cannabisnews.com: Ottawa Back-Pedalling on Pot, Critics Believe 





Ottawa Back-Pedalling on Pot, Critics Believe 
Posted by CN Staff on September 18, 2002 at 12:27:27 PT
By Tracey Tyler, Legal Affairs Reporter
Source: Toronto Star 
A federal official says the government never had any intention of providing chronically ill Canadians with medical marijuana grown for Health Canada, despite promises from former health minister Allan Rock that it would be available for "medical" use.The government planned all along to use the drug only in clinical trials, said Cindy Cripps-Prawak, director of Health Canada's cannabis medical access program.
Cripps-Prawak's statements are contained in a transcript of an out-of-court cross-examination conducted in preparation for a two-day hearing scheduled to begin tomorrow. Ten Canadians are asking the Ontario Superior Court to order Health Canada to provide them with the marijuana, grown in Manitoba, and to strike down federal regulations as unconstitutional surrounding the distribution of the drug.Alan Young, a Toronto lawyer and professor who cross-examined Cripps-Prawak, said in an interview it's unclear whether the government has radically changed its policy regarding distributing marijuana to chronically ill people or whether it was deceiving Canadians all along.The evidence in the case seems to indicate that Health Canada was on the verge of having a network for distributing the plant, he said, adding that federal officials were considering making it available through a special access program for unapproved drugs. Misunderstanding over what constitutes `medicinal' use  But Cripps-Prawak said the only purpose behind the operation was "valid scientific research." Late last year, the federal government drafted, but never sent, a letter to Canadians granted federal exemptions to use medical marijuana. In it, Health Canada said it would limit just how free it could be in distributing the pot."Unlike an illegal or illicit grow operation, we are attempting to meet stringent standards for the production of a pharmaceutical product," Cripps-Prawak said under questioning on June 27. "This is not like growing tomatoes."During her cross-examination, Cripps-Prawak suggested there was a misunderstanding about what the federal government meant by "medical" use.While it's become clear that some medical marijuana users took that to mean ready access to the government supply, what Health Canada meant by "medical" purposes was that the drug would be available through "open label clinical trials," she said. Open label trials differ from regular clinical trials because patients know for sure they are getting the drug, not a placebo, and are being monitored by their family physicians.Young said not one government document ever talked about open-label trials. Cripps-Prawak admitted that she couldn't point to a specific document where open-label trials had been mentioned and said the references to medical use had been vague. "But I don't believe it has ever been the intent of this particular department ... to make marijuana freely available to the exempted Canadians without the context of some sort of monitoring and research," she said. Note: Official denies open distribution was planned.Source: Toronto Star (CN ON)Author: Tracey Tyler, Legal Affairs ReporterPublished: September 18, 2002Copyright: 2002 The Toronto Star Contact: lettertoed thestar.com Website: http://www.thestar.com/ Related Articles:Rock Planned To Release Pot, Letter Sayshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14157.shtmlOttawa Making Mess of Medical Marijuana Issuehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13990.shtmlHow To Stall On Medicinal Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13823.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #7 posted by malleus on September 19, 2002 at 07:57:06 PT
Can the DEA look any worse than they do now?
Yes, they can. But this time, at a very high cost to them.Think about this: a city has stood against the feds, successfully. The DEA tried to shut down WAMM by attacking the garden; the dispensary was back in operation in a week. I have no doubt that they will be back at city hall again. The DEA arrested people, and then couldn't get a magistrate to sign the arrest warrants, so the Corrals had to be let go. The DEA has failed three times. And gotten a lot of egg on it's face for it's troubles. publicly. They don't look too good right now, and they are worried.Worse, the matter has finally received the national and international attention it so desperately needed. Up to now, all the American people have heard was the DEA acting as if it were a public address system, scattering its BS and no one challenged it, so in the minds of the public there was no other side to be heard.Now the public knows about the other side. They know about the raids. They have seen the sick on crutches and in wheelchairs, they've seen the pained and the dying. People the DEA didn't want to have any publicity have been shown on national TV. So long as the patients stayed anonymous, the DEA could work it's evil in the dark of public awareness. Now the targets of this madness have been shown to have a human and suffering face. And, even worse for the DEA, WAMM has shown what a responsible distribution of cannabis as medicine to those who needed it most looks like. By making it appear normal, you get the American people asking the one question that DEA people never want asked: "What's wrong with sick, suffering, dying people using something that helps them?"Walters, Hutchinson and Ashcroft have all stuck their heads into a hornets nest, thinking it was some sort of crown granting them absolute power. The Clinton Administration has gotten with murder; why can't they? But they are about to learn that all their piety and good intentions won't save them from what's coming. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by Jose Melendez on September 19, 2002 at 07:32:18 PT
Yahoo!
Dr. Mangham's letter apparently inspired at least one other letter suggesting that the good doctor espouses a hypocritical position that carefully avoids listing any proof of his contention that cannabis should remain illegal because it is addictive and harmful. Indeed, even his published testimony* before the Canadian Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs claims Instead of the 1 or 2% THC content of thirty years ago, such strains as "Nederweit" and "BC Bud", are reaching THC concentrations of 30 to 40%This, and several other points he makes are easily refuted.Here is the other letter to the editor of the Medecine Hat News:From:http://www.medicinehatnews.com/channels/medicinehatnews/medicinehatnews/hysletter.htm
Prohibition doesn't workre: Dr. Colin R. Mangham's letter published Sept. 16. Mangham says a lot of things. Like most prohibitionists he spews little more than meaningless hot air. Nobody is saying that abusing marijuana or any substance is a good thing. What we are saying is that the restriction of law has not improved the situation. The law has not reduced either demand or supply. In fact it has caused dealers to push drugs harder in order to profit from the unnecessarily valuable substance, thereby creating more users and more demand. Up until about 100 years ago when we decided to persecute racial segments of society by restricting their drugs of choice, all drugs were as available as baking powder. Opium and marijuana have been used for thousands of years for many different reasons. Heroin was invented by Bayer as a cough suppressant. Morphine and cocaine were commonly used without any concern because it was never a problem before prohibition. People become addicted to many things that feel good whether it is a skydiving adrenalin junkie or someone who is sexually promiscuous. The criminal and social problems surrounding addiction are created and amplified by prohibition. Serious problems that otherwise would not exist have arisen as a result of prohibition and prohibition's inflation of the value of otherwise valueless substances, including the rise of violent gangs, government corruption, disease from markedly increased needle use and death.
The reason the Senate choose this cause to focus on is that the House of Commons has refused to hear anything that might suggest that prohibition is the complete failure that it is. Normally in our democratic process the Commons would weigh the evidence and formulate a decision. This has not occurred and so the Senate has chosen to listen to rather than ignore reality. Perhaps Mangham should focus on the dangers of drugs released without thought of patient safety and pushed by doctors all in the name of profit, drugs that replace tested and effective drugs that are no longer profitable due to patent expiry. Or focus on the epidemic of untreated and improperly managed pain by the medical profession, leading to assisted suicide, all because of an irrational fear of addiction and a complete misunderstanding of proper pain management techniques. The Senate should be applauded for having the backbone to do the right thing. In spite of powerful American threats to impede trade, uneducated or scared MDs and years of prolific propaganda, the Senate did the right thing. The senators are not guilty of expressing mindless opinion. They conducted a study that was all encompassing spanning years and costing millions, resulting in a summary more than 1,000 pages long that Dr. Mangham says we should ignore because in his opinion the result of the study is "cop-out realism to the extreme?" It must be understood that Dr. Mangham is truly a professional prohibitionist. He is not interested in reality. His paper Harm Reduction and Illegal Drugs: The True Debate advocates prevention. Prevention through law is the real pipe dream. An utter failure proven by the current state of affairs. A situation caused by years of lies and prohibition.
Devin Olmsteadxxecolimustdiexx yahoo.com
Here is the original letter to which we were responding:From:http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n1719/a05.html?1154
COOPER ON TRACK WITH POT COLUMN
I would like to commend Dana Cooper's editorial on the Senate's ill-advised 
recommendation to legalize pot. For all the reasons he mentioned, the whole 
exercise was and is an embarrassing waste of taxpayer's dollars. The 
committee largely had its mind made up when it was formed in 2000.
I would warn us all that this is no pipe dream. If we don't want to see pot 
legalized with all that would bring for our children and children's 
children, then we need to be saying so loudly to our governments. There is 
a real lobbying effort going on and this scientifically, socially and 
ethically unfounded recommendation is being pushed by many of the public 
health elite in this country. They have systematically ignored or 
downplayed all the warnings and have gone instead with the vogue thinking 
that drug use is not only unavoidable but somehow normal. This is cop-out 
realism to the extreme.
Dr. Colin R. Mangham, Langley, B,C. 
*See: Implications of a Liberalized Drug Policy in Canada Brief for the Senate Committee on Illegal DrugsPrepared by Colin Mangham, PhD.Director Prevention Source BC 
Faculty Associate
Institute for Health Promotion Research, UBCAdjunct Professor
Faculty of Health Professions
Dalhousie UniversitySeptember 17, 2001
http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/presentation-e/mangham-e.htm
 
latest list of easily disprovable talking points against legal marijuana
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by WolfgangWylde on September 19, 2002 at 04:31:10 PT
Slam Dunk Indeed...
...but only if last year's ruling meant anything. I'm not holding my breath.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by The GCW on September 18, 2002 at 17:41:25 PT
Jose Melendez, voiced in CANADA.
CN AB: PUB LTE: Stop War On Drugs
Pubdate: Wed, 18 Sep 2002
Source: Medicine Hat News (CN AB)
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n1752/a05.html?397STOP WAR ON DRUGS I would like to point out to Dr. Colin R. Mangham that jailing users is not effective as a solution to drug use. The policy is in place only because those creating such laws are not in that social group. During Prohibition, gangsters on both sides of the law were guaranteed ever-increasing stores of cash, weapons and funding. Perhaps if the good doctor is so interested in protecting society from dangerous and addictive drugs he should promote incarceration as an automatic penalty for any and all nicotine and caffeine use. While we are at it, shall we start busting down the doors of churches that celebrate with wine as a sacrament? Laws specifically against cannabis use are themselves a crime against humanity. They continue to be wildly popular because they restrict other, less politically connected groups. It is high time that the war on ( some ) drugs is exposed as fraud, and arrested. Better hurry, Doc, before they come after your Ritalin, Prozac and Valium peddling industry. Jose Melendez, 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Dark Star on September 18, 2002 at 13:17:18 PT
Easy
This case should be a judicial slam-dunk. Do what's right judges!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Sam Adams on September 18, 2002 at 13:08:13 PT
I hope I'm not beating a dead horse.....
but I again have to notice how different the media is in Canada! They're constantly printing criticism of the government, without over-emphasizing the govt's position as US media does. I really do fear the worst for America's future because of the dumbing-down and complacency of the media; it's the people's only voice.Looks the Canadian feds are in deep do-do if documents show that they had planned and promised distribution. That means Cindy Cripps-Prawak perjured herself on the stand. They could have to distribute AND pay damages to the sick people that had to wait and suffer.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by BigDawg on September 18, 2002 at 13:06:28 PT
Hmmmm
Could it be.... outside pressure?
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment