Print Issue 14 - Erowid · Volume 3 Issue 2, January - February 2005 Cannabis Health Cannabis Health Magazine is the voice and the new image of the responsible cannabis user. The

4 Cannabis Health

Editorial...............................................................6

Letters .................................................................6

The Economic Future of Cannabis in Canada ...............................................9

Marijuana Medical Access Regulations .........................................................11

Debating Decriminalization ............................................................................13

Canadian AIDS Society Response to MMAR................................................15

BC Compassion Club Response to MMAR Amendments...........................16

Meduser Group Response to Health Canada................................................19

How To Change the World ..............................................................................20Howard J . Wooldr idge f rom L .E .A.P. r ides aga in

Dennis Lillico Fights for his Human Rights ..................................................22Denn i s L i l l i co s t i l l can ’ t f i nd a phys ic ian

The Cannabis Buyers Club & Hempology 101 ............................................23

Insurance Coverage for Grow Operations .....................................................26

Growing Marijuana from a Health Point of View ..........................................27

Ontario Hemp Alliance ...................................................................................28

Cooking With Cannabis ..................................................................................31

Cannabrex Nutriceutical (advertorial) ...........................................................32

AroMed Vaporizer (product review)...............................................................33

InsideCannabis Health

Cannabis Health is published six times a year. Allcontents copyright 2005 by Cannabis Health. CannabisHealth assumes no responsibility for any claims or rep-resentations contained in this magazine or in anyadvertisement, nor do they encourage the illegal use ofany of the products advertised within. No portion ofthis magazine may be reproduced without the writtenconsent of the publisher.

StaffEDITOR, BARB ST. [email protected]

PRODUCTION MANAGER BRIAN McANDREWproduction@ cannabishealth.com

ADVERTISING [email protected]

DISTRIBUTION MANAGER LORRAINE [email protected]

STORE AND SHIPPING MANAGER GORDON [email protected]

ACCOUNTING BARB CORNELIUS

WEBMASTER [email protected]

GENERAL INQUIRIES [email protected]

Vo l u m e 3 I s s u e 2 , J a n u a r y - Fe b r u a r y 2 0 0 5

Cannabis HealthCannabis Health Magazine is the voice and the new

image of the responsible cannabis user. The publicationtreats cannabis as one plant and offers balanced coverage ofcannabis hemp and cannabis marijuana. Special attention isgiven to the therapeutic health benefits of this plant mademedicine. Regular contributors offer the latest on the evolv-ing Canadian cannabis laws, politics, and regulations. Wealso offer professional advice on cannabis cooking, growingat home, human interest stories and scientific articles fromcountries throughout the world, keeping our readers intouch and informed. Cannabis Health is integrated with ourresource website, offering complete downloadable PDF ver-sions of all archived editions. www.cannabishealth.com

Subscribe TodayMasterCard/Visa Accepted

Call: 1 868 808 5566

Employment OpportunitiesSee www.cannabishealth.com for more details

NEW Downtown Location7457 3rd St., Grand Forks, BC Canada

Mailing Address: Box 1481Grand Forks BC Canada V0H 1H0

Phone: 250 442 5166Fax: 250 442 5167

Toll Free: 1 866 808 5566Email: [email protected]

Brian McAndrew wished to show the dou-ble standard that surrounds the MedicalCannabis Issue. While the powers that be tellus there is no medical value to the plant, mil-lions of dollars are being invested in research onisolating the different active ingredients. Eventhough the cage has a locked door, there are nobars on the back of the cage. The key to the

door, compassion for the whole plant, is in plainview. The names on the cage symbolize thosewho have access to the open back door. Theapplication process that admitted 757 medicalusers is a very confusing and difficult one, withthe doctors reluctant to help. This leaves a mil-lion or more medical cannabis users withACCESS DENIED!

Cannabis Health 5

6 Cannabis Health

Education seems to be the growing issue.After all, Ann McLellan called pot smok-ers stupid. One would expect the womanwho is both Deputy Prime Minister ofCanada and Minister of Public Safety tohave better knowledge of the issue. I thinkthe problem is bigger than we thought…..

The number of chronically ill Canadiansusing cannabis medicinally in this countrytoday is estimated to be more than one mil-lion. Why, then, does Canada’s legal marijua-na medical access program have less thaneight hundred participants? The medicalassociations do not want the doctors labeledwith Health Canada’s assigned role of “mari-juana gatekeeper”. They have advised doctorsof the possible legal repercussions associatedwith this role and the majority of doctors arejust refusing to sign any kind of prescriptions

for marijuana, period. The proposed amend-ments to the Marijuana Medical AccessRegulations will not alleviate this problem.Doctors do not want to sign for marijuana,now or in the future, and without the signa-ture Health Canada deems the application forlegal status incomplete and void. For years,this dysfunctional government system hasblocked all legal access to marijuana for thevast majority of sick Canadians. In fact it hasforced the most vulnerable of our citizensinto the rank of criminals.

Law enforcement officials are claiming theproduction of all marijuana in Canada is linkedwith organized crime and some of our publicofficials have even confirmed this inaccuratetheory. If the average daily dose of a millionmedical users is around 3 grams, (a conserva-tive estimate) then the demand for medicalmarijuana in Canada is over a million kg peryear. Where does the government think the potis coming from? The bottom line is; thepatients are suffering and the black market isbeing held responsible for the government’sdysfunctional legal marijuana access problems.

The history of this dysfunction is longand sordid. Numerous lawyers have madestands on the issue of medical marijuanaaccess, only to have the courts pass it off tothe politicians. Our elected politicians havenot wanted to fix it for fear of losing the nextelection, so they just keep throwing our taxdollars at studying and debating the same oldproblems, in hopes that they can put it offlong enough for someone else to fix it.

When the Senate report recommendedlegalization we thought we might see the end.However, it would seem the only people whoread the Senate report were all us persecutedcriminalized stupid pot smoking Canadians,and not the elected officials in charge ofdeciding our fate. Hence, we are facing“recriminalization” with Bill C-17, whichdoes not deal with the issue of medical accessat all, and in fact impedes the process evenfurther by giving the police agencies morepower to discriminate against sick Canadianswho want to grow a small number of plantsfor personal medical use.

When will the insanity stop? If the gov-ernment intends to limit the supply in orderto pharmaceuticalize the herb, then obvious-ly they have not been listening to the millioncurrent consumers who have already chosento turn to the naturally grown herbal medici-nal alternative.

The up side; our voices are gettingstronger, public perception has alreadychanged, and the medical use of cannabis isnow publicly accepted throughout the world.Activist groups, patient unions, corporations,political allies, advocacy organizations, tradeand growers associations and pro cannabisbusinesses have all been formed. Millions ofvoices cannot be silenced. Rest assured, thepot will be brought to the boil, one way or theother.Keep smiling; it makes them wonder whatyou’re up to….Barb St.Jean

E d i t o r i a l

Mr. Pressman is the Executive Director ofNORML Canada. NORML Canada(National Organization for Reform ofMarijuana Laws in Canada) is a non-profit,public interest, member operated and fundedgroup, chartered at the federal level in Canadasince 1978, working at all levels of governmentto eliminate all civil and criminal penalties forprivate marijuana use, through public educa-tion, research, and legislative and judicial chal-lenges. NORML Canada does not advocate orencourage the use of marijuana, but believes

that the present policy of discouragementthrough the use of criminal or civil law has beenexcessively costly and harmful to both societyand the individual. NORML Canada plays avital role as a strong and credible nationalorganization advocating a scientific and evi-dence based approach to marijuana policy inCanada on behalf of the over three millionCanadian marijuana users. NORML Canadaneeds your support! Visit www.norml.ca andfind out how you can join and supportNORML Canada in the fight for sane marijua-na laws. Get involved today!

To: The Honourable A. Anne McLellan,P.C., M.P.

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister ofPublic Safety and Emergency Preparedness,340 Laurier Avenue West, Ottawa, OntarioK1A 0P8

November 5, 2004Dear Deputy Prime Minister McLellan,

I am writing you today to express my out-rage and deep disappointment in your recentcomments labeling Canadians who smokemarijuana as “stupid”. As the ExecutiveDirector of an organization that advocates onbehalf of the over three million regular mari-juana users in Canada, I can tell you thatCanadians who smoke marijuana don’tappreciate being described that way by theDeputy Prime Minister of Canada.

Your comments are inappropriate, unbe-coming, and uninformed. You should retractthese comments and apologize to the millionsof tax-paying Canadians you have insulted.Your gratuitous comment calls into questionthe ability and conviction of your govern-ment to put forward legislation that seriously

L e t t e r s

Jody Pressman Predidnet Norml Canada

OpenLetterfrom

NORMLCanada

Cannabis Health 7

and impartially examines and addresses the evidence at hand.

You and your government are behind the curve and way behind pub-lic opinion on this issue. We expect better manners and better leadershipfrom our elected officials.

NORML Canada will have more substantial things to say about yourgovernment’s proposed legislation in the weeks ahead. In the meantimeI trust you will elevate the public debate on this issue, something theunanimous Senate committee report on the use of marijuana had noproblem doing. You have chosen to ignore this enlightened and exhaus-tive study completely and go in the opposite direction of its recommen-dations.

We respectfully disagree with your comments and the legislation Mr.Cotler has proposed. So do most Canadians.

Sincerely, Jody Pressman, Executive Director, NORML Canada

Serious Error in Montel StoryYour otherwise excellent story about Montel Williams’ Sept. 21 show

devoted to medical marijuana contained one serious factual error: It isnot true that the U.S. federal government “has the power to negate thedecisions passed by state legislatures.”

In fact, the U.S. Constitution gives states considerable autonomy ingoverning affairs within their borders. While the federal governmentcan and does continue to enforce its own marijuana laws in states thathave enacted medical marijuana laws, it cannot overturn or invalidatethese state laws. Since 99 percent of all U.S. marijuana arrests are madeby state and local police acting under state and local laws, these lawsafford patients substantial protection despite federal hostility.

Unfortunately, the myth that “federal law trumps state law” hassometimes been used successfully by opponents of reform to frightenstate legislatures out of enacting laws to protect patients. CannabisHealth and its readers can do a great service by debunking such misin-formation at every opportunity.

Sincerely, Bruce Mirken, Director of Communications MarijuanaPolicy Project - http://www.mpp.org. Sign up for MPP’s free e-mail alerts -http://www.mpp.org/subscribe

Legal DilemaI am a 78 year old medical cannabis user and have suffered from

crippling Rheumatoid Arthritis for over 30 years. I have asked my doc-tor to sign the exemption forms, but he refused because his Associationtold him not to. He does, however, fully support my use of cannabis asmedicine.

This dilemma causes me great anxiety and frustration, because Ichoose not to support the Black Market. I want to grow my own medi-cine; just a couple of plants, but with my decision, came a certainamount of risk. You see, recently I had my plants stolen. It was done inthe middle of the night, twenty feet from my bedroom window. I wokein the morning to stubby stalks, not the beautiful medicine I had hopedto harvest shortly. I felt as violated as if they’d come into my home andstolen my personal belongings. Theft is theft in my books!

What kind of recourse, if any, do I have? Should I report it to thelocal RCMP detachment? Any advice would be appreciated. Thank youfor the wonderful magazine.

VH, Hamilton, ON

Rip-offs ResponseWHAT’S A PATIENT TO DO?

This article refers to the letter from the 78 year old medical user. Werecently spoke with Sgt. Al Olsen of the Grand Forks RCMP detachmentabout this rip-off problem. This is what we found out.

Should you choose to report the theft, the RCMP will investigate the

L e t t e r s c o n t i n u e d

break and enter; they will also investigate thecultivation of marijuana unless you arelicensed by Health Canada. “There is no suchthing as a legal grow, unless you are licensed.It doesn’t matter if you qualify for the exemp-tion but can’t get a doctor to sign off, you arestill breaking the law,” Olsen stated.

Sgt. Olsen also told us the RCMP aremandated and required to investigate the cul-tivation, but are not forced to press charges.This is where police discretion comes in.They assess the situation and circumstancesand use their discretionary powers to deter-mine who is and who is not charged.

There have also been many stories in thenews lately about home invasions where thehomeowner has been seriously injured bythieves looking for marijuana. But until mar-

ijuana is decriminalized or legalized, there isnot much recourse for the medical user andvigilante justice will get them nowhere, otherthan in jail for assault. We find it very sadmedical users have to choose between; fight-ing for access to the government’s marijuana,outrageous Black Market prices, or risk thethreat of theft and personal harm, just to getthe medicine that helps them with their ill-ness.

When we asked Sgt. Olsen if he had anopinion on the medical use of cannabis, hetold us he had no opinion, as he did not haveenough knowledge on the subject to formone. We truly appreciate his honesty, as thereseem to be far too many folks forming opin-ions based upon misinformation. We believeknowledge holds the keys for a change inthese unfair laws.

Kudo’s from readersI’ve been handing out the zine to every

client who walks in. The response to yourmagazine has been good. People haven’theard of it on a mass scale and are impressed,as I was, about the lack of pee-testing andbong/babe ads. Finally, someone is taking theplant seriously!

..... and againWe love your mag (our mag). Our patients

love your mags. They are available eachmonth for a small patient donation ($1 US).They go like hotcakes. As a matter of fact Ireferred someone from a non-MMJ state inthe US to your website. He wanted lots ofinfo. Our Midwest is ultraconservative.

L e t t e r s c o n t i n u e d

It’s good to be back.

After spending two years and thefirst ten issues helping to start CannabisHealth and keep it going, I had to leavedue to time conflicts with my personalbusiness, Beyond Graphix.

Two weeks before this issue went to print, Barb St. Jean, also aFounding Director of Cannabis Health Foundation and currentEditor, asked me to come back to get this issue out and to active dutyas Production Manager again with CH. ...I accepted the challenge.

I look forward to working with the Cannabis Health team onceagain on future issues of our magazine..

Brian McAndrew, Production Manager

It’s great to be active.

I’ve been involved with the organiza-tion since inception in 1999, but a Lupusflare has kept me from fully participatingover the last few years.

With the help of wonderful doctorsand natural medicines I’m fighting back and it feels great.Cannabis for health has been my passion and it is a pleasure work-ing with such a dedicated team of individuals to fulfill the vision.

I’m looking forward to the future.

Barb St. Jean, Editor

Cannabis Health 9

Written by Wendy Little and Eric Nash

Island Harvest Certified Organic Cannabis

A new industry has emerged from whatwas once a lucrative economic source onlyavailable to Canadians who chose to oper-ate at odds with the law. This new industryis medical marijuana. How do we knowthis? Because jobs, businesses, researchgrants and opportunities are being createdfrom a legal economic sector which didn’texist four years ago.

Money is now being spent onfederal government medical mari-juana programs that receive mil-lions of taxpayer dollars. Money isbeing spent on a Canadian busi-ness that won the multi-milliondollar federal government contractto produce and supply marijuanato Canadians. Money is beingspent on medical cannabisresearch projects funded by thefederal government and by the pri-vate sector. Money is being spenton the purchase of marijuana bypatients from their legally licenced growers.Through both the private sector and govern-ment funds, there is a substantial amount ofmoney changing hands.

There is support for the expansion anddiversification of the medical cannabisindustry from virtually all levels of our soci-ety. The public via opinion polls, the judicialsystem through constitutional and charterrights rulings, the private sector from theFraser Institute, and the political supportfrom the Senate report. All the evidence isclear - a legal cannabis industry has wide-spread public support, is well establishedand will continue to rapidly expand over thenext few years.

This new industry sector is garneringmuch support from many significant placesin our society. The courts provided an exam-ple of judicial support, specifically in a recentOctober 2003 Ontario Court of Appeal rul-ing. The three judges ruled that each govern-ment licenced cultivator should be able togrow and sell cannabis to a multitude ofpatients within the MMAR. This was amajor step in providing the medical cannabismarket with exactly what it wants and needs;a diverse choice of cannabis sources withvarying strains, prices and range of quality.

We also see cannabis industry supportcoming from the 2002 Senate SpecialCommittee report which states that “aCanadian resident should be able to obtain alicence to produce and distribute cannabisand its derivatives for therapeutic purposes.”Considerable support also comes from theCanadian public, most major news media,and from respected institutions like theFraser Institute. Prominent public figureslike Vancouver Mayor Larry Campbell andPierre Berton also support this buoyant andexpanding legal cannabis industry.

How else do we know that a new indus-try is emerging? For the past few years, wehave been operating Island Harvest withinthe legal Canadian cannabis industry. IslandHarvest is a certified organic medicalcannabis production facility, and we complywith Health Canada’s Marihuana MedicalAccess Regulations, selling and distributing

our product to those who are authorized bythe government to receive it.

We are observing the gradual change inthe flow of money from one agency to anoth-er, from one organization to another, fromone business sector to another. We see thefinancial shift from RCMP anti-grow-opfunding to government regulatory funding(Office of CannabisMedical Access), thefinancial shift from blackmarket distribution topharmaceutical distribu-tion (pharmacy pilot proj-ects), the financial shiftfrom illegal medical grow-ing to multi-million dollargovernment contracts andsmall business operations.

In addition to theseshifts in financial circula-tion, there is also a mas-sive and rapid expansionof cannabis plant-basedmedicines from thebiotech and pharmaceuti-cal sector. This in turn isfueled by private and gov-

ernment investment money. We are observ-ing all of these transitions and developmentswhich support the emergence and credibilityof this exciting new industrial and agricultur-al sector which will create jobs and econom-ic opportunity across Canada.

Of course how our tax money is spent, andwhere that money is going will always be acontentious issue. Many people wonder whythe government is spending so much moneyon a program which really isn’t addressing themajor issue, which is to make access to mari-juana simple for all Canadians who wish touse it for medical purposes. However the issueis very complex, and the main problem is dueto the fact that the cannabis plant is an illegalcontrolled substance.

Like any emerging economic sector, thereare people who are resistant to change. Thisresistance can be demonstrated in the federal

government’s failure to recognizechanging public attitudes in regardsto personal health choices. Anexample of this is the developmentof a cumbersome medical cannabisaccess program, which the courtscontinue to prove as unworkable. Sowe see the legal cannabis industrythwarted by a lack of awareness andvision by the federal government.

So the cannabis industry inCanada operates in a dichotomousway - a mix of legal and illegal. It’sclear that the use, distribution and

sale of marijuana for recreational purposesare currently illegal. Yet when used for med-ical purposes, it’s evident that marijuana iscompletely legal in Canada. Therefore a newindustry has developed in the past few yearswhich supports this well established and rap-idly growing legal cannabis market.

There are very simple solutions that thegovernment couldimplement to make theMarihuana MedicalAccess Regulationsmuch more efficientand workable. Thiswould give the legalcannabis industry a sig-nificant boost, and thelegal cannabis marketwould be provided withexactly what is neededto satisfy the demandfor a diverse range ofcannabis products.

The first actionHealth Canada couldtake would be to imple-ment an existing sectionof the MMAR, which is

Econom i c Fu tu re o f Cannab i s i n Canada

M o n e y i s n o w b e i n gs p e n t o n f e d e r a l

g o v e r n m e n t m e d i c a lm a r i j u a n a p r o g r a m st h a t r e c e i v e m i l l i o n so f t a x p a y e r d o l l a r s .

10 Cannabis Health

to use inspectors to verify cropproduction standards by all theproducers. This would elimi-nate the potential of diversionto the recreational market,which is their greatest con-cern. The second step to makethe cannabis access programworkable is to eliminate physi-cians as the gatekeepers.Canadian Medical Associationrepresentatives have statedthat they would prefer not tobe involved in their role asgatekeepers to medicalcannabis. The CanadianMedical ProtectiveAssociation also issued a mem-orandum to doctors acrossCanada advising against sign-ing the MMAR forms. It is evi-dent that Health Canada’scannabis access program canbe workable with minoramendments. This would satisfy the courts,the people who use cannabis therapeuticallyand the marijuana industry producers anddistributors.

These simple MMAR amendmentswould also be in compliance with theInternational Convention on Illegal Drugsbecause Health Canada would then be utiliz-ing a control measures program to preventand eliminate diversion of medical cannabisto the illicit market. This would provide agreat sense of relief to the Canadians who usecannabis medically by taking a progressiveaction to make the system more efficient andeffective. It would also produce necessaryand realistic solutions in maintaining adiverse and prosperous cannabis industry.Finally, by addressing these persistent prob-lems in the legal cannabis industry, and tak-ing the necessary steps to solve them, govern-ment would demonstrate commitment andhonest intent to change inadequate policy.

However, the resistance to change runsdeep, and other issues need looking at. It’s

apparent that some people have developed anegative perception of cannabis productiondue to the misinformation about grow-ops -commonly perpetuated myths by lawenforcement and government. At IslandHarvest, we have demonstrated by our reallife experience, that marijuana grow-ops canbe operated safely, professionally and respon-sibly within any community. In fact, as legal-ly regulated cannabis cultivators in our com-munity, we experience immense public sup-port. We have been provided with letters ofencouragement and support from our federalMP, provincial MLA and our mayor andcouncil to promote our medical cannabisindustry expansion to create jobs, economicgrowth and tax dollars.

So the legal business of cannabis is hereto stay, and it has huge support from allaspects of our society and culture. As JeffreyA. Miron, Boston University Professor ofEconomics, writes in the foreword of ourrecent book, Sell Marijuana Legally - AComplete Guide to Starting Your MarijuanaBusiness, “My research on cannabis prohibi-

tion has emphasizedthat the current prob-lems in the cannabismarket result fromprohibition ratherthan from cannabisitself.” This view isalso expressed fromnumerous sources -from the Senate, lawenforcement, thecourts and mostimportantly theCanadian public.

The Canadian pub-lic supports medical

cannabis use and the associatedindustry sector that goes with it– an industry that provides anecessary product and createseconomic growth and opportu-nity. The spin-off employmentand revenue generated from allaspects of the cannabis productindustry is substantial. Whatwas once considered “drugparaphernalia” is no longer, asmany of these products are cur-rently being used medically in alegally regulated environment.

Vaporizers will continue toevolve and the market for edi-ble cannabis products will con-tinue to grow. Product researchand development for alterna-tives to smoking cannabis willalso expand. The future of thecannabis industry has enor-mous potential, and it is rapid-

ly becoming a significant and important facetof our national economy.

Our federal government will begin toacknowledge that small communities acrossCanada affected by dwindling resource-based economic opportunities should be ableto capitalize on the emerging legally regulat-ed cannabis industry. The business ofcannabis must remain open for allCanadians to take part, from small familyrun businesses to mid-size companies; allshould be permitted access to participate inthis tremendous renewable resource basedbusiness opportunity.

In essence, there are absolutely no nega-tive effects from the development, expansionand diversification of a legally regulatedcannabis industry - one that allows all levelsof business to become involved. This is thenew industry that our Canadian economyneeds. There are very exciting times aheadfor the business of cannabis, and now is thetime to get involved.

Econom i c Fu tu re o f Cannab i s i n Canada

GW Pharmaceuticals - updateGW Pharmaceuticals submitted a regu-

latory application for Sativex in Canada inMay 2004. This application was in supportof the treatment of Neuropathic Pain inpatients with MS.

The Canadian regulatory authority,Health Canada, have proceeded to carryout the regulatory review swiftly and GWunderstands that the process is approach-ing completion. To date, Health Canada hasnot made GW aware of any issues whichwill prevent the grant of a product licence.Source Net retrieval Dec. 4 2004: http://www/gwphar-m.com/news_press_releases.asp?id=/gwp/pressreleas-es/currentpress/2004-12-03/

Cannabis Health 11

Cannabis Health Magazine receives manyinquiries from physicians and chronically illpeople from all parts of Canada wanting toknow how and where to purchase the gov-ernment’s marijuana. Information surround-ing the Marijuana Medical AccessRegulations administered by the Office ofCannabis Medical Access under the directionof Health Canada has been extremely confus-ing to most of our callers. We have compiledthe following information in hopes of allevi-ating some of the confusion surroundinglegal access to medical marijuana.

Who’s WhoThe Office of Cannabis Medical

Access coordinates the development andadministration of the regulatory approachpermitting individuals to access marihuana(cannabis) for medical purposes. The DrugAnalysis Service is responsible for theestablishment of a reliable Canadian sourceof medical research-grade marihuana.

Prairie Plant Systems Inc. is contract-ed to provide Health Canada with a reliablesource of quality, standardized research grademarihuana to meet research needs in Canada.

The Drug Strategy and Controlled

Substances Programme, via the Office ofResearch and Surveillance (ORS), estab-lished the Expert Advisory Committee.

The Expert Advisory Committee onMarijuana for Medical Purposes (EAC-MMP) provides Health Canada (HC) withtimely scientific/medical advice related to theMarihuana Medical Access Regulations pro-gram (MMAR) and the Medical MarijuanaResearch Program (MMRP). Committeemembership is mandated to include the fol-lowing areas of expertise: HIV/AIDs, multi-ple sclerosis (MS), palliative care, pain man-agement, pharmacology/toxicology, ophthal-mology, epilepsy and ethics.

Medical Marijuana ResearchProgram/Canadian Institutes of HealthResearch (CIHR)- As part of HealthCanada’s strategy to address the issue of med-ical marijuana, in 1999, the Department(Health Canada) created the MedicalMarijuana Research Program (MMRP). Theestablishment of the Program recognized theneed for research into marijuana and associ-ated cannabinoids to determine the safetyand efficacy of these compounds in the man-agement of symptoms in patients unrespon-sive to usual treatment modalities. Note: The

funding process for “Operating Grants andRandomized Control Trials” under this pro-gramme was suspended in June 2003 andremains suspended until further notice. Formore info: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/4628.html

The Stakeholder Advisory Committeeon Medical Marihuana provides the DrugStrategy and Controlled SubstancesProgramme of Health Canada with timelyadvice on medical, scientific, regulatory, poli-cy, and operational issues related to marihua-na for medical purposes. This committee iscomprised of representatives from the RCMP,Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police,Canadian Medical Association, several otherhealth organizations, compassion clubs, usergroups, designated growers and patients. Foradditional information on this committee, seeCannabis Health/Volume 2: Issue 4,May/June, 2004.

The Marihuana Medical AccessRegulations promulgated in July 2001,established a framework to allow the use ofmarihuana by people who are suffering fromserious illnesses, where conventional treat-ments are inappropriate or are not providingadequate relief of the symptoms related to the

Mar i j uana Med i ca l Access Regu la t i on s

12 Cannabis Health

medical condition or its treatment, andwhere the use of marihuana is expected tohave some medical benefit that outweighs therisk of its use. These regulations weredeemed unconstitutional by a 2003 OntarioCourt of Appeal decision, on the basis thatthey failed to provide a legal supply of mari-huana for persons authorized to possess it formedical purposes.

Changes to the MarijuanaMedical Access Regulations arebeing carried out in phases. Thefirst phase, the RegulationsAmending the Marihuana MedicalAccess Regulations, carried out inlate 2003, focused on responding tothe Ontario Court of Appeal deci-sion. The second involved a broaderreview of the regulations, andincluded a comprehensive consulta-tive process. In October 2004 a sec-ond set of Regulations Amendingthe Marihuana Medical AccessRegulations was published for com-ment in the Canada Gazette, Part I.The following amendment to theregulations should take effect, ifpassed, by the spring of 2005.

The number of categories of symp-toms under which a person may apply forauthorization to possess marihuana for med-ical purposes is reduced from three to two. Theprevious Categories 1 and 2 are merged into onecategory (Category 1). The need for a specialistto sign the medical declaration for the symp-toms set out in the Schedule to the Regulations(previous Category 2) has been eliminated.While assessment of the applicant by a special-ist is still a requirement under the new Category2, the treating physician, whether a specialistor not, can sign the medical declaration.

Physicians are no longer required, in theirdeclarations, to make definitive statementsregarding benefits outweighing risks, or to makespecific recommendations regarding the dailydosage of marihuana to be used by the appli-

cant. In addition, the information that thephysician is required to provide in the medicaldeclaration has been reduced to only those ele-ments essential to confirm that the applicantsuffers from a serious medical condition andthat conventional treatments are inappropriateor ineffective.

These amendments provide limited author-ity for a pharmacy-based distribution system

for dried marihuana that is produced by alicensed dealer on contract with Her Majesty inright of Canada, to authorized persons withouta prescription from a physician. This will allowthe conduct of a pilot project to assess the feasi-bility of distributing marihuana for medicalpurposes through the conventional pharmacy-based drug distribution system.

The new provisions, which allow police offi-cers to confirm authorization and licence infor-mation with Health Canada, will enhance theability of Canadian police to investigate andtake appropriate enforcement action in regardsto any unauthorized marihuana-related activi-ty including, for example, the production orstorage of marihuana at locations other thanthose authorized, or trafficking in marihuana,which includes selling, giving, sending, deliver-ing, or administering marihuana to any personnot named in the authorization or licence issuedby Health Canada.

The following snip is taken from HealthCanada’s Regulatory Impact AnalysisStatement and can be found in its entirety

at:http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partI/2004/20041023/html/regle2-e.html

To enhance protection of the health andsafety of Canadians, Health Canada’s strategicdirection for the medical marihuana programenvisions the program taking on, to the extentpossible, the features of the traditional healthcare model employed for other medicinal agentsavailable in Canada. Such a model would

include: continued support for researchand enrolment of patients in clinical oropen label trials as the first considerationof patients and physicians; a centralizedsource of marihuana that complies withproduct standards, accompanied in thelonger term by a phase-out of personalcultivation; distribution of marihuanafor medical purposes to authorized per-sons through pharmacies; updated infor-mation stemming from research into therisks and benefits of marihuana whenused for medical purposes, and educationof patients and physicians; and improvedpost-market surveillance to monitor thesafety and efficacy of marihuana whenused for medical purposes.

The Application Process Patients and Physicians can obtain

a guide to the regulations and an appli-cation form from the Health Canada websitewww.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/ocma/ or by call-ing Health Canada’s Office of CannabisMedical Access in Ottawa at (613) 954-6540or toll-free at 1-866-337-7705. NOTE: theproposed changes to the MMAR must bepassed before the policies and forms current-ly posted can reflect any changes.

For more information on the proposedamendments contact: Ms. Cynthia Sunstrum,Drug Strategy and Controlled SubstancesProgramme, Healthy Environments andConsumer Safety Branch, Address Locator3503D, Ottawa, Canada K1A 1B9, (613) 946-0125 (telephone), (613) 946-4224 (facsimi-le), [email protected] (electronic mail). Or visit the web-site of the Office of Cannabis Medical Accessfor general inquiries: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/ocma/index.htm or Phone:1 866 337-7705 - Tel: 613 954-6540 - Fax: 613952-2196 E-mail: [email protected]

MMAR patient participation statisticsare posted monthly on the OCMA site. As ofSeptember 3, 2004 – Only 757 persons arecurrently allowed to possess marihuana formedical purposes in Canada - 553 persons arecurrently allowed to cultivate/produce - 435hold a Personal-Use Production Licence and59 hold a Designated-Person ProductionLicence, under the Marihuana MedicalAccess Regulations (MMAR).

Mar i j uana Med i ca l Access Regu la t i on s

Information surroundingthe Marijuana MedicalAccess Regulations adminis-tered by the Office ofCannabis Medical Accessunder the direction of HealthCanada has been extremelyconfusing to most of ourcallers.

Cannabis Health 13

Cannabis Health has been following theon-going decriminalization debates. InSeptember 2002, the special Senate commit-tee on illegal drugs tabled its final report, rec-ommending the legalization of cannabis.Also in September 2002 in the Speech fromthe Throne, the government made a commit-ment to “act on the results of parliamentaryconsultations with Canadians on options forchange in our drug laws….” The specialHouse committee on December 12, 2002 dis-regarded the recommendations of the specialSenate committee for legalization of cannabisand recommended in its report a comprehen-sive strategy for decriminalizing the posses-sion and cultivation of not more than thirtygrams of cannabis for personal use. Bill C38was followed by Bill C10 and then Bill C17,currently under debate in the house, eachmore restrictive than the last.

This debate has been unnerving. Theamount of misinformation vocalized inregards to cannabis use and the potentialhealth risks have confirmed our suspicionthat very few of our elected politicians haveactually read the senate committee report.“Scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicatesthat cannabis is substantially less harmful

than alcohol and should be treated not asa criminal issue but as a social and pub-lic health issue (1)” said Senator PierreClaude Nolin, chair of the committee.

Mr. Randy White (Abbotsford,CPC) however, said; “With the lungs, itis more irritating; with 50% more tarthan tobacco. It has a greater effect on theupper airways than tobacco, and maycause lung, head and neck cancer. …..Weare talking about something that is reallyunfit for people and is in fact worse thancigarettes” (2)

Mr. Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, CPC, stated;“It is far worse than smoking. It is anactivity that we are officially, as a House,trying to discourage. For example, emphy-sema and lung cancer are both conse-quences of smoking and drug use.” (3)

Mr. Peter MacKay (Central Nova, CPC)said: “Ingesting marijuana is very damaging;it’s carcinogenic, THC.” (4)

We did not have to go very far to pointout their errors. We referred back to the AskEthan Russo column in early CannabisHealth Journal issues. (Note: Professor

Ethan Russo currently serves in a consultan-cy position as Senior Medical Advisor to theCannabinoid Research Institute, the divisionof GW established to promote exploratoryresearch.) The following are two excerptsfrom his bi-monthly columns.

“While I never recommend smoking tobac-co, it is true that concomitant cannabis miti-

Debat i ng Dec r im i na l i za t i on

14 Cannabis Health

D e b a t i n g D e c r i m i n a l i z a t i o n

gates some of the harm to a degree. I would referyou to my Chronic Use Study, available online,and to an article that indicated that cannabis-only smoking does not seem to provoke emphyse-ma, and to an interesting study by Poth et al.that demonstrates how THC actually helps pre-vent carcinogenic deterioration. Remember,there has never been a documented case of lungtumour in a cannabis-only smoker.”

However, this obvious misinformationproblem is not exclusively the fault of ourelected officials; The media has played a sig-nificant role in the reporting of inaccurate orbad science. A sentence taken out of contextcan have a whole new meaning. Take thisreported media snip for example:” a Dutchstudy shows that Canada’s smokers areseven times more likely than other peo-ple to have psychotic symptoms.” Whywould Canadians be more psychotic thanother people? Cannabis Health is still lookingfor the research study linked to that reportedsnip. We want to find out who the “other

people” are andwhat they’re smok-ing.

Relating tomental health andcannabis use Dr.Ethan Russowrote: “The use ofcannabis to treatbipolar problems(previously knownas manic depres-sion) is a fascinat-ing development. Asurprising numberof people so afflicted

have independently made the discovery thatcannabis has improved their condition, whetherthe mania or depression. It may also reduce sideeffects of other drugs used in its treatment, suchas Lithium, Carbamazepine (Tegretol) orValproate (Depakote). Some people have foundcannabis more effective than conventionaldrugs”… “….Endocannabinoids seem to beintimately involved in emotional regulationmechanisms in the limbic system. Because THCand other chemicals in cannabis mimic ourown internal biochemistry, they may helpreplace what is missing. Cannabis strains thatcontain cannabidiol (CBD) also have anti-anxiety and anti-psychotic benefits. The bestdocumentation available for this is an articleby the eminent clinical cannabis prophet, LesterGrinspoon, that was published in Journal ofPsychoactive Drugs in 1998.”

The health implication misinformation isnot the only problem, this whole “decrimi-nalization” process, in our opinion, has beenan expensive exercise in futility. It has leadthe public into believing marijuana will bealmost legal in Canada, but the political rhet-

oric and system of penalties outlined in BillC17 actually point to a tougher and widerenforcement stance. If this Bill is passed, theActs will be amended to create four newoffences of cannabis possession involvingsmall quantities of cannabis material. For thefirst three offences, law enforcement will beable to issue a ticket exclusively. Officers willhave the discretion of enforcing the fourthoffence, anything over 30grams, either byissuing a ticket or a summons, depending onthe officer’s appreciation of the circum-stances related to the offence.

As for the cultivation of cannabis, the billwould restructure the offence as follows:

One to three plants: guilty of an offencepunishable on summary conviction andliable to a fine of $500 or, in the case of ayoung person, $250. This would be exclusive-ly by ticket.

Four to twenty-five plants: guilty of anoffence and liable, on conviction on indict-ment, to imprisonment for a term of notmore than fiveyears less a day,or on summaryconviction, to afine of not morethan twenty-fivethousand dollarsor to imprison-ment for a term ofnot more thaneighteen months,or both.

Twenty-six tofifty plants: guilty of an offence and liable, onconviction on indictment, to imprisonmentfor a term of not more than ten years.

Fifty plants or more: imprisonment for aterm of not more than fourteen years.

The Hon. Keith Martin (ParliamentarySecretary to the Minister of NationalDefence, Lib. stated: “…That is why Bill C-17is extremely important. It dramaticallyincreases penalties for those involved in com-mercial grow operations. The bill separates thesmall time user from those individuals involvedin commercial grow operations. This is veryhumane.” (5)

If the purpose of this bill is to deter“Organized Crime” then it’s targeted at thewrong people. What it does, is discriminateagainst the chronically ill patients whoshould be allowed to grow 25 plants for a 5gram per day prescription level. As well,three patients should be able to grow in onesite, 75 plants, as per the Medical MarijuanaAccess Program. Under this bill, that wouldmean three cancer patients, who can’t gettheir doctor to sign the required forms, couldbe imprisoned for up to fourteen years each

for organizing to grow their own medicine.This is not very humane. Seventy-five plantsin a “commercial organized crime grow-op” isnot worth the effort. If the government reallywanted to stop organized crime they wouldlegalize marijuana. Allow everyone to growtheir own and license decentralized commu-nity based production facilities to supply theone million sick Canadians who currentlyuse cannabis medically and can’t get legalaccess to a supply. No demand = no blackmarket.

Sources: www.cannabishealth.com/archives/ (Issue 1/pg12 & Issue 4/pg 16).Ask Ethan Russo

For full debate information see: (Bill C-17. On the Order: Government Orders:)November 1, 2004—The Minister ofJustice—Second reading and reference to theStanding Committee on Justice, HumanRights, Public Safety and EmergencyPreparedness of Bill C-17, an act to amendthe Contraventions Act and the ControlledDrugs and Substances Act and to make con-

sequential amendments to other acts.http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/cham-b u s / h o u s e / d e b a t e s / 0 2 0 _ 2 0 0 4 - 11 -02/han020_1240-e.htm(1) CBC News - Pot less harmful than alcohol:Senate report Thu, 05 Sep 2002 Full Senate report retrieval Nov 16,2004http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/Committee_SenRep.asp?Language=E&Parl=37&Ses=1&comm_id=85(2) Pg/ 1250 web retrieval Nov 8, 2004http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/020_2004-11-02/han020_1250-E.htm(3) Pg/1350 web retrieval Nov 8, 2004http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/020_2004-11-02/han020_1350-E.htm(4) Pg/ 1330 web retrieval Nov 8, 2004http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/020_2004-11-02/han020_1330-E.htm(5) Pg 1320/ web retrieval Nov 8, 2004http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/020_2004-11-02/han020_1320-E.htm

Dr.Ethan Russo

“Remember, there has neverbeen a documented case oflung tumour in a cannabis-only smoker.”

Cannabis Health 15

A coalition of community-based groupsconfronting HIV infections and AIDS

The Canadian AIDS Society is a nationalcoalition of 120 community-based AIDSorganizations across Canada. We are dedicat-ed to strengthening the response toHIV/AIDS across all sectors of society, and toenriching the lives of people and communi-ties living with HIV/AIDS.

The Canadian AIDS Society’s Board (1)of Directors favours a controlled legalizationsystem for cannabis in Canada. The currentprohibitionist regulatory environment,including the MMAR, is still unduly restric-tive and hinders access to a safe, affordable,varied and reliable supply ofcannabis for therapeutic purposeswithout fear of prosecution or dis-crimination for those who use ittherapeutically. This said, theCanadian AIDS Society will contin-ue to work with Health Canada toprovide input into the medical mar-ijuana access program in the cur-rent regulatory framework.

The proposed amendments tothe MMAR do not address thesocial and economic fallout formedical users. Measures must betaken to ensure that costs for med-ical marijuana are covered and thatauthorized persons, exemptees andholders of licences to produce areentitled to insurance coverage.

Canadians have a legal right to liberty andsecurity of the person, as set out in theCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,and interpreted by Canadian courts. Thisincludes the right to make decisions of funda-mental personal importance, such as thechoice of treatment to alleviate the effects ofdebilitating symptoms with life-altering conse-quences. The threat of criminal prosecution,or the power of a physician to block access toa program that would alleviate the fear of pros-ecution, deprive seriously and chronically illCanadians of this right to liberty.

We FULLY SUPPORT the shift of respon-sibility from the physician to the applicant.Applicants will now acknowledge anddeclare their acceptance of the risks associat-ed with the use of cannabis. We PROPOSEthat they should be accepting responsibilityfor the amount of cannabis they intend touse, REGARDLESS of the amount.

The most difficult hurdle for applicantsto overcome to access the medical marijuana

program is to find a physician that is willingto sign the request for authorization forms.We PROPOSE that the medical declarationshould be limited to confirmation of diagno-sis. The Minister could then authorize theapplicant based on the Applicant’sDeclaration and on the physician’s diagnosis.

If physicians are going to continue to berequired to be the gatekeepers in the medicalmarijuana access program, then we RECOM-MEND that the Minister develop a communi-cation strategy targeted at medical practition-ers in Canada. This effort could be donejointly in collaboration with the variousstakeholders. We also PROPOSE that theMMAR include a section that protects physi-

cians from civil action based on completingthe application forms for their patients.

Regarding the authorization to communi-cate information to Canadian police, weREQUEST that further consideration begiven on this matter and that measures betaken to ensure that this information not beused in the process of someone applying for apolice record check, that this will not resultin continued surveillance of an authorizedperson’s home or a licenced producer’s home,and that this information will NOT be usedwhen an authorized person or a licenced pro-ducer wishes to cross a border.

We WELCOME the addition of a limitedauthority for a pharmacy-based distributionsystem for dried cannabis in the MMAR, asONE option for distribution.

We STRONGLY URGE Health Canadato re-examine its vision of phasing outlicences to produce. We CALL on HealthCanada to comply with the Hitzig decision(Ontario Court of Appeal) address the

remaining two provisions of the MMAR thatwere struck down, as they existed at thattime: (1) limit on one person holding morethan one licence to grow; and (2) limit onlicence holders growing in common withmore than two holders. We therefore requestthat section 41.(b) and section 54 beremoved from the MMAR.

We REQUEST that the MMAR providethe authority for Health Canada to designateMORE licenced dealers. We RECOMMENDthe implementation of a regulatory frame-work to control and monitor the quality andcost of the products and to ensure thatlicenced dealers are adhering to rigorous agri-cultural standards. We URGE that provisionsbe made to enable the current licenced deal-er, Prairie Plant Systems, to offer a variety ofstrains of cannabis, with both Cannabis indi-ca and Cannabis sativa options, and a varietyof THC and cannabidiol (CBD) levels.

To read the complete Submissions of theCanadian AIDS Society on the ProposedAmendments to the Marihuana MedicalAccess Regulations, please visithttp://www.cdnaids.ca/web/backgrnd.nsf/cl/cas-gen-0089 . For more information, pleasecontact Lynne Belle-Isle, National ProgramsConsultant, at [email protected] or at 1-800-499-1986, ext. 126.

(1) The Canadian AIDS Society’sPosition Statement on HIV/AIDS and theTherapeutic Use of Cannabis is available onour Web site at: http://www.cdnaids.ca/web/position.nsf/cl/cas-pp-0021

(2) Hitzig v. Canada, Court of Appeal forOntario, DOCKET: C39532; C39738;C39740, October 7, 2004, http://www.ontar-iocourts.on.ca/decisions/2003/october/hitzigC39532.htm

C a n a d i a n A I D S S o c i e t y R e s p o n s e t o M M A R

The Canadian AIDSSociety’s Board ofDirectors favours acontrolled legalizationsystem for cannabisin Canada.

Cannabis Healthrecommends that you

take the time to visit the

web site and read the

entire statement of the

Canadian AIDS Society.

16 Cannabis Health

B C C o m p a s s i o n C l u b R e s p o n s e

t o M M A R A m e n d m e n t s

Health Canada recently releasedamendments to the MarijuanaMedical Access Regulations.Glaringly, the needs of medicalcannabis users – the primary stake-holders – continue to be unmet bythese Regulations, leaving the vastmajority potentially subject toincreased criminal sanctions and finesunder the proposed Bill C-17.

A stated goal of these amendmentsis to place cannabis in “a more tradi-tional health care model”. Thereappears to be an underlying assump-tion being made that this model entailsonly physicians, pharmacies, and a sin-gle source of supply.

These assumptions are unfoundedand the model based on them isunnecessarily restrictive. HealthCanada’s continued efforts to regulateand administer this herb as a pharma-ceutical product presents obstacles forpatients, doctors, and the governingbodies of the medical community.

Tellingly, the amendments introduce theelimination of personal and designated-per-son production licenses, and once againignore the court-ordered remedies that weremeant to pave the way for the licensing ofCompassion Clubs. In order to meet theneeds of all medical cannabis users,Compassion Clubs are an ideal compliment topharmacy distribution, personal and smallscale-production.

The BC Compassion Club has respondedto Health Canada’s proposed amendmentswith recommendations that adhere to theoverarching goal of providing optimal healthcare to all those in need.

INTRODUCTIONThe MMAR programme was established

to remedy the unconstitutionality of theCannabis prohibition laws, which forceCanadians to choose between their libertyand their health, by providing a legal routefor those who use cannabis medically. Sinceits inception in 2001, the programme hasfailed to meet that goal.

Considering that this programme has pro-vided licenses for legal possession to only 800Canadians, production licenses to only 500,and has supplied only 80 of the estimated400,000 who use it medicinally, it cannot besaid to be remedying the unconstitutionalityof the prohibition laws. In fact, it would leavethe vast majority of medical users potentiallysubject to increased criminal sanctions andfines under the proposed Bill C-17.

Moreover, this programme has beenfound unconstitutional in the courts. The lat-est amendments to the MMAR programmecontinue to evade the court ordered remediesand their responsibility to Canadians.

These amendments purportedly addressthe concerns of all the programme’s stake-holders. Indeed, they do appear to meet theneeds of law enforcement. They also addresssome of the concerns of physicians, althoughit is yet uncertain if it will be sufficient toencourage them to embrace the previouslyrejected role of gatekeeper. Glaringly, theneeds of medical cannabis users – the pri-mary stakeholders – continue to be unmet bythese Regulations.

Response to theproposed Amendments

The amendments that have been proposedaddress the needs of some of the programme’sstakeholders. However a few key pointsrequire further consideration if this pro-gramme is to successfully meet the needs ofmedical cannabis users.

1. Elimination of thePersonal Production Licenses

Health Canada’s plan to fade out PersonalProduction and Designated Person Licensesis of no benefit to the most important stake-holders in this programme; the patients. Formany, growing their own source of medicinenot only allows for control over the mode ofproduction (e.g. organic cultivation) andstrain selection, but also minimizes some ofthe costs associated with purchasingcannabis from another party.

The MMAR must continue toallow personal production and des-ignated person licenses, and mustalso implement the court remedy ofallowing Designated-PersonProduction License holders to growfor more than one holder of anAuthorization to Possess License,and more than three holders oflicenses to produce and cultivatetogether.

2. Monopoly over ProductionThe amendments propose that

the only legal source of medicinebe produced by Prairie PlantSystems (PPS). To date, PPS hasproduced such a poor qualityproduct that many of the fewlicense holders who have orderedit have returned it.

The stated need for a stan-dardized and quality-controlledsource of marihuana can beaddressed through the licensing of

laboratories to carry out the appropriatetests.

International drug conventions can also berespected in regards to the requirement for agovernment agency to have tight controlthrough the establishment of licensing proto-cols.

Establishing a monopoly over productionwill not address the need for a wide variety ofstrains, stronger product, and safer cultiva-tion techniques. These goals would best beachieved through the contracting of a largenumber of small-scale producers who possessthe expertise and experience necessary forthis important undertaking.

The MMAR must accommodate competi-tion in a free market in order to increase thequality, broaden the selection, and decreasethe end-cost of the medicine, all of which arenecessary to meet the needs of medicalcannabis users.

3. Authorization to Recommend Access The proposed amendments still require a

patient in the new ‘Category 2’ to be assessedby a specialist, discriminating between levelsof medical assessment warranted for differ-ent symptoms based on the existing state ofscientific knowledge.

Considering the dearth of research due tothe prohibition of Cannabis, as well as thelack of commitment to research demonstrat-ed by Health Canada, in effect this amend-ment arbitrarily discriminates betweenCanadians equally deserving relief from theirsymptoms. This injustice is exacerbated sincethis option does not address the obstacle of

Cannabis Health 17

waiting lists for specialists, nor the fact thatspecialists are more resistant to the pro-gramme than general practitioners.

This amendment demonstrates a lack ofrespect for the medical opinions of healthcare practitioners and interferes in their rela-tionship with their patients.

Regardless of the condition in question,one recommendation from a health care prac-titioner must be sufficient to authorize legiti-mate use of Cannabis or access HealthCanada’s medicinal cannabis programme.

Amendments to the MMAR state “HealthCanada will continue to require the opinionand support of a physician, since physiciansare the professionals best positioned to assessmedical need. Decisions by the courts havelent support to the continued involvement ofphysicians, including specialists.”

The amendments reject the natural healthcare professionals, since “with few exceptions,controlled substances can be sold or providedto a patient only by, or under the direction ofa physician, dentist or veterinarian.” Cannabismust be also considered an exception, since itis a relatively harmless herb, unlike most othercontrolled substances.

For optimal health care, authorization torecommend access to herbs must be extendedto the health care practitioners most experi-enced with herbal medicine, such asNaturopathic Doctors and Doctors ofTraditional Chinese Medicine.

4. Natural Health ProductThe amendments to the MMAR claim

that “Marihuana isa drug as definedby the Food andDrugs Act and isnot a naturalhealth product asdefined by theNatural HealthP r o d u c t sRegulations.”

For the purpos-es of thoseRegulations, a sub-stance or combination of substances or a tra-ditional medicine is not considered to be anatural health product if its sale, under theFood and Drug Regulations, is required to bepursuant to a prescription when it is soldother than in accordance with section

C.01.043 of those Regulations.

According to these amendments, pur-suant to a confirmation of diagnosis, andministerial approval, a patient is legallylicensed to access cannabis without a pre-scription. Therefore according to the pur-poses of the Natural Health ProductRegulations, cannabis could be classified as

a Natural HealthProduct.

Cannabis must beregulated as aNatural HealthProduct in order toeliminate the obsta-cles presented forpatients, doctors, andthe governing bodiesof the medical com-munity that arisefrom attempting to

regulate and administer this herb as a phar-maceutical product.

5. Pharmacy DistributionAmendments made to physician forms

appear to have been designed specifically to

BC Compass i on C l ub Response t o MMAR Amendmen t s

This amendment demon-strates a lack of respect forthe medical opinions ofhealth care practitionersand interferes in their rela-tionship with their patients.

18 Cannabis Health

place cannabis in “a more traditional healthcare model.” There is an underlying assump-tion that this model entails only physiciansand pharmacies, and that this model is theonly one that will “enhance protection of thehealth and safety of Canadians.”

While pharmacies may provide a baselevel of service and facilitate access for some,this model is not sufficient to meet the needsof all medical cannabis users. Pharmacies tra-ditionally do not have the capacity to providethe additional information and close moni-toring of patients postulated in the amend-ments. They also will not be providing accessto the variety of strains and delivery optionsneeded to address the many symptoms ofmedical cannabis users.

Health Canada must recognizeCompassion Clubs as the ideal compliment tothe pharmacy model, allowing the needs ofall medical cannabis users to be met.

Additional Required AmendmentsThe proposed amendments have

failed to address some of the majorconcerns articulated by medicalcannabis users.

1. Licensing of Compassion ClubsThe court-ordered remedies,

which have been ignored in theseamendments, were meant to clear theway for licensing of CompassionClubs. In court, Health Canada statedthat these clubs addressed the supplyissue since they “historically provideda safe source of marihuana to thosewith the medical need” and that “these ‘unlicensed suppliers’ shouldcontinue to serve as the source of sup-ply for those with a medical exemp-tion.” Despite their own claims, HealthCanada has still not integrated CompassionClubs into the legal framework.

For over seven years, Compassion Cluboperators have been risking arrest and crimi-nal prosecution in order to address the press-ing medicinal needs of Canada’s criticallyand chronically ill. This vital work has beenrecognized by numerous Canadian courts, aswell as governmental bodies such as theSenate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs.Compassion Clubs serve a clear and neces-sary purpose, and have the strong support oftheir local communities and of the Canadianpublic as a whole.

Compassion Clubs across Canada havegarnered unique and invaluable experiencesupplying cannabis to over 8000 medicalcannabis users, including many MMARlicense holders. The BC Compassion ClubSociety (BCCCS) provides access not only toclean, high quality cannabis, but also pro-vides education, monitoring, support andother natural heath care services to their

members - all at no cost to the taxpayer.

Community-based distribution throughCompassion Clubs could meet both the needsof medical cannabis users and the other goalsarticulated by the MMAR by adhering to thefollowing standards:

• Non-profit incorporation to guaranteefinancial transparency and ensure responsi-bility to the consumer.

• A minimum level of production and dis-tribution standards based on Good LabPractices (GLP) and Good AgriculturalPractices (GMP) guidelines.

•The exclusive use of organic cultivationpractices.

•Participation in inspections to ensurestandards are being met

Community-based, non-profitCompassion Clubs are an effective, afford-able, sensible, and time proven way, not only

to distribute medicinal cannabis, but also toprovide suffering Canadians with valuableservices no other model can offer.

To ensure the future success of a medicalcannabis programme, Health Canada mustrespect Compassion Clubs as an effective dis-tribution model that has already proven theability to meet the needs of many medicalcannabis users and save the government asignificant amount of money.

2. Cost Coverage These amendments fail to address the

vital concern of cost coverage that primarystakeholders expressed directly to HealthCanada during the consultation session inOttawa in February 2003. The failure to acton this important issue will continue to forcemany legitimate users of medicinal cannabisinto poverty.

Cost coverage must address all costs ofmedicine, including personal cultivation andpurchases from Compassion Clubs and mustnot be limited to Health Canada’s product,which is below quality standards for potency,

variety, and safety.

Health Canada must establish affordabili-ty and reimbursement of the costs throughthe provincial health insurance system, pri-vate insurance companies and tax deductionsfor all use of cannabis for recognized medicalconditions and symptoms.

3. AmnestyCanadian courts have found that those

who are using, supplying or producingmedicinal cannabis are providing an essentialhealthcare service. Unfortunately someCanadians have received a criminal recordfor providing or using medicinal cannabis.

To restore justice, medicinal cannabisusers, distributors and their suppliers mustimmediately be given amnesty.

4. Decentralization of Authorization The Office of Medical Cannabis has spent

millions of dollars operating an unnecessarybureaucracy that has produced littlebenefit to Canadians. CompassionClubs, by contrast, implement highstandards of eligibility and providequality medicine to thousands ofCanadians at no cost to Canadian tax-payers.

The decentralization of the Officeof Cannabis Medical Access pro-gramme and the legitimization ofCompassionate Clubs will not onlysave Health Canada preciousresources, it will also address many ofthe concerns expressed by those whocould benefit from the medical use ofcannabis.

Like other natural health productsand pharmaceutical medications, the

lawful possession of medicinal cannabis mustnot require authorization from a centralizedfederal body, the Office of Medical CannabisAccess.

ConclusionHealth Canada has been put in the chal-

lenging position of balancing the needs of lawenforcement, the medical establishment andmedical users of cannabis.

The implementation of our recommenda-tions is necessary to meet the needs of thehundreds of thousands of Canadians whocould alleviate their chronic pain, improvetheir appetite and relieve their nausea, whilestaying productive and maintaining a level ofhope and happiness despite their serious con-dition.

For more information: Rielle Capler,Strategy and Communications BCCompassion Club Society, [email protected] phone: 604-875-0214 www.the-compassionclub.org

BC Compass i on C l ub Response t o MMAR Amendmen t s

Compassion Clubs acrossCanada have garneredunique and invaluableexperience supplyingcannabis to over 8000medical cannabis users

Cannabis Health 19

Meduse r Group Response t o Hea l t h Canada

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEMonday, November 15th, 2004

Press Statement from the MeduserGroup which is comprised of 15 percent ofthe patients participating in the medicalmarijuana access program of HealthCanada’s Office of Cannabis MedicalAccess.

This statement is our official responseto Health Canada’s recent proposed“Marihuana Medical Access Regulations”amendments, which were published in theCanada Gazette. (Vol. 138, No. 43 - October23, 2004)

Although Health Canada invitedpatients to the table to provide input onthe MMAR program, based on their needsas the primary stakeholders in this pro-gram, it has failed to implement their rec-ommendations.

Health Canada is ignoring input, rec-ommendations and rulings made bypatients, the Canadian Senate Committeeand the courts.

Health Canada’s position seems to bethat the desires of physicians and law

enforcement are more important than theneeds of patients. The result of this posi-tion is that the MMAR and Office ofCannabis Medical Access programremains an ineffective, cumbersome andfaulty program.

There are continuing admission prob-lems for those wishing to enter the MMARprogram, and there are continuingcannabis supply problems for those alreadywithin the system.

In addition to the MMAR admissionand supply problems, Health Canada’slong-term vision of phasing out personaland designated medical cannabis produc-tion licences is unacceptable to patientswho wish to cultivate their own supply ofmedical cannabis.

The recent proposed MMAR amend-ments fail to address the primary intent ofthe MMAR program, which is to providepeople who wish to use cannabis medici-nally with efficient compassionate accessto a range of safe and effective sources ofmarihuana.

Health Canada continues to ignore

these requirements, and it is evident fromthe lack of action in acknowledging andaddressing these concerns, that the needsof patients are not a priority in MMARpolicy development and amendments.

CONTACT: Canada western rep:Philippe Lucas (Victoria, BC) Phone: (250)884-9821 Email: [email protected] western rep: Eric Nash (Duncan,BC) Phone: (250) 748-8614 Email:[email protected] Canada centralrep: Alison Myrden (Burlington, ON)Phone: (905) 681-8287 Email:[email protected] Canada eastern rep:Debbie Stultz-Giffin (Bridgetown, NS)Phone: (902) 655-2355 Email: [email protected]

20 Cannabis Health

Howard J. Wooldridge, Leap

The tall, lanky cowboy strides to thepodium. Grasping the microphone, hisvoice booms out to the audience ofRotarians, “War on Drugs. How is thatworking for you in Colorado? Is it reducingcrime? Is it reducing rates of death and dis-ease? Is it even reducing rates of drug use?”The audience murmurs and mumbles a NOto all of the questions.

Twenty five minutes later the Rotariansfiled out, many stopping to shake my handand say that I gave them a lot to think about.Thus ends another presentation, one of over100 that I have done in 2004. My mind driftsback to where I was a year ago…..ridingMisty 40 kilometers a day, 6 days a week.Then; dressed in jeans, boots & spurs, dirty t-shirt, cowboy hat and always needing a bath,now; I am wearing a sport coat, shiny bootsand buckle, and my Sunday cowboy hat.What a change!

2004 has been a year of driving from oneRotary to another, speaking to and changing30-60 community leaders at a time. WhileMisty is resting comfortably on 10 acres at aranch in Kentucky, my Chevy truck hastransported me some 50,000 KM. FromTexas to Colorado to Virginia to Oregon andnorth to Alaska I have traversed the UnitedStates, seeking to educate the ‘unconverted.’

My efforts this year are part of an inter-national effort by LEAP, Law EnforcementAgainst Prohibition. LEAP speakers havemade over 1000 presentations to audiencesaround the world. LEAP seeks out venueswhere the majority of the listeners are whatwe call the ‘unconverted.’ LEAP speakerssimply give the listeners the facts of the fail-ure of the war on drugs and let them decidewhat to do.

The response to the LEAP message hasbeen consistent across nearly all parts of

America; namely, that over half the audiencewalks out ready to end the war on drugs!How can that occur? LEAP speakers receiveimmediate credibility from the crowdbecause we have been in the trenches of thewar on drugs. This transformation of viewsheld by so many creates energy, propelling usforward to another and yet another civicorganization. It is difficult to put on paperthe jolt one receives when a man or womanshakes your hand, says God bless and keepup the good work. I have had hundreds andhundreds of conservatives approach me andwish me well. Yes, yes, I have had a fewdeath threats but so far, so good.

It isn’t just Rotarians who have beenconverted. I was sleeping in a ‘no-tellmotel’ in Mississippi this spring, when thepolice pounded on my door around mid-night. I tumbled out of bed and met threeyoung, unhappy-looking cops at my door.They informed me that I had left the key inthe door of my truck. I thanked them butthen, in an accusing tone, they asked aboutthe sign on my truck, “COPS SAY LEGAL-IZE POT, ASK ME WHY.” I replied thatmost of us want to focus on drunk driversand child molesters. Fifteen minutes laterthey asked for LEAP brochures and instruc-tions on how to join!!

LEAP is comprised of current and formerprofessionals in law enforcement in 45 coun-tries. The vast majority are police with anice sprinkling of prosecutors, judges, correc-tion officers and even a few ex-DEA agents.Volunteers all, we now have over 40 activespeakers with a like number who are in theprocess of being certified to speak. We havemade over 600 presentations in the past 12months and when you include TV and radioaudiences, several million people have heardour voices. The level of activity will onlyincrease, as we created a speakers’ bureau in2004, where 15 volunteers book our speak-ers’ next presentations. We are on themarch!

My efforts will slow down drastically inDecember. I will transport Misty back to aranch in Oklahoma to prepare for a 6,000KM ride from Los Angeles to New York City.In addition to riding Misty a few miles every-day, I will train “Rocky,” a backup horse incase Misty is injured. Unable to completelyshut up, I will present to a Rotary or Kiwanisonce a week or so.

You might ask why I would make thismind, body and spirit-breaking trip again. Ifully admit to still being tired from the firsttrip I completed in the fall of 2003. The impe-tus to ride again comes from meeting somany inspirational reformers this year.From Stormy Ray in Oregon to Bernie Ellisin Tennessee and many others in between, Istand in awe of the sacrifices that they havebeen making for years.

The 2005 ride will generate hundreds ofradio, TV and newspaper appearances withan estimated 6 million people exposed to thet-shirt, LEAP message and reform in general.Also important, Americans for Safe Access –ASA- will coordinate with LEAP to providemarijuana patients to appear with us inphoto ops. The combination of a wheelchairpatient, the horse and the cowboy will be apowerful and compelling image for reform.We will knock people out of their comfortzone of complacency and increase the pres-sure to end drug prohibition.

The ride will begin on a beach just southof Los Angeles about March 12, 2005. Wewill average about 40 KM per day, and restone day in seven. We have a routine whereshe lopes 3.2 KM, then I dismount and leadher for 1.6 KM. Next year I will walk about2,080 KM, almost the distance betweenVancouver and Winnipeg. The demands ofsuch an endeavor are 24/7, the greatest beingthe never-ending search for food for Mistyand to a lesser degree her water. From theLA city limits to the border of Nebraskasome 3,000 KM, there will be almost nograss. In each village, I will seek out a ceme-tery, post office, funeral home any placewhere they might water their yards, thus pro-viding some grass for poor Misty.

The grass is only half of the equationbecause the caloric demands of so much exer-cise require Misty to eat 9 kilos of grain perday. Though I never had children, the expe-

H o w T o C h a n g e t h e Wo r l d

...until the war ondrugs is over or until Idraw my last breath.

Cannabis Health 21


rience of 6 months of trying to care for Mistyallows me to relate to being a mom. Themost gut-wrenching memories of the firsttrip were the nights of no food for her. Aftershe worked hard to carry my little butt 35 to60 KM, she would look at me with her one,big, brown eye asking where is dinner.When I had none to give, it broke my heart.

Luckily, those nights were few and farbetween. Even with the bold t-shirt, peoplefrom coast to coast volunteered to help outwith grain and water. One particular nasty60 KM stretch on I-84 from Mountain Hometo Boise, ID was almost typical. We rode outat daybreak and the temperature quicklyrose to 40 Centigrade. After 44 KM of blaz-ing sun in the desert, we stopped at a truckstop for lunch. Misty had plenty to drinkbut here, there was not even a postage stampof grass. As I was about to enter the café, Ispotted at the pumps, a stock trailer full ofsheep. I asked the shepard, if I could buysome hay. He said no, but I could have all Iwanted. Misty had a fine lunch of threeflakes of alfalfa. This story repeated itself allacross America.

After we ride into the Big Apple in earlyNovember, Misty will receive two months off

at a ranch in Georgia. After I rest up, I willfind a place for the two of us nearWashington DC. In 2006 I will be a lobbyistfor LEAP in the US Congress.

LEAP in 2005 will continue its primarymission of speaking to civic groups and any-where there is an audience of the ‘unconvert-ed.’ More frequently, the phone is ringing and

Howard and Misty with some new friends in Oregon

22 Cannabis Health

someone is asking us toprovide a speaker for aforum, debate, testimony,etc. For example, before Ileave for California tostart my newest trekacross America, I amscheduled to testify beforethe Oklahoma SentencingCommission, a state com-mittee. While I am backin dirty jeans, dirty t-shirtand always needing ashower, my colleagueswill take their Saturdaybaths early and be off tospeak to another group of35 Rotarians.

If you would like to follow Misty and me acrossthe deserts, mountains, prairies and into theBig Apple, there will be a special link on theLEAP website of: www.leap.cc The website willcontain a map, my daily journal, and photos ofthe trip. Please visit. If you ever have thechance to visit with me in person, I would begrateful. The loneliness on such a long ride ismind-bending.

I am often asked how long will thisruinous policy of drug war continue. I amoptimistic that with so many pulling thewagon back to sanity, drug prohibition willbe in the history books by 2014. As for me, Iwill donate my time and my horse as much aswe can handle, until the war on drugs is overor until I draw my last breath.


Howard and Misty in Oregon

Denn i s L i l l i c o F igh t s f o r h i s Human R igh t s

By KateSkye.Courtesy ofTrail DailyTimes

W h i l eD e n n i sLillico stillcan’t find aphys ic ianto champi-

on his right to access medicinal marijuana,local Member of Parliament, Jim Gouk, MP isoffering his support. “We have legal use ofmarijuana for medical circumstances but it isnext to impossible for someone like Lillico tobe able to access it legally,” Gouk said. “He isprofoundly disabled. I think anyone who hasever met with the man has to have some sym-pathy for what he is going through . . . he sayshe gets a tremendous amount of relief (frommarijuana) and it seems some doctors haverecognized that but are now caught up in pol-itics.” Those politics began, Lillico said,when the College of Physicians and Surgeonsadvised doctors not to recommend marijuanato their patients because the federal govern-ment had not decriminalized it.

“No doctor wants to put in a recommen-dation because there is a liability factorbecause they are actually endorsing the use ofwhat is currently a criminal offense drug,”Gouk said. Last year, Lillico started a HumanRights claim against the College of Physiciansand Surgeons of B.C., two local doctors, and aneurogeneticist at UBC, saying he had beendiscriminated against. That hearing will takeplace in June 2005, in Castlegar. “I feel I have

been discriminated against because they haveacknowledged that smoking cannabis doeshelp with my pain and movement yet at thesame time they won’t prescribe it,” Lillicosaid. Lillico, 38, suffers from a very rare neu-rological disorder known as familial autoso-mal dominant myoclonic dystonia, a condi-tion that is severely disabling and causesseizure-like symptoms, and severe pain. “I’vetried many different medications,and theonly medicine that gives me relief is marijua-na,” he said. Under the federal government’smarijuana medical access regulation, peoplecan be authorized to grow, possess and usemarijuana for medical purposes, but firstthey must apply to the Minister of Health forauthorization. Application for authorizationmust be supported by a medical declaration.“But the real issue,” Gouk said, “is that thefederal government is not taking a clearstand. This is typical Liberal legislation. Theydo something so they can say they’ve donesomething but do so little . . . they try to walkboth sides of the fence at the same time.” In aquestionnaire sent by Gouk to his con-stituents in 1998, 49.9 percent said they werein favour of medical marijuana, 19.6 percentwere totally opposed, and 30.5 percent saidthey wanted more information. “What’s to bedone with marijuana is not something thatshould be decided behind closed doors byParliament. There needs to be a lot more pub-lic dialogue about the pros and cons. When itcomes to medical marijuana,” Gouk said,“there is some indication that certain peopledo get a lot of relief from certain types of ail-ments . . . we need to see some real genuinescientific indication as to whether or not itreally does provide relief (and) if there are

alternative ways of taking it besides smokingit. Getting the debate out in the open willhelp move the discussion forward,” he said.“Let’s discuss it dispassionately once and forall.” Even though Gouk is offering support headded, “I don’t smoke marijuana, I neverhave, I don’t recommend anybody smoke it.But when it comes to people like Lillico,” headded, “if I can help him get access to legalmarijuana, I’m going to do it.” Despite stillnot being able to get a local physician tochampion his cause, Lillico said he appreci-ates Gouk’s support. “All I can do is battle on.I don’t have much choice in the matter. Thedoctors aren’t giving me any choices; they’renot giving me anything (medicinally) thatcomes close to what cannabis does for me.”

Update: Frances Kelly, Barrister &Solicitor for the Community Legal AssistanceSociety, Disability Law Program, has beenadvised by the BC Human Rights Tribunalthat there is a hearing set for June 6, 7 and 8,2005 at 9:30am (at a location to be deter-mined in Castlegar). Cannabis Health con-tacted Dennis’s legal counsel, Frances Kellybut she could not comment at this time. Shedid say, Dennis has a good case, thePhysicians & Surgeons of British Columbia,and the doctors have a duty to accommodate,which they clearly have not done. Theirrefusals to sign the required forms havedenied Dennis Lillico access to the FederalGovernment’s approved Medical MarijuanaAccess program. Cannabis Health is planningto attend the hearing, if anyone else is inter-ested in attending, please contact us for fur-ther updates.

by Ted Smith

Hempology 101 started weekly meetingsin Vancouver in November 1994, and Iattended my first meeting in January 1995.By Sept I had decided to host the Wednesdaynight meetings in downtown Victoria andvolunteered to write a Hempology 101 text-book. With my involvement in the move-ment, I met a woman who made cannabis-infused salve and cookies and in January1996, we decided to start the CannabisBuyers Club. The CBC was the first publicmedical cannabis club in Canada completewith a pamphlet and a pager number. I founda downtown apartment a couple of monthslater in Victoria, but more thieves appearedthan donors in those first few years and theservices of the club stayed quite limited.

The CBC believes it is unfair to require adoctor’s recommendation, in order to accesscannabis, from someone who suffers from apermanent, physical disability or disease.Doctors are reluctant to endorse cannabis,primarily because they have been warned bythe College of Physicians and Surgeons not topromote the herb. Conservative doctors don’twant a smoked plant to be considered a med-icine; and especially not if people enjoy theprocess. A lack of quality research has limit-ed the medical community’s ability to under-stand cannabis and patients lacking a reliablesupply of cannabis products cannot prove totheir doctors that the herb helps them feelbetter. Without watching people improvetheir lives by using cannabis, physicians havelittle information.

Theo and Mordici ‘the Muffin Man’ start-ed a service in Vancouver in the summer of1996 called the Vancouver MedicalMarijuana Coalition; however the originalteam did not last long. When Hillary Blackreturned from Europe she joined Theo toform the Vancouver Medical MarijuanaBuyer’s Club. Doctor’s recommendationswere requested for some conditions and thename was changed to the CannabisCompassion Club. The group incorporated asthe B.C. Compassion Club Society in 1997.

Hempology 101 and the CBC made slow,steady progress in the early years. Manyquestioned my actions as I chose to fight forlegalization with Hempology 101. I’veattended public rallies where I have beenknown to smoke joints and pass out cookies.

I believe that the responsible use of qualitycannabis gives more benefits than harm tothe average healthy person. However, underthe circumstances I believe that the most vul-nerable and ill of our citizens should not haveto wait for the laws to change, or their doctorto become supportive, before they gain accessto a club. By limiting membership in the clubto people with incurablemedical problems we hopeto take the first steptowards full legalization.Since the early days somepeople believed the CBCwent too far and groupslike Hempology 101 shouldbe kept distant from med-ical suppliers.

On November 8, 2000,I was arrested and chargedwith trafficking for sharinga few joints after a weekly101 Club 4:20 Hempologymeeting at the Universityof Victoria. One week later,on International MedicalMarijuana Day, I wasarrested and charged againfor trafficking, this time forgiving pot cookies away.

In March 2001, whileissuing a warrant in anoth-er apartment in my build-ing, Victoria police advisedme to move CBC to a store-front. We very quickly setthe club up behind a down-town bookstore and begandeveloping the world’s bestedible and skin products.

On Jan 1, 2002, I cut-off a member caught re-selling beside the store.When he came back two

days later, it resulted in an awkward policesearch and seizure, which put the club in debtbut did not shut the doors. Warrants wereissued in March and June of 2002, whichagain put the club in more debt and worriedthe membership.

We petitioned city hall relentlessly.Council passed a resolution stating support of

Cannabis Health 23

The Cannab i s Buye r s C l ub & Hempo l ogy 10 1

Above: 1912 poster by F. E. Wright (www.hempology.org)

Cannabis Health 25

medical cannabis and requested HealthCanada to send a representative to Victoria toexplain the M.M.A.R. After the June raid, Iran for mayor of Victoria in an attempt toprove I was not a criminal. Another raid inFeb 2003 made us feel like we had a gunpointed to our heads even though they hadnever pulled a gun during a raid. We keptworking through it all.

My constitutional challenge had beendelayed pending a Supreme Court decision inClay/Caine/Malmo-Levine and in the sum-mer of 2003 a technical argument was suc-cessful in getting charges dropped from theJune 2002 raid. On Dec 23, 2003, theSupreme Court 6-3 decision in favour of thecannabis laws signaled the beginning of mytrials. We managed to get the Jan 2002 trialset first.

Arguments began in May, with policeadmitting I was cooperative and the club“was run like a pharmacy.” I testified that wespent years publicly advocating, we openedthe store after police told us to, and I arguedthat requiring a doctor’s recommendations touse cannabis was an unreasonable barrier toplace upon someone already diagnosed withan incurable medical problem. Dr. James

Geiwitz testified as an expert witness andeducated the judge about the effects ofcannabis. On Sept 7, 2004, Justice Chaperongranted a judicial acquittal to Colby Buddaand me, since the person who brought thepolice to our door was cut-off for re-selling.She recognized our motives were not forprofit but for helping sick people only.

No cannabis from Health Canada wasavailable until the summer of 2003, whichmeans before then, clubs like ours were theonly option for anyone with a legitimate med-ical need. Charges from the March 2002 andFeb 2003 raids should get dropped in 2005.

The day after our acquittal, B.C. SolicitorGeneral, Rich Coleman was asked if potstores would be allowed to continue, consid-ering Chaperon’s decision. His response wasthat sick people could get their pot fromHealth Canada and anyone openly selling potwould be shut down. The next day the DaKine in Vancouver was raided, and though itreopened, it eventually closed because ofpolice and media pressure.

Unfortunately, the Da Kine attempted touse the medical issue to shield commercialactivities. By requiring members to sign

forms stating they suffer from problems suchas road rage and referring to the café as acompassion club, the Da Kine operators didnot portray medical cannabis clubs as legiti-mate. It is ironic as I find myself criticizingDa Kine after years of being told by V.I.C.S.that “…simply requiring a diagnosis of condi-tion leaves too much room for abuse in analready contentious treatment.”

Having convinced a judge that requiringa doctor’s recommendation from people suf-fering from incurable medical problems isunfair, we cannot help but wonder what thesituation would be if our mandate were usedacross the country. According to some esti-mates, 1 million Canadians may need accessto cannabis as medicine. Currently, the CBCassists about 1,700 people in Victoria andabout 7,000 people are members of legitimateclubs across Canada. Statistically about70,000 people in the Lower Mainland shouldhave constitutional protection to usecannabis.

Establishing medical clubs is an impor-tant step in the legalization of cannabis.Hempology 101 and CBC will continue towork towards this end.

The Cannab i s Buye r s C l ub & Hempo l ogy 10 1

26 Cannabis Health

I n su rance Cove rage f o r Grow Ope ra t i on s

Homeowners’ insurers across Canada arefacing an ever-increasing number of claimsmade by the owners of residential rentalproperties whose tenants use them for largemarijuana grow operations, and, in theprocess, do extensive damage to the premises.

Insurers of such properties have deniedclaims arising out of large grow operations, asrental dwelling policies cover only namedperils, which usually include “vandalism andmalicious acts”. Insurers have argued a resi-dential rental premises turned into a grow-opdoes not constitute an act of vandalism andtherefore falls outside the scope of any namedperil. However, in Takhar v. British ColumbiaInsurance Co., a recent decision of the B.C.Court, a landlord, whose claim had beendenied, challenged the validity of such adenial. The Claimant sued the insurer, andthe Court decided the case in his favour.

The Court in Takhar held that its 1995decision in Huynh v. Continental InsuranceCo., in which it was also held that damagecaused by a grow operation constituted van-dalism, was not wrongly decided, and in anyevent, the policy at issue was revised subse-quent to Huynh. In light of that fact, theJudge held that the Defendant could easilyhave included in the policy a specific exclu-sion for marijuana grow-ops. As a resultmost Canadian insurers now put specific rid-ers in their homeowner policies that absolvethem of any liability if a property has beenused for that purpose. If you don’t knowwhether you are covered or not, read yourpolicy. A standard clause might look some-thing like the following:

Grow Op ExclusionLoss or Damage not Insured

We do not insure loss or damage resultingfrom any intentional or criminal act or failureto act by: any person insured by this policy: orany other person at the direction of any personinsured by this policy; any tenant, tenant’sguests boarders, employee or any member of thetenant’s household whether you have knowledgeof these activities or not.

Any damage arising directly or indirectlyfrom the growing, manufacturing, processing orstoring by anyone of any drug, narcotic or ille-gal substances or items or any kind the posses-sion of which constitutes a criminal offence.This includes any alteration of the premises tofacilitate such activity whether or not you haveany knowledge of such activity.

For further information we interviewedDennis Prouse, Government RelationsManager for the Pacific Region of theInsurance Bureau of Canada.

Cannabis Health: Does this mean if yougrow a few plants in your own homethat your whole insurance policy is nulland void?

Dennis Prouse: No, your policy wouldvery much still be in force. It is useful toremember that an insurance policy is a civilcontract entered into between you and theinsurance company. Just as you must live upto the commitments you have made in thatcivil contract, so too does the insurer. Thismeans, amongst other things, that an insurercannot conduct itself in what the courts call,“bad faith”. Policies can only be voided undervery specific circumstances, all of which arespelled out in the Insurance Act. Given thatmost policies these days are an “all risks” pol-icy, this means that any exclusions have to bespecifically spelled out in the policy. Theinsurance industry is not a regulator, nor arewe a law enforcement agency. Insurers meas-ure and price risk. Applying common senseworks well in this instance - do two or threeplants pose an undue risk to the property?Not really. From a strictly insurance perspec-tive, it wouldn’t be much different than get-ting your tomato plants an early start inside.Would dozens and dozens of plants pose anundue risk? Yes, and for a couple of differentreasons. First of all, this many plants couldreasonably be interpreted as being a commer-cial operation, which dramatically changesthe nature of the insurance risk. Secondly,the growing of so many plants indoors almostalways means that modifications have beenmade to electricity, plumbing, exhaust, andsometimes the structure of the home. Anyreasonable person would agree that this nowconstitutes an increased threat to the home.

CH: Should the patient who grows a fewplants in their home declare it to theirinsurance company?

DH: Again, common sense should be theguide here. Read the terms and conditions ofyour insurance policy, and see if what you aredoing is in compliance with it. It is hard toimagine anyone getting themselves too excit-ed about a couple of plants for personal use.However, no one is going to insure the plantsthemselves. This is really no different fromthe fact that, as a homeowner or renter,insurers won’t cover your prize-winning rho-dodendron either. Crop insurance, or insur-ance for anything biodegradable for that mat-ter, is not sold by private insurers. Only gov-ernments sell crop insurance. Those who runcommercial greenhouses can get insurance,but only on the structure, not the plantsthemselves.

From that perspective, there’s really noth-ing to disclose, given that plants of any kinddon’t get insured. It is easy, on the other hand,to imagine why insurers, police, and neigh-bourhood groups would be concerned about alarger scale operation that significantlychanges the nature of the risk. People shouldbe aware what insurance covers and doesn’tcover, and how that pertains to the growing of

any plant inside. Firstly, it should be notedthat “seepage and leakage” is not covered. Inother words, if you end up with wet, damageddrywall from too much moisture in a room,you are unlikely to have a claim. Mould is alsonot covered, nor is regular wear and tear.Insurance is designed to cover you for suddenand unexpected events - fire, the neighbour’stree falling on your house, someone suing youbecause they slipped on your walk, etc. Asteady accumulation of inadvertent damagefrom indoor gardening, on the other hand, isunlikely to be covered.

We would advise your readers to do whatevery other consumer should do, read yourpolicy. Understand your insurance, andknow what is covered, and what isn’t. Wefind that the number one source of difficul-ties on insurance is the fact that consumershaven’t read their policies, and thereforedon’t understand their coverage. It seemsstrange that people would spend several hun-dred dollars a year on a piece of paper theyhaven’t read, but that is often the case withinsurance. Read and understand the civilcontract into which you are entering, andyou will be much better off.

After receiving this great informationfrom Dennis at Insurance Bureau of Canada,we were still left wondering if there was anykind of insurance coverage available for the“three growers of marijuana for medical usein one location” as allowed within theMarijuana Medical Access Regulations, butin a commercial setting, not residential. Wecontacted an old friend still in the commer-cial insurance business and asked him if any-one would have a market for this type ofoperation. He contacted a broker and this iswhat we received back:

Unfortunately our Lloyd’s have passed onthis one. We don’t have another market. Maybeif they had an association we could get someinterest, if anything just to do inspections andcheck up on the quality control, what a great jobeh? The Open Market at Lloyd’s start at$25,000 for 1mm liability, would your client beinterested at that price? The only other optionwould be to start an insurance program for allthe growers in Canada.

Considering $25,000 is considerablymore then the average chronically ill personreceives a year in disability payments or part-time income and there are no profits to bemade in the personal medical growing ofmarijuana, I would say “the Open Market atLloyd’s” is definitely not an option. However,starting a “medical growers association andinsurance program” has interesting possibili-ties. Food for thought…..

Legal source: Clark, Wilson Insurance Bulletin- Case Law Review Archive

Don McIntosh - GroPro InternationalWinnipeg Manitoba

Many articles have been written abouthow to grow marijuana. Most people under-stand the basics of growing pot; the lights, thefertilizer and equipment have been well doc-umented elsewhere. Our intention here is tooffer some tips on growing with health inmind. A weakened immune system does notneed to be further compromised by pesti-cides, fungus or a virus. We also touch onsafety, cost and labour saving techniques.

When buying equipment, don’t get talkedinto a big, fancy, fully automated system withall the bells and whistles. Claims of projectedyields and ease of operation are often highlyexaggerated and really don’t justify theexpense. With some thought and pre-plan-ning, a system can be set up with your specialneeds in mind.

For instance, for very little money, a dripsystem is a great idea for both the gardenerand the plants. A submersible pump forcesthe water/fertilizer mix from a reservoir (acheap storage container made from plastic,100 litres or so) to each plant site throughsmall tubes called spaghetti line. An inlinedripper slowly drips the solution near theplant. Each time it drips, oxygen encases thedroplet and goes directly to the roots. Theplants love it and you’ll benefit from no morehand watering. This is important becausewater and electricity don’t mix. A spill in thewrong place could be deadly. Even a small

splash of water on a hot light bulb can causethat bulb to explode, subjecting you to harm-ful UV light and flying glass. A drip system isa safe way to feed your plants and there’s lessphysical effort as well. Your job is simply tochange the solution in the reservoir once aweek and set the timer for the length of thewatering period.

During the process of growing yourplants, you would be lucky not to get somekind of bug infesting your garden. To opt fora pesticide to deal with bugs is a poor choice.Not only are most of these chemicals extreme-ly toxic to people, most don’t have much of aneffect on the insects. They have built upimmunity to most pesticides, and no chemi-cals kill the eggs. You and your plants are bet-ter off to use biological controls. For everypest, there is a predatory insect that will eatall stages of growth, including the eggs, andwill not hurt you or your plants. There arealso more simple controls like sticky cardsthat act like fly paper. Remember, insects areanimals and so are you. What harms themcan harm you, especially if your health isn’tso great to begin with.

Another problem in grow rooms ismould. Moulds are a type of fungus and thereare hundreds, if not thousands, of differentkinds. Some make even healthy people sickand they can devastate your plants if not con-trolled. Some growers apply fungicides as acontrol. Although not usually as toxic as pes-ticides, they are still questionable from a

health standpoint. Here we suggest preventa-tive measures. Since humidity facilitates fun-gus growth, it’s a good idea to try to lowerhumidity and make conditions unfavorablefor fungus to thrive.

One way to achieve this is an exhaust fanin your room to remove hot air and humidityquickly. Don’t scrimp here! Get a fan muchbigger that the cubic feet it is rated for. If ona thermostat or humidistat, the fan should beoff as much as it is on. If it runs continuous-ly, it’s too small and can never achieve the

Grow ing Mar i j uana f r om a Hea l t h Po i n t o f V i ew

Cannabis Health 27

28 Cannabis Health

desired temperature or humidity level.

If it’s in the budget, we suggest a secondfan that would sit right on top of a carbon fil-ter canister. The air (and pollutants) arepulled through and trapped by the filter,releasing purified air from the exhaust portof the fan. Dehumidifiers work to someextent, but are usually too small for growrooms and require some degree of labour tomaintain. Not allowing standing water in theroom is a good idea. Your storagecontainer/reservoir should have tight fittinglid. Also, don’t foliar (leaf) feed. The harmoutweighs the good.

Finally, watch for moulds after the plantshave been cut down. Cure in a cool, dark, dry

environment. Dry to the point where thestems almost snap. By doing this, you areensuring all the fungi are dead. Most every-one is familiar with “wet” pot that stinks ofmould. It isn’t very good for you either! Oncedried, moisture can be reintroduced into thebuds, making them nice and smokable.

We hope those of you who have opted togrow your own have success and peace ofmind knowing the exact history of the plantsyou’ll be smoking. Buying off the street, oreven medical marijuana from the govern-ment, leaves a lot of questions about quality.Was it grown organically? Did they use pesti-cides? Did they avoid contamination fromfungus? When you grow, you know. Andthat’s got to be a good thing.

Grow ing Mar i j uana f r om a Hea l t h Po i n t o f V i ew

The Ontario Hemp Alliance needs helpwith an industrial hemp seed breeding proj-ect to develop varieties suited to Ontario andNorthern U.S. growing conditions. As theCanadian and American seed banks of hempseeds were either lost or destroyed after1945, we are finding it necessary now tobreed the best seed varieties for the future.

Besides its well proven potential benefitsto the environment, industrial hemp is aviable crop for Ontario farmers to consider

including in their cash crop rotations. Thethousands of potential uses for the fibre andthe seed translate into numerous potentialmarkets. The recent U.S. Federal Court deci-sion has totally removed the shadow of a banon Canadian hemp food products for thelarge U.S. market (over $12 million in the lastyear for seed products alone). Many of thepotential fibre markets will be able to usehemp fibre from post grain harvested straw.

Industrial Hemp is a very attractive envi-

ronmentally friendly renewable source offibre, replacing fiberglass and other petrole-um-based plastic products. The public confu-sion with its cannabis cousin, marijuana, hasprompted the Canadian government to imple-ment regulations restricting the planting ofhemp to Health Canada-approved varietiesthat contain less than 0.3% THC.

To date, the main source of industrialhemp varieties has been from Europe, espe-cially Northern and Eastern Europe, wherecultivation of hemp never stopped. Suchvarieties are best adapted to WesternCanadian provinces, which are north of the48th parallel, as are the originating countries.Ontario is further south than most of theEuropean countries providing low THChemp varieties. The industrial hemp cropsgrown in Ontario have mostly been lowenough in THC, however, they are experienc-ing unacceptable levels of performance (ton-nage per acre) due to inadequate agronomicadaptation. Higher production costs inOntario and higher-performing and morecompetitive commercial crops making indus-trial hemp less attractive as a cash crop toOntario farmers at this time.

The Ontario Hemp Alliance (OHA) haslaunched an Industrial HempBreeding/Seeding Propagation project in con-

O n t a r i o H e m p A l l i a n c e

Cannabis Health 29


tract with Ridgetown College/University ofGuelph. This project is focused on develop-ment of hemp grain/seed varieties more suit-ed to southern Ontario’s latitude, 42 – 45degrees north. These strains would also besuited to areas of similar latitude, such asSouthern Quebec, New England, Michigan,New York, Wisconsin, Minnesota, theDakotas, and the northern agricultural areasof Illinois, Ohio, Nebraska, Pennsylvania,Iowa and Indiana.

The project’s goal is to develop industrialhemp strains with the following qualities:

High yield – 15,000 lbs per acre - largeseeds for dehulling - low THC profile - highessential fatty acid profile - seed heads at aheight easy for harvesting of the grain - ade-quate straw yield for fibre - weed resistance -good colour and taste

It is likely that the eventual legalizationof industrial hemp-growing in the US willcreate a demand for the protocol that Canadais now using, with an emphasis on low THC.The work being undertaken by the OHA hasgreat bearing on the farmers of the northernUSA. They will likely be planting the vari-eties being developed in Ontario today.

Since industrial hemp cultivation becamelegal in Canada in 1998, several organiza-tions have invested time, money, and effort tointroduce native varieties to the marketplace.

There are four different approaches thatcan be utilized in the evolution of native vari-eties. 1. Cultivate feral hemp; carry-over vari-eties from by-gone years when hemp waswidely grown in Ontario. Unfortunately, attime of writing, none of the feral varietiesbeing researched have been registered andtherefore cannot be considered for theapproved list. 2. Propagate domesticatedEuropean or Asian varieties. The mostnotably successful domesticated variety isFIN314 (FINOLA) from Finland. . There areproblems however. FIN314 doesn’t do well inOntario – it does better at higher latitudes(north of the 50th latitude). 3. Develop,through genetic engineering, enhanced vari-eties. The OHA will not support this type ofresearch on any variety of Cannabis Sativafor fear the future of the industrial hempindustry will be significantly endangered andpotentially destroyed by the introduction ofany genetically engineered germplasm. 4.Develop, through cross-pollination and natu-ral selection, new varieties, the best longterm approach. Breeding targets include:potential cost savings over imported vari-eties, business opportunity for breeders,higher yields/greater productivity than fromcurrent available types, improved viabilityunder Ontario growing conditions, improvedessential fatty acid profile for the grain,

Honey bee on male hemp flower

30 Cannabis Health

removal of importation problems, control ofsupply and quality, further reduction inTHC, adequate post harvest straw, and accru-al of royalties to Canadians.

There are currently seven varieties thathave been developed in Canada, two of whichare owned by the OHA. The first is CAR-MEN, a fibre variety not in production. Newbreeder and foundation stock must be rede-veloped. Certified seed from 2001 production

is available. Registered seed was pro-duced in 2004. The second, ANKA, agrain variety, is currently available andshould be available in 2005. New breed-er and foundation stock must be re-developed to extend its life beyond 2005.Breeder seed was re-developed in 2004.Because ANKA is a good and knownvariety, the OHA would like to extend itslife through a breeding project. ANKAhas a good EFA profile and low THCalong with good colour and taste.

The breeder costs were estimated tobe $15,000 per year for three years.Funding from CanAdapt (a programunder Agricultural Adaptation Counciloperated by Agriculture and Agri-FoodCanada) would be sought if industrypartners were willing to invest. For thesummer of 2003, the OHA, in partner-ship with a couple of investors author-ized continued research with breeder

plots at Ridgetown College and in theRidgetown area. In November 2003 OHAreceived funding for the project throughCanAdapt and were then able to purchase(from Industrial Hemp Seed DevelopmentCorporation - IHDSC) all legal ownershiprights of its breeding seed germplasm includ-ing the registered grain variety ANKA andthe fibre variety CARMEN.

It will be 2007 before commercial seed is

available. The OHA has contracted PeterDragla, one of the most respected plantbreeders in Canada, to develop an enhancedreplacement for ANKA. 2004 is the last yearthe current stock of ANKA can be propagat-ed. This is the end of the line for ANKA. TheOHA does have some registered 2001 seedwhich is one generation closer to foundationstock than the seeds being planted this year.They will endeavour to use this seed to re-develop ANKA breeder and foundation seed,thus giving them complete and exclusive con-trol over ANKA and can continue marketavailability beyond 2005.

In order to do this, the OHA needs yourhelp. The biggest hurdle they are facing isfinding funding to allow them to continuetheir work. To match a CanAdapt grant, theOHA is faced with a $5,500 invoice alreadypast due for the second year’s work. Theyhave $2,000 now and need another $3,500CDN as soon as possible to keep this seedbreeding program alive, and another $25,000to bring it to fruition (completion in 2005).They are finding the need to solicit fundsoutside the obvious hemp trade since mostOntario/Quebec hemp food companies nowdepend on the Prairie Provinces for theirhemp grain and are putting all their resourcesinto keeping up with the ever increasingdemand.

For further information contact: GordonScheifele B.Sc. M.Sc., President, OntarioHemp Alliance (and Master Agronomist),151 N. Woodstock St, PO Box 776, Tavistock,ON N0B 2R0, [email protected] orClaude Pinsonneault, Chairman, BreedingProgramme, Ontario Hemp Alliance, 6679Maple Line, RR #8, Chatham, ON N7M [email protected]

www.ontariohempalliance.orgwww.hempindustries.org


Gordon Scheifele B.Sc. M.Sc., President, OntarioHemp Alliance (and Master Agronomist)

E-mail: [email protected]: www.johnconroy.com

CONROY & COMPANYBarristers and Solicitors

JOHN W.CONROY, Q.C.Barrister and Solicitor2459 Pauline StreetAbbotsford, B.C.Canada V2S 3S1 Ph: 604-852-5110

Toll Free:1-877-852-5110Fax: 604-859-3361

Cannabis Health 31

After thelast article afew people haveasked me, howdo you regulatethe dosage inyour edibles soyou know howmuch to eat?This is the realtrick to cookingwith cannabisand mistakeseither way of

too much or too little can leave you feelingthat you’ve wasted your time and marijuana,or on the other end of the spectrum can leaveyou a total mess. Through my research intothis I have found the following guidelines inthe Marijuana Herbal Cookbook by TomFlowers and found them to be fairly accuratetaking into account of course the potency ofyour cannabis.

For a person weighing 150lbs who hassome experience with marijuana the dosagesare as follows;

Leaf - 1/2 to 2 grams/ Bud - 1/4 to 1 gram/Hashish and Keif - 1/8 to 1 gram

Using these guidelines 1/4 ounce makes thefollowing number of servings

Leaf - 4-15 servings/ Bud - 8-25 servings/Hashish and Keif - 4-34 servings

Look at the range in thenumbers of servings and againremember it all depends on thepotency of your marijuana.Try it out, test some recipesand know the potency of yourbutter. Remember to err on theside of caution. With that,here is this month’s recipe.

ULTIMATECHOCOLATE FUDGE1/2 cup marijuana butter

1 oz. bittersweet chocolate

1 cup sugar

1/2 cup milk

1/4 cup cocoa

1/4 cup nuts (optional)

Melt and mix on low heatover a double boiler, spread onshallow baking pan, allow tocool and set. Enjoy!

C o o k i n g W i t h C a n n a b i s

Delynn Armitage

32 Cannabis Health

Advertorial

Montreal Company offers a way to makeTHC capsules at home

There are thousands of people who havenever used cannabis, but would considerusing it medicinally - if it weren’t for thesocial stigma attached to smoking pot. Thereare also hundreds of thousands of people whoare currently benefiting from the healingproperties of cannabis, but fear that smokingis taking its toll on their health – mainly their

lungs. An innovative Montrealer in just thissituation has not only developed an alterna-tive delivery system for ingesting cannabis,but he has decided to share it with the world.

Peter Horowitz, a partner in CannabrexNutriceutical, explains: “a great friend ofmine has a condition that he treats withcannabis. He smoked a lot, and aside fromaffecting his health, being a “pot smoker”also lent him a reputation that he enjoyedless and less as time went by. Married with 3children and attending trade school, he pre-ferred that his kids, his boss, and his instruc-tors did not see him go out to the parking lotto smoke a joint. With some help. he workedon different ways to ingest cannabis and it’s

derivatives. Eventually,we developed an effi-cient and simple way tomake capsules contain-ing THC”.

After receivingcountless requests forsamples and instructionson how to make his THCcapsules, Horowitz con-vinced his friend to offerthis innovation to thepublic. Ideally, the cap-sules would be availablealready containing the

THC, but current legislation has forcedCannabrex to offer the next best thing: TheCannabrex Home Encapsulation System.Also known as the Cannabrex Kit, this newproduct comes with all the necessary ingredi-ents and instructions to make THC capsulesat home. The process maximizes THCabsorption while minimizing unhealthy orunpleasant side effects that come with smok-ing, eating or other means of ingestingcannabis.

There are already people usingCannabrex Capsules to treat such conditionsas Multiple Sclerosis, Bipolar disorder, backpain and Crohn’s disease.

Besides the Home Encapsulation System,the Cannabrex team is currently working onseveral other exciting products that will helppave the way towards the normalization ofmarijuana in the 21st century. Visit theirwebsite www.cannabrex.com regularly to seewhat’s new.

C a n n a b r e x N u t r i c e u t i c a l

Cannabis Health 33

Product Review

At first glance you would think this to be some type of medicaldevice or even a funky bed side light. It is in fact the AroMed Vaporizer,another example of the dominance of German technology in the vapor-ization market. The system is more complex than some, but rest assured,learning to use this unit will be worth your while. The base, the electri-cal brain of the unit, is nicely finished and heavy enough to sit securelyon a flat surface. Extending from the base is a flexible metal hose and onthe end is a small high intensity halogen light. The cannabis is placed ina glass bowl and snapped into place a fixed distance from your mini sun.So far so good. As the user draws air through the cannabis in the bowl,the halogen light, regulated by the base, increases in intensity to createand sustain the perfect vaporization temperature at the bowl.

One final cleansing action takes the vapor that is drawn from thebowl and passes it through a water bath before it finally enters the user’slungs. This is a passive system and your favorite mix can be left for

extended periods baking inthe glass bowl until youchoose to use. Being able toview the load as it changescolor encourages smokers touse less and enjoy it muchmore. Compared to vaporiz-ers that drive air throughthe cannabis, this unit issophisticated, refined andwill appeal to the cannabisuser who is seeking tovaporize with surgical clean-liness and precision.

A r o M e d Va p o r i z e r

The new AroMed 4.0 at CannaBusiness2004 with Howard Marks

34 Cannabis Health

Documents

Print Issue 14 - Erowid · Volume 3 Issue 2, January - February 2005 Cannabis Health Cannabis Health Magazine is the voice and the new image of the responsible cannabis user. The