cannabisnews.com: Ottawa Shelves Medicinal Pot





Ottawa Shelves Medicinal Pot
Posted by CN Staff on August 20, 2002 at 06:54:35 PT
By Andre Picard & Carolyn Abraham
Source: Globe and Mail 
Canada's Health Minister has all but snuffed out the government's much-ballyhooed plans to supply marijuana as medicine.Anne McLellan said Monday that she feels uncomfortable with the idea of people smoking pot to relieve pain, and that Ottawa will not distribute marijuana for medicinal purposes until clinical trials are completed — trials that have yet to begin.
Ending months of silence and speculation that the federal government may be backing away from its controversial $5.7-million project to grow "medicinal-grade" marijuana, Ms. McLellan made her comments while speaking to doctors at the annual meeting of the Canadian Medical Association in Saint John.The doctors have led a powerful lobby against prescribing pot as medicine, arguing it has not been tested for safety or efficacy. As well, sources say, Ms. McLellan has been swayed by concerns from U.S. officials that Canada would be making cannabis more available.The minister suggested Monday that the courts forced the government to adopt the controversial marijuana-as-medicine plan, and that she was looking to Canada's highest court for a way out."I hope this whole issue gets before the Supreme Court of Canada fairly soon so we will have the opportunity to reargue this case before the Supreme Court so we can get some clarity about what is happening here," she said.But Toronto lawyer Alan Young, who has led the court challenges to make marijuana legal and accessible, said the minister is either "confused, or she's being disingenuous." There is no case heading to the Supreme Court that deals with the use of the drug as medicine, he said.In fact, Mr. Young said, the federal government actually opted not to take the medical marijuana issue to the country's top court after the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the right of Torontonian Terry Parker to smoke pot to ease his epileptic seizures.It was that landmark decision in 2000 that prompted Ottawa to create its current medical-marijuana program. That is because the court gave the government 12 months to amend the law that made it difficult for sick people to possess pot.If the government had not acted in that time frame, it would not have been a crime for anyone to possess marijuana."The federal Department of Justice made a decision not to appeal to the Supreme Court at that time," said Mr. Young, who had represented Mr. Parker in the case. What's more, he noted, Ms. McLellan was the federal justice minister at the time.The only pot-related case heading to the Supreme Court is to be heard later this fall and it involves the larger question of whether the federal government has the right to bar the recreational use of the drug, Mr. Young said.Ms. McLellan's unexpected comments in Saint John followed a question from Kingston physician Raju Hajela and she initially joked, "Just a minute ago, I thought to myself: 'I'm going to get out of here without a question about medical marijuana.' "Dr. Hajela said he was angry about government regulations permitting certain patients to use pot because "there is no scientific evidence for the benefits of marijuana." A single joint, he said, is as harmful as 10 cigarettes.The minister, clearly uncomfortable, spoke inconclusively for several minutes in response. Ms. McLellan said marijuana should be subject to the same standards as other prescription drugs and agreed it was hypocritical for her department to allow pot smoking while working to reduce tobacco-smoking rates."I understand the issues that we in this room have and feel in relation to the lack of scientific evidence, possible liability issues and the fact that the federal Department of Health does find itself in a slightly ironic position when I am responsible for the single largest campaign in the federal government — the anti-smoking campaign," she said.Ms. McLellan then added: "I don't mean to say that the courts made me do it, or made [former health minister] Allan [Rock] do it, although there is some truth to that. The courts took us down a certain path."Mr. Rock, who is now Minister of Industry, met the court-imposed deadline and introduced regulations in 2001 permitting medically qualified patients — anyone from AIDS patients to back-pain sufferers — to use marijuana. The government also hired a company to grow massive quantities of marijuana in an old mine in Flin Flon, Man.At least 806 patients have qualified under these special regulations to date. But many of them face a desperate Catch-22: being legally entitled to possess a drug that it remains illegal to buy.None of the 250 kilograms of pot harvested so far has made its way into the hands of patients. What's more, the government is paying Saskatoon-based Prairie Plant Systems Inc. to produce 400-kilograms of marijuana a year for the next four years.A group of eight patients is now heading to Ontario Superior Court to get access to the Manitoba supply.Ms. McLellan said she is "not insensitive to those who feel it helps in their final days or acute-illness situations" but said she owed it to Canadians to ensure that all therapeutic drugs be rigorously tested before approval and use.Doctors in attendance applauded Ms. McLellan's speech, in particular her acknowledgment that she felt a "certain level of discomfort" about marijuana as medicine.The Canadian Medical Association and its insurer, the Canadian Medical Protective Association, have told physicians not to sign patients' requests to be federally approved to possess cannabis because prescribing an untested drug could leave them vulnerable to legal action.Henry Haddad, president of the CMA, said that he was "very encouraged" by the Ms. McLellan's statements. "The minister is obviously getting a lot closer to our position, so I'm very encouraged that there will be changes coming to the regulations," he said in an interview.From Tuesday's Globe and MailSource: Globe and Mail (Canada)Author: Andre Picard & Carolyn AbrahamPublished: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 – Online EditionCopyright: 2002 The Globe and Mail CompanyContact: letters globeandmail.caWebsite: http://www.globeandmail.ca/Related Articles & Web Sites:Health Canadahttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/Canadian Medical Associationhttp://www.cma.ca/McLellan Admits Med Pot Makes Her Uncomfortablehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13804.shtmlSeized Pot Packs Punch, Ottawa Finds http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13797.shtmlPotency of Government Marijuana Questioned http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12862.shtmlAiling Canadians To Sue for Promised Pothttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12915.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #10 posted by Industrial Strength on August 20, 2002 at 13:00:43 PT
me, too
I don't really see the Supreme Court striking down prohibition. Maybe decriminalizing in a few years, but I'm not very optimistic. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by karkulus on August 20, 2002 at 12:56:20 PT
Stall,Stall,Stall....
      How long till the U.S. and Canada catches-up with the rest of the "First-World" countries?? We're going to be like Cuba & China, only with Prohibitionist Totalitarianism instead of economic .
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by kaptinemo on August 20, 2002 at 10:01:23 PT:
Now, did you REALLY expect a politician
or a bureaucrat to act like they 'have a pair'? Their elected officials and their bureaucrats operate upon the same principles - if you can call them that - as ours do. Namely, if you got a hot potato, you pass it on. That's just what happened. So now it really is up to the Canadian Supreme Court to do what no Canadian administration has yet shown the cojones to do.One last thing; in many respects, their Court behaves much the same way as ours; when it speaks, it is doing so ex cathedra and is rarely challenged. If cannabis re-legalization passes, then it is hardly likely any police organizations up there will have the resources to try to overturn it...not without help from their cross-border buddies. And any photographs of US DrugWarriors giving Canadian ones their marching orders would be a sight few Canux want to see in their newspapers - hint, hint, hint.It all comes down to whether Canadian courts will live up to their mandates of adjudicating their own laws. Or whether they will 'me, too' with their corrupt American judges.
 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by canaman on August 20, 2002 at 10:00:07 PT
And for the record......
I would want it to by a bottle of cannabis extract.Lots of cool old pics of back when cannabis WAS medicine and not some EVIL drug! http://www.conquestdesign.com/uncler/
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by canaman on August 20, 2002 at 09:36:02 PT
" I'd rather have a bottle in front of me,
than a frontal lobotomy" just something I heard from an old drunk once. ;-)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Sam Adams on August 20, 2002 at 09:16:47 PT
Thanks SO much, doctors
Isn't it telling that the number one group to DIRECTLY stop the sick and dying from getting a little herb is DOCTORS.I've got an idea, why don't we just bring back the lobotomy? It would probably be great for pain relief - if someone's suffering, just surgically remove their mind. No more pain until they die, lots of money for the surgeon & drugs for the Big Pharm. And the Canadian government gets to pay for it all, so they can raise taxes to hire administrators, and pay their Mining Industry friends millions to grow weed that will rot to dust in some hole in the ground. NICE JOB.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Dan B on August 20, 2002 at 07:36:07 PT:
By the way . . .
Notice that it has actually been two years since the Ontario Supreme Court ruled that Parliament had one year before cannabis prohibition was to be struck down. In other words, Parliament got a one-year freebie, and the courts have done nothing since the year deadline was up to make good their threat of compete cannabis legalization.So much for having the courts on our side.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Dan B on August 20, 2002 at 07:33:09 PT:
Was it all a ruse?
Well, sort of. Basically, the government (in the form of the courts) said that the government (in the form of the Parliament) had to make medical marijuana accessible to patients or marijuana would, of necessity, become legal for everyone. So, the Parliament decided to pretend to comply, then backed out at the last minute.So, what does this mean? Logically, it means that the Parliament failed in its mission to make medical marijuana accessible, so cannabis should now be legal for everyone in Canada. Of course, for this to hold up, it has to go to court and win. Yes, again. And I guarantee that if it makes it past the Ontario Supreme Court, this time it will go to the Supreme Court of Canada. Whether legalization is struck down there depends on the views of the members of that court. I suspect that they did not take the appeal last time because they wanted to wait until the deadline was over to "see what would happen." In other words, they needed some time to stall before they block legalization again (as I suspect they will do). I have no faith in the United States government, and I have no reason to have faith in Canada's Supreme Court, either. If cannabis prohibition is struck down in Canada . . . well, I'll believe it when I see it.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by FoM on August 20, 2002 at 07:13:34 PT
TroutMask
What does this mean? I really want to know. What will happen to the Cannabis that was grown at the Flin Flon Mine? Law Against Marijuana Struck Down in Ontario
http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread6581.shtmlCourt Strikes Down Marijuana Possession Law 
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6577.shtml
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by TroutMask on August 20, 2002 at 07:04:26 PT
Win Win
"Henry Haddad, president of the CMA, said that he was 'very encouraged' by the Ms. McLellan's statements. 'The minister is obviously getting a lot closer to our position, so I'm very encouraged that there will be changes coming to the regulations,' he said in an interview."I guess Henry will be REALLY encouraged when marijuana prohibition is struck down in it's entirety and he doesn't have to worry at all about prescribing it since no prescription will be necessary.-TM
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment