cannabisnews.com: Toking Gesture 





Toking Gesture 
Posted by CN Staff on July 14, 2003 at 07:03:55 PT
By Anne McIlroy
Source: Guardian Unlimited UK
The Canadian government is, officially, a drug dealer. Starting this week, it will sell marijuana to more than 550 Canadians who have the legal right to smoke the drug because of medical conditions such as arthritis or Aids.The move comes six weeks after Canada angered the US by moving ahead with plans to decriminalise the possession of small amounts of marijuana. However, this time the federal government is making its move reluctantly, and only to comply with a court ruling.
In January, the Ontario superior court gave Ottawa six months to secure a supply of marijuana for Canadians who have been given exemption from drug laws because they suffer from serious illnesses and can show that their nausea and pain is relieved by the drug.Earlier court rulings had declared that it was unconstitutional to deny ill Canadians access to a drug that helped them.In its latest ruling, the Ontario court said that it was wrong to put ill, vulnerable people in the position of having to deal with criminals in order to obtain a drug that they had been authorised to take.The federal government is appealing that decision, and was hoping to put off supplying marijuana while it prepared its appeal. The court refused that request, but the government waited until the last possible minute to announce that it was ready to supply the drug, which has been grown in an abandoned mine in the small town of Flin Flon, Manitoba.It will deliver the drug to doctors treating the 582 Canadians who have the legal right to smoke it. Patients will pay $4 (£2.50) for a gram of a marijuana, and can also buy seeds at around $15 for a bag of 30, enabling them to grow their own plants. That is less than the street value of marijuana in Canada, which is generally at least twice that amount.However, some patients are still upset, saying that legal marijuana is out of their reach. Others see the move as a positive first step.But this may not be a permanent programme. The federal health minister, Anne McLellan, has signalled that the policy will be changed if the government wins its appeal, saying: "It was never the intention for us to sell the product."Ms McLellan remains sceptical about the benefits of marijuana, telling reporters: "There have been no studies anywhere in the world that have been able to confirm medicinal benefit." The country's doctors also remain unconvinced, and the president of the Canadian Medical Association has urged his fellow physicians not to take part in the programme.The US is also unsure about Canada's new approach to marijuana, especially the proposed legislation that would decriminalise the possession of small amounts of the drug. Instead of getting a criminal record, which makes it difficult to travel to the US or to get a job, people caught smoking pot would get small fines.Last week, a senior US official visited Ottawa to talk about a planned border crackdown if the legislation is passed.Canada has been in the US headlines lately because of its marijuana ruling and plans to recognize gay marriages. A recent article in the Washington Post dubbed Canada "Berkeley North", and said that the US appeared "fussy, Victorian and imperial" by comparison.The government's plans to grow and sell its own pot provide another sign of the differences between the Liberal Canadian administration and the Republican government of George Bush.Note: Canada's government is to sell marijuana to those legally entitled to smoke it, but only in reluctant compliance with a court ruling. Anne McIlroy explains. Source: Guardian Unlimited, The (UK)Author: Anne McIlroyPublished: Monday, July 14, 2003 Copyright: 2003 Guardian Newspapers LimitedContact: letters guardian.co.ukWebsite: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Related Articles & Web Site:Canadians for Safe Accesshttp://www.safeaccess.ca/Ottawa MDs Won't Handle Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16842.shtmlOttawa Pot Plan Unworkable: Doctors http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16819.shtmlCanada To Supply Marijuana To Seriously Ill http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16809.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #6 posted by FoM on July 14, 2003 at 13:26:15 PT
Thanks afterburner, I re-registered and voted
Where do you stand on the legalization of medical marijuana?
 Current ResultsFor it 72% = 10636 votes Against it 18% = 2734 votes I’m not sure 6% = 961 votes I don’t care 2% = 422 votes Current number of voters: 14753 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by FoM on July 14, 2003 at 13:14:51 PT
afterburner
No I wasn't able to access the poll. I know I'm registered with excite but I haven't used it since they stopped doing news and I'm not sure what name I used or password. Maybe I can re-register. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by afterburner on July 14, 2003 at 13:11:32 PT:
Thanks, FoM
Were you able to access the poll? http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread16856.shtml#9
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by FoM on July 14, 2003 at 13:04:55 PT
afterburner
Here it is! I posted the article but archived it so I know it might have been missed. http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread16846.shtml
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by afterburner on July 14, 2003 at 12:54:13 PT:
The Observer Editorial and The Talk [Guardian]
We have lost the war on drugs: 
The old solutions just don't work 
--Leader
Sunday July 13, 2003
The Observer http://observer.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,6903,997144,00.htmlGuardian Talk UK news 
Drug crime surges: has the war on drugs failed?   
Started by ObserverTalk at 08:28pm Jul 12, 2003 BST "The Observer reports that this week's national crime figures will show a sharp rise in drug-related crime. In a leader 'We have lost the war on drugs', The Observer calls for an end to a futile and failing approach to drugs policy. Should drugs laws be liberalised? What impact would this have on drug-related crime?" News story and leader will appear at http://www.observer.co.uk/drugs --------------------------------------------------------------------------------jimdelphi - 07:28am Jul 13, 2003 BST (#5 of 8) 
"The two biggest harms done to society by drugs are both caused by the war on drugs. First, the wholly unjustifiable invasion of civil liberties in which the state criminalises people for their choice of drug (unless it is the far more damaging nicotine/tobacco or alcohol). Surely, you should be free to do pretty well whatever you like unless you harm others or impose costs on them? The state can use persuasion and pressure of every form to warn and deter you, but legal sanctions should generally be reserved for those situations where one person's actions harm another. The second major harm is the crime caused by a relatively small hard-core of highly troubled users (30-100,000 out of about 4 million illegal drug users). Home Office figures suggest the crime and criminal justice cost to society is about £20 billion. But the utter stupidity at the heart of the war on drugs concept is the idea of RAISING the price to deter use (cocaine costs about 20 times what it would cost if it was a legal product). Raise the price and the most desperate users will commit more robberies to fund the habit and the costs and risks of supply attract bigger and nastier criminals - hence more gangs, more guns etc etc. And raising the price obviously hasn't worked well as deterrence. I don't see how a junkie living a chaotic life with a terrible addiction is much helped by arrest and prison. They need help not punishment, and using the criminal justice system to treat them is a nonsense and almost always fails. When will governments realise that it is the criminalisation that does the lion's share of the damage to society? The ONLY sound way to deal with drugs is to gradually legalise them all, starting with cannabis, while treating their use as a serious public health problem and introducing tough policies to control their legal supply and use - licensed outlets and growers, warnings and product information, product standards (vital with drugs like ecstacy which causes more death through contamination than anything else) bans on public use, public information campaigns. Decriminalisation is a nod towards tolerance, but it still leaves a supply infrastructure full of nasty villains regulating their trade by mob violence. Legalisation is a tough decision, but backed by the right control measures it is the only credible course. Finally, what is shocking is that the drugs establishment in the UK (Drugscope etc) rarely says any of this publicly, though it knows it to be true. Why? Could it be the risk of displeasing their funders at the Home Office?" James Delphi --------------------------------------------------------------------------------paxx - 08:46am Jul 13, 2003 BST (#6 of 8) 
"Up until 1967 in the UK drug addicts were merely required to approach their GP, register as addicts, and then their treatment was a matter between them and the GP. The GP was free to prescribe whatever drugs he felt to be appropriate. In contradistinction to the US which had a nightmare drugs problem there was virtually no addiction in the UK, a few thousand addicts mostly composed of medical staff and foreign nationals. In 1967, for purely political reasons, the government 'privatised' the drugs trade, thus ensuring that the illegal trade could make super profits. Criminologists have been pointing out the stupidity of this ever since. Politically however, at least for Blair and others to the right of centre, there is no percentage in changing back. Middle England may howl about crime and addiction, but it will not reward the politician who reduces crime. Middle England does not care how much crime there is, or how much addiction, they care how much punishment there is! They want to see more people punished more severely for more crime. That is why this government is apeing the US instead of following the saner path taken by Scandinavia or Iberia." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
ego transcendence follows ego destruction, tea time.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by afterburner on July 14, 2003 at 10:13:50 PT:
"no studies anywhere in the world...benefit"?
Ms McLellan remains sceptical about the benefits of marijuana, telling reporters: "There have been no studies anywhere in the world that have been able to confirm medicinal benefit." 
How can Anne McIlroy write this article for The Guardian Unlimited (UK) without challenging Canadian "Health" Minister Anne McLellan's ignorant mis-statement by mentioning GW Pharmaceuticals and their research in the UK, supporting a medical whole plant extract of cannabis?"We don’t put our doctors in charge of stopping violent crimes. The police, prosecutors, and prison guards should not be in charge of which herbal therapies people may use to treat their personal health problems."
- Jack Herer, "The Emperor Wears No Clothes" - 
ego transcendence follows ego destruction, the British are coming, the British are coming.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment