Canadian Marijuana Laws Flawed

Bingo.

Another excellent call for the End of Cannabis
Prohibition!

Kudos.

R.

A generation after the Dutch liberalized their marijuana/cannabis laws, a decrease in use is being claimed.....Why?....because this next generation of more responsible young Dutch citizens having now had the opportunity to observe these older pot smoking, under achievers and dossers, deadbeats and dropouts who chose to escape from reality by hiding in a haze of dope smoke, and are now wisely rejecting drug use as a lifestyle.

Survivor of a Son's suicide.

Early indications are that Dosanjh (sp?) our new Minister of Health is far more aware and compassionate on this issue than the shameful Anne McLelland. If current statistics are reliable, about 40% of Canadians have tried marijuana and the majority of those continue to enjoy it. Martin's proposed legislation is outrageously unacceptable, particularly if it will curtail the supply of cannabis to people who need it medically. Maybe something like a national day of protest is required on this one. If the NDP has any clout or influence with our new government, now is the time to show it.

I personally will be meeting with our newly elected (Conservative) MP to request he bring forward a proposal for legalization as a plank in that party's new policy platform. Call it a full- court press. Marijuana must be legalized immediately. There is no longer any excuse, with the wealth of scientific and medical evidence available, for anyone to continue publicly propounding the tiresome litany of lies and scare-mongering about cannabis, and those who do should be publicly discredited and shamed.

Brett Mann

Brett;

I can't agree with you more, that's the reason for the intitial post. I expect Jack Leyton will use their influence to temper any new mj legislation, after all, he's on record for legalization. But if you expect your Conservative MP to buck party policy, and try to get support from that arena, I expect you'll be disappointed. It's right wing radicals such as Randy White, John Reynolds, Harper himself, that scared off the voters, and brought the Liberals back in, albeit in a minority government. The Conservatives would have inititated restrictions that would make the Americans green with envy.

Don F.


---
Life is a one way trip, make it a good one.

The one thing I will bet money on is that it is all for show. The government doesn't give a fig for medical marijuana. It has no real interest in providing preventative healthcare, nor palliative care, nor healthcare in general, believing that the marketplace can amply take care of all this. This may sound cynical, but it is just from observations of actual applications over the last decade, as opposed to the many and myriad pronouncements.

I work with a guy who is originally from Jamaica. He tells me that although Jamaica is very tolerant of marijuana use, Canada, from what he sees, has more per-capita use. He also feels that the stigma attached to the 'forbidden fruit' is a factor. But yeah, why is our society so terrified of marijuana? Any drug can be bad if one gets addicted. But We all know that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, and it has medicinal value. Prohibition indeed doesn`t work. I think we should outright legalize it, getting it out of the hands of the scumbag dealers, and then crack down, pun intended, on the hard drugs like heroin, cocaine, speed, and crack. But treat the addicts as a medical problem, not a legal one, but lower the boom on the dealers of these poisons.

---
Dave Ruston

This is such aninfuriating topic for me that I just have to add some more 2-bits to my other 2-bits: "<i>In light of such assets as minimal toxicity, no buildup of tolerance, no physical dependence, and minimal autonomic disturbance, immediate major clinical reinvestigation of cannabis preparations is indicated in the management of pain, chronic neurologic diseases, convulsive disorders, migraine headache, anorexia, mental illness, and bacterial infections. Recently declassified secret U.S. Defense Department studies reconfirm marijuana's congeners to have therapeutic utility.</i>" http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/medical/medpaper.htm In the face of this, <u>what is the government's problem!</u>? Is it actually <b>afraid</b> of a healthy population? Or is afraid of offending the medical "profession", and pharmaceutical companies? Does Randoph Hearst's legacy still echo through the halls of government? "<i>A nutritionally optimal ratio of two parts linoleic acid to one part linolenic acid (2:1) has also been noted in hemp seed oil,and the "ideal 3:1 ratio" is cited for oils to be used in thelong-term. Either ratio can occur in hemp seed oil. The body transforms linolenic acid into GLA by means ofan enzyme (delta-6-desaturase), but many factors in our diet can impair this ability, including alcohol, processed vegetable oils, excess cholesterol, trans-fatty acids, and oils heated for cooking. Not surprisingly, common uses of flax seed oil are similar to those with hemp seed in Chinese medicine. Linolenic acid has been studied in humans for cholesterol-loweringactions and repeatedly found effective. GLA, however, is more potent. Curiously enough, its "biological effectiveness" in evening primrose oil was demonstrably higher than in black current or borage oils. The othe main area of EFA research is in psoriasis and eczema where improvements in skin smoothness have been repeatedly demonstrated with both seed and omega-3-rich fish oils. Studies with flax and hemp seed oils are expected to follow and may be extended to include clinical studies in the many othe rareas of EFA research, such as arthritis, hypertension, diabetes, cancer,gastrointestinal disorders, ulcers, chronic fatigue syndrome, lupus, and more. <u>Anything you can make with petro-chemicals you can make with hemp seed oil, for instance.</u></i>" -- Could this be a "clue" to government reticence, Watson? "<i>If all fossil fuels and their derivatives, as well as trees for paper and construction, were banned in order to save the planet, reverse the greenhouse effect and stop deforestation; then there is only 1 known annually renewable natural resource that is capable of providing the overall majority of the world's paper and textiles; meet all of the world's transportation, industrial and home energy needs, while simultaneously reducing pollution, rebuilding the soil and cleaning the atmosphere all at the same time... and that substance is the same 1 that has done it before... CANNABIS/HEMP!</i>" Extract from: ( http://www.jackherer.com/ )

These last two anonymouses (anonymi?) are mine! (sorry)

---
RickW

You know, it doesn't really matter if Marijuana is unhealthy or not. It doesn't matter if it causes cancer, steals your soul, makes you a useless, lazy lout, or gives you yellow teeth. It doesn't even matter that it has medicinal benefits.

Nothing should be illegal unless it causes harm to others. I can kill myself with a car, a knife, jumping out of a tree, or whatever my imagination can conceive. But I dont' because I know the risks and choose not to take them.

Well, we should legalize pot, and study it furiously so we know the effects. I volunteer to be a guinea pig for this one.

-KY

---
Kory Yamashita

"What lies behind us and what lies ahead of us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." - Oliver Wendell Holmes

Right on Dave;

That's my point of view, in that if legalized, the desire to use a "forbidden fruit" is lessened, considerably. What's really hpyocritcal is that I can brew my own beer, make my own wine, grow my own tobacco, all controlled substances in this country, and all of them more harmful than marijuana. Studies too numerous to count have all said that the detrimental effects of marijuana consumption are almost nil, whereas the benefits are lengthy. It's just old wives' tales and superstitions that keep politicians wanting to continue the "war on drugs". Any of you ever seen Ron Mann's video "Grass"?

Don F.


---
Life is a one way trip, make it a good one.

<p>People who oppose marijuana use are suffering from what can be called ignorance. <p>Let me explain why I say this. <p>First if any of these people use pharmaceutical drugs, drink's alcohol, smoke's tobacco, drives a car then they have no right speaking against the right for someone to smoke marijuana. Just cause its something you don't want to use personally, it doesn't give you the right to speak against it when your doing just as many unhealthy things yourself. (Not to mention that Marijuana doesn't have the health risk of all of the others above). <hr> <p><b>Pharmaceutical Drugs:</b> <br> Statistics Canada's "Causes of Death" details over 8,512 deaths from pharmaceutical drugs between 1988 and 1995 <p><a href="http://www.somagardens.com/actionalive.htm">Canadian Pharmaceutical Caused Deaths</a> <br> <a href="http://www.newstarget.com/000999.html">The FDA refuses to pull drug linked to 20 deaths; the pharmaceutical double standard continues</a> <hr> <p><b>Alcohol:</b> <br> <b>*Fatalities</b> <p>In 2001, it was estimated that 3,021 individuals were killed in motor vehicle crashes in Canada. MADD Canada estimates that at a minimum 1,213 of these fatalities involved impaired driving. Moreover, in MADD Canada's opinion, the 1,213 figure is a conservative estimate, due to the underreporting that results from the inability to test surviving impaired drivers and reliance on police reports. <p>As well, the 1,213 fatalities do not include individuals killed in impaired crashes on the waterways. In 2000, it was reported that there were 168 water-related deaths involving alcohol (many of these may not be included in the 1,213 number). <p>Given the limits on the 1,213 fatalities figure, and adding in water-related deaths, MADD Canada estimates there are somewhere between 1,400 and 1,600 impaired crash fatalities in Canada each year (3.8-4.5 deaths per day). <p><a href="http://www.madd.ca/english/research/magnitudememo.html">Source (MADD)</a> <hr> <p><b>Tobacco:</b> <br> <b>*Smoking Deaths</b> <p>Smoking is already a worldwide public health issue. About three million people die from tobacco-related diseases each year. Within 30 years the number of tobacco-related deaths will rise to about 10 million per year. This will make tobacco the number one cause of premature death in the world. <p>Smoking causes 20% of all deaths from cancer, heart disease and stroke in Canada. Over 45,000 people in this country die each year from smoking. About 3,400 of these are Albertans. One in five fire deaths in Canada and one in four in Alberta are due to fires started by smokers. Since 1991, tobacco-related deaths in Canada have increased by about 8%, reflecting the smoking patterns of the 1970s and 80s. Of these deaths, almost two-thirds were women. From 1985 to 1996 death from smoking among Canadian women rose by 77%. That’s because women’s rate of smoking kept climbing into the 1970s. <p>Quick Facts <br> * Tobacco causes 25% of all deaths in a developed country like Canada.<br> * Smoking kills more people in this country than HIV/AIDS, car accidents, murder, suicide and illegal drug use combined.<br> * Half of all regular smokers will eventually die from their addiction, most before their natural time.<br> * On average, smokers lose about 15 years off their lives.<br> * The global death rate from tobacco use will rise to about 10 million per year within 30 to 40 years.<br> * About 500 million people alive today will eventually die from tobacco use if current smoking patterns hold.<br> <p><a href="http://www.zoot2.com/justthefacts/tobacco/index.asp">Source:</a> <br> <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/01/12/canada/tobacco_deaths040112"> Report says Canadian tobacco deaths on rise</a> <hr> <p><b>Here's</b> some more interesting information, this coming from the U.S. <a href="http://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm">Annual Causes of Death in the United States</a> <p>You can honestly oppose marijuana if you do any of the other harmful things I listed above. Yes those who oppose can use the argument of the harmful affects of marijuana smoke going into the lungs but, they can't come up with any harmful affects of THC. Some companies sell pipes that allows one to smoke marijuana without having any smoke going into the lung, yet still get the health benefits of the THC. <p>There's a lawyer who is fighting this in court for his grandma who takes marijuana. He had data with him that proves that there is no harmful affect of THC smoking pot through this pipe that eliminates the smoke going into the lungs. <hr> <p><b>Health Benefits of THC</b> <p>The US DEA and Health Canada have issued warnings about the health risks of THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana and other forms of hemp. These warnings are unwarranted, for the health risks do not exist; they are figments of the junk scientist's imagination. In my efforts to discredit the outrageous claims made by the anti-drug warriors, I have become convinced, by the research, that THC has a number of health benefits. These health benefits of THC are in addition to the benefits claimed by advocates of medicinal marijuana. <p>For example, consider the effect of THC on our immune system. The early research showed suppression of the immune system, but these studies have been discredited. For example, the Nahas experiments, which applied THC in massive doses to human cells in a petri dish, are by all accounts meaningless, the real-life equivalent of smoking a 50 kg joint. Better studies failed to replicate Nahas's work and, instead, found immune system stimulation at more reasonable doses. <p>Let us be clear about these findings: What the research shows is immune system suppression at very high doses, but immune system stimulation (enhancement) at low doses. This means that the trace amounts of THC in hemp foods (and in marijuana as well) probably strengthen the immune system of humans. It's a basic principle of pharmacology: high doses may be poisonous whereas low doses are curative. THC and Cancer <p>Immune-system stimulation by THC at low doses should be apparent in macro-level health benefits. The stunning (but rarely reported) success of THC treatments of cancer may be representative. One of the first studies had rats ingest a large dose of THC daily for two years. At the completion of the experiment, 70 percent of the dosed animals were still alive, but only 45 percent of the undosed animals survived. This sizeable difference was due almost entirely to a reduced incidence of cancer in the animals given THC. <p>A more direct test of THC's cancer-fighting properties was performed on rats with brain tumours. The tumours, called gliomas, are fatal in humans. The researchers infused THC directly into the rats' brains. The comparison group, rats given no THC, died in two to three weeks. A third of the THC rats died in a similar time, without benefit. Another third of the THC rats, however, lived four times as long. In the remaining third of the THC group, the tumours disappeared, gone forever. <p>The researchers claimed that the THC worked by stimulating the cancer cells to "commit suicide" in a natural process called "apoptosis." Normal cells were unharmed. The THC in this experiment was very low dosage, and the cancers were at a late stage, when untreated rats were already starting to die. The researchers suggest that THC would work even better if given earlier. <p><a href="http://www.hempology.com/archives/001138.html">Health Benefits Of Industrial, Medicinal, and Recreational Hemp</a> <hr> <p>Kevin <br><br><br><p>---<br>"Love actually, is all around us" --From the movie Love Actually.

<p>Here's some more interesting information about some research going on in the U.S. <p><a href="http://www.maps.org/mmj/vaporizer.html">MAPS/CaNORML vaporizer and waterpipe studies</a> <br> <a href="http://www.maps.org/news-letters/v06n3/06359mj1.html">Marijuana Water Pipe and Vaporizer Study</a> <br> <a href="http://www.maps.org/news-letters/v06n3/06364mj2.html">Why Marijuana Smoke Harm Reduction?</a> <br> <a href="http://www.maps.org/mmj/index.html">Medical Marijuana Research</a> <br> <a href="http://www.maps.org/mmj/Gieringer-vaporizer.pdf">Cannabis Vaporizer Combines Efficient Delivery of THC with Effective Suppression of Pyrolytic Compounds</a> <br> <a href="http://www.maps.org/mmj/pr5.02.03.html">Study Shows Vaporizer Can Drastically Reduce Toxins in Marijuana Smoke</a> <br> <a href="http://www.maps.org/news-letters/v13n1/13111gie.pdf">"Vaporizer Research: An Update"</a> <br><br><br><p>---<br>"Love actually, is all around us" --From the movie Love Actually.

I too would agree with the legalization of the drug but for different factors and under some conditions.

First - only can be legally sold to people 19 years of age and over. Get caught selling or supplying to minors - go to jail.

Second - can only be sold by licensed outlets agreed upon by the community. Sort of like Amsterdamn.

Why legalize? First the tax money generated would offset the health care costs associated with its use. Second, the amount of money saved by not bringing cases to court and the associated policing costs could be thrust upon the true society killers - cocaine, heroin, meth etc.

---
If there was ever a time for Canadians to become pushy - now is the time - for time is running out on this nation called Canada.

Roy,

Its worth noting that Marijuana would be a controled product on the market that has health benefits. Unlike controled products like alcohol and tobacco that are on the market with many health risk.

If any of the three should be accessable and welcomed it should be Marijuana. The taxes would definitely offset the health care cost, especially when Marijuana when smoked through a vaporizer has no known health risk. And those who don't use the vaporizer who decide to smoke it through a joint still don't have the health risk that is in Tobacco use. If they legalize it they should make vaporizer use mandatory.

Kevin

---
"Love actually, is all around us" --From the movie Love Actually.