and licences to produce) are established and recognized, appropriate prevention messages and harm reduction strategies are developed, and information on the therapeutic uses of cannabis is disseminated. Under a prohibitionist framework, the illegality of the possession, production and distribution of cannabis is the principal source of social and economic costs. The stigma attached to cannabis is a detriment to people living with HIV/AIDS who choose to use cannabis to alleviate their symptoms. The current regulatory environment, including the MMAR, is still unduly restrictive and hinders access to a safe, affordable, varied and reliable supply of cannabis for therapeutic purposes without fear of prosecution or discrimination for those who use it therapeutically.
This said, the Canadian AIDS Society will continue to work with Health Canada to provide the perspective of people living with HIV/AIDS to ensure that the proposed amendments to the MMAR address their concerns in the current regulatory framework.
We feel that the social and economic fallout for people living with HIV/AIDS who need medical access to cannabis are not being addressed by the proposed amendments to the MMAR.
First, there is still the issue of affordability. If someone is authorized to use five grams per day, they require about five ounces per month, which costs $750 plus taxes through Prairie Plant Systems. This is roughly equivalent to a mortgage payment or rent of an apartment, for example, and is prohibitive for most. For many people living with HIV/AIDS, some provincial programs exist for them to obtain social assistance or to obtain medication through a provincial catastrophic drug program. Currently, cannabis is not covered by any of these programs.
Health Canada has put a system in place to enable seriously and chronically ill Canadians to have access to medical marijuana on a compassionate ground. Measures must be taken to ensure that costs for medical marijuana are covered. We CALL ON Health Canada to bring this issue forward to the provincial and territorial governments, through a meeting of federal/provincial/territorial Health Ministers or Deputy Ministers of Health, so that they can take action to include medical marijuana under existing provincial drug plans and catastrophic drug benefit schemes.
We CALL on the Government of Canada to ensure that the costs of medical marijuana, and the expenses related to its production, be deductible as medical expenses under the Income Tax Act.
We also CALL ON Health Canada to work with the insurance industry, and in particular the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association, or to enable a process which will make it possible for home owners or renters that are authorized to possess and/or licenced to produce cannabis for therapeutic purposes to access insurance coverage. Currently, there is no insurance coverage for loss of equipment, crops, or harvested cannabis in the event of a fire or theft, for example. Insurance companies may withdraw coverage for house insurance if they find out a home owner is growing cannabis. Some have lost their homes or have been evicted from their home as a result of this serious situation. Measures must be taken to ensure situations such as these do not occur.
Submissions on Proposed Amendments to the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR)
Applicant’s Declaration
Applicants resent the physician’s power to make a decision that has very serious implications in their lives. Canadians have a legal right to liberty and security of the person, as set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and interpreted by Canadian courts. This includes the right to make decisions of fundamental personal importance. The choice of treatment to alleviate the effects of debilitating symptoms with life-altering consequences is such a decision. The threat of criminal prosecution, or the power of a physician to block access to a program that would alleviate the fear of prosecution, deprive seriously and chronically ill Canadians of this right to liberty.
We FULLY SUPPORT the shift of responsibility from the physician to the patient in that the applicants will now acknowledge and declare their acceptance of the risks associated with the use of cannabis in their declaration under section 5.(1)(
h), and the physicians will no longer be required to state that the benefits of cannabis use outweigh the risks.
This section states that the authorization is sought in respect of marihuana to be obtained under section 70.2 from a licenced dealer producing marihuana under contract with Her
Majesty in right of Canada or obtained from a medical practitioner under section 70.4.
We STRONGLY CALL on the Government of Canada to extend contracts to MORE THAN ONE licenced dealer. The Canadian AIDS Society’s Board of Directors (3) believes that people living with HIV/AIDS should have a choice as to the cannabis product and strain they want to consume, and should have access to a safe, legal, reliable, affordable, and fresh source of cannabis, with an option for an organic source. Health Canada currently only allows for one licenced dealer, Prairie Plant Systems, which provides only one strain of cannabis, at one level of THC. Licensing and regulating more organizations or grow co-operatives would provide a variety of products, at competitive prices. People have also expressed their comfort in dealing with local growers, in that they can establish a relationship with them, and be familiar with their product. The element of trust is important when they seek cannabis for therapeutic substances. This is difficult to achieve when ordering cannabis through the mail.
This section states that the applicant has discussed the potential benefits and risks of using marihuana with the medical practitioner providing the medical declaration under paragraph 4(2)(
b). We REQUEST that this section be removed from the Applicant’s Declaration, as there is no parallel section in the Medical Declaration. The physicians state that they are not in a position to discuss the risks and benefits of cannabis use with their patients at this time. The patient cannot claim that the physician has fulfilled this responsibility. This is not to say that we discourage applicants from discussing their cannabis use with their medical practitioner, though we do not feel that this needs to be included in the Regulations.
The proposed amendments shift the responsibility from the Medical Declaration to the Applicant’s Declaration in the event that the daily amount is in excess of 5 grams per day. We PROPOSE that the applicant should be accepting responsibility for the amount of cannabis they intend to use, REGARDLESS of the amount, even in the event that the daily amount is in excess of 5 grams per day. We question section 5.(1)(
i)(i) as it is currently worded as it stipulates again that medical practitioners are in a position to discuss the potential risks associated with an elevated daily consumption of dried marihuana. We REQUEST that section 5.(1)(
i)(i) and (ii) be removed. As it stands in the current MMAR application process, physicians rely on their patients to tell them how much cannabis they require to alleviate their symptoms. We recommend that this be reflected in the MMAR.
Medical Declaration
The most difficult hurdle for people living with HIV/AIDS and other seriously ill Canadians to overcome to access the medical marijuana program is to find a physician that is willing to sign the request for authorization forms, especially in rural or remote communities. The medical community has been reluctant to support the MMAR program as they feel there is a lack of scientific evidence on the risks and benefits of cannabis to support its use. Cannabis is not an approved drug product. They are also concerned with the use of smoked marijuana and do not accept this form of administration. Their responsibility to support the use of cannabis for medical purposes may be in conflict with their profession’s role related to unapproved or alternative medicines. Medical organizations such as the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Medical Protective Association, and the
Collège des médecins du Québec have issued statements to their members about their concerns and reservations to support such a program. As a result, many physicians do not support their patients’ applications for fear of retribution from their professional bodies and/or for lack of conviction about the therapeutic benefits of cannabis.
We support physicians and agree that it is within their professional purview to decide whether or not to support a patient’s application. As there is no Notice of Compliance for cannabis, we understand the ethical dilemma this program presents for physicians. In the proposed amendments to the MMAR, physicians are still required to be the gatekeepers to the program. This is the biggest barrier to ensure LEGAL access to seriously and chronically ill Canadians who choose to use cannabis to alleviate their symptoms. This leaves them with the unfortunate choice of obtaining cannabis illegally to alleviate their symptoms and live with the burden of their choice, or to forego using cannabis, thereby adversely affecting their health and well-being.
Our priority in this program is on the seriously and chronically ill Canadians who choose to use cannabis for therapeutic purposes to alleviate their symptoms and improve their quality of life. Applicants to the program report that they experience anxiety about having to speak to their physician about their wish to apply to the program, and they report often being met with hostility. The stigma surrounding cannabis use is still very prevalent. They report being reduced to ‘drug-seeking junkies’.
Representatives from the Canadian Medical Association (4) state that the MMAR are unacceptable because they ignore medical issues of quality, efficacy and patient safety. Physicians fear that the MMAR download the responsibility and future liability for potential consequences of cannabis use to them. They are also concerned about the harms to the patient-physician relationship when faced with turning down their patient’s request.
Physicians (5), however, do not object to a process whereby patients applied to the Minister for an exemption to possess cannabis for therapeutic purposes, as was the case to obtain a Section 56 Exemption prior to the MMAR. As the focus of the MMAR is on compassionate access, the Canadian AIDS Society feels that physicians should not be required to sign the application forms until such time as issues of quality, efficacy and patient safety can be shown to their satisfaction. This requirement, we feel, is unethical, both for the burden on the physician, and for the lack of recognition of a person’s right to liberty when it comes to choosing their treatment.
We agree that physicians need to confirm that the applicant suffers from a serious medical condition. We PROPOSE that the medical declaration should be limited to confirmation of diagnosis. This is a role that we feel physicians are comfortable with and if they are simply required to confirm the diagnosis, they might be more willing to support this program. The Minister could then authorize the applicant based on the Applicant’s Declaration and on the physician’s diagnosis. For the proposed Category 1, this process is simplified by the fact that a list of symptoms and associated medical conditions already exists under the Schedule included in the MMAR. For people living with HIV/AIDS, a confirmation that they are suffering from severe nausea, cachexia, anorexia, weight loss or severe pain should suffice.
For Category 2, we SUGGEST a similar process whereby patients apply directly to the Minister for an authorization to possess and/or produce cannabis for therapeutic purposes. The Expert Advisory Committee on Marijuana for Medical Purposes will be providing the Drug Strategy and Controlled Substances Programme with timely expert medical and scientific advice on questions and issues related to the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations program, in particular the content of the Schedule to the MMAR, and the categories of symptoms and associated medical conditions. The Schedule could include a list for Category 2 based on applications that have already been approved. The list could be kept up to date by Health Canada, under the advice of the Expert Advisory Committee, with the latest symptoms for which people are seeking authorization to possess cannabis on a compassionate basis. The schedule should be reviewed regularly and extended as needed based on a body of anecdotal and emerging scientific evidence until such a time that strong scientific and medical evidence are available. The Minister should extend an authorization to possess to an applicant upon the physician’s confirmation of diagnosis.
If amendments to the MMAR are implemented as currently proposed:
If physicians are going to continue to be required to be the gatekeepers in the medical marijuana access program, then we SUPPORT the change that physicians will no longer be required to list conventional therapies that have been tried or considered, or to provide their reasons for finding those therapies to be ineffective or inappropriate.
If the amendments to the MMAR are implemented as currently proposed, then we have some concerns. We are not convinced that the new wording of the Medical Declaration will have an important impact on physicians’ support of their patients’ applications, UNLESS a communication strategy is developed to explain the program to physician and to point out that the responsibility for the choice of cannabis falls on the applicant. The Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Medical Protective Association, the
Collège des médecins du Québec, and other professional bodies can assist in this process and communicate with physicians regarding the MMAR. Without this buy-in from physicians and their professional associations, access will continue to be hindered and applications will continue to drop in numbers, placing a significant number of Canadians in a difficult situation of choosing to use a controlled substance illegally to alleviate their symptoms, or going without it at the expense of their health and well-being, thereby infringing on their right to security of the person.
We RECOMMEND that the Minister communicate with medical practitioners in Canada to inform physicians about the medical marijuana access program and the MMAR, their roles and responsibilities under the MMAR, as well as the ongoing developments with regards to the building evidence on the therapeutic effects of cannabis and cannabinoids. This effort could be done jointly in collaboration with the various stakeholders. We hope that the professional bodies such as the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Medical Protective Association, the
Collège des médecins du Québec and other professional associations for physicians will communicate their support of the medical marijuana access program to their membership.
The Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement states that physicians will no longer be required “to make specific recommendations regarding the daily dosage of marihuana to be used by the applicant”. The Proposed Amendments to the MMAR do not seem to reflect this, as Section 6 (1)(
c) still reads: “6. (1) The medical declaration under paragraph 4(2)(
b) must indicate (
c) for the purpose of determining, under subsection 11(3), the maximum quantity of dried marihuana to be authorized, the daily amount of dried marihuana, in grams, and the form and route of administration that the applicant intends to use;” We REQUEST that the responsibility to declare how much cannabis is intended to be used be shifted to the Applicant’s Declaration.
Section 6.(1)(e) and Section 6.(2)(b)(v)
These sections state that the medical practitioner must declare that conventional treatments for the symptom have been tried or considered and have been found to be ineffective or medically inappropriate for the treatment of the applicant, and that the specialist (in the case of a Category 2 application) concurs. We REQUEST that these sections be removed as they create an unwarranted restriction on the applicant’s informed and autonomous choice of treatment.
Even if people living with HIV/AIDS can apply under Category 1, we feel that we must address the requirement for a specialist’s assessment under a Category 2 application. The requirement for a specialist’s assessment is unduly restrictive. The specialist’s assessment should be limited to diagnosing a patient’s symptom and associated medical condition. The medical practitioner making the declaration should be able to attest to a specialist’s assessment if it is available in the patient’s medical file. Only in the case where a medical practitioner is not in a position to diagnose a patient’s symptom and associated medical condition should a specialist be required. This requirement should only be for diagnostic purposes if it is not currently in the patient’s medical file. In addition, requiring that the specialist be made aware that marihuana is being considered as an alternative treatment for the applicant will not only result in further delays, but may jeopardize the specialist-patient relationship. Though we believe that it is important for applicants to discuss their cannabis use with their medical practitioners, we do not feel that this needs to be in the Regulations.
Protection for Physicians
If physicians are required to sign the application forms, then we PROPOSE that the MMAR include a section that protects physicians from civil action based on completing the application forms for their patients. This section of the Regulations would exempt physicians from liability as they would be acting under the authority of the legislation.
Streamlining the application, renewal and amendment processes for an authorization to possess
We SUPPORT the change that will now require a new ID photo from authorized persons every five years instead of every two years, and the elimination of the requirement to return expired authorization and licence documents until new ones have been issued. This will cut down on some of the required time to apply and keep an authorization, and will ensure that authorized persons have proper documentation with them until they receive the updated ones.
We SUGGEST that the time to process applications be significantly reduced to provide access to cannabis for people seeking it for therapeutic purposes in a timely fashion. Applicants report to us that the current processing time for applications is much too long to be practical. There is a waiting period to get an appointment with a physician, or several physicians to find a supportive one, and then the waiting period to obtain their authorization, then more waiting time to obtain cannabis product. For this program to work, applications must be processed in a timely fashion. Perhaps the Office of Cannabis Medical Access needs more resources to better address the processing of applications.
The renewal process that is being proposed will hopefully cut down on application time for people who are already authorized, and will require less time from the signing physicians.
The Regulatory Analysis Statement states that the applicant and physician will no longer be required to resubmit all of the information in the application form. This is not reflected in the proposed MMAR under section 14. We SUGGEST adding a statement to the MMAR to capture this new process.
Designated Persons Sending Dried Marihuana
We SUPPORT the change to allow persons other than the authorized person to sign to acknowledge receipt of the package sent by the designated person.
Authorization to Communicate Information to Canadian Police
We agree that the police will benefit from the inclusion of provisions in the Regulations that will enable them to confirm authorized persons’ information. This may reduce safety risks for authorized persons as well as for the greater community. We know, however, that authorized persons are nervous about these new provisions. We will have to work together to ensure that their privacy is ensured and that trust is developed between authorized persons and law enforcers.
We HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS about how the police will use the information disclosed to them regarding authorizations to possess and licences to produce.
We REQUEST that further consideration be given on this matter and that measures be taken to:
· ensure that this information not be used in the process of someone applying for a police record check;
· ensure that this will not result in continued surveillance of an authorized person’s home or a licenced producer’s home; and
· ensure that this information will NOT be used when an authorized person or a licenced producer wishes to cross a border.
We REQUEST that authorized person and/or licenced producers be notified by Health Canada when an enquiry has been made by the police about their Authorization to Possess or Licence to Produce, and this within 30 days of the request. We acknowledge that a police investigation may be pending. If this is the case, we REQUEST that the authorized person and/or licenced producer be notified within 60 days at the latest.
These concerns were expressed by authorized persons and patient group representatives at the Stakeholder Advisory Committee on Medical Marihuana as well as at the Multistakeholder Meeting in February 2004. These concerns are addressed in the proposed amendments to the MMAR, nor in the documentation currently being sent to applicants. Applicants want to be reassured that appropriate measures are taken to protect them in the situations mentioned. These reassurances are necessary for buy-in into this program.
Authorization to Provide Cannabis Through Pharmacies
We WELCOME the addition of a limited authority for a pharmacy-based distribution system for dried cannabis in the MMAR, as ONE option for distribution. Some Canadians will be more comfortable going through a pharmacy to obtain cannabis. Most Canadians who seek cannabis to alleviate their symptoms seek choices in safe and good quality products, competitive prices, and various routes of administration. If pharmacies only provide one product from the current licenced dealer, the needs of most authorized persons will not be met SOLELY by a pharmacy-based distribution system.
Information Included on Authorization to Possess
Authorized persons appreciate the added privacy protection by not providing medical information on the Authorization to Possess card.
Section 11.(1)(b) and Section 29(2)(b),(d) and (g)
The full address of the applicant will be indicated on the Authorization to Possess, and of the producer on the Licence to Produce. Concerns have been expressed to us regarding authorized persons/licenced producers’ privacy and safety in the event of a lost or stolen card. The documents also indicate the amount of cannabis a person is entitled to have/produce, which may entice some unwanted attention and criminal activity (i.e. break and enter, assault). Perhaps one’s address could be confirmed with other documentation, or with the police communicating with Health Canada to verify the information.
We SUGGEST that the address of the individual be removed from the Authorization to Possess card and from the Licence to Produce card as authorized persons/licenced producers are concerned about their safety in the event that a card is lost or stolen.
Plan to Phase Out of Licences to Produce
The Canadian AIDS Society’s Board of Directors (6) believes that people living with HIV/AIDS should have a choice as to the cannabis product and strain they want to consume, and should have access to a safe, legal, reliable, affordable, and fresh source of cannabis, with an option for an organic source.
We anticipate that there will be much resistance to Health Canada’s vision to phase out Licences to Produce. We STRONGLY URGE Health Canada to reexamine this vision and to continue providing licences to produce to authorized persons and designated growers.
Already, there are 544 out of 757 authorized persons and exemptees (7) that chose to cultivate their own cannabis or have someone designated to do so for them. This provides them with a lower cost alternative to paying $150 per ounce for the product from Prairie Plant Systems. It takes some time to get set up to produce cannabis and to ensure an adequate and stable crop. This option also enables them to grow a product of their choice. Phasing out this option will force them to buy a product that may or may not be effective to alleviate their symptoms, at a cost that is often prohibitive, or obtain it from an illegal source. We feel that the MMAR should provide the authority for Health Canada to designate MORE licenced dealers, providing more options to seriously and chronically ill Canadians.
MMAR & Hitzig Decision (Ontario Court of Appeal):
The Hitzig decision (Ontario Court of Appeal) (8) struck down three provisions of the MMAR, as they existed at that time: (1) limit on one person holding more than one licence to grow; (2) limit on licence holders growing in common with more than two holders; and (3) the prohibition on designated growers charging for doing the work. Despite the fact that these provisions were found to be unconstitutional and of no force and effect, in the 2003 amendments, Health Canada re-enacted the same provisions that the court struck down under (1) and (2). Health Canada repealed the third provision and the MMAR now enables designated growers to get paid.
We CALL on Health Canada to comply with the Ontario Court of Appeal’s ruling and REQUEST that section 41.(
b) and section 54 be removed from the MMAR.
We STRONGLY DISAGREE that a designated person should be refused a licence to produce EVEN IF they would be the holder of more than one licence to produce. Issuing licences to produce for more than one person to the same designated grower makes sense in that it takes advantage of a grower’s knowledge and expertise, existing equipment and facilities. This would also result in FEWER licenced producers, thus rendering it easier to monitor and regulate.
We also DISAGREE with this section that deems that a holder of a licence to produce shall not produce cannabis in common with more than two other holders of licences to produce. Again, grow co-operatives are cost-efficient, and maximize the knowledge and expertise of more people. They also ensure that more people are involved, and security can be enhanced. There is less dependence on the same person or few people to be on the premises at all times. Grow-operatives also result in FEWER sites producing cannabis for therapeutic purposes, in that fewer individual licences to produce will have to be issued.
WITHOUT ELIMINATING THESE LIMITATIONS, authorized persons and other seriously and chronically ill Canadians will continue to seek other sources and buy-in into this program will continue to be low.
Moving Toward a More Traditional Health Care Model
While we support further research to acquire more evidence of cannabis’ safety and efficacy, we have some concerns about Health Canada’s vision to move toward a more ‘traditional’ health care model. It will take some time to acquire the necessary evidence from clinical trials, and for the approval of cannabis and cannabis-based products as ‘drugs’. We hope that the MMAR will continue to strive to ensure that seriously and chronically ill Canadians have access to cannabis legally on a compassionate basis until such time that they can obtain it by prescription from their physician, or that the current regulatory environment changes.
Grounds for Refusal
In the Grounds for Refusal, we urge you again to consider issuing licences to produce cannabis REGARDLESS of the number of licences to produce already issued to this site. Grow co-operatives are cost-efficient, enable the sharing of experience and expertise, and also allow a group of people to share the responsibility for the crop. Having more people involved also increases the security of the premises. It also results in LESS sites with licences, which allows easier monitoring and regulating.
Section 35.(b)(i) and (ii), Section 37 (2)(d); 39(1)(c)(i) and (ii); and Section 40.(2)(c)and(e)
In the event that an applicant HAS been found guilty, within the 10 years preceding the application, of a designated drug offence or an offence committed outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would have constituted a designated drug offence, we propose that this be ground for refusal ONLY ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. There may be circumstances where someone was producing cannabis for their own therapeutic use, and each case should be studied to determine the cause of the charges.
The same suggestion is made for Sections 37 (2)(
d); 39(1)(
c)(i) and (ii); and
40.(2)(
c)and(
e).
Inspections
Currently, this section stipulates that inspections are solely for legal reasons to verify that the production of cannabis is in conformity with these Regulations. We offer that this section should be ENHANCED to include the inspection of sites where holders of licences to produce or, ultimately, licenced dealers under contract with Her Majesty in right of Canada to produce cannabis are producing cannabis. The focus of these inspections should be to ensure that the best agricultural practices are adhered to, to ensure a safe, quality product for seriously ill Canadians.
Licenced Dealers
Section 70.(b), Section 70.1 and Section 70.2
We REQUEST that the MMAR provide the authority for Health Canada to designate MORE licenced dealers under Sections 70.(
b), 70.1 and 70.2, providing more options to seriously and chronically ill Canadians. With this, we RECOMMEND the implementation of a regulatory framework to control and monitor the quality and cost of the products and to ensure that licenced dealers are adhering to rigorous agricultural standards. We also RECOMMEND that licenced dealers be charged a registration fee. The proceeds collected through this process should go toward subsidies for authorized persons to assist them in obtaining access to cannabis.
We URGE that provisions be made to enable the current licenced dealer, Prairie Plant Systems, to offer a variety of strains of cannabis, with both
Cannabis indica and
Cannabis sativa options, and a variety of THC and cannabidiol (CBD) levels.
Final Comments
We appreciate your time and consideration and look forward to receiving a response to our submissions. The Canadian AIDS Society wishes to continue to work as part of the Stakeholder Advisory Committee on Medical Marihuana to ensure that all Canadians needing access to cannabis for therapeutic purposes get it in a legal and equitable way.
End Notes.
1. R v. Parker, [2000] OJ No. 2787 (OCA) (QL), application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed (without reasons) 13 February 2003 [2002] SCCA No. 270.; Hitzig v. Canada, [2004] O.J. No. 3873 (OCA) (QL), application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed (without reasons) 6 May 2004 [2004] SCCA No. 5.
2. The Canadian AIDS Society’s Position Statement on HIV/AIDS and the Therapeutic Use of Cannabis is available on our Web site at:
http://www.cdnaids.ca/web/position.nsf/cl/cas-pp-0021 .
3. The Canadian AIDS Society’s Position Statement on HIV/AIDS and the Therapeutic Use of Cannabis is available on our Web site at:
http://www.cdnaids.ca/web/position.nsf/cl/cas-pp-0021 .
4. Speaking Notes from Dr. Henry Haddad, World Forum on Drug Dependence, Medicinal Marijuana, September 26, 2002.
http://www.cma.ca/index.cfm/ci_id/19442/la_id/1.htm .
5. Speaking Notes from Dr. Henry Haddad, World Forum on Drug Dependence, Medicinal Marijuana, September 26, 2002.
http://www.cma.ca/index.cfm/ci_id/19442/la_id/1.htm .
6. The Canadian AIDS Society’s Position Statement on HIV/AIDS and the Therapeutic Use of Cannabis is available on our Web site at:
http://www.cdnaids.ca/web/position.nsf/cl/cas-pp-0021 .
7. Health Canada, Office of Cannabis Medical Access, Marihuana for Medical Purposes – Statistics, October 1, 2004,
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/ocma/stats/2004/oct/stats_oct-04.htm .
8. Hitzig v. Canada, Court of Appeal for Ontario, DOCKET: C39532; C39738; C39740, October 7, 2004,
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/october/hitzigC39532.htm
