Comprehensive Cannabis Policy Review -- Bermuda -- Alan Gordon

Page 1 of 58

2nd January, 2014

Bermuda Cannabis Policy Reform:

Medicinal and Recreational Considerations for the

Bermuda Cannabis Reform Collaborative Committee

Alan Gordon, BA, LLB [email protected] 441-293-2538

NOTE: Some footnoted references refer to highly confidential sources of

information who have been anonymized for privacy and legal reasons. If the

Collaborative wishes further information and is willing to guarantee confidentiality,

please contact the author for further information.

Page 2 of 58

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 4

2. Medical Cannabis 6

Background 8

General Medical Cannabis 10

Supply Sources 14

Forms and Amounts of Cannabis 16

Reciprocity of foreign medical cannabis permits for visitors 16

Obligations to the UN and UK 18

Financial Costs/Benefit to Government 24

Patient-Physician Relationship Requirements 24

Conclusions 25

Specialised Medical Cannabis 27

Alternatives to Smoking 27

Refined Cannabis Oil for Cancer 28

“Medibles” -- Other Edible Cannabis Products 35

“No-High” Cannabis Medicine: THC vs. CBD 36

Specialised Medical Cannabis Conclusions 38

Medical Cannabis Conclusions 39

[Contents continued next page]

Page 3 of 58

[Table of Contents Continued]

3. Recreational Cannabis 41

Background 41

Options 42

Decriminalization (“De-crim”) 44

Legalization or Regulation 48

Treaty Compliance 48

Form of Regulation 53

Tourist and Other Visitors 54

4. Cannabis Myths De-Bunked 54

Lung Damage 54

Psychosis 55

Cannabis Myth Conclusions 56

5. Retroactivity: What About Those Already Criminalised? 57

6. Conclusions 58

Page 4 of 58

1. INTRODUCTION

Cannabis policy reform is occurring in increasing numbers of jurisdictions around the

world.

Bermuda, on the other hand, has possibly the Western Hemisphere’s strictest

cannabis penalties. It is inadvisable for a tourism and international business centre

to have such a policy affecting visitors, let alone inflict it upon our own people.

Key areas for reform in Bermuda include:

(1) Cannabis medicine; and

(2) Removal/reduction of criminal penalty for possession and

acquisition/supply, including:

A. Draconian penalties for both personal possession and supply,

B. Persistent racial disparity in cannabis law enforcement,

C. Immigration hurdles to the US and Canada caused by petty criminal

cannabis charges; and

Page 5 of 58

Each topic will be addressed in turn, with several policy options offered. Full

assessment of policy options leads to emergent but inescapable themes, specifically:

A. Decriminalization of only personal possession (as opposed to legalization) is

actually not even possible, due to Bermuda’s current legal structure; and

B. Various types of legalization or regulation of possession/acquisition of

cannabis must be assessed for United Nations (UN) Treaty compliance,

because the required UK assent to Bermuda legislation will only occur if the

UK’s UN Treaty obligations are substantially met; and

C. Without a supply of Bermuda-grown medical cannabis (and not mere

artificial synthetics), demand will lead to increasing health and safety risks,

mistrust of government, and unlawful behaviour. In addition, there appears

to be overwhelming popular support for controlled access to medical

cannabis. If delays in access lead to suffering or loss of life, then immediacy is

therefore both required and justified.

The legal, medical and ethical distinctions related to cannabis policy are numerous

and subtle. This painstakingly referenced report concisely addresses virtually all

questions, topic by topic, and so Parliament and Cabinet are encouraged to learn as

much as they can from it.

The life-or-death immediacy inherent to medical cannabis reform gives that topic a

heavy priority in the report, and readers are asked to thoughtfully judge these

matters on the evidence presented and then seek immediate action for the sake of

the suffering.

Page 6 of 58

2. MEDICAL CANNABIS

Due to complex legal subtleties, this report recommends that the way forward on

medical cannabis is for Parliament to choose between 2 options:

A. Enact legislation either:

(1) allowing the relevant Minister to remove cannabis and cannabis

resins from the Schedule to the Misuse of Drug Designation Order

1973 (so that doctors and pharmacists may produce, handle and

distribute it); or

(2) directly removing cannabis (and its resins) from the Schedule and

barring the Minister from restoring it; or

B. Enact no legislation, but, within the existing exemptions for medical

cannabis afforded the Minister through the Misuse of Drugs Act 1972

s.12, allow patients to either produce their own medical cannabis, or

obtain it from caregivers and/or commercial growers, without requiring

physicians and pharmacists to handle the drugs (since other medical

marijuana jurisdictions rarely if ever require it).

Within the latter broad stroke approach, Cabinet will have to devise a reasonable set

of conditions for medical cannabis applications. The following section outlines

options and considerations for such conditions.

It is important to note that the Ministry of Public Safety has indicated1 that it will

entertain applications for medical cannabis permits.

1 Dunkley, Hon Minister of Public Safety. Personal correspondence with the author and separately with

Michael Brangman, as well as Facebook comments on Ruling Party OBA page in response to a query by Craig

Looby, 30th

December 2013, retrieved the same date at https://www.facebook.com/groups/onebermuda

alliance/ 561439153940141/? notif_t=group_ comment_reply. ; later deleted.

Page 7 of 58

To date, no guidelines have been issued by which would-be applicants can predict

success, placing an expensive, time-consuming and intimidatory burden on patients,

many of whom are dying and have little time for repeated lengthy applications

without any predictable chance of success.

The current lack of published rules for successful medical cannabis permit

applications is probably an unlawful omission. This is because, in the words of

England’s highest Court (the House of Lords, now called the Supreme Court):

“In our system of law, surprise is the enemy of justice”2,

and

"it is in general inconsistent with the constitutional imperative that statute law be

made known for the government to withhold information about its policy relating to

the exercise of a power conferred by statute.” 3

and

“What must . . .be published is that which a person who is affected by the

operation of the policy needs to know in order to make informed and meaningful

representations to the decision-maker before a decision is made.”4

The Ministry should allow the sick and dying a chance to see what rules they must

abide by before those patients waste their dying gasps on applications which have

invisible rules. It is strongly recommended that the Ministry should act lawfully,

and not flagrantly contradict leading English case law from the House of Lords.

2 R (Anufrijeva) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] 1 AC 604, per Lord Steyn at 622C.

3 R (Salih) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWHC 2273 (Admin) per Stanley Burnton J in p

52, as cited in Lumba (WL) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 12 (23 March 2011) by

Lord Dyson at p 36. 4 Lumba (WL) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 12 (23 March 2011) per Lord Dyson

at p 38.

Page 8 of 58

Background:

Cannabis medicine dates back thousands of years5.

Its ancient origin, however, does not mean that herbal cannabis is too “primitive” for

modern medical use -- a consensus has been achieved among both medical experts6

and patients7 that herbal cannabis is a valuable and effective medicine that modern

science has not yet been able to match.

Cannabis’ first recorded medical use can be found in the world’s oldest medical text,

the 4700 year old pharmacopoeia of Chinese Emperor Shen Nung8. This ancient text

reveals that cannabis was a useful but controversial medicine. Since that time,

cannabis has been widely used as a medicine around the world for a wide range of

ailments, typically with similar controversy.

Other ancient examples of this medicine’s use and controversy include Middle

Eastern archaeological and Biblical evidence, for example:

A. Actual cannabis found in Biblical-era medical settings9,10; and

B. Biblical depictions of a sacred plant medicine called in Hebrew “ ֹבֶׂשם-ּוְקֵנה ”

(“kaneh-bos) ”11

, which closely resembles modern cannabis. The use and

distribution of kaneh-bos was a source of great contention in scripture’s

narrative story (whatever the plant’s botanical identity).

5 Mechoulam R. The cannabinoids: an overview: therapeutic implications in vomiting and nausea after cancer

chemotherapy, in appetite promotion, in multiple sclerosis and in neuroprotection. Pain Research and

Management. 2001 Summer; 6(2):67-73. 6 American Herbal Pharmacopoeia. Cannabis Inflorescence and Leaf QC. 2013.

7 Hazekamp A. The Medicinal Use of Cannabis and Cannabinoids—An International Cross-Sectional Survey on

Administration Forms. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs. 2013;45:3. 8 Hui-Lin L. (1975) in Cannabis and Culture, ed Rubin V(Mouton, The Hague), pp 51–62.

9 Zias J. Cannabis sativa (Hashish) as an effective medication in antiquity: the anthropological evidence. In:

Campbell S, Green A, editors. The archaeology of death in the ancient near east. Oxford, UK: Oxbow Books;

1995. pp. 232–234. 10

Zias J, et al. Early medical use of cannabis. Nature. 1993;363:215. 11

Exodus 30:23 JPS Hebrew Bible.

Page 9 of 58

Western use of cannabis as medicine was accepted and widespread from the 1850s

through the 1930s12. Its use stagnated, however, with the advent of modern

chemistry, which coincided with general bans on cannabis and general

medical/popular disfavour of herbal remedies compared to patented synthetic

medicine. In 1941, cannabis was removed from the US Pharmacopeia13, signalling

the end of an era of cannabis use in Western medicine, until the contemporary era.

Cannabis medicine’s popularity re-surged from near-total latency in the 1990s, as

underground cannabis users, armed with a relatively new internet, began sharing

anecdotes about cannabis’ medicinal benefits with physicians, friends and the

general public, while increasingly larger jurisdictions voted in referenda to allow it.

This 1990s shift culminated in the USA’s most populous State, California, legalizing

home production of medical cannabis in 1996, and Canada’s most populous

province, Ontario, legalizing it in 2000.

This upsurge, in turn, sparked 20 other US States, plus Washington DC, as well as

France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Switzerland, and other jurisdictions to legalize medical

cannabis to varying degrees. The end result has been a chain reaction spawning

popular demand for legal access, legal changes, and new medical research, which

has exploded into an industry unto itself, in terms of the volume of publications and

available research funding.

Bermuda is encouraged to capitalize on this new economy.

12

Grinspoon L. History of Cannabis As a Medicine. Expert Witness Statement in Craker v United States

Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Agency, Volume 1, 16th

August 2005. 13

Ibid.

Page 10 of 58

General Medical Cannabis

While no reasonable person supports a blanket ban on prescription of any cannabis-

based medicines, “medical cannabis” typically refers to herbal, not pharmaceutical

products, and so public demand is far broader in scope than just cannabis-based

patented commercial products.

Lawful medical cannabis access (via a doctor’s recommendation) in Bermuda

appears to be overwhelmingly supported, based on:

A. preliminary informal surveys in Bermuda14; and

B. 80+% popular support in the US15; and

C. 72% support by physicians in the US and Canada16.

Licensed consumers of medical cannabis products have made clear in international

surveys that real cannabis outperforms its industrial pharmaceutical counterparts17.

Modern science has simply not yet devised any way to separate most of cannabis’

medical effects from the “high” (euphoria) which policy-makers have been so keen

to prevent.

One reason for this is that with whole herbal cannabis, patients have been able to

select cannabis varieties which tailor effects to the specific ailment and personal

genetic factors, in ways which synthetic cannabis-like prescriptions have been unable

to achieve18.

Many jurisdictions’ doctors and policy makers (often one and the same) have fallen

far behind their own patients’/constituents’ knowledge of plant varieties and their

respective medical effects, and could learn more from observing underground

patients than from drug prevention or medical textbooks.

14

Future Bermuda Alliance. Survey collected 15th

Sept 2013 in hard copy, later via www. 15

Sanger, G. High Support for Medical Marijuana. ABC News Poll. Jan 13 2010. 16

Adler J, Colbert A. Medical Use of Marijuana -- Polling Results. New England Journal of Medicine; 36:e30.

30th

May 2013 17

Hazekamp A. The Medicinal Use of Cannabis and Cannabinoids—An International Cross-Sectional Survey on

Administration Forms. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs. 2013;45:3. 18

ibid

Page 11 of 58

As with any medicine, cannabis’ patient desirability causes concern among

physicians and policy makers, owing to fears that patients simply prefer getting

“high” to the actual medical benefits.

It is unfortunate that physicians and policy makers, fearing cannabis’ pleasurable

effects on patients, commonly reject medicines which patients say have the best

medical effect, and go against a patient’s wish by only allowing access to forms of

cannabis medicine which patients feel are not effective.

Bermuda’s medical cannabis policy has aggressively guarded the threshold between:

A. on one hand, patients’ desire for inappropriate drugs which make the

patient “feel good” but sicken rather than heal the patient; and

B. on the other hand, a patient’s legitimate desire to feel better.

Given cannabis’ recognised medical utility, its propensity to make some patients feel

well should not become an excuse to ban its medical use.

This has reached absurd levels in which:

A. One Bermuda government Medical Officer was heard to say that even if

the public voted with over 80% support to allow herbal medical cannabis,

doctors must still exercise legal powers to ban its use19; and

B. Bermuda’s Chief Medical Officer has stated that not even terminal

patients should be allowed to self-administer cannabis20 (despite the fact

that doctors and pharmacists, but not patients, are banned from even

getting special permits to administer cannabis in Bermuda21).

No physician or policy-maker has been entrusted with the moral duty to unilaterally

override the wishes of such an overwhelming majority of the public, and this must

be avoided.

19

Anonymous retired Bermuda Government Medical Officer in personal conversations with the author,

October 2013. 20

Peek-Ball, C. Correspondence to Michael Brangman, viewed by the author, date unknown. 21

Schedule to the Misuse Of Drugs (Designation) Order 1973, referencing Section 12(3) and (4) of the Misuse

of Drugs Act 1972.

Page 12 of 58

This second-guessing by untrained physicians and politicians has led to ironic

situations in which:

A. Cynical decision-makers claim the intoxicating properties of THC in herbal

cannabis make its medical value not worthwhile;

B. THC itself, however, is prescribable in patented pill form -- notwithstanding

policy-makers’ complaints that it is too dangerous when in herbal cannabis.

Patients persistently complain that these legal THC pills not only get them

“too high” but also that they fail to alleviate symptoms for which they were

prescribed, and that the effects of the pills vary wildly from dose to dose (due

to inconsistency in absorption)22, and yet policy makers are comfortable with

THC’s “high” so long as it is patented (i.e. not in herbal form).

C. Nay-saying policy-makers insist that only pure patent-protected THC can be

used, and that raw cannabis’ numerous components (outperforming

synthetics in every patient test23) are too non-standard to be allowed.

Critics have noted that incorrect medical decisions, made under the demonstrably

false/errant guise of public or individual health and safety, have reduced the

effectiveness of patients’ health care in favour of a system of patent protection for

corporate prescription medicine24.

Allegations that pharmaceutical profits have compromised medical integrity are not

fanciful flights of conspiracy-minded imagination -- in fact the opposite is true, for

example, Bermuda-based pharmaceutical industry giant Novartis recently paid

hundreds of millions of dollars in fines for giving illegal kickbacks to health care

professionals for prescribing mis-marketed drugs, sometimes attempting to hide

these payments from regulators via increasingly ridiculous prizes and awards 25,26.

22



Ibid. 24

Aggarwal S. Adequate and Well-Controlled Studies Proving Medical Efficacy of Cannabis Exist but are

Ignored by Marijuana Schedulers. 15th

April 2013; The Huffington Post. 25

Vaughan B. US Sues Novartis, Alleging Kickbacks to Pharmacies. Reuters. 23rd

April 2013. 26

Volkov, M. Anti-Kickback Laws, False Claims and Recidivists. Corporate Compliance Insights. 7th

June 2013.

Page 13 of 58

Policy makers and medical authorities may be unwitting participants in the profit-

driven compromise of patients’ health care, since medical authorities’ training and

textbooks have been funded primarily by pharmaceutical interests who stand to

gain.

Policy makers around the world, in turn, have deferred not only to the misled

medical authorities, but also to direct lobbying from the pharmaceutical interests

who will profit27

. It is no wonder that the industry’s policy proposals sound so

seductively sensible and official to policy-makers, despite lapses in factual or legal

credibility -- the industry has the best-paid physicians and marketers.

Such a system is unlikely to be deliberately cruel or unfair, yet publicly appears

corrupt, whether or not any party’s intentions are. When individual corporate

profits trump health care, such appearances will exist.

It is inadvisable for the Bermuda Government to adopt a stance giving the

appearance of economic corruption of Bermudians’ health care interests. For this

reason, and as a matter of compassion, primary or secondary legislation (reasonable

in scope) should be promptly enacted in order to allow patients to access medical

cannabis via a set of publicly accessible rules.

When considering how to implement medical cannabis law access, factors which

must be considered include:

27

Aggarwal S. Adequate and Well-Controlled Studies Proving Medical Efficacy of Cannabis Exist but are Ignored

by Marijuana Schedulers. 15th

April 2013; The Huffington Post.

Page 14 of 58

A. Supply Sources

Should patients be allowed to grow? Patient home grows are allowed by 14

of the 20 US States allowing medical cannabis28

.

Should only patients be allowed to grow? Or, should Bermuda follow the

model used in some US States like California29 and Maine30 in which patients

who are too sick to grow are allowed to nominate qualified caregivers to

grow for them? Of the 15 US States which do allow patients to grow, only

one, New Mexico, disallows caregivers from growing on sick patients’

behalf31

.

Should patients be denied the ability to grow, and instead be restricted to

licensed commercial vendors only, like in Canada32

and Illinois33

? In

jurisdictions where governments or government vendors produce medical

cannabis, deficient government and/or contractor expertise in site selection,

growing, curing, handling, storage, shipping and cannabis variety selection

have led to serious toxic contamination problems, specifically:

(1) Fertilizers; and

(2) Lead and arsenic; and

(3) Bacteria; and

(4) Mould34 (all of the above); and

(5) Pesticides35

28 Marijuana Policy Project. The Twenty States and One Federal District With Effective Medical Marijuana Laws

and a 21st State With a Research-oriented Program and a Limited Defense. Summary of State Medical

Marijuana Laws. WWW publication accessed 29th

December 2013 at

http://www.mpp.org/assets/pdfs/library/MMJLawsSummary.pdf. 29

California Health and Safety Code, Section 11362.5 (b)(1)(A) 30

Maine Medical Use of Marijuana Act. Maine Revised Statutes, Title 22 §2423-A.1.B. 31

Marijuana Policy Project. The Twenty States and One Federal District With Effective Medical Marijuana Laws

and a 21st State With a Research-oriented Program and a Limited Defense. Summary of State Medical


December 2013 at

http://www.mpp.org/assets/pdfs/library/ MMJLawsSummary.pdf. 32

The Canadian Press. Medical marijuana users worry about prices as market expands. CBC News Canada.21st

December 2013. 33

State of Illinois, Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Pilot Program Act Ss 25 (g) and (h) 34

Canadians For Safe Access. Open Letter of Concern for the Health and Safety of Canada's Medicinal Cannabis

Community. 1st

January 2005.

Page 15 of 58

It is recommended that any medical cannabis produced by government or

commercial sources be subject to strict controls regarding:

(1) Potency; and

(2) Purity (specifically regarding moisture/mould, fertilizers, pesticides

and fungicides).

This will require an on-island gas chromatography or mass spectrometry

device and trained operator capable of generating timely test results, for

which vendors should pay. If Government wishes to avoid this avenue of

employment and revenue, private industry will likely take it upon themselves,

as a way to boost marketability.

It is also recommended that commercial producers, whether governmental

or private enterprise, offer consumers an independent lab test showing

potency expressed with (at a minimum level of detail) a ratio of tetra-

hydrocannabinol (THC) to cannabidiol (CBD) percentages, in order to help

patients and doctors identify which cannabis variety will work best with

minimal unwanted effects, for a given patient’s condition.

This, too, will require an on-island gas chromatography or mass spectrometry

device and trained operator capable of generating timely test results, for

which vendors should pay. If Government wishes to avoid this avenue of

employment and revenue, private industry will likely take it upon themselves.

For personal use growers and/or non-commercial “caregiver” growers, it is

recommended that guidelines be issued for cannabis cultivation/storage

safety, but that purity be left to the producer rather than to regulators, as per

the models used by jurisdictions allowing patients and or (when too sick to

grow for themselves) nominated caregivers.

35

Shepherd M. Main Medical Marijuana Company Fined $18,000 for Using Pesticides. 6th

December 2013;

Portland Press Herald.

Page 16 of 58

B. Forms and Amounts of Cannabis

Will only smokable cannabis be permitted, or will edible and/or topical

preparations (such as concentrated resins/oils, diluted oil infusions, baked

goods, candies, tinctures, and salves) also be allowed?

It is not recommended that edible products be banned, since smoking is

generally dis-recommended as a matter of common sense.

If edible products are allowed, rules should be in place to safeguard the

material (which may look and taste like ordinary foods) via strong warning

labels and child-proof storage areas.

Concentrated cannabis oil products (see below), edible or otherwise, are in

increasing demand, and given the growing wave of cannabis oil cancer

treatments, outright bans on such products are not likely to be heeded.

Likewise, Bermuda will need to set limits to the amount of cannabis a patient

(or provider) may have.

US States allowing medical cannabis allow as much as 1.5 pounds (Oregon

and Washington) and an additional 30 plants (Oregon)36.

C. Reciprocity of Foreign Medical Cannabis Permits for Visitors

How will Bermuda deal with foreign prescription holders?

Many jurisdictions honour foreign cannabis prescriptions, often by treaty. As

a matter of expediency, however, it is recommended that any Bermudian

reciprocity be restricted to, on one hand, allow mutual prescriptions, but on

the other, to deny medical cannabis imports/exports.

36

Marijuana Policy Project. Key Aspects of State and D.C. Medical Marijuana Laws. State-by-State Medical


December 2013 at http://www.mpp.org/assets/pdfs/library/

Medical-Marijuana-Grid.pdf .

Page 17 of 58

In such a system, if a foreign patient’s prescription is deemed up to Bermuda

standards, he would simply purchase his material here, in order to maximise

Bermudian capital influx and minimise travel/shipping problems.

Likewise, patients holding Bermuda prescriptions, travelling to other medical

cannabis jurisdictions, should simply obtain new medicine while there, since

it is almost certain to cost less, owing to high Bermudian agricultural

production costs rendering Bermuda-grown cannabis 5-10x the price of its US

and UK equivalent 37,38.

For those visitors seeking medical cannabis here, whose home jurisdiction’s

prescription process is not up to Bermuda standards, it is recommended that

patients seeking to purchase cannabis here provide their medical records and

application to the Health Department for a local prescription, in advance of

travel, along with a processing fee.

A www site explaining the procedures and non-compliance penalties should

suffice to stem rule-breaking -- visitors’ motivation for compliance will be

high if medicine can be lawfully procured here. This would mirror Bermuda’s

current policy with regard to foreign guests’ prescription methadone --

prescriptions are honoured, but cannot be imported, and methadone must

be acquired on-island instead.

With regard to concern that Bermudian medical cannabis might escape our

borders to the US, Canada or England, that will simply not be a problem for

two reasons:

(1) Even illegal US, UK or Canadian cannabis is less expensive than legal

Bermudian medical cannabis would be (owing to higher production costs

in Bermuda), dramatically reducing smuggling pressure; and

(2) Cannabis smuggling has always been into Bermuda (from the US, Canada

and UK), and not the other way around -- perhaps owing to a simple

matter of cost.

37

THQM. Pot Prices October 2013. High Times. 24th

October 2013. 38

Independent Drug Monitoring Unit. Imported Bush. Cannabis Prices 2011. WWW site accessed 29th

December 2013 at http://www.idmu.co.uk/cannabis-prices-2011.htm

Page 18 of 58

There is simply no practical risk of medical cannabis being smuggled out of

Bermuda, as there would be no advantage to doing so. Parliament is urged

to allow limited prescription reciprocity, with an eye towards basic

economics.

D. Obligations to the UN and UK

The United Nations (UN) bans cannabis by Treaty in most member states39.

It is recommended that Bermuda avoid a compliance fight with the UK and

the need for the Governor’s assent to new legislation by expanding the

Ministerial negative resolution power discretion granted40 to the removal of

cannabis and cannabis resins from the Schedule to the Misuse Of Drugs

(Designation) Order 1973 (“the Order”) of drugs to which s 12(4) of the

Misuse of Drugs Act 1972 (“the Act”) applies.

At present, the relevant Minister has the power to grant exemptions for

production and supply of medical cannabis to anyone but a licensed

practitioner or pharmacist (whom may not be allowed to manufacture,

possess or distribute or administer cannabis, owing to a prior designation).

In a nutshell, the UK will not grant its assent to legislation which allows

cannabis, even for medicine, more widely than the UN treaty ban entails. It

is therefore advisable to proceed wherever possible under Ministerial

discretion afforded in domestic law, which (unlike primary legislation coming

from Parliament) is not subject to UK approval.

Cannabis and related product bans may be exempted for patients by

Ministerial discretion, but were previously removed from Cabinet’s ability to

make case-by-case doctor-and pharmacist exemptions. This means that the

relevant Minister may not grant exception to health care professionals except

for research, under s 12(4) of the 1972 Act, now that cannabis has been

designated in such a fashion by the Schedule to the Misuse Of Drugs

(Designation) Order 1973. Nowhere, however, is the Minister prevented

from making allowances for patients.

39

Articles 19-21, 28 (referencing Article 23), 30-31, United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961. 40

Misuse of Drugs Act 1972, S 12.

Page 19 of 58

Many states, in fact, do not allow doctors and pharmacists to handle medical

cannabis (since they are not trained or licensed to deal with herbal

remedies), but instead allow only patients and suppliers to handle it.

If Parliament wishes to restore the medical profession’s ability to be granted

case-by-case exemptions by the Minister, Parliament will have to either:

(1) Grant a new power to the relevant Minister: the authority to remove

cannabis, via negative resolution power (in which it becomes law if

Parliament does not specifically object) from the list of substances for

which the Minister may not grant exemptions (a list which the Minister

currently has the power under the Act’s section 12(4) to enlarge, but not

to diminish); or else

(2) Parliament will have to remove cannabis and its resins from the Schedule

to the 1973 Order of drugs to which s. 12(4) of the 1972 Act applies.

It might be simpler just to leave it alone, and cut doctors and pharmacists out

of the loop of handling medical cannabis, and leave their role as pre-requisite

advisory capacity, as most other jurisdictions do.

The UN Single Convention of Narcotic Drugs 1961 (“the Treaty”) has specific

exemptions for licensed medicine41 which must be legislatively heeded,

owing to the UK’s likely refusal to grant assent to legislation which does not

materially comply with the Treaty to the degree found in other countries.

Due to the Treaty -- which binds the UK, and Bermuda by extension --

international shipment of medical cannabis is tremendously burdensome42,

and so importation efforts are dis-recommended due to complexity and

associated administrative cost. No jurisdiction ships medical cannabis.

Further, cannabis, a perishable produce, degrades in shipping -- when this is

considered with the burdensome treaty obligations factors, importation

seems an unwise, expensive, and unreasonably restrictive (for patients)

policy direction.

41

Articles 2.5(b), 4 (c), 22.2, United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961. 42

Articles 18.1.(d) and 18.2, 19.2(b), 20.3, 21.4, and 31

Page 20 of 58

With importation of foreign cannabis impracticable, domestic production is

the only other option.

Bermuda is an Overseas Territory of the UK, and the UK is required by UN

Treaty to provide the UN with records of all cannabis grown for medical

purposes43. In order for the UK to do so, Bermuda would presumably be

required to present that information to the UK Foreign Secretary.

Other countries’ compliance with medical cannabis treaty obligations varies

by degree. This is important to note because the US and UK (both of which

are UN policy-driving superpowers), as well as other countries, often fall far

short of their cannabis treaty obligations, thereby lowering the compliance

threshold Bermuda must meet. Treaty compliance by those UN member

States, especially the UK, sets the minimum scope of the degree of

compliance to which Bermuda must adhere.

In the wake of Uruguay’s recent outright legalization of cannabis, in which

individuals may grow personal amounts even non-medically, and the

government sells commercially, the UN anti-cannabis treaty has recently

featured in the news. Uruguay’s formal response44 to UN criticism has been

twofold:

(1) Accusing the UN of hypocrisy for not going after the United States,

Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and other jurisdictions allowing

unreported recreational and/or medical use.

(2) Pointing out that the UN ban has in no way stifled cannabis, and has

merely led to criminal gang activity.

Uruguay has neither suffered, nor is it expected to suffer, trade sanctions

over the issue. Nor have the Netherlands, US, or other places with limited or

unbridled supra-legal cannabis legalization, even for recreational purposes, in

prima facie violation of the Treaty. It is submitted that Bermuda’s Treaty

compliance, with regard to medical cannabis, need not exceed that of the US,

to say nothing of the Netherlands, Italy and Uruguay.

43

Articles 23 28 (referencing Article 23), United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 44

El Presidente de Uruguay, Jose Mujica and Senator Lucia Topolansky. Television interview on Canal 4, 13th

Dec 2013, cited in 'Stop lying': Uruguay president chides UN official over marijuana law, RT, 14th

December

2013.

Page 21 of 58

In order for any UN sanctions to be issued against any State, they would have

to be approved by the UN Security Council, without any vetoes by the

Permanent Five (P5) members. This is highly unlikely, given that:

(1) the US, a Security Council P5 member (and both the original author

and the main proponent of the cannabis ban) allows medical and even

recreational cannabis without UN Treaty reporting and custody

compliance, in US States which have legalized it -- the US would

therefore be politically hard-pressed to pressure either the UK or

Bermuda on the matter; and

(2) Much of the cannabis and cannabis resins (hashish) entering Bermuda

comes from the major transhipment points of the US and UK (both in

the Security Council’s P5); on the other hand it is highly unlikely that

cannabis flows from Bermuda to those jurisdictions.

This is a simple matter of cost: Bermuda street cannabis is easily 5-10

times more expensive than the same material in the US45 or UK46, and

so smuggling cannabis out of Bermuda would not be financially

feasible even if it were risk free.

Given the direction in which cannabis flows, neither the US nor UK are

in a position to complain, as the border security hazard has always

been Bermuda’s alone, without effective protection from the

jurisdictions which ship their illegal cannabis to us. Complaint from

the US or UK, therefore, would be absurd and embarrassing to them.

It is advised that UN obligations regarding medical cannabis are of minimal

import, yet the UK, however, will predictably refuse to grant assent to any

Bermudian legislation which seems likely to bring the UK afoul of its treaty

obligations.

45

THQM. Pot Prices October 2013. High Times. 24th

October 2013. 46

Independent Drug Monitoring Unit. Imported Bush. Cannabis Prices 2011. WWW site accessed 29th

December 2013 at http://www.idmu.co.uk/cannabis-prices-2011.htm .

Page 22 of 58

The UK does not allow home-grown medical cannabis, and the drug’s lawful

medical use at present is limited to a single prescription product from a single

company, for a very limited number of illnesses, and which is notoriously

expensive and difficult to obtain47,48. This strict approach has been heavily

criticised 49,50

but has not changed -- although England, unlike Bermuda,

occasionally exercises discretion to allow prescription holders to import and

declare foreign medical cannabis, without arrest or seizure51,52.

Any UK refusal to grant assent to the overwhelming wishes of the Bermudian

populace can would be absurd, because of:

(1) The conflict of interest inherent in the UK policy, which denies medicine

to all patients unless funnelled from a single vendor with deficient supply,

with only one strain of cannabis, at several times the already inflated

price of illegal street cannabis53; and

(2) The UK already suffered withering international criticism for applying

cannabis bans at all, when it fired its top cannabis researcher for

disobeying a gag order to not tell the truth about the drug’s relative

harmlessness54,55 -- the UK cannot afford more of this criticism if it

expects to maintain public credulity; and

(3) The denial of the fundamental right to self-determination, should the UK

refuse to grant assent to such an overwhelmingly backed (estimated

80+% popular support, see above) Act of Parliament, would be politically

damaging for the UK.

47

United Kingdom Cannabis Internet Activist. “GW Pharmaceuticals”. WWW site accessed 29th

December 2013

at http://www.ukcia.org/medical/gwpharmaceuticals.php 48

Reynolds P. GW Pharmaceuticals And The UK Home Office – Corruption On A Grand Scale. CLEAR www site,

24th

Jan 2012, accessed 29th

December 2013 at http://www.clear-uk.org/gw-pharmaceuticals-and-the-uk-

home-office-corruption-on-a-grand-scale/ 49

Aggarwal S. Adequate and Well-Controlled Studies Proving Medical Efficacy of Cannabis Exist but Are


April 2013; The Huffington Post. 50


24th



home-office-corruption-on-a-grand-scale/ 51

McCollogh S. About CLEAR and that “Legal Medical Cannabis” claim… 17th

October 2013; Sarah McCollogh

.com. Blog WWW site viewed 29th

December 2013 at http://www.sarahmcculloch.com/activism/2013/clear-

legal-medical-cannabis-claim/ . 52

Reynolds P. Legal Medicinal Cannabis in Britain ACHIEVED! 14 September 2013; CLEAR www site viewed 29th

December 2013 at http://www.clear-uk.org/legal-medicinal-cannabis-in-britain-achieved/. 53

Ibid. 54

Tran M. Government Drug Advisor Dr. David Nutt Sacked. 30th

October 2009; The Guardian. 55 Aggarwal S. Adequate and Well-Controlled Studies Proving Medical Efficacy of Cannabis Exist but are



Page 23 of 58

In light of these factors, and while popular support for medical cannabis

access is so overwhelming (over 80%, see above), the UK will predictably not

wish to be seen engaging Bermuda in a fight over medical cannabis access for

dying patients (see “Cannabis and Cancer”, below). International news

coverage of such a dispute would make the UK’s favouritism of corporate

protectionism, at the expense of human life, look like lethal bullying for the

sake of profit protection for a single English corporation.

Regardless, if UK assent to medical cannabis legislation is not forthcoming,

then it is not strictly necessary, anyway. This is because the power to

exempt cannabis production, distribution and possession/use from criminal

penalty (except for doctors and pharmacists) has long been granted to

Bermuda’s Cabinet, as a matter of Ministerial discretion, by Section 12 of the

Misuse of Drugs Act 1972. While the Schedule to Misuse Of Drugs

(Designation) Order 1973 (unless amended) bars the Minister from giving

exemptions to doctors and pharmacists, patients and laypersons may still be

granted exemptions under domestic law.

Using Ministerial discretion alleviates the problems associated with adopting

the UK model and importing their sole product. Importation of the licensed

English product, while it might be helpful in some cases, is insufficient for 4

reasons:

(1) The product is simply not the right type or amount for many patients and

ailments -- it is over-limited in terms of cannabis type and delivery

methods (under the tongue spray, as opposed to edible, inhalable or

topical preparations), directly contradicting global patient surveys56 about

effectiveness; and

(2) Importing the product into Bermuda entails unacceptable delays

obtaining UK export/import permission; and

(3) The product in England, before importation, is prohibitively expensive57

for patients and insurers; and

(4) Supply appears to be severely limited58.

56




24th



home-office-corruption-on-a-grand-scale/

Page 24 of 58

Exercising Ministerial discretion to allow domestic manufacture of cannabis,

via publication of clear guidelines and conditions, seems the path of least

resistance, requiring neither

(1) new legislation; nor

(2) UK assent; nor

(3) reliance on sources which are impracticable non-options.

E. Financial costs/benefit to government

Licensure and enforcement of cannabis patients and commercial/non-

commercial growers will entail labour costs to Government, from registration

to inspection.

It is recommended that these costs should be offset by licensure application

fees. Structured correctly, these could be revenue generators.

F. Patient-Physician Relationship Requirements

If allowing medical cannabis on a prescription or doctor’s recommendation

basis, Bermuda will have to decide how burdensome such requirements

should be.

Some jurisdictions (such as Illinois59 and Arizona60) limit prescriptions to

specific medical conditions, most often including cancer, MS, Parkinson’s,

lack of appetite, glaucoma, lupus/Crohn’s disease and other serious ailments.

58

United Kingdom Cannabis Internet Activist. “GW Pharmaceuticals”. WWW site accessed 29th

December 2013

at http://www.ukcia.org/medical/gwpharmaceuticals.php 59

State of Illinois. Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Pilot Program Act, Section 10 (h) 60

Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 36 -2801.3.

Page 25 of 58

Other jurisdictions, such as New Hampshire61, provide a list of ailments for

which cannabis is available, and also allow doctors to treat particular

conditions not on the list, if the doctor affirms it to be “debilitating” and the

State approves on a case-by-case basis.

Parliament or Cabinet will also have to decide how well a physician need

know a patient before prescribing cannabis.

Some jurisdictions, like California62, allow physicians to prescribe cannabis

after a single visit with only cursory examination if any at all. Other

jurisdictions like Illinois63, require that prescribing doctors be in a “bona fide”

relationship with the patient, defined as

“after the physician has completed an assessment of the qualifying

patient's medical history, reviewed relevant records related to the

patient's debilitating condition, and conducted a physical

examination. “ 64

The more restrictive Illinois model, requiring a “bona fide” doctor-patient

relationship, is advised.

G. Conclusions

While the complexity and subtle distinctions inherent to medical cannabis access

may be intimidating, patients in need of medical cannabis are often gravely ill

and cannot endure lengthy waits while policy is made perfect. It is argued that

even an imperfect medical cannabis access policy, in need of later “tweaking”,

would be better than the current system. Timely medical cannabis access is

literally a matter of life and death in many cases. US States where medical

cannabis is legal have seen direct benefits without measurable harms, for

example:

61

State of New Hampshire, Revised Statutes, Title X Chapter 126X-1(IX (a)-(b). 62

California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5 . 63

State of Illinois. Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Pilot Program Act, S 10(y). 64

Ibid.

Page 26 of 58

• No increase in cannabis use among minors65,

• 9% lower road traffic fatality rates66,

• Dramatically lower suicide rates67, including an 11% drop among males aged

20-29.

The mere possibility of minor problems or hiccups, as basis for holding back cannabis

medicine availability, seems a disproportionate ground for such an oppressive

response to the growing public support and demand for medical cannabis. This is

especially true given the abuses and harms caused by prescription anti-biotics,

painkillers, steroids, anti-inflammatories, stimulants, sedatives, soporifics, and other

commonly prescribed drugs, which would never have been permitted if subjected to

the same worry-fraught delay seen in making medical cannabis accessible.

Delays will increasingly lead to lawlessness and lack of faith in Government as

cannabis’ medical popularity continues to spread, since inactive, sluggish

governments will be publicly viewed as increasingly outdated hurdles to crucial

health care access.

Fears that medical cannabis may be used as a skirting mechanism for non-medical

use appear unfounded, because persons willing to abuse a medical system certainly

already abuse cannabis’ serious criminal restrictions. It is argued that since the

practical effect of medical cannabis legalization upon recreational users is nil, that

this fear, however prevalent, cannot conscionably be used to block patients’ access

to actual medical cannabis, especially in life or death scenarios.

Bermuda must not leave honestly-intended medical use more difficult to achieve

than mere illegal recreational use. Such a policy would be wrong even if the general

ban on cannabis were in any way effective. It is especially wrong, however, given

that Bermuda cannabis bans have catastrophically failed, as evidenced by the fact

that use rates are in the same general range as can be found in jurisdictions where

recreational use is tolerated.

65

Anderson D and Rees M. Medical Marijuana Laws, Traffic Fatalities and Alcohol Consumption. Institute for

the Study of Labour. November 2011; Discussion Paper No. 6112. ILZ, Germany. 66

ibid 67

Anderson D et al. High on Life? Medical Marijuana Laws and Suicide. Institute for the Study of Labour.

January 2012; Discussion Paper No. 6280. ILZ, Germany.

Page 27 of 58

Specialized Medical Cannabis:

A. Alternatives to Smoking

While recreational cannabis users generally smoke cannabis, common sense

opposition to taking medicines via smoking has led to alternative delivery system

development.

The recent growing popularity of treating cancer with edible concentrated cannabis

oils (known informally as “Rick Simpson Oil”, “Phoenix Tears” or by other colloquial

names) has further fuelled demand, development and supply of non-smoked

cannabis preparations.

This does not, however, limit medical cannabis to non-smoked forms, despite

concerns about lung health (see “Cannabis Myths De-Bunked”, below).

According to the US Government’s top anti-cannabis smoking lung health expert,

cannabis smoke, while far from ideal, is far less harmful than previously thought68

.

Certain conditions respond best to smoked cannabis69, and so it should not be ruled

out, especially given that it is deemed legal and acceptable in so many other places,

from the US to Canada to Israel to Italy.

Even still, the medical community and common sense dictate that if cannabis’

medical effects can be realized without smoking, this would be optimal.

Until recently, non-smokable forms of cannabis (such as edible products) were found

unacceptable due to inconsistency of effect, and time lag between administration

and effect. In recent times, however, the advent of vaporizers has allowed cannabis

users to inhale steam, rather than smoke, circumventing both lung problems and the

problems associated with edible cannabis products. The entry of the vaporizer onto

the market has created additional reasons not to ban whole cannabis, as it can now

be even inhaled safely.

In conclusion, the risks of cancer smoke are not only less than feared, but can be

circumvented entirely, and so this is not a reason to prohibit the medical use of

herbal cannabis.

68

Tashkin D. Effects of marijuana smoking on the lung. Annals of the American Thoracic Society. June 2013;

10(3):239-47. 69


Administration Forms. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs. 2013;45:3.

Page 28 of 58

B. Refined Cannabis Oil for Cancer

In recent years, alarming numbers of people have begun treating cancers with

refined cannabis oils70

, which are not smoked, but instead taken orally, topically, or

by suppository. This trend is the result of some 900 peer-reviewed medical journal

articles indicating anti-cancer properties of at least 7 different cannabis chemicals71.

While many persons scoff almost reflexively at the idea that cannabis can be an

actual remedy for cancer (as opposed to providing mere palliative effects), the

medical and pharmaceutical industries take the matter seriously enough to have

begun human clinical trials in England72

. These tests use cannabis oil extracts made

very similarly to the manner in which patients have made such products at home,

albeit with the enhanced uniformity to be expected from industrial sized batches.

A prevalent attitude has been that whichever cannabis chemical is best at fighting

cancer should be extracted and refined -- this is the normal manner of development

of plant-derived medicine, since it allows maximisation of benefits while achieving

uniformity of dose which raw plants (greatly variable in content depending on age,

variety, geography, and other factors) cannot usually offer.

However, this tried-and-true theory does not work in the case of cannabis oils and

cancer: one recent study73 tested the effects of 6 different cancer-killing natural

cannabis chemicals (“cannabinoids”), and found that:

(1) Each of the 6 cannabinoids tested kills cancer (some better than others); but

(2) Each cannabinoid kills cancer best when in the presence of the other

cannabinoids. Scientists calls this result synergy, meaning that the total

effects on cancer of the 6 tested cannabinoids are greater than the sum of

the parts.

70

Romano L and Hazenkamp A. Cannabis Oil: chemical evaluation of an upcoming cannabis-based medicine.

Cannabinoids. 2013;1(1):1-11 71

Scott K, et al. Enhancing the Activity of Cannabidiol and Other Cannabinoids In Vitro Through Modifications

to Drug Combinations and Treatment Schedules. Anti-Cancer Research. October 2013 vol. 33 no. 10 4373-

4380. 72

GW Pharmaceuticals plc. GW Pharmaceuticals Commences Phase 1b/2a Clinical Trial for the Treatment of

Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM) 73



4380.

Page 29 of 58

This strongly suggests that whole cannabis oils, rather than a single-molecule drug,

will work best on cancers. These results starkly contradict the standard

pharmaceutical model, in which isolated plant chemicals always outperform

naturally-occurring plant compounds.

Instances of cannabis oil being used to send cancer into remission have not yet been

standardized enough to yield formal medical “proof”. Nonetheless, the successes

and failures which have been reported indicate startlingly high rates of success

(complete cancer remission):

(1) Dr. Constance Finley reported a 96+% rate of complete remission among

Stage 4 cancer patients74.

(2) Approximately 70% of cases observed by other cannabis oil manufacturers,

distributors, administerers and observers with who have each observed over

100 cases75,76,77,78

79

. According to these sources, success rate is purportedly

variable primarily by cancer stage and by the amount of bodily damage done

by previous treatments such as chemotherapy and radiation80. One peer-

reviewed published study81

even showed, conclusively, that cannabis oil

(and not chemotherapy, radiation, surgery or spontaneous remission) sent

a 15 year old “terminal” leukaemia patient into full remission, who then

died as a result of bowel damage caused by prior chemotherapy.

Additionally, at least two celebrities, actor Tommy Chong, and activist Michelle

Aldrich (who suffered from “terminal” Stage 4 lung cancer), sent their cancers into

remission using cannabis oil, and have spoken openly about it.

74

Roberts C. "Miracle" Cannabis Oil: May Treat Cancer, But Money and the Law Stand in the Way of Finding

Out. 24th

April 2013; San Francisco Weekly. 75

Sweeny J MD. Personal correspondence with the author, 31st

December 2013. 76

O’Toole P. Personal correspondence with the author, 31st

December 2013.. 77

Smith R. Personal correspondence with the author, 31st

December 2013. 78

Bayer, J. Personal correspondence with the author, May 2013 through 31st

December 2013. 79

Yelland C. Personal correspondence with the author, 31st

December 2013. 80

ibid. 81

Singh Y. Cannabis Extract Treatment for Terminal Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia with a Philadelphia

Chromosome Mutation. Vol. 6, No. 3, 2013; Case Reports in Oncology.

Page 30 of 58

Reported successes include brain, lung, breast, prostate, and liver cancer as well as

leukaemia. Many of these patients kept meticulous records of imaging scans, blood

markers of cancer, other treatments used, and cannabis regimens over time, and

while these individual cases do not rise to the standard of medical proof, they do

serve as reminders of:

(1) The need for formal human trials

(2) The absurdity of denying such medicines to out-of-option, terminal patients

in the meanwhile, since

(A) Cannabinoids enhance the effectiveness of both chemotherapy82, 83

and

radiation84, 85, 86 (especially where those standard treatments are

ineffective on their own); and

(B) Cannabis is less harmful than radiation and chemotherapy currently

available, in terms of side effects 87,88; and

(C) Cannabis oil, in laboratory testing and live animals (and in human

anecdotal reports), appears more effective than chemotherapy89, 90

, at

least in some types of cancer.

82

Donadelli M, et al. Gemcitabine/cannabinoid combination triggers autophagy in pancreatic cancer cells

through a ROS-mediated mechanism. Cell Death and Disease. 2011 Apr 28;2:e152. 83

Torres S, et al. A combined preclinical therapy of cannabinoids and temozolomide against glioma. Molecular

Cancer Therapeutics. 2011 Jan;10(1):90-103. 84

Emery S, et al. The cannabinoid Win55, 212-2 enhances the response of breast cancer cells to radiation.

Cancer Research: April 15, 2012; Volume 72, Issue 8, Supplement 1. 85

Emery S, et al. Combined antiproliferative effects of the aminoalkylindole WIN55,212-2 and radiation in

breast cancer cells. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2013 Nov 20. 86

Gustafsson S et al. Cannabinoid receptor-independent cytotoxic effects of cannabinoids in human colorectal

carcinoma cells: synergism with 5-fluorouracil, Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology, vol. 63, no. 4, pp.

691–701, 2009. 87

del Pulgar, T et al. De novo-synthesized ceramide is involved in cannabinoid-induced apoptosis, Biochemical

Journal, vol. 363, part 1, pp. 183–188, 2002. 88

Carracedo A, et al., Cannabinoids induce apoptosis of pancreatic tumor cells via endoplasmic reticulum

stress-related genes, Cancer Research, vol. 66, no. 13, pp. 6748–6755, 2006. 89

American Association for Cancer Research (2007, April 17). Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In

Half, Study Shows. 90

De Petrocellis L, et al. Non-THC cannabinoids inhibit prostate carcinoma growth in vitro and in vivo: pro-

apoptotic effects and underlying mechanisms. British Journal of Pharmacology. 2013 Jan;168(1):79-102.

Page 31 of 58

In the Spring of 2013, the Bermuda Ministries of Public Safety, and Health,

respectively, were warned in writing to allow medical cannabis oil access to patients

in Bermuda, for the simple reason that if it were not allowed, Bermudians facing

imminent death or disfigurement from cancer would predictably attempt it anyway.

The predictable consequences of failing to allow drug production in Bermuda,

according to the written warning, were that Bermudian patients would eventually:

(1) Travel to overseas areas in which the product is legal, but where unknown

predatory vendors might take advantage of them with impure, contaminated

or fake products (as has happened to patients elsewhere91

); or

(2) Attempt to mail order such products from overseas, facing the same risk of

predatory merchandisers as well as importation difficulties; or

(3) Attempt to make the product themselves in Bermuda, risking solvent

fires/explosions, toxic vapours, or contaminated products.

Despite the repeated written warnings, in October 2013, numerous government

administrative and law enforcement officials approved an importation of a cannabis

oil product for a Bermudian cancer sufferer, which purported to contain only legal

cannabis chemicals92.

The shipment was not properly approved, and was seized on the correct instructions

of Bermuda’s Attorney General for testing93.

Before and since that time, serious questions have been raised about the product

and its vendor, specifically:

91

Smith, R. Personal correspondence with the author by a well known US mail order vendor of cannabis oil,

who admits to having sold inferior material via mail both within the US and internationally. June-December

2013. 92

Anonymous Ruling Party MP, personal conversation, 9th

December 2013, 93

Ibid.

Page 32 of 58

(1) The alleged exporter’s94 company executives have been credibly implicated in

previous unethical business practices, including mimicking of other

companies’ names for marketing purposes95. This practice appears also to

have been the case in the attempted Bermudian cannabis oil importation, in

which a product labelled “Real Scientific Hemp Oil”, or RSHO, appears to

mimic the name of Rick Simpson Oil, or “RSO”, a non-trademarked but

immensely popular nick-name for home-made cannabis oil.

(2) Nearly every industry standard 96

was broken by the product’s “Certificate of

Analysis” (COA). The COA’s shortcomings related to:

(A) Lack of independence, as evidenced by

(i) Initially (prior to 9th

December 2013), simply no listings of the

testing laboratory’s name, contact information and certificate

number97

; and

(ii) Sometime after 10th December 2013 but before 28th December

2013, a new COA was issued with increased standards compliance,

but still lacking independence as per the manufacturer’s own

admission98

.

(B) Lack of listing of specific ingredients and specific amounts of those

ingredients, a problem which has since been addressed in the company’s

new COA post- 9th December 2013, but which still suffers from self-

admitted lack of independence99.

94

Ibid. 95

Brochstein A. Did Dixie Narc On Medical Marijuana, Inc. To The SEC? Seeking Alpha: Read, Decide, Invest.

10th

Dec 2013. 96

International Organization for Standardization. ISO Guide 31:2000. 97

HempMeds Px. Certificate of Analysis (sic). Allegiance Wellness Center. Company www site viewed 28th

December 2013 http://allegiancewellnesscenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Real-Scientific-Hemp-

Oil.pdf . 98

“Lab Tests”. Real Scientific Hemp Oil. 28th

December 2013 at http://realscientifichempoil.com/lab-tests/ 99

Ibid.

Page 33 of 58

(3) Contamination, via:

(A) Extraneous unknown material, in large quantities, possibly including toxic

mould and e coli bacteria100; and

(B) High content of illegal cannabinoids such as THC, despite the claim that it

contained only trace amounts of THC101

(4) Illegality -- the product, even if it contained only what it claimed to contain,

is possibly illegal in both the US102 and Bermuda, in any case, being an extract

of whole cannabis resins.

(5) Failure to comply with UN treaty obligations (for both the US and UK) for

labelling and record-keeping.

(6) The fact that the treatment, even if it contained only what it purported to,

has never been observed providing anti-cancer benefit to any human patient,

and the use of it in that form (without any THC) flies in the face of

considerable research showing that cannabis-based cancer therapies not only

(A) work better if they include THC, but also

(B) that the increased effectiveness of CBD +THC (as opposed to CBD alone)

over-rides concerns about negative consequences of THC, which is

prescribable anyway, in its pure form, ironically.

From this perspective alone, even if the seized product were legitimate in

every other way, the attempt to use it (instead of a THC-containing product)

was possibly a wild goose chase from the outset, made seductively attractive

by the commercial CBD fad and by hurdles to medicinal acquisition of actual

cannabis.

100

Lee, M. “Dixie Elixirs Unfit For Human Consumption”, citing a 20th

November 2013 social media post by

Tamara Wise. O’Shaugnessy’s PrintEedition On-line 21st

November 2013, viewed 28th

December 2013 at

http://www.beyondthc.com/dixie-elixirs-unfit-for-human-consumption/ . 101

Author’s personal correspondence with patient who was offered money by the manufacturer to return a

product which purportedly contained illegal THC in conflict with marketing claims that it did not. 10th

December 2013. 102

U.S.C.S. Title 21 802 Definitions

Page 34 of 58

It is anticipated that as news of cannabis oil’s efficacy against cancer spreads,

demand will continue to increase, and that Bermuda will continue to face problems

as Bermudian cancer sufferers clamour for real high-THC cannabis oil.

Failure to allow such access will undoubtedly (as was previously warned) lead to

rip-offs, home fire/explosion risk, and contaminated and/or diluted products.

Asking a dying person to wait for legislation, testing and timid Government seems an

unfair burden. It is submitted that access should be immediate, with published

application rules, and that future fine-tuning can wait, as no one seems likely to

suffer serious harm from it, while the alternative could cost lives.

Patients should not be written off as not truly in need of help, due merely to

overseas availability of these treatments which are inaccessible in Bermuda. Travel

is simply not an option for many patients, nor a good option for others. Since such

banishment does not even protect Bermuda from illegal recreational cannabis use, it

is pointless, and can be no justification for denial of medicine in Bermuda.

If this as-of-yet unproven cancer remedy were just another passing fad like apricot

seeds or DMSO cancer treatments, but not illegal, then it would be acceptable to

keep it excluded from formal medical use. The differences, however, are 3-fold:

(1) Cannabis oil shows far greater promise in the lab and in anecdotal human use

than any fad remedy to date; and

(2) Other fad treatments are generally not banned (despite usually being riskier

than cannabis), and so patients are free to -- and often do -- take it upon

themselves to undergo such treatments, with or without doctors’ approval.

(3) Cannabis is popular in its own right, and has gained a degree of cultural

acceptance even for non-medicinal use, making attempts to suppress it

unlikely to succeed without any showing of the treatment’s inefficacy.

Further, no study yet suggests it does not work.

Parliament is urged to consider the warnings sent to the Health and Public Safety

Ministers in Spring of 2013, and to consider that the warning has come partially

true: the predicted problems did arise. Failure to heed the warnings led to the

problems which were warned of. The predicted problems will increasingly manifest

in the future, and probably with worse consequences, while the matter remains

un-addressed.

Page 35 of 58

C. “Medibles” -- Other Edible Cannabis Products

Two main concerns arise with regard to edible cannabis medicines, or “medibles”

which some patients prefer over inhaled versions:

(1) These products are occasionally accidentally ingested by unsuspecting

persons, including children, especially if available as sweet products. In cases

of accidental ingestion, discomfort may arise.

Fortunately, there is no way for any person, even a small child, to eat a

lethal overdose of cannabis103. It is actually impossible.

Still, any legalized form of “medibles” should be prominently labelled,

individually packaged, and stored in child-proof packaging.

Such precautions should suffice to prevent children from accidentally being

made uncomfortable.

(2) When “medibles” (containing mostly food, and small amounts of cannabis)

are weighed, they often exceed maximum amount limits which have been set

for the raw drug. US States have struggled with this, with some initially only

allowing smokable cannabis -- which seems an ironic requirement for a

medicine.

The more recent trend has been to allow edible products, and to count their

weight not be the weight of inert foods around the cannabis, but instead by

the actual amount of cannabis in the product. For this reason, Parliament is

again urged to require strict labelling of all commercial medical cannabis

products, especially edible ones with regard to how much cannabis is

contained in each unit.

103 Opinion And Recommended Ruling, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision. Alliance for

Cannabis Therapeutics, et al., vs. US Drug Enforcement Administration (IRS), Re: Marijuana Rescheduling

Petition. per Judge Frances Young at part VIiI, Point 4, Paragraph 3. 6th

December 1988, Docket No. 86-22.

Page 36 of 58

D. “No-High” Cannabis Medicine: THC vs. CBD

THC is cannabis’ main psychoactive and medical ingredient. Other psychoactive

medicines such as opiates and Valium have not been banned, despite

dependency and overdose issues at least as bad as cannabis’. Conversely, THC’s

psychoactivity has been seen as a hurdle to its use in medicine. This has caused

medical professionals to seek ways to achieve cannabis’ medical effects without

a “high”.

Cannabidiol (“CBD”) is another medical component of cannabis, but does not

cause a “high”. In fact, CBD directly counteracts many of THC’s medical

effects104, making it attractive to researchers, policy makers, doctors and

patients seeking a “no high” solution.

While CBD has tremendous value in stopping psychosis and severe epilepsy, and

shows some anti-cancer properties, its medical value pales in comparison to THC

and/or whole cannabis containing both THC and CBD (see above and below).

It is important to note that pure THC is legally prescribable, but in pill form has

presented significant problems among patients: it gets people too “high”

compared to herbal cannabis, it sticks in the throat and does not dissolve

properly causing hours-long delays before taking effect, it leads to paranoia and

panic, and causes wildly varying effects from dose to dose owing to variability in

absorption and digestion105. CBD, which occurs side-by-side with THC in cannabis

plants, has been shown to reduce negative effects of THC, in part because it acts

as a direct antagonistic competitor to THC for neural cell surface receptors,

directly blocking and even reversing many of THC’s drug effects106.

At present, CBD sits in a legal gray area. While not banned in many places, it can

only be affordably made by illegal extraction from cannabis plants.

Nonetheless, in part due to a recent CNN special hosted by neurology surgeon

Dr. Sanjay Gupta107, parents of severely epileptic children have applied pressure

in the US for access to either pure CBD, or else CBD-rich strains of cannabis with

little or no THC.

104

Schubart C. Cannabidiol as a Potential Treatment for Psychosis. 04 December 2013; European

Neuropsychopharmacology. 105



Ibid. 107

Gupta S. “Weed”. CNN Special. 11th

August 2013.

Page 37 of 58

Anecdotal evidence108 and lab studies109, however, suggests that even better

results are obtained when these patient also take small amounts of THC with

their CBD. One doctor specializing in CBD-intensive therapy for human patients

says that optimal results come from taking it with THC110. Another doctor,

endocrinologist Dr. Robert Melamede, credits this effect to the fact that CBD

blocks receptors for naturally-occurring “endoccannabinoids” (marijuana-like

chemicals produced in the human body), causing “dys-phoria”, and leading to

anger and violence such as that reported by parents of epileptic children taking

pure CBD111.

Ironically, whole cannabis is seen by many policy makers as bad medicine due to

its “high” while:

(1) Many worse psychoactive drugs, such as Valium, morphine and

amphetamines, are legal and widely used; and

(2) Pure THC (the cannabinoid most responsible for cannabis’ “high”) is legal

in pill form, despite patient complaints that it is ineffective and problem-

fraught112

; and

(3) CBD (which counteracts THC’s worst effects) is less illegal than THC and is

increasingly legally/medically acceptable and available.

108

Lockwood R and Abby N (parents of severely epileptic children). “From Seed to Cure: Dr. Robert Melamede

Talks About Pediatric Cannabis Treatments” (radio talk show). 14th

December 2013 Blog Talk Radio.

Reviewed 28th

December 2013 at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/peterotoole/2013/12/14/from-seed-to-

cure-dr-robert-melamede-talks-about-pediatric-cannabis-treatments . 109

Mechoulam R. Cannabidiol: An Overview of Some Pharmacological Aspects. Journal of Clinical

Pharmacology. 2002; 42; 11. 110

Frankel A, Dr.. Personal correspondence with Lee M, cited in “Medical Marijuana, Inc, Pitching CBD

Products” O”Shaughnessy’s. Winter/Spring 2013, p 25. Viewed online 28th

December 2013 at

http://www.beyondthc.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Dixie-one-page.pdf. 111

Melamede R. “From Seed to Cure: Dr. Robert Melamede Talks About Pediatric Cannabis Treatments” (radio

talk show). 14th

December 2013 Blog Talk Radio. Reviewed 28th

December 2013 at

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/peterotoole/2013/12/14/from-seed-to-cure-dr-robert-melamede-talks-

about-pediatric-cannabis-treatments . 112


Administration Forms. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs. 2013;45:3.

Page 38 of 58

There is growing reason to believe that both THC and CBD work best as

medicines when mixed together in appropriate ratios (as is found in herbal

cannabis). In fact, a pharmaceutical company has patented a range of THC+CBD

treatments113. There is therefore no reason evident to artificially refine and re-

blend them, as opposed to using them in whole cannabis with cannabis’ other

non-psychoactive chemicals, 6 of which have been shown to kill cancer114 and

have other positive medical effects.

The recent CBD “no-high” bandwagon has been a miracle for patients with

severe epilepsy, but has not borne out some clinicians’ hopes of non-

psychoactive cannabis medicine for other conditions.

Sadly, a Bermudian cancer patient attempted in October 2013 to legally import a

CBD-rich product into Bermuda as a cancer remedy, and encountered

importation difficulty (see “Refined Cannabis Oil as a Cancer Remedy”, above).

The CBD-only bandwagon is not, nor will ever be, a clever way to obtain

cannabis’ medical effects without euphoria -- most of cannabis’ medical benefit

comes from THC115

, and there is no way around this truth.

E. Specialized Medical Cannabis Conclusions

The numerous types, uses and forms of specialised medical cannabis are new to

Bermuda, and may take some time to digest, and yet dying patients cannot wait.

Bermuda is strongly urged to immediately publish guidelines not only by which

successful applications can be tendered for actual medical cannabis, but also for

the circumstances under which patients may safely obtain refined oils and other

products -- or else they will make them at home, perhaps using unsafe

techniques. Pesky details can be sorted at a more leisurely pace, once patients’

lives are being saved. Death is the worst consequence of medical cannabis bans,

and yet death cannot occur as a result of medical cannabis, and so the choice

should be clear.

113

GW Pharmaceuticals, plc. GW Pharmaceuticals plc Announces US Patent Allowance for Use of

Cannabinoids in Treating Glioma. Press Releases. 11th

Dec 2013, viewed 28th

December 2013 at company

www site http://www.gwpharm.com/GW%20Pharmaceuticals%20plc%20Announces%20

US%20Patent%20Allowance%20for%20Use%20of%20Cannabinoids%20in%20Treating%20Glioma.aspx . 114



4380 115

Melamede R. “From Seed to Cure: Dr. Robert Melamede Talks About Pediatric Cannabis Treatments” (radio

talk show). 14th

December 2013 Blog Talk Radio. Reviewed 28th

December 2013 at

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/peterotoole/2013/12/14/from-seed-to-cure-dr-robert-melamede-talks-

about-pediatric-cannabis-treatments.

Page 39 of 58

Medical Cannabis Conclusions

It is apparent that Ministerial discretion for medical cannabis allowance already

exists, as evidenced by the Cabinet’s position on:

A. The ongoing court case of R (on the application of Michael Brangman) v Minister

for Public Safety (application for leave for judicial review, 2013, unreported); and

B. The public request of Bermudian Craig Looby for a medical cannabis dispensary

license, which the Hon. Public Safety Minister publicly answered with advice to

apply to that Ministry116 (suggesting one could be granted);

C. Personal correspondence of the author in which the Honourable Minister

indicated that the Public Safety Ministry was the ministry to which applications

should be tendered for approval.

Given that the Ministry itself feels it already has authority to issue medical cannabis

licenses (despite disagreements with applicants as to how to go about it), the

Ministry likely does have such authority under section 12(3) of the 1972 Act.

What the Ministry does not have, to date, is a series of publicly accessible rules by

which patients may successfully apply. This Ministerial decision may be unlawful

unto itself.

116

Dunkley, Hon Minister of Public Safety. Facebook comments on Ruling Party OBA page 30th

December 2013,

retrieved the same date at https://www.facebook.com/groups/onebermudaalliance/ 561439153940141/?

notif_t=group_comment_reply (since deleted).

Page 40 of 58

The lack of such publicly-available rules, especially in such a serious application,

places the Ministry afoul of English case law 117, 118, because

“What must . . .be published is that which a person who is affected by the

operation of the policy needs to know in order to make informed and

meaningful representations to the decision-maker before a decision is

made.”119

; and

“In our system of law, surprise is regarded as the enemy of justice”120

.

Rather than wait for someone to sue Government to require the publication of such

rules under the English case law121, it is advised that the rules for successful medical

cannabis applications simply be published forthwith.

This is not only a matter of legality, but one of basic procedural fairness. And at the

end of the day, it is a matter of mercy for ailing, intimidated patients, so that they

can make a single application rather than slowly dying while application after

application gets rejected for failing to meet invisible rules.

Cabinet seems unwilling to allow medical cannabis acquisition (even though Cabinet

has repeatedly announced willingness to consider tolerating simple recreational

possession to some degree). This conclusion is based on the fact that the Ministry

has refused to allow on-island medical cannabis production, based in part upon the

advice of Health Ministry officials 122 who, in giving this advice, likely relied upon

incorrect personal assumptions and/or outdated studies. Such medical opinions, as

CNN Chief Medical Correspondent and neurosurgeon Dr. Sanjay Gupta pointed out,

are improperly biased123 due to the abundance of outdated, and now disproven

studies. Local medical officials are in need of up-to-date training, since patients in

Bermuda occasionally self-medicate with illegal cannabis at present.

117

R (Anufrijeva) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] 1 AC 604, per Lord Steyn at 622C: “In

our system of law surprise is regarded as the enemy of justice”. 118

E.g. as expressed in Marriott v Secretary of State for the Environment, [2000] EWHC 652 (Admin) (10

October 2000) at pp 92-98 of Sullivan J’s judgment. 119

Lumba (WL) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 12 (23 March 2011) per Lord Dyson

at p 38. 120

R (Anufrijeva) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] 1 AC 604, per Lord Steyn at 622C: “In

our system of law surprise is regarded as the enemy of justice”. 121

Ibid. 122

Telemaque M, Permanent Secretary for the Ministry of Public Safety, Bermuda, personal correspondence

4th

July 2013. 123

Gupta S. Why I changed My Mind on Weed. CNN.com .9th

august 2013.

Page 41 of 58

3. RECREATIONAL CANNABIS

Background:

Around the world, a growing movement to reduce or eliminate criminal bars to

cannabis use, possession and acquisition is occurring.

In the United States, 2 States (Colorado and Washington) have outright legalized

possession, cultivation and sale via referenda, while another State (Alaska) has long

allowed home growing and use of cannabis as a matter of constitutional

privacy124,125. The US Federal government has (despite UN Treaty obligations to the

contrary) made a formal non-interference policy with States’ cannabis laws126

, which

includes lifting of banks’ restrictions on cannabis-related financial transactions127.

It is tempting to think that since only 3 States out of 50 have legalized, that US

support is minimal. In fact, however, the other States’ legislative apparati are simply

not heeding the clear wishes of their electorates: US popular support for removal of

all cannabis penalties has achieved 58% support128, a majority percentage which

would be considered overwhelming in any national election.

Many theories have been proposed as to why the US State and Federal legislatures

are refusing to honour the wishes of the populace (e.g. campaign contributions from

competitor industries like alcohol, pharmaceuticals, police and prison worker unions,

and even the alarming suggestion that US politicians may be involved in the lucrative

drug trade via laundered campaign contributions).

None of those reasons for ignoring public sentiment are good ones, and such strong-

arming by the US Government, whatever the cause, can only be bad for civic

morale, trust in Government, or other key relationships between elected officials

and those they represent. Bermudian legislative blocking of similar public wishes

(should surveys indicate such sentiments) is strongly inadvisable, as it will look

“crooked” even though honest and well-intended.

124

Ravin v. State, 537 P.2d 494 (Alaska 1975). 125

Noy v. State, 83 P.3d 538 (Alaska App. 2003). 126 Southall A. US Won’t Sue to Reverse States’ Legalization of Marijuana. 29

th August 2013; New York Times.

127 Finlaw J, Chief Counsel to Colorado Governor the Hon John Hickenlooper, cited in “Cannabis Banking Could

Get ‘Yellow Light’ From Feds”. 19th

December 2013; Marijuana Business Daily. 128 Swift A. For First Time, Americans Favor Legalizing Marijuana. Gallup Politics. 22 October 2013.

Page 42 of 58

Some legislators abroad have refused to proceed with reform, citing anti-cannabis

publications highlighting alleged harms of cannabis. Such tactics by Bermudian

legislators are likewise inadvisable, for two primary reasons:

A. Many or most such studies are outdated having been disproved (see “Cannabis

Myths De-Bunked”, below), yet are often mis-stated as fact. This causes well-

read constituents to question politicians’ motivations.

B. Most anti-cannabis studies, and later repetitions of those studies, are funded by

sources with obvious conflicts of interest129. For example, the most prominent

anti-cannabis groups receive the majority of their funding from the alcohol

industry130 (a competitor); the studies published by those groups are therefore

suspect. Likewise, the US government only funds anti-cannabis studies, without

looking into its medical properties or its relative harmlessness. The US

government, therefore, having been lobbied by various competitor industries to

keep cannabis illegal, appears ethically and scientifically compromised. The

bizarre US federal position that cannabis has no medical use suggests such

compromise has actually occurred131.

Options:

Two options exist for softening cannabis policy: de-criminalization (“decrim”) and

legalization.

Generally, “de-criminalization” refers to reducing penalties for cannabis possession

(and or distribution and cultivation), sometimes removing such penalties from

criminal to civil status.

Generally, “legalization” refers to a system of regulation, in which users may actually

obtain (instead of just possess) cannabis. This type of reform typically involves no

penalties for those who comply with limits as to age, amount, time, place and

manner of cannabis use.

129

Platshorn R. Greed and Evil. As of yet unpublished book due out 2014. 130

Ibid. 131

Aggarwal S. Adequate and Well-Controlled Studies Proving Medical Efficacy of Cannabis Exist but are



Page 43 of 58

Many false beliefs about the terms “legalization” and “de-criminalization” exist. For

example, many Bermudians feel that de-crim refers to allowing possession (but not

sale or cultivation). This perspective is not only incorrect in general parlance of

cannabis decriminalization (because US States in which cannabis possession is still

criminal but with reduced penalties are said to have decriminalized), but it fails to

address the origin of the available supply of cannabis. This unwittingly and tacitly

supports smuggling, illicit sales and clandestine cultivation, activities which currently

plague Bermuda, and which will not be eased by de-criminalization.

Similarly, many Bermudians are under the false impression that “legalization” refers

to a free-for-all in which unfettered cannabis activity is allowed. Such persons

typically believe that if legalization occurs, use will be uncontrolled and rampant,

with ugly public street sales and smuggling allowed (such as occurs under the current

system, but worse). It should be noted that under the current system all of these

activities already occur, but sometimes with dire consequences for participants.

Generally, under a system of legalization, cannabis activity is more regulated than

where illegal. The best way to prevent street sales is to either “crack down” by

enforcement of existing laws, or to move sales into a regulated arena.

No Bermudian survey has been published which delineates the distinction between

the two terms “legalization” and “decrim”. Several questions on one recent survey,

the results of which purported to support decrim over legalization, were criticised by

a professional statistician132 as invalid due to a lack of clear definition of terms, the

order in which questions were asked of participants, and presentation problems133

which appeared to unwittingly push upon respondents a pre-stated conclusion that

only decriminalization could occur as a first step. Whether this is true or not is

conjecture, except that the surveyor had already expressed that reform must come

in “baby steps” in order to succeed134. This borders on unethical “push-polling”, and

so it not only must be disregarded, but in the future, it need be avoided. If further

survey work is needed, professional and unbiased questions must be asked to obtain

accurate public opinion on the topic, without foregone conclusions.

In order to highlight the pros and cons of each option, a clearer explanation of them

will be of value.

132

Reilly, C. Personal correspondence Autumn 2013. 133

Future Bermuda Alliance, personal correspondence with the author, September 2013. 134

ibid

Page 44 of 58

A. De-criminalization (“Decrim”)

It is submitted that Bermuda cannot actually decriminalize cannabis at all, due

to the fact that Bermuda has already done so to a degree of “zero-penalty” (not

even an administrative fine, see below) -- there is no room for further de-

criminalization, unless we wish to start giving cash awards to those caught with

small quantities of cannabis.

Decrim gained popularity in Europe and North America in the 1970s, due to

mounting pressure on the criminal justice system and growing awareness that

cannabis was not the violence-inducing “demon-weed” it was thought to be

when first illegalized in the 1930s.

Many US States in the 1970s lowered penalties for both possession and supply/

cultivation, or else lowered penalties for possession but raised penalties for

supply.

Even in those States which did not lower penalties, for smaller offences,

probation and fines were issued without any criminal guilty plea under a system

called Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) first enacted in Philadelphia

under then-Chief City Prosecutor Arlen Specter135

, who later became a 6-term US

Senator after achieving wide praise for the ARD system’s success; it later

became the US’ national model, now used by all 50 States and the federal

government there.

135

Specter, Hon Sen A. “Way Out of Courts’ Gridlock”.23rd

May 2011. The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Page 45 of 58

UK jurisdictions, such as Bermuda, on the other hand, do not use “ARD”, but

instead use a “conditional discharge” system for small-time cannabis offenders,

so those Crown subjects accused of even simple possession end up making a

formal criminal admission of guilt (in order to avoid stiff Bermuda penalties for

those found guilty without admitting it). Under US Immigration law136

, such

admissions of guilt hinder travel into the US, education and professional growth

in ways which Americans arrested for the same crime never suffer.

This easily-remediable situation ironically leads to a state of affairs in which:

(1) A Bermudian, living in the US, if he pleads guilty to a small pending

Bermudian cannabis charge, will be deported from the US and never

again granted entry clearance , but

(2) If the same Bermudian were charged in the US for the same crime, he

would neither be deported nor banned from future travel to the US137

,

because ARD entails voluntary probation without a plea, after which the

charge is dropped, without an admission of guilt, if the probation is

successfully completed.

Whether or not Bermuda opts to decriminalize or legalize cannabis, Bermuda

should consider following the Bermudian US Consulate’s 2010 advice138 that

implementation of an ARD system would prevent Bermudian first-time petty

offenders, whether charged with a drug related offence or any other petty crime,

from being “Stop Listed”.

It should be noted that Bermuda has already decriminalized cannabis

possession as far as can be done, and so no more de-criminalization can actually

be achieved, other than reducing cultivation and/or supply penalties.

136

US Immigrations & Naturalization Act, Title II, Chapter 2, Act 212. 137

Rosholt J (US Consular Officer in Bermuda) and Gordon A. Criminal Hurdles to Immigration: Contrasting US,

UK, Canadian and Bermudian Policy. 17th

April 2010; Bermuda Bar Association Continuing Legal Education

Programme. 138

Rosholt J (US Consular Officer in Bermuda) and Gordon A. Criminal Hurdles to Immigration: Contrasting US,

UK, Canadian and Bermudian Policy. 17th

April 2010; Bermuda Bar Association Continuing Legal Education

Programme.

Page 46 of 58

Specifically, Bermuda has a formal policy in place in which people arrested for

simple possession are released with a mere “Caution” where there is no criminal

charge or penalty of any sort, so long as they are compliant, honest and

remorseful when caught139,140.

This means that any new decrim utilising civil, rather than criminal fines, would

either

(1) raise, rather than lower the penalty (since there is none at present), or

else

(2) lower penalties for those caught with cannabis who are not compliant,

remorseful or honest, but not soften policy at all (or even worsen it) for

those who are compliant, remorseful and honest.

Either option would be rewarding dishonesty, and penalizing or failing to reward

honest people. This would not likely go over well with the public.

Additionally, our existing “caution” policy, like the UK’s, is already in violation of

our UN Treaty obligations141 -- in much the same way that the US’ tolerance of

State-legalized cannabis fails to comply with the Treaty’s Article 22(2) obligation

to destroy all cannabis which it has not nationally permitted. In practice

however, this trivial technical non-compliance has brought no consequences to

Bermuda, the UK, or the US.

Finally, critics142, 143 have noted that decrim is a fractured approach, sending

mixed messages that cannabis is safe enough to tolerate, despite its risks, but

that it can in practice only be obtained by participating in what are still labelled

serious crimes of purchase, importation, sale, and/or cultivation.

These policies, implemented as long as 40 years ago in the United States, have

not borne much in the way of achieving results other than those we can observe:

widespread and growing majority public support for a regulated supply of

cannabis.

139

Smith, P. “Pressure Mounts for Marijuana Reform in Bermuda”. 23rd

September 2013, Issue 802; Drug War

Chronicle. 140

Pearman M. “Know the law: You can be jailed for life for growing ‘weed’”. 16th

August 2013; Bermuda Sun 141

Article 36(1)(a), United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. 142

Hummer B, The New Jersey Prevention Network, cited in Livio S. Bill to decriminalize marijuana possession

is advanced by N.J. Assembly committee. 21 May 2012; Trenton Star Ledger. 143

Op-Ed. Don’t Decriminalize Drugs. 8th

December 1988 p 15; Christian Science Monitor.

Page 47 of 58

Decrim policy is dangerous because:

(1) Decrim gives tacit approval to

(A) street sales by gangs; and

(B) importation from the established “narco-terror” cells in Jamaica144

and

Mexico145, the two jurisdictions from whence most of Bermuda’s cannabis

originates (as evidenced by its unique curing style, the presence of seeds

in the cannabis, and the unique strains of cannabis present in Bermuda

but only grown in Mexico and Jamaica); Jamaican and Mexico drug

cartels have infiltrated police, government and political parties146,147

, and

in Mexico, drug cartel violence has killed at least 60,000 (and possibly as

many as 100,000) in the past 6 years148

.

(2) Decrim presents a lack of rules regarding time, place, manner and age of use.

(3) Derim fails to address the weightiest, most destructive aspect of institutional

racism: imprisonment. At present, personal cannabis possession does not

generate prison sentences, so if all supply is left as an imprisonable offence,

prison rates for cannabis offences will not be lowered by even a single

prisoner.

144

Government of Jamaica. National Security Policy For Jamaica. Organization of American States (OAS). Page

17, paragraph 2.51. Undated OAS/Jamaican Publication viewed on-line 31st

December 2013 at

http://www.oas.org/csh/ spanish/documentos/National%20Security%20Policy%20-%20Jamaica%20-

202007.pdf 145

Durbin R. International Narco-Terrorism and Non-State Actors: The Drug Cartel Global Threat. Winter 2013,

Volume 4, Issue 1; Global Security Studies. 146

Cook C. Mexico’s Drug Cartels. 16th

October 2007. CRS Report for Congress. United States Government 147

OpEd. Drug Money and Politics. 11th

February 2003; The Jamaica Gleaner. 148

Booth, William (). "Mexico's crime wave has left about 25,000 missing, government documents show". 30

November 2012;The Washington Post. 30 November 2012.

Page 48 of 58

In summary, decrim is not a good option for Bermuda on its own, for the

following reasons:

(1) Cannabis possession has already been de-criminalized maximally here,

beyond what is even allowable under the UK’s UN Treaty obligations, and

cannot be further decriminalized except for lowered penalties for sale,

importation and cultivation.

(2) Any apparent public support for decrim is highly suspect, as the populace

and both political parties have demonstrated confusion as to the term’s

basic meaning.

(3) The policy is fractured in its intent, at odds with itself, and dangerous.

(4) The policy fails to solve most of the problems associated with cannabis

(gang violence and utter lack of regulatory control, and the most

severe/costly forms of institutional racism)

B. Legalization or Regulation

Since “de-crim” is not a practicable or even available policy option (due to

maximal decriminalization already in place, see above), it is submitted that any

policy reform can only take a form of “regulation”, an inoffensively termed type

of actual cannabis possession and acquisition allowance.

(1) Treaty Compliance

Given that Bermuda is UN Treaty-bound (through the UK) not to legalize149,

Bermuda’s UK representative, the Governor, will not grant assent to any such

legislation -- he is simply not allowed to do so.

It is submitted that by utilizing the Treaty’s exemption for scientific research150,

Bermuda can prevent interference by the UK. While the UK may deny assent to

legislation, this is no hurdle to the research exemption’s utility, because:

149

Articles 22, 28 and 36(1)(a), United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 150

Articles 2 (5)(b), 22, United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961

Page 49 of 58

(A) The UK may not deny assent to Ministerial discretion, and

(B) Scientific research comes under Ministerial discretion, and can be

achieved in a Treaty-compliant fashion without the UK’s permission.

If the UK wishes to exert pressure against regulation, despite a lack of authority

by which to do so, then they may do so, and suffer the consequences of globally

appearing to deny Bermuda the right to legislatively and popularly self-

determine her own secondary legislation (a matter of Ministerial discretion not

relying upon the Governor’s assent) in a Treaty-compliant fashion. Conversely,

13 other countries flout the Treaty anyway in the following manner:

(A) UK (including Bermuda) -- “caution” policies for cannabis possession fail

to criminalize all non-scientific, non-medical cannabis possession as

required by the Treaty’s article 36(1)(a).

(B) US -- formal federal allowances of State-by-State legalization

programmes are also in flagrant violation of Articles 22, 28 and 36(1)(a) of

the Treaty.

(C) Netherlands -- while technically unlawful in the Netherlands, cannabis is

sold openly with no effective enforcement at all, and a “blind eye” or

“back door” policy in place for production, in which:

(i) 5 plants are always allowed to be grown on any outdoor

balconies.

(ii) Supply to coffee shops is banned, and yet the coffee shops

persist despite not being able to legally produce enough

cannabis to satisfy even 20 minutes worth of daily demand151

.

151

Sir Richard Branson. “Richard Branson Explains How To Fix The Netherlands ‘Back Door’ Problem”. 6th November 2013;

Leaf Science.

Page 50 of 58

(D) Uruguay -- recent outright legalization is in flagrant violation of the

Treaty bans.

(E) Italy -- is in violation of the Treaty on a regular basis due to court

decisions152,153 finding small private cannabis use and cultivation to be

non-criminal.

(F) Jamaica --

(i) Has begun offering cannabis farm tourism packages154

; and

(ii) has a de facto policy which allows tourists to obtain cannabis

cheaply within 10 seconds of clearing Customs155; and

(iii) is a massive smuggling origin jurisdiction156

.

(G) Switzerland -- effectively allows cannabis to be sold so openly across the

country that one www forum, describing the law, boasted reader

comments which were 89% open sales advertisements157.

(H) Mexico – personal possession of cannabis (and in fact all drugs) is utterly

non-criminal158

.

(I) Argentina -- possession of cannabis and other drugs has been deemed

non-criminal by the Supreme Court159.

152

Guaglione v Italia 2008, reported in Haver F. “Cassazione assolve il megaspinello rasta”. 11th July 2008; Corriere Della

Sera. 153

“Top court permits marijuana on balcony”. 28th

June 2011; ANSA. 154

“Sun, sea, sand and ganja - Local farmers offer ganja tours to tourists”. 10th

September 2013; Associated

Press. 155

Emery M (publisher, Cannabis Culture Magazine). Personal correspondence with the author September

2013. 156

United States Central Intelligence Agency. “Jamaica”. World Factbook, accessed online 30th

Dec 2013 at

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2086.html . 157

“Switzerland”. Marijuana Travels www site accessed 30th

December 2013 at www.marijuanatravels.com/

countries/che. 158

Associated Press. “Mexico Legalizes Drug Possession”. 21st

August 2009; New York Times. 159

Argentina court ruling decriminalizes marijuana and makes personal use a constitutional right", 26 August

2009; New York Daily News.

Page 51 of 58

(J) Ecuador -- Possession of cannabis and other drugs in constitutionally

protected from criminal charges160.

(K) Australia -- While technically illegal, cannabis is openly sold without

interference in Nimbin, New South Wales, and has been since the 1960s

when a counter-culture or “hippie” community arose there. Nimbin hosts

a massive annual cannabis celebration called ‘MardiGrass” to which

attendees flock from all over the world.

(L) Denmark -- the Copenhagen district of Christiania has been virtually

unmolested for 40 years as a 24/7 open air cannabis and hashish market,

which is currently Denmark’s 2nd largest tourist attraction161.

(M) Canada -- An Ontario appellate court ruling holds that since there was a

medical exemption in the cannabis ban which was unobtainable for

patients (as is the case in Bermuda at present), the law banning cannabis

is of no effect at all for the entire Canadian province of Ontario162 (pop.

13.5 million). While medical cannabis is now allowed in Canada, the law

in Ontario was struck down by the case in question, and was never re-

enacted -- a prima facie violation of the UN Treaty.

To be more specific, the UN Treaty, which was signed and ratified by the UK on

our behalf, has utterly failed to stem the tide of cannabis and hashish flowing

from UK and Commonwealth jurisdictions into Bermuda, while no cannabis can

be said to leave Bermuda. The Treaty obligation to take steps as necessary to

stem the flow have not been taken, nor can be.

Further, 40 years of relative good-faith Bermudian Treaty compliance, up until

the formal “caution” policy enacted circa 2010, has hidden data (and rendered its

accurate collection difficult or impossible) about cannabis’ consumption,

distribution and effects, by forcing it underground where observations have been

stifled and skewed.

160

Article 364, 2008 Constitution of Ecuador. 161

Freston T. You Are Now Leaving the European Union. Vanity Fair. 12th

Sept 2013. 162

R. v. P. (J.)] 64 O.R. (3d) 757 [2003] O.J. No. 1949 Court File No. 03-CR-00002

Page 52 of 58

The UK would find itself under withering international criticism if the Governor

refused assent (despite the UK’s and Bermuda’s Treaty-violating “caution” policy)

in a manner which stifled Bermuda’s only chance to study cannabis effectively.

Further, the UK does not appear to have the authority to ban such “research”

discretion’s exercise by Bermudian officials.

While an argument could be made that this type of research skirts the spirit of

the Treaty ban, the cannabis activity it seeks to measure seems to be occurring

anyway, and cannabis policy shifts have been shown to have little to no effect on

cannabis use’s prevalence in the populace163 -- the spirit of the Treaty ban is in

no way compromised, having had little if any effect towards its intended goals.

This ideological bullet-proofing is only be heightened by the fact that cannabis

and cannabis resins are exported to Bermuda by the US and UK illicitly, while

none flows in the other direction owing to significantly lower costs in the larger

nations. Even legalization would not significantly affect the flow direction of

cannabis import/export, due to dramatically lower production costs and greater

land availability in the US and UK. As previously mentioned, US and UK prices are

5-10 x less than in Bermuda, and so exportation risk is quite minimal.

Additionally, Bermuda could arm itself against UK criticism by referring to the UN

Treaty cultivation ban requirement, which only stipulates a mandatory ban

where it is deemed by the enacting jurisdiction to be actually necessary for

eradicating illicit activity164

(which in Bermuda, it has clearly not done, and so

necessity is obviated).

If managed diplomatically, and within UN limits relative to other countries’

compliance levels, Bermuda can regulate its cannabis trade. Failing to do so, by

adopting some other method of purported softening of cannabis laws, is mere lip

service to the international trend, and will leave in place the most damaging and

most prevalent of the harms associated with cannabis and related law

enforcement.

It is suggested that, as in the case of medical cannabis, Ministerial discretion

obviates any need for UK assent (by bypassing legislation requiring the

Governor’s assent). For non-medical cannabis, the Treaty’s “research”

exemption should prove adequate, as the UK has no mechanism to block it, and

no room to criticise as the major trans-shipment exporter of illicit Moroccan and

Pakistani cannabis resin to Bermuda.

163

MacCoun R. Evaluating Alternative Cannabis Regimes. 2001 (178) p 123; British Journal of Psychiatry. 164

Articles 22, 28 and 36(1)(a), United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961

Page 53 of 58

(2) Form of Regulation

(A) Private use -- It is recommended that users pay a licensure

application fee, and that reasonable restrictions apply regarding:

(i) Age; and

(ii) Permissible places of use (public use remaining banned without

special permits, just like alcohol).

It is also recommended that those submitting applications be required

to furnish anonymised medical background information, including

consumption patterns, with updates during annual renewal. This

would generate sufficient research to meet the UN’s “research”

requirement.

(B) Private cultivation -- For those consumers who wish to grow their

own cannabis, it is recommended that a more expensive licensure

application fee be implemented, as well as the health and

consumption data provision required for mere private use.

(C) Commercial cultivation -- It is recommended that a licensure

application with a higher fee than for private cultivation be

implemented, comparable to fees for alcohol vending, and that

record-keeping and safety inspections be required. As in the case of

commercial medical cannabis production (see above), commercial

producers should be subject to at least occasional purity testing.

(D) Commercial sales -- It is recommended that these licenses bear the

highest fee among cannabis license types, and require the heaviest

record-keeping and inspection burden.

(E) Additional Government revenue streams -- It is recommended that

Bermuda make health and consumption databases (anonymised for

privacy) about cannabis available to foreign researchers on a

subscription basis, in order to advance the cause of scientific

research in a cost-effective, revenue generating manner.

Page 54 of 58

(3) Tourists and Other Visitors

As with medicinal cannabis (see above), it is recommended from a

perspective of international law compliance, as well as simple economics,

that Bermuda restrict all imports of cannabis similarly to carrots. In a

regulated access system, consumers wishing to use cannabis in Bermuda

should be required to obtain it here, as it is easy to produce and capable of

revenue generation.

4. CANNABIS MYTHS DEBUNKED

Numerous health concerns have been raised as objections to allowing cannabis use.

While the ban on cannabis’ use has not alleviated any of these health concerns

anyway, many of them are either unfounded, deeply exaggerated, or just plain

disproved. The two major worries expressed have been lung health and

schizophrenia, addressed below.

(A) Lung Damage

Smoking on its face seem an unhealthy activity, no matter what.

In fact, long term studies of heavy cannabis users have shown that despite the

presence of unhealthy tars in cannabis smoke, cannabis users have a lower chance of

developing lung cancer and other serious respiratory illness than people who smoke

nothing at all, or who smoke tobacco165. This has been attributed to the effects of

cannabis drugs like THC, which dilates bronchioles166 and kills lung cancer cells167.

This information, despite being counter-intuitive, is of the highest credibility: it was

published by the US Government’s long-standing top anti-cannabis lung health

researcher, Dr. Donald Tashkin168.

165


10(3):239-47. 166

Grotenhermen F. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of cannabinoids. 2003;42(4):327-60; Clinical

Pharmacokinetics 167

Preet A. Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol inhibits epithelial growth factor-induced lung cancer cell migration in

vitro as well as its growth and metastasis in vivo. (2008) 27, 339–346; Oncogene , et al. 168


10(3):239-47.

Page 55 of 58

Despite contradictory studies he had previously published, Dr. Tashkin points out

flaws in those studies which led to an errant conclusion that cannabis smoke causes

cancer. The previous flawed conclusions were easy for medical professional and

policy makers to digest, for obvious reasons, but have been called into question by

more recent studies. Still, however, anti-cannabis agencies continued to rely and

promulgate the de-bunked old studies.

(B) Psychosis

Cannabis use has long been alleged to lead to schizophrenia, which is characterized

by psychosis. In Bermuda, some doctors169

quietly believe that a genetic bottleneck

(“Founder’s Effect”) causes a higher rate of cannabis-related psychosis than can be

found in other parts of the world.

However, a recent Harvard study170 shows that cannabis does not, in fact lead to

schizophrenia as previously thought. As it turns out, previous studies were too quick

to conclude that schizophrenia, which surfaced after cannabis use, was caused by

the use of cannabis. Correlation, in this case, was confused with cause as the studies

failed to account for relevant variables and too quickly suggested a causative

relationship171. The newest study accounts for additional variables and shows the

relationship not to be causative, indicating that cannabis use does not cause

schizophrenia.

With regard to a persistent Bermudian physicians’ attitude that Bermudians are

genetically more prone to cannabis psychosis, it was likely an error from the outset.

A clue can be found in the fact that the observed psychotic reactions were seen by

Bermuda physicians most prominently when cannabis users were injected with

penicillin, and then turned violent172. This is a clue that the psychoses were not the

result of cannabis at all, but of mould allergies instead.

It should be noted that Bermudian street cannabis, mostly imported from the

Caribbean and Mexico, has a high concentration of toxic mould, visible upon

inspection, and which can be smelled in the form of fungal rot of the vegetative

material173.

169

Un-named Retired Bermuda Medical Officer, personal correspondence with the author, June-October 2013. 170

Proal A, et al. “A controlled family study of cannabis users with and without psychosis”. 4th

December 2013;

Schizophrenia Research. 171

Ibid. 172

Un-named Retired Bermuda Medical Officer, personal correspondence with the author, June-October 2013 173

Gordon A. Inspection of Bermudians’ illicit cannabis supplies 2007-2013.

Page 56 of 58

Since mould causes “histamine reactions”174 which can include violence as a

symptom175, we should consider the possibility that psychosis observed among

Bermudian cannabis users was due to the mould, and not any special Bermudian

genetic propensity to go mad after smoking cannabis -- since the Harvard study176

strongly disputes that such an effect occurs elsewhere, even at lower rates than in

Bermuda.

The fact that injecting more mould (penicillin) caused and/or heightened violent

reactions in cannabis users lends further support to the hypothesis, since penicillin

on its own is capable of causing such a reaction177.

Bermudian medical professionals are urged to reconsider their position on cannabis

and psychosis, in light of:

1. the new Harvard study showing no causative link to schizophrenia178; and

2. the likelihood that previous violent reactions among cannabis users were

caused by mould allergies, which can be avoided by discouraging the use of

contaminated cannabis (i.e. replacing it with that which is grown domestically

and stored properly).

(C) Cannabis Myth Conclusions

The phenomenon of reliance upon de-bunked medical studies, common to many

anti-cannabis health concerns, is no doubt caused by anti-cannabis researchers’

failure to notice more recent studies which contradict previous ones, their minds

having already been made up. One can easily imagine anti-cannabis groups like

P.R.I.D.E. and D.A.R.E. simply gathering information which they are looking for

(cannabis harms), and failing to notice (or even deliberately omitting) contradictory

studies, regardless of which study had better controls and more complete data.

174

Lander F. Serum IgE specific to indoor moulds, measured by basophil histamine release, is associated with

building-related symptoms in damp buildings. 2001 April, 50(4):227-31; Inflammation Research. 175

Nath C. Evidence for central histaminergic mechanism in foot shock aggression. 1982;76(3):228-31;

Psychopharmacology (Berl). 176


December 2013;

Schizophrenia Research. 177

Silber, T. Psychosis and seizures following the injection of penicillin G procaine. Hoigne's syndrome. 1985

Apr;139(4):335-7; American Journal of Diseases of Children. 178


December 2013;

Schizophrenia Research.

Page 57 of 58

5. RETROACTIVITY: WHAT ABOUT THOSE ALREADY CRIMINALISED?

Cannabis policy and reform are topics which are deeply emotional, especially for

those families which have been up-ended by Draconian punishments, which

sometimes exceed those meted out for homicide179

.

If policy is to shift, indicating a societal acceptance that cannabis is not as harmful as

once thought, then Parliament should give careful consideration to the plight of

those whose lives have been upended by previous laws.

First, their criminal record should be considered.

It is recommended that Parliament instruct the Courts, via legislation, to vacate the

pleas, convictions and sentences of at least some cannabis criminals, based upon the

fact that neither the accused, nor their counsel, nor the Crown made/accepted such

pleas in full knowledge of the relevant matters, from science to US Immigration law.

The removal of the plea and conviction are likely to suffice to remove Stop List

penalties, employment bars, and other legal discrimination against cannabis

convicts. Even the US recognises, as a matter of supra-legality, the right to

competent counsel; defence counsel (let alone judges) unaware of the facts about

cannabis cannot have acted in full competence -- the US may recognise the vacated

pleadings and convictions, and allow formerly banned Bermudians to enter.

For those whose past cannabis crimes are deemed too serious for forgiveness (if

any), Parliament should consider reducing their penalties.

Beyond any formal legal retroactivity for past cannabis offenders, we as a society

should also consider a mere apology. For decades, Bermuda’s cannabis penalties

have been some of the Western Hemisphere’s stiffest. Judges and magistrates have

accused cannabis criminals of contributions to violent crimes, poverty and other

woes, when the laws themselves may have been more responsible than the accused.

We have inflicted real hurt, needlessly and unhelpfully, upon our sons, brothers, and

fathers (and less, frequently, upon female offenders). The resentment towards

authority this has caused is a serious problem unto itself, as to a cannabis convict,

the law itself seems unjust. While changing the laws may prevent it from worsening,

it will not repair the damage already done. A sincere apology for seemingly well-

intended errors could go a long way, and if sincere is likely to be taken at face value

by many who have suffered the indignity of arrest and prosecution.

179

Swan, R. Personal interview 15th

September 2013 with a Bermuda Corrections Officer privy to inmates’

varying sentence lengths. Future Bermuda Alliance.

Page 58 of 58

6. CONCLUSIONS:

It is recommended that neither “de-crim” nor outright legalization per se are actual policy

options, and are forms to be avoided.

It is instead recommended that existing Treaty exemptions (matters of Ministerial

discretion) be deployed for both medical and recreational cannabis.

It is advised that this can be achieved without primary legislative reform at all, but that such

legislative reform can also be used to strengthen the allowable discretion, still within UN

Treaty limitations.

Finally, the Cabinet should publish a clear set of guidelines to medical cannabis applicants

(and for recreation applicants, should that be what the Bermudian populace wishes), rather

than having patients apply “in the dark” without knowing what rules and limitations are in

place. Invisible rules violate fundamental concepts of law (since ignorance of published laws

is no excuse, they must after all be published in order to allow citizens a chance to abide by

them), and will also lead to delays in health care, an unacceptable state of affairs.

The policy options for Parliament and Cabinet to consider are numerous, subtle and

complex both scientifically and legally.

Government is advised to proceed promptly, without pre-determined assumptions, and in

consideration of all relevant facts, while not considering outdated, disproven or incorrect

information.

The timely need for medical cannabis access is a matter of life and death for many

Bermudians, and the proposed 6 month delay, prior to a report being submitted to

Parliament scheduled for June 2014, is an unacceptable delay likely to cost real human

beings their very lives.

When Government proceeds with humanitarian decency, then Bermuda will have a

cannabis policy that is both good for the whole of Bermuda and internationally laudable.

News & Politics

Comprehensive Cannabis Policy Review -- Bermuda -- Alan Gordon