History of Medical Marijuana Laws in
Canada
RELEVANT WEBSITES
This information is
gathered from the UVSS Hempology 101 Club Lecture Series: Lesson
21
Many people in Canada used cannabis for medical
problems before compassion clubs formed in Victoria, Vancouver
and Toronto in 1996. In Dec 1997, Terry Parker, with his
lawyer and Osgoode Hall Law Professor, Alan Young, was the first
Canadian to convince a judge that the prohibition of cannabis in
the CDSA violated his constitutional rights. When the
federal government appealed the decision, the Court of Appeal of
Ontario decided to give Health Canada 1 year to devise a plan for
the mass distribution of cannabis for medical purposes. In
July 2001, Health Canada introduced the Medical Marijuana Access
Regulations with the stated intention of supplying people who had
received their doctor’s support for using cannabis with
high quality medicine after the proper research had been
completed.
After reviewing proposals, Health Canada
contracted Prairie Plant Systems to a five year $5.6 million
contract to produce cannabis for research in Dec 2000. The
single strain grown in a mineshaft near Flin Flon, Manitoba
contains about 12% THC. It is ground up and irradiated
before being sent out in one ounce packages worth $150
each. A package of 30 seeds costs 30 dollars. The
MMAR allows individuals to possess and grow cannabis, or find a
designated caregiver to grow for them, if they had permission
from one or more doctors, depending upon their medical
problem. The MMAR originally divided applicants into three
categories depending upon their medical issues, making the
process so restrictive that several sections were struck down in
Hitzig et al., 2003.
Soon after the Victoria Cannabis Buyers Club
started operating with a pager and pamphlet in Jan 1996, the
Vancouver Medical Marijuana Buyers Club opened, which was
incorporated as the B.C. Compassion Club Society in May
1997. A group formed in the summer of 1996 in Toronto, but
by 1997 they had split into two organizations, the Toronto
Compassion Center and Cannabis As Living Medicine. The
BCCCS was the first club to get national press, winning the
hearts of many Canadians when David Suzuki featured them in a
“Reefer Madness 2” in a segment of THE NATURE OF
THINGS in 1998.
After medical cannabis distribution networks
sprung up across the country, police raided the Montreal
Compassion Club in Feb 2000, the Vancouver Island Compassion
Society in Nov 2000, the Sunshine Coast Compassion Society and
the TCC in Aug 2002 and the Cannabis Buyers Clubs of Canada in
Jan, March and June, 2002 and Feb 2003. This does not
include several police actions taken on individuals like Grant
Krieger or many people caught growing for medical purposes.
All of the charges related to raids in the stores either received
discharges, had the charges thrown out, or the courts forced
Health Canada to change the MMAR because the rules are
unconstitutional.
No club has been busted since Health Canada
began selling their cannabis in Aug 2004. Some growers have
been able to receive lenient sentences after proving they only
sold their herb to a compassion club, i.e. R. vs Small,
2000. Several trials involving large operations providing
compassion clubs or networks of sick people are currently before
the courts. Their challenge will be to prove that Health
Canada’s cannabis is of such poor medical quality that no
one should be forced to consume it when there is much better
medicine available in compassion clubs. There are about 1
million Canadians who qualify to use cannabis for medical
purposes, though only 1492 have a license to possess it.
[106] In Morgentaler, Beetz J. summarized the
right to security of the person as a right to access to medical
treatment for a condition representing a danger to life or health
without fear of criminal sanction. As he said at p. 90:
Generally speaking, the constitutional right to security of the
person must include some protection from state interference when
a person's life or health is in danger. If a rule of criminal
law precludes a person from obtaining appropriate medical
treatment when his or her life or health is in danger, then the
state has intervened and this intervention constitutes a
violation of that man's or that woman's security of the
person. “Security of the person” must include a right
of access to medical treatment for a condition representing a
danger to life or health without fear of criminal sanction. If an
Act of Parliament forces a person whose life or health is in
danger to choose between, on the one hand, the commission of a
crime to obtain effective and timely medical treatment and, on
the other hand, inadequate treatment or no treatment at all, the
right to security of the person has been violated.
[107] That holding applies in this case.
The state has not violated Parker’s rights simply because
epilepsy in and of itself represents a danger to his life or
health. However, to prevent his accessing a treatment by
threat of criminal sanction constitutes a deprivation of his
security of the person. Based on the evidence, the
marihuana laws force Parker to choose between commission of a
crime to obtain effective medical treatment and inadequate
treatment.
[135] We were not directed to any common law
history of entitlement to drug therapy. The closest
analogue is the doctrine of informed consent, which makes it a
civil wrong to impose treatment without the consent of the
patient. The patient may also demand that treatment, once
commenced, be withdrawn or discontinued. See Rodriguez at
pp. 598-99. While there is obviously a difference between a
right to refuse treatment and a right to demand treatment, they
can also be seen as two points on a continuum rooted in the
common-law right to self- determination with respect to medical
care. This includes the right to choose to select among
alternative forms of treatment.
[210] Accordingly, I would vary the remedy
granted by the trial judge and declare the marihuana prohibition
in s. 4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to be
invalid. I would suspend the declaration of invalidity for
a period of twelve months from the release of these reasons. R.
vs Parker, July 31, 2000, Court of Appeal of Ontario, Justices
Catzman, Charron & Rosenberg
Cannasat Therapeutics is researching the
therapeutic benefits of cannabis and developing new cannabinoid
pharmaceutical products. Cannasat is pursuing two
complementary business strategies. The first consists of
development of novel cannabinoid-based pharmaceutical products
through application of drug delivery technologies to be
introduced to the market through the traditional regulatory drug
approval process. The second is to promote medicinal
cannabis research and education with Cannasat's business
partner, Prairie Plant Systems Inc., the only government licensed
grower and distributor of medicinal cannabis in Canada. www.cannasat.com
The Toronto Compassion Centre exists because
people are suffering unnecessarily. The TCC and Centres like it
are necessary to fill the gap between our society's
widespread acceptance of the benefits of cannabis as medicine and
our government's reluctance to provide that which thousands
of Canadians need: a reasonable source. Compassion Centres strive
to provide an essential but not-yet-legal service in a manner
that is as tolerable as possible. Health Canada's MMAR
(Marihuana Medical Access Regulations) provide a limited (and
unfairly difficult to acquire) exemption from the law for people
who need to possess and grow cannabis for medicinal purposes.
These Regulations protect exemptees from prosecution for
possessing cannabis, but do not allow for any reasonable type of
access except growing your own, which is not a viable option for
most. The option of purchasing medical marijuana from the
'government mine' is also not generally a very viable one
due to the conspicuously disappointing quality, safety and
variety of cannabis available in this manner. There are many
concerns with the Health Canada marijuana, not the least of which
being the process off gamma irradiation that it is oddly
subjected to.
www.torontocompassioncenter.org
He (Micheal Patriquen) went on to spend years
researching this phenomenon and contemplating how he may present
this wonder of nature to our modern society who are now so
dependent on synthetics and pharmaceuticals. With a change to the
Canadian legal environment respecting cannabis in 1998, he saw
the opportunity and began development of the first low-THC
product, Cannabis Sativa Seed Pressings. Michael brought that
initial product through development, pre-market, market
acceptance and now- client gratitude. The company, MMP Health
Inc., now proudly presents a legal line of Marijuana based
products. www.med-marijuana.com
REFERENCES
Little & Nash, SELL MARIJUANA LEGALLY: A
COMPLETE GUIDE TO STARTING YOUR MARIJUANA BUSINESS, BCC
Communications, 2004
R. vs Brian Carlisle, Jan 17, 2003, Madam Justice Loo, B.C.
Supreme Court
R. vs Noreen Eves, March 23, 2006, B.C. Provincial Court, Judge
Doherty
Hitzig et al., Oct 7, 2003, Court of Appeal of Ontario, Justices
Doherty, Goudge and Simmons JJ.A.
R. vs Grant Krieger, Sept 25, 2006, Provincial Court of Alberta,
Judge Pepler
R. vs Grant Krieger, Dec 11, 2000, Court of Queen’s Bench
of Alberta, Madam Justice Acton
R. vs Philippe Lucas, July 5, 2002, B.C. Provincial Court, Judge
Higgenbotham
R. vs Terry Parker, July 31, 2000, Court of Appeal of Ontario,
Justices Catzman, Charron & Rosenberg
R. vs William Small, June 27, 2000, Supreme Court of B.C.,
Justice Wong
R. vs Smith & Budda, Sept 7, 2004, B.C. Provincial Court,
Madam Justice Chaperon
R. vs Smith, Jan 7, 2005, B.C. Provincial Court, Madam Justice
Harvey
R. vs St. Maurice & Neron, Dec 19, 2002, Court of Quebec,
Justice Cadieux
R. vs James Wakeford, May 6, 1999, Superior Court of Ontario,
Judge LaForme
Young vs Saanich Police & Capital Region Housing Corporation,
B.C. Supreme Court, Justice Macauley
Return to Court
Decisions Index
|
|
