VIANARCHRIS
Well-Known Member
Anything that begins a gradual process of decriminalizing a behaviour in which millions of Canadians have participated without harm to themselves or others is probably welcome.
So we should greet with cautious optimism a recent decision by the courts to circumscribe what Judge Michael Phelan ruled are “arbitrary and overbroad” provisions in federal law barring medical marijuana patients from growing their own cannabis.
It’s not as though the judge’s reasoning in the case was radical. According to federal statistics about 40 per cent of Canadians have used marijuana at some point in their lives, although the number that have done so in the past 12 months falls to about 10 per cent. And yet, lest anyone think there’s a vast pent-up demand, federal surveys also report that the number of Canadian users fell by more than 11 per cent over the past decade or so.
Still, caution seems prudent for governments considering policy for regulating production, distribution and use. Marijuana is a potent drug, whether used for medical or recreational purposes and whether grown legally or illegally. Regardless of the proselytizing by marijuana enthusiasts who promote it as entirely benign, the research literature points to risks that demand management. Evidence suggests smoking marijuana carries respiratory risks similar to those tobacco smokers face although researchers still haven’t determined whether there’s a similarly elevated risk for lung cancer. And, like alcohol, another drug widely used for medicinal and recreational purposes, marijuana use during pregnancy has been linked to brain and behavioural problems in babies.
That being said, benefits of medical marijuana use can be weighed against risks. Since we don’t have a problem doing so with alcohol, why shy from doing so with cannabis?
Home production of marijuana for medical purposes does raise questions about quality control. How would pharmaceutical content be determined or standardized? Are regulated distributors better positioned to address these issues than backyard gardeners? On the other hand, we already permit home manufacturing of alcohol under limited conditions which preclude commercial distribution. So why not marijuana, too, applying the same constraints?
That’s why, cautions notwithstanding, the federal government should not appeal what’s generally a sensible judicial decision acknowledging the present reality. Rather, government should work diligently with patients, the public, medical professionals, regulatory and enforcement agencies to devise a regulatory framework appropriate to permitting a humane, practical and prudent way to put medical cannabis in the hands of patients who want to grow their own without a surfeit of red tape. Most, likely won’t. They will still want to buy from commercial distributors. So that needs to be revisited, too.
Accommodating this sensible court decision can also provide a kind of social research laboratory for testing models for decriminalizing recreational marijuana use to get it off the black market, out of the hands of criminal profiteers, and regulated.
When it comes to pot, perhaps it’s time to accept the right of individuals to weigh risks against benefits in a safety-conscious, regulated environment as they already do with alcohol.
So we should greet with cautious optimism a recent decision by the courts to circumscribe what Judge Michael Phelan ruled are “arbitrary and overbroad” provisions in federal law barring medical marijuana patients from growing their own cannabis.
It’s not as though the judge’s reasoning in the case was radical. According to federal statistics about 40 per cent of Canadians have used marijuana at some point in their lives, although the number that have done so in the past 12 months falls to about 10 per cent. And yet, lest anyone think there’s a vast pent-up demand, federal surveys also report that the number of Canadian users fell by more than 11 per cent over the past decade or so.
Still, caution seems prudent for governments considering policy for regulating production, distribution and use. Marijuana is a potent drug, whether used for medical or recreational purposes and whether grown legally or illegally. Regardless of the proselytizing by marijuana enthusiasts who promote it as entirely benign, the research literature points to risks that demand management. Evidence suggests smoking marijuana carries respiratory risks similar to those tobacco smokers face although researchers still haven’t determined whether there’s a similarly elevated risk for lung cancer. And, like alcohol, another drug widely used for medicinal and recreational purposes, marijuana use during pregnancy has been linked to brain and behavioural problems in babies.
That being said, benefits of medical marijuana use can be weighed against risks. Since we don’t have a problem doing so with alcohol, why shy from doing so with cannabis?
Home production of marijuana for medical purposes does raise questions about quality control. How would pharmaceutical content be determined or standardized? Are regulated distributors better positioned to address these issues than backyard gardeners? On the other hand, we already permit home manufacturing of alcohol under limited conditions which preclude commercial distribution. So why not marijuana, too, applying the same constraints?
That’s why, cautions notwithstanding, the federal government should not appeal what’s generally a sensible judicial decision acknowledging the present reality. Rather, government should work diligently with patients, the public, medical professionals, regulatory and enforcement agencies to devise a regulatory framework appropriate to permitting a humane, practical and prudent way to put medical cannabis in the hands of patients who want to grow their own without a surfeit of red tape. Most, likely won’t. They will still want to buy from commercial distributors. So that needs to be revisited, too.
Accommodating this sensible court decision can also provide a kind of social research laboratory for testing models for decriminalizing recreational marijuana use to get it off the black market, out of the hands of criminal profiteers, and regulated.
When it comes to pot, perhaps it’s time to accept the right of individuals to weigh risks against benefits in a safety-conscious, regulated environment as they already do with alcohol.
