I have begun to believe my mind is full of tiny little topics that act like pimples.

No one can predict the order they start to fester in, or when they’ll get ripe and burst.

Showing posts with label Conservative. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conservative. Show all posts

Tuesday, 6 May 2014

The Dangers of Marijuana Challenged



Rebutting Rona’s Rotten Ramblings

Another Voice Speaks Out



I am please to present the first of what I hope will be many guest contributions to this Blog. On April 30, 2014 Rona Ambrose, Minister of Health announced a new government program to create more opposition to Cannabis use. As justification she presented a fabrication of its dangers to our youth. Fortunately for us Wayne Phillips took the time to write the following revelation of the distortions in her announcement which can be seen at the link referenced below.






Re: Health Canada Highlights Dangers of Marijuana Use for Youth,

OTTAWA, April 30, 2014/CNW



The Wicked Bitch of the East


The Dangers of Marijuana Challenged

Wayne P. Phillips, May 4, 2014

Health Minister Rona Ambrose hosted a roundtable with representatives of the healthcare community and research experts today to discuss the scientific evidence of the risks associated with the use of marijuana by youth, especially over the long term. This meeting, of course, builds on a presentation where Minister Ambrose announced funding for A Health Promotion and Drug Prevention Strategy for Canada's Youth - a national project led by the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse (CCSA). How else would Health Minister Ambrose find support for her Ministry's convoluted fabrications posing as “scientific” evidence unless there were funding involved. Minister Ambrose's roundtable speaks to the (lack of) credulity of the current government; moreover, it flies in the face of history.

The 1923 House of Commons Debates, 14th of March, 1923, pages 1136 – 2124 under the title, "Narcotic Drugs Act Amendment Bill the "Hon. H.S. Béland1 (Minister of Health) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 72 to amend the Narcotic Drugs Act. He said, "The purpose of this bill is principally to consolidate previous legislation for the suppression of the traffic in narcotic drugs. . . ." Not only did the inclusion entail an act of tergiversation - that is, falsification by means of vague or ambiguous language – on the part of the Minister of
Health, Dr. H.S. Béland, the inclusion allowed for the transition of an
unspecified commodity. “There is a new drug in the schedule.” was all that was said. Moreover, the purpose of the bill, the consolidation, in effect was tantamount (in effect) to the manufacturing of a social problem. There was no traffic of cannabis in 1923. Panic and Indifference by Giffen, Lambert and Endicott also describe how “cannabis indica or hasheesh” was added by some unknown hand later.

Recently CBC News published an article by Daniel Schwartz entitled “Marijuana was criminalized in 1923, but why?” What the article failed to mention however that what was being consolidated, cannabis indica (Indian hemp), was a Proprietary or Patented Medicines Act commodity at the time of the transition in 1923. So consequently by not specifying what was being transitioned in 1923, the whole medicinal aspects of cannabis was, in effect, denied by the very
department that is still denying it today. The agenda is a Health Canada legacy.

Minister of Health, Rona Ambrose, states, “As Health Minister, I am standing side by side with medical professionals and researchers with a clear message -- There are serious health risks for youth associated with marijuana. It is not safe. It should not be promoted or endorsed. Together, with our partners we will work to make sure youth and parents have the right information about the risks associated with smoking and using marijuana.”

Fair enough. It should not be promoted or endorsed. How then is the inclusion of cannabis in the CDSA not, in and of itself, an endorsement? And, if Minister of Health, Ambrose, is so concerned with “health risks for youth associated with marijuana”, why then would the Minister want to see cannabis/marijuana legislated in a manner that insures the perpetuation of its availability to the very youth she claims to be concerned about? How can the Minister deem to have the right information about any supposed risks associated
with marijuana when the Minister's agenda of perpetuating a social problem is the only primary concern for either the Minister or Health Canada.

The actions, words and motives of Health Minister Ambrose are as questionable today in 2014 as Health Minister H.S. Béland's were in 1923. He sought to consolidate what she (in this instance) seeks to perpetuate. In order to do that Minister Ambrose must continue to rail in the face of both history and court rulings that in both instances recognize cannabis as medicine. As such, funding health promotion and drug prevention become red herrings to distract both media and the general public from the fact that the inclusion of cannabis
in the CDSA is precisely that which perpetuates the problem thereby increasing the probability of youth becoming vulnerable. It doesn't matter how much funding is provided because the underlying agenda is perpetuating usage not safeguarding youth.

Health Canada's new Medical Marijuana Program Regulations (MMPR) and Health Minister Ambrose's position has prompted further concerns for Canadians as the Conservative government sought to unceremoniously transition those holding Authorizations To Possess (cannabis) from the Medical Marijuana Access Regulations (MMAR) to the new program. Given the fact that the Medical Marijuana Access Regulations (MMAR) is a court ordered program that continues to be challenged as unconstitutional, for the Government to think that a new program can be just enacted as if it were business as usual more than demonstrates the degree of dysfunction this type of irrationality, for which Health Minister H.S. Béland should ultimately be held to accounts for (posthumously), is capable of.

Increasingly though those holding Authorizations To Possess (cannabis) under the Medical Marijuana Access Regulations (MMAR) are taking up the call to stand side by side with the 200+ Canadians that have already filed Statements of Claim for a two dollar Registry fee using the John Turmel Kits at


 after B.C. Lawyer John Conroy's Allard Ruling left many, who either did not fall under the time-frames specified or beyond the 150 gram limit, out. Many that did fall under the time-frames specified could also, for numerous other reasons not mentioned, count themselves among the Left-Outs as well. The Turmel Kits are provided in numerous formats and YouTube videos outline the process. The time is long overdue for Health Canada and the Minister to acknowledge the wrongheadedness of Health Canada's gambit and seriously consider the idea of reparations. Canadians know about both cannabis and its world renowned medical properties. Moreover, the idea of maintaining the pretext of health promotion and drug prevention in the face of the inclusion of cannabis in the CDSA stands as both the crime of the century and the joke of the century.

Saturday, 3 May 2014

CANADIAN JUSTICE IS JUNK- PART III






TRAINING THE TROOPS
or
How The Constabulary Creates A Blue Brother

This is very long: almost three thousand words but that is because this is a very complex subject with many inputs that have to be considered. The creation of a cop takes about 5 years and during that time he is exposed to a carefully planned training program that is designed to wipe out his personality as a member of normal society and fill his mind in “Cop Think”. Read it carefully and stop along the way and wonder how you would cope with the regimen. Also think about what can be done to restore the system because the product it is producing stinks.

The first thing a Canadian citizen should understand is that the Blue Brotherhood is not the creation of our Canadian Cops but is international and applies to Constabularies everywhere. Our Canadian version has become an aberration and exceeds the norm as will be explained later. At this point we have come to the point where there is a knock on your door and there is a Cop, a member of the Blue Brotherhood, who wants to ask some questions. To continue:

You stand in your doorway and you look at this Brother in Blue wanting to talk: 

Ask yourself:
1.    Who is this guy?
2.    Where’s he coming from?
3.    What kind of a person am I dealing with?

The answer to those questions was fairly well volunteered by an older Police Officer speaking as a member of the Brotherhood when asked about the effects of a career in law enforcement on officers in general:
“One of the only things that is universal about almost all cops, is the fact that we age too quickly, see too much pain and suffering, lose our trust for almost anyone because EVERYONE lies to the police, and we lose our social grounding. It is very hard to believe that the world is basically good when you spend year after year seeing only the worst parts of it.

That is where it gets really hard, because sometimes we think out friends and families are trying to 'get over' on us, just like the shitbags we deal with at work. That hurts even the strongest relationships. Our ability to see beauty and innocence gets pretty heavily trampled on, and that really hurts when you are raising kids. Thankfully, most police officers learn to live compartmentalized lives: Those who don't die from alcoholism, heart disease, or suicide at an early age.”

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

This personal assessment of the damage to self by a career in law enforcement is supported and borne out by the work of Professor Jerome Skolnick, the currently accepted authority who describes the police working personality: what many people, and police themselves, often describe as the police personality. The working personality is characterized as:
1.    distrustful of outsiders
2.    cynical
3.    conservative (not necessarily politically, but resistant to change)
4.    suspicious
5.    pessimistic
6.    pragmatic
7.    prejudicial
8.    and holding other widely-shared attitudes about and beyond the mainstream view.

What the hell happened here? What: in the course of about ten years on the job, turned the top 2% of the ideal recruit crop into a collection of miserable curmudgeons? What happens in the course of this career to render such psychological damage?

What follows is a vivid portrayal of career in law enforcement that I freely plagiarized from the work of Sgt. Betsy Brantner Smith of the Chicago Police Department. She is a nationally recognized authority on training and the working personality and I have simply transformed one of her papers into a wake-up call lecture that should be given to every new class of recruits before their training begins

The Road to Remorse and Regret

Good morning Recruits: 

My name is Sgt.  XXX and today I am here to give you an orientation into what the course of your life will be if you do join the Force with the intention of a life time career. The first thing I want you to understand is that your entire life will change in the course of your training and so will your personality and outlook on life. Much of that change will be due to defensive reactions to unpleasant pressures to conform to the system and avoid discipline for failure to do so. Following I am going to chronologically outline what you can expect to encounter in the course of your career and some good advice on how to react and assess each development as it occurs.

Most of us start the academy with a servant’s heart. Remember the old LAPD motto “To Serve and Protect?” That’s all of us, that is supposed to be what cops are all about, but pretty quickly into your law enforcement career, it becomes less about “them” and more about “us.” We separate ourselves from the rest of society, even from our family and friends. But it doesn’t have to be that way, if you learn why this common police pitfall occurs and how to avoid it.

Remember, less than two out of every one hundred police applicants ever become cops, so as soon as you get hired, you start to feel like you’re a member of an elite group. And you are! There are few professions where we are expected to potentially lay down our lives as part of the employment agreement. However, that elitist feeling you have in the academy can be just the beginning of your “us v. them” mentality.

Your first couple of years are consumed with learning the job. You spend a considerable amount of time around veteran officers, trainers, and supervisors trying to learn the profession and earn the trust of your peers. As Dr. Kevin Gilmartin, PhD. talks about in his book Emotional Survival for Law Enforcement, a new officer begins to rely on the friendship and support of other officers, usually to the detriment of their “non-cop” relationships. Because there is so much to do and learn, and so little time to devote to your personal life, new officers find themselves socializing only with their co-workers. Old friendships may begin to fade way, not intentionally, but after all, are any of your “old” friends willing to meet you for a beer at seven o’clock on a Tuesday morning when you get off work? Not likely.

There are no grey areas. The law enforcement officer works in a fact-based world with everything compared to written law. Right and wrong is determined by a standard. They have a set way of going about gathering the proper evidence for the law and can justify their actions because they represent the "good and right side." In the real world, clear rights and wrongs are not as likely to occur. The newspapers are an opinion-based system, the court system is an opinion-based system and, needless to say, relationship decisions and proper parenting techniques are opinion-based systems. 

Adjusting from right and wrong, a black-and-white system, to opinion-based systems is very difficult and requires a complete change in mental attitude.
“The average cop will see more human tragedy in the first three years than most people will see in a lifetime” according to Dr. Ellen Kirschman, author of I Love a Cop. As we become a competent veteran officer, we develop a macabre sense of humour and are forced to control our emotions at all times. We view the world as a violent place full of idiots, con artists, and liars. We become sceptical, paranoid, and hyper vigilant, and we look down on those who do not share our cynical and alarmist view of the society. Not only do we cease most of our “pre-cop” friendships, but our family relationships may begin to deteriorate as well. We become distant and dark-spirited, even when we’re at home. We complain that “my family doesn’t understand,” and we may become overly strict with our kids, not wanting them to be exposed to the outside world that we know is violent, dangerous and unpredictable. Eventually, your family may grow weary of your “us v. them” attitude and decide they’d rather be with “them” rather than being a part of “us.”

You need to be in constant emotional control. Law enforcement officers have a job that requires extreme restraint under highly emotional circumstances. They are told when they are extremely excited, they have to act calm. They are told when they are nervous; they have to be in charge. They are taught to be stoic when emotional. They are to interact with the world in a role. The emotional constraint of the role takes tremendous mental energy, much more energy than expressing true emotions. When the energy drain is very strong, it may make the officer more prone to exhaustion outside of work, such as not wanting to participate in social or family life. This energy drain can also create a sense of job and social burnout. 

It’s no secret that cops have a 75% divorce rate, a high rate of alcoholism, and we die twice as often by our own hand as we do by felonious assaults. After all, if you go from a fun-loving, idealistic, service-oriented rookie to a dark-hearted, cynical veteran, you’re not going to be much fun to be around, and eventually you won’t like yourself anymore than anyone else does. So don’t let it happen!

Your FTO may know everything there is to know about impaired drivers, but why has he been married and divorced) three times? Your favourite sergeant is a wonderfully supportive mentor to you, but why does she end every shift sitting at the bar of the local gin joint? Sometimes the most qualified cops on your agency are also the least successful when it comes to their personal lives. As delicately as you can, try to find out why. Ask them if they could do anything different, what would it be? And then listen to what they have to say.

This can be tough to do. Your “normal” friends are either going to be “weirded out” by your new profession or they may become distant, intimidated, even hostile about you becoming a cop. However, don’t give up on all of them. Your true friends are going to accept you, for who you are, just make sure to touch base with them and occasionally get together; and when you do socialize with them, don’t spend all your time together telling cop “war stories.” Ask about their job, their life, their problems, concerns, and successes, and then really listen. Don’t make it all about you, even if they try to. In other words, don’t get mired in your own self-importance.

Be proactive about your emotional well being. Make sure that physical activity is part of your regular routine. There are two kinds of stress, “distress” and “eustress”. Develop positive addictions, like running, basketball, hunting, and photography, anything that makes you feel good and is good for you. Also make sure you spend time around good, positive people. Go to church, do volunteer work, coach a kids soccer team, do charity work. Get involved in activities that remind you that not everyone is a drug dealing, child molesting criminal, and that in general, life is pretty good. Remember, you took this job to help the community, not isolate yourself from them. One of the great things about policing in a free society is the tradition of being “of the people,” not “over the people.”

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

We’re Back Where We Started

Unfortunately Canadians are not living in a free society and the Constabulary successfully biased the Access to Information Act of 1985 with a series of exemptions regarding Investigations. The majority of officers have adopted a tradition of being “over the people” and responsible to no one for anything they do, on or off the Job

So here we are with you, in your doorway, facing a cop who wants entry and to talk to you about something. 

You stood in your doorway and you looked at this Brother in Blue and asked yourself:
·        Who is this guy?
·        Where’s he coming from?
·        What kind of a person am I dealing with?

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

At this point you have answered the first two of your questions:

Who is this guy?

He’s a kid who has been ripped out of normal society and forced into another by the Constabulary. He will robotically obey orders, not question his superiors’ judgement, and he will most certainly report his obedience to those orders in meticulous detail. He will never depart from those details regardless of consequence.

Where does he come from?

He comes from on the job training in how to relate to the public: all civilians are suspect criminals in his mind. He’s been trained to lie and is a skilled interrogator in command of any interview with a civilian suspect. He can present himself as a member of any class or occupation to elicit an admission of some fault and is skilled in the use of leading questions to confuse his victim. Any request for information by a cop is prompted by a desire to establish guilt. He doesn’t care whose and he is fishing for information that can move the subject of his questioning into the suspect category if he even admits a connection to another individual suspected or caught in a criminal activity.

Knowing just this about the officer should be enough to deter any cooperation from a witness but the biggest deterrence of all is his belief that he can violate the law and your rights in his attempts to establish your guilt and he is immune from prosecution by doing so.

 That belief combined with the support of his brotherhood is validated by the exemptions of criminal investigation from the normal channels per the Access to Information Act, The Brotherhood has the power to control the whole Justice system, and that will be the subject of my next post 

CANADIAN JUSTICE IS JUNK- PART IV – THE BROTHERHOOD

Until then
Blaine Barrett


Friday, 28 March 2014

Quality of Service Assessment of Health Canada's Medical Cannabis Policy and Program





This is not my writing

I wish it was

It is a reprint

of

A Jan 2012 PubMed Commons Article

 

I am reprinting it here because I want all of my friends and followers to find out just who we are as Customers relating to Health Canada and how as a group in 2007-8 we were utilizing and obtaining our cannabis supply.

It’s just a snapshot in time but it’s sad to see things are even more complicated after 7 more years of Government interference and Physician obstruction but remarkably SameOh! SameOh!

I should warn all you potential readers that it is a long read of many pages but reading it is well worth the effort. Fortunately it is broken into shorter segments that stand individually and I learned a lot I was ignorant of in the utilization of the HERB.

Abstract

The Quality of Service Assessment of Health Canada's

Medical Cannabis Policy and Program

BACKGROUND:

In 2001 Health Canada responded to a series of Ontario court decisions by creating the Marihuana Medical Access Division (MMAD) and the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR). Although Health Canada has conducted a small number of stakeholder consultations, the federal government has never polled federally authorized cannabis patients. This study is an attempt to learn more about patient needs, challenges and experiences with the MMAD.

Methods

Launched in the spring of 2007, Quality of Service Assessment of Health Canada's Medical Cannabis Policy and Program pairs a 50 question online survey addressing the personal experiences of patients in the federal cannabis program with 25 semi-guided interviews. Data gathering for this study took place from April 2007 to Jan. 2008, eventually garnering survey responses from 100 federally-authorized users, which at the time represented about 5% of the patients enrolled in Health Canada's program. This paper presents the results of the survey portion of the study.

Results

8% of respondents report getting their cannabis from Health Canada, while 66% grow it for themselves. >50% report that they frequent compassion clubs or dispensaries, which remain illegal and unregulated in Canada. 81% of patients would chose certified organic methods of cultivation; >90% state that not all strains are equally effective at relieving symptoms, and 97% would prefer to obtain cannabis from a source where multiple strains are available.
Of the 48 patients polled that had tried the Health Canada cannabis supply, >75% rank it as either "1" or "2" on a scale of 1-10 (with "1" being "very poor", and 10 being "excellent").

Discussion

72% of respondents report they are either "somewhat" or "totally unsatisfied" with Canada's medical cannabis program. These survey results and relevant court decisions suggest that the MMAR are not meeting the needs of most of the nation's medical cannabis patient community. It is hoped this research will help inform policy changes that will better address the needs of Canada's critically and chronically ill medical cannabis patient population, including the integration of community-based dispensaries into this novel healthcare delivery model.

Background

According to the United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention (2001) cannabis is the most popular illicit substance in the world. Despite the high rate of recreational use and over 5000 years of medical use, there has never been a substantiated case of death resulting from cannabis overdose. However, the therapeutic use of cannabis remains highly controversial, and only a few Western nations have introduced policies or programs to allow legal access to medical cannabis.

The Canadian government currently allows for limited access to medical cannabis through the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR), which are administered by Health Canada's Marihuana Medical Access Division (MMAD). These court-ordered regulations are the source of much criticism by end-users and advocates, and have been found by courts to be unconstitutional in a number of decisions for unnecessarily limiting access to legal protection and a safe supply of cannabis 

Initially established in response to patient needs and ineffective or non-existent federal medical cannabis policies, community-based medical cannabis dispensaries have become the main suppliers of medical cannabis in both Canada and in many of the 14 U.S. states that have legalized the medical use of cannabis. In Canada, community-based dispensaries, otherwise known as "compassion clubs" currently supply over 30,000 critically or chronically ill Canadians with medical cannabis.

Although Canadian dispensaries continue to operate without legal sanction or protection, recent research suggests that this patient-centered healthcare delivery model builds social capital and provide patients with a safe supply of cannabis within a supportive environment that's conducive to healing.

A Brief History of Cannabis as a Medicine

The medical use of cannabis can be traced back at least 5000 years. The oldest reports originate in China and Egypt. It appears in a medical context in the Vedas, India's oldest religious text, and there are reports of its use as a medicine from fragments of Assyrian texts dating back to 700 B.C. The famous Chinese doctor Hua T'uo (approx. 100 A.D.) reportedly made use of a wine and cannabis mixture as an anaesthetic for surgical operations.

There are numerous reports of the medicinal properties of cannabis from early in the nineteenth century, the most famous of which is an 1839 report titled "on the Preparations of the Indian Hemp, or Gunjah" by the Irish doctor William B. O'Shaughnessy in which he describes diverse applications for cannabis, including rheumatism, rabies, cholera, tetanus, cramps and delirium tremens.A few years later Ernst Freiherr von Bibra published the renown "Narcotics and the Human Being", devoting thirty pages to the therapeutic use of cannabis preparations and hashish.

By the late 19th Century, cannabis-based preparations were manufactured and marketed by Burroughs-Wellcome & Co. In England; and Bristol-Meyers Squib, Parke-Davis, and Eli Lilly in North America. The development of vaccines to prevent the spread of common infectious diseases, the increased use of opiates (with the introduction of the hypodermic syringe), and the discovery of aspirin at the end of the nineteenth and early twentieth century resulted in cannabis-based medicines losing their prevalence in the market place and Western pharmacopoeia.

In Canada, the non-medical use of cannabis was outlawed as part of the Opium and Narcotics Drugs Act of 1923, largely based on a series of misleading articles written by Emily Murphy for MacLean's Magazine in the early 1920's which claimed cannabis turned people into raving, blood-thirsty lunatics. The US Pharmacopoeia listed Cannabis until 1941 and stated that cannabis can be used for treating fatigue, coughing, rheumatism, asthma, delirium tremens, migraine headaches, and the cramps and depressions associated with menstruation.

Although modern research into therapeutic applications for cannabis has been seriously stymied by its prohibition in most of the Western world, extensive anecdotal reports and a growing body of laboratory and clinical research suggest that it may have many medicinal uses, including hunger stimulation for wasting syndrome; anti-emetic and anti-nausea properties in AIDS or cancer chemotherapy; anti-spasmodic properties for MS, epilepsy and other neurological dysfunctions; reducing intra-ocular eye pressure in glaucoma; and analgesic properties in a large number of chronic pain conditions. Recent research has found that cannabis can reduce the use of pharmaceutical drugs and even be an effective treatment for addiction.

Medical Cannabis Access in Canada

Although the Canadian Addiction Survey suggests that about 1 million Canadians use cannabis for medical purposes, as of January 2010 the MMAD had only authorized 4884 people in Canada to use cannabis legally. Additionally, the federal supply of cannabis produced by a company called Prairie Plant Systems since 2000 remains highly problematic due to a lack of strain selection, controversial production methods, and patient concerns over the quality and safety.

Problems of safe access were noted by the Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs in their final report on cannabis from 2002, stating that: while a process that authorizes the possession and production of marijuana has been established in Canada, this has not ensured that cannabis is suitably available to those in need... we have come to the conclusion that the MMAR have become a barrier to access. Rather than providing a compassionate framework, the regulations unduly restrict the availability of cannabis to those who may receive health benefits from its use.

According to this report, one of the main reasons for the small number of applicants to the program is reluctance by physicians to act as gatekeepers to medicinal cannabis. Citing a perceived lack of information on dosage, side effects, and alternate routes of administration to smoking, both the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Medical Protection Agency (which insures nearly 95% of Canada's physicians) have warned against the therapeutic use of cannabis, and have recommended that doctors not participate in the federal program. 
For example, a CMA press release dated July 9th, 2003, declares:
The CMA has consistently raised concerns about the lack of evidence-based decisions to support the Medical Marijuana Access Regulations," said Dr. Dana Hanson, President of the CMA. "Our unease over use of medical marijuana has been ignored in this new policy. Physicians should not be the gatekeeper for a substance for which we do not have adequate scientific proof of safety or efficacy.

Such warnings have been a particular deterrent for medical specialists, whose support was initially necessary for all applicants to the program that were neither terminally ill nor likely to die in the next 12 months, such as those suffering from MS, HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C (terminal patients only required the support of a single physician). In addition, specialists were simply not available in many smaller rural communities. When compounded by the bureaucratic hurdle of filling out a 29-page application that sometimes took in excess of 12 months for Health Canada to process, the challenges to participation in this program ranged from onerous to impossible for many potential applicants.

Health Canada officially amended the MMAD application process in 2005 to remove the requirement of a supportive specialist under most circumstances. However, the new "simplified" application form was now 33 pages long, and potential applicants continue to face resistance from the medical community. The burden of this difficult application process is apparent in comparing the MMAD with the state-run Oregon Medical Marijuana Program (OMMP), one of twelve state-administered medical cannabis programs in the U.S. Although both programs originated in 1999 and have similar medical requirements for registration, Oregon's simple two page application process has led to the registration of 23,873 participants as of October 2009 (as compared to just over 4000 in Canada during the same period) - despite having a population one-tenth that of Canada.

Community-Based Dispensaries

Community-based medical cannabis dispensaries, also called "compassion clubs", supply cannabis for therapeutic use upon a valid recommendation or confirmation of diagnosis from a licensed healthcare practitioner, and reflect a patient-centered response to the suffering of critically and chronically ill Canadians who might benefit from the medical use of cannabis.

During the late 1980's, as rates of HIV and AIDS began to rise in San Francisco, a few underground dispensaries began offering a safe source of cannabis to those needing it for medical purposes were established by compassionate people living with HIV/AIDS and drug policy reform activists. With the successful passage in 1996 of a state ballot initiative called "Proposition 215", California became the first U.S. state to allow for the legal medical use and distribution of cannabis. Within a few weeks dozens of these "compassion clubs" opened, and although they often had varied policies and practices, their common goal was facilitating access to a safe supply of cannabis for medical users.Since then, over 1000 community-based medical cannabis dispensaries have opened up in California and it is estimated that they currently supply over 250,000 state authorized patients. Similar organizations have emerged all over the world, and in Canada and the U.S. these dispensaries remain the main source of cannabis-based medicines for therapeutic use.

In Canada, a loose network of community-based dispensaries provide over 30,000 critically and chronically ill Canadians access to a safe supply of cannabis within an environment conducive to healing. Although Canadian dispensaries continue to operate without legal sanction or protection, communities, law enforcement, and criminal courts across Canada have shown support and tolerance for compassion clubs that self-regulate to ensure their services are strictly for medical purposes

Quality of Service Assessment of Health Canada's Medical Cannabis Policy and Program

Although Health Canada hosted a stakeholder consultation in 2003 to address some of the early constitutional and bureaucratic deficiencies of the MMAR, the opinion of patients registered with the MMAD has never been officially polled by the federal government in any systematic manner. This survey is an attempt to address the dearth of information about actual patient experiences with medical cannabis and Health Canada's program.

The study was funded by the McMaster Arts Research Council, and ethics approval was granted by the McMaster Research Ethics Board. Data gathering took place from April 2007 to Jan. 2008, eventually garnering survey responses from 100 federally-authorized users, which at the time represented about 5% of the patients enrolled in Health Canada's program. 

The 50 item self-administered survey combines multiple choice and open-ended questions, and includes items informed by validated questionnaires like the Short-Form Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire (PSQ-18) and a 2005 questionnaire designed by Belle-Isle and the Canadian AIDS Society to identify barriers to medical cannabis experienced by Canadians affected by HIV/AIDS. In addition to basic socio-demographic data, survey questions generated by the researcher to address the history of involvement and experiences with the federal program, cannabis use patterns, and specific symptoms and conditions that cannabis has relieved.

For privacy reasons Health Canada does not make a list of federally authorized medical cannabis patients available to the public, so recruiting for this study was conducted through online and hard mail outreach to medical cannabis patient internet discussion groups and community-based dispensaries. In order to ensure that survey participants were federally authorized patients, respondents were asked to type in a specific word only found on the authorized user ID card supplied by Health Canada as a password to access the online questionnaire. Although the identity of survey respondents will be kept completely anonymous, participants were also asked to supply the registration number from their Health Canada medical cannabis ID card to allow for future verification/authentication if necessary.

Demographic Data

Study participants were > 78% male and 20.4% female, and > 87% were 35 or older. Over 93% report that they are Caucasian, with 3 participants identifying as First Nations, 2 as Metis, and 1 as "black" (n = 97). In terms of income 36.8% make less than $20,000, and > 61% make less than $30,000, so this is a group that is well below the medium income in Canada, which may be the result of physical disabilities stemming from serious and/or chronic medical conditions.
 Although a medical expanse income tax claim can be filed for the cost of cannabis purchased from the government, or produced by individuals or their designated grower, there is currently no reimbursement of the actual costs of medical cannabis. In light of these findings, it is unsurprising that 46.3% of respondents state that they can "never" afford enough cannabis to relieve their symptoms. Despite the low-income levels, 77.8 had graduated from high school, and 22.3% had a university degree. According to Statistics Canada, this is slightly higher than the Canadian average; the 2006 Census found that just over 76% of Canadians had graduated from high school, and that 18% had a university degree equivalent to a Bachelor's or higher.
Demographics of Federally Authorized, Medical Cannabis Patients
Although there is no way to verify that this limited sample is representative of participants in the MMAD, a recent study by Reinarman et al assessing population characteristics of 1746 California-based medical cannabis patients offers some useful comparisons. Reinarman et al found that 72.9% of their sample was male, with the researchers theorizing that the under representation of women may be related to the gender-distribution of certain kinds of sports or workplace injuries, as well as the "...double stigma women face in seeking MM (medical marijuana) - for using an illicit drug and for violating gender-specific norms against illegal behavior in general".
Additionally, Reinarman et al found this population to be of slightly higher education levels than the general population, with 93.1% reporting at least high school graduation, and 23.8% having a post-secondary degree, which is also similar to this Canadian survey.

Patient Use Patterns and Preferences

While the overwhelming majority of participants reported using cannabis recreationally prior to their medical use, > 20% were cannabis-naïve prior to using it medically (n = 89). The average years of medical use is just over 10 years, which may be reflective of the older patient profile and additionally suggests that many patients have been using cannabis for far longer than Health Canada's federal program has been in existence. 

When asked to check off all the major symptoms for which they used medical cannabis, most cited multiple symptoms: 84.1% cited pain relief, 78.4% cited relaxation, 61.4% cited appetite stimulation, 60.2% cited anxiety reduction, 58% cited depression, 56.8% cited nausea reduction/vomiting, 55.7% cited mood improvement, 43.2% cited desire to manage/gain weight, 42% cited reduction in 
spasticity/tremors, and 23.9% cited side-effects of other medications. Of interest is the high number of individuals using cannabis for relaxation, anxiety reduction, depression and mood improvement, suggesting that patients with physical health conditions may also be self-medicating for mental health issues and/or general improvements in their quality of life.



Major Symptoms. Bar graph of self-reported major symptoms treated with cannabis by survey participants (n = 88).
In terms of personal use patterns, over 94% stated that they use it every day, which is considerably higher than the 67% reported by Reinarman et al from their California patient survey. Over 88% smoke cannabis, and 71.6% report that they eat it. Over 52% have used vaporizers, 18.2% use tinctures and, unlike Europe, less than 4% mix it with tobacco. While the rate of smoking is similar to the Reinarman et al sample, which found that 86.1% smoke cannabis, the comparatively higher use oral ingestion/edibles (71.6% v. 24.4%) and vaporizers (52% v. 21.8%) in the Canadian sample may suggest a greater level of concern and mitigation for potential health impacts associated with smoking within the Canadian patient population. This health awareness may also explain why 80.7% of respondents prefer to use cannabis grown using certified organic cultivation methods, whereas 19.3% either don't care (14.5%) or prefer non-organic cultivation (4.8%).


Methods of Ingestion. Bar graph of self-reported methods of cannabis ingestion reported by survey participants (n = 88).
In terms of patient preferences and treatment efficacy, 90.9% report that not all strains are equally effective at relieving their symptoms. As a result, 97.6% would prefer to obtain cannabis from a source that offers a "large selection of different strains" rather than 1 or 2 strains, and over 90% would prefer to have access to raw cannabis as well as other methods of ingestion like baked goods, tinctures, and hashish, compared with 9.8% who would prefer a cannabis-only outlet. 

This creates a stark contrast between access through Health Canada and through community-based dispensaries. While Health Canada offers a single strain of raw cannabis and no alternatives to smoking, dispensaries make multiple strains and methods of ingestion other than smoking available to patients, including edibles, oils, tinctures, salves, and even oromucosal sprays. 

When asked about other cannabinoid-based pharmaceutical medicines like Marinol (dronabinol), Cesamet (nabilone) and Sativex, 34.9% had tried Cesamet, 33.7% had tried Marinol, and 14% had tried Sativex. 43% had not tried any of the above, and 81.5% stated that didn't use any of these pharmaceuticals on a regular basis.

Patient Access to Medical Cannabis

When asked how they obtain cannabis, only 8.2% of respondents report getting their cannabis from Health Canada (although nearly half state that they have tried the federal supply), while 80% grow it for themselves or have it grown for them by a Designated Producer. Over 50% report that they frequent compassion clubs or dispensaries, 38.8% report getting it from a friend, and > 22% get their medicine from street dealers.




Access to Cannabis. Bar graph showing how survey participants access medical cannabis (n = 85).
When asked how they would rank the quality of the cannabis from their regular source, 87.8% rank it as 7 or above in a scale of 1-10, with 1 being "Very Poor", and 10 being "Excellent". By comparison, of the 41 patients who have tried the federal cannabis supply, over 75% rank it as either 1 or 2 on a scale of 1-10. While 3 respondents ranked it as either a 6, 7, or 8, no one ranked it any higher.

Since Health Canada's cannabis supply went through some modest improvements in regards to the size of the grind, humidity level, and amount of THC in August 2004, respondents were asked when they tried this cannabis. Of the 39 who answered this question, 37 (or > 94%) used the federal supply between 2005-2007, and 2 used it before that. As such, it can be deducted that the general dissatisfaction with the quality of the federal cannabis supply is based on patient experiences with the most recent "improved" version of this product.

When asked what their single preferred source for medical cannabis would be, 65.1% stated that they would like to grown their own, 24.1% cited dispensaries, 6% would like to get their medicine from a pharmacy, 4.8% would like to get it from a friend, while neither street dealers nor Health Canada were cited by a single patient as their preferred source. This is highly relevant since Health Canada's proposed regulatory changes include removing the right for individuals to produce their own cannabis, despite this being the preferred option cited by most study participants and the option chosen by the majority of patients in the federal program. 

As of January 2010 (the latest statistics available on the Health Canada website) 3576 out of 4884 - or over 73% - of federally authorized patients chose to produce their own medicine or to have a Designated Producer do so for them. If Health Canada intends to make this program more patient-centered, removing the right for patients to produce their own supply does not appear to reflect current patient needs, and as such this proposed significant amendment to the program should be highly controversial, and will likely lead to further court challenges by patients wishing to control the cost and quality of their supply of medicine.

Patient Experiences With Health Canada Marihuana Medical Access Division

Of study participants, nearly half (49.3%) became federally authorized patients in 2004 or later, while 50.7% joined the program prior to 2004. When asked if they had difficulty finding a physician to support their application, exactly 50% said "yes", and 50% answered "no", reflecting the diversity and unpredictability of medical support available throughout Canada

In terms of processing applications, 35.3% had theirs completed by Health Canada within 2-4 months, and 29.4% state that it took 60 days or less. However, 35.2% of participants suggest that it took over 4 months, with 17.6% citing that they waited over 12 months for their application to be processed. This suggests that for those suffering from serious or terminal conditions, processing times would be a significant concern and may not be quick enough to allow some
patients to legally use cannabis in end-of-life situations.

The following set of 6 questions put three statements with positive connotations and 3 statements with negative connotations to survey respondents, and are based on standardized and validated Short-Form Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire (PSQ-18) traditionally used to evaluate health service delivery at hospitals, clinical and insurance companies. 

In addressing the statement "I find the application for a federal authorization simple and uncomplicated", only 21.8% "agreed" or "strongly agreed", while 71.2% "disagreed" or "strongly disagreed" (42.5%), suggesting that for most patients the federal application process is onerous and challenging. 

When asked to comment on the statement "Employees at Health Canada's MMAD act too businesslike and impersonal towards me", 54% "agreed" or "strongly agreed", while 28.7% "disagreed" or "strongly disagreed". 

In regards to the statement "I am dissatisfied with the service I receive from Health Canada in regards to my use of medical cannabis", 68.9% "agree" or "strongly agree", while only 18.3% "disagree" or "strongly disagree". 

However, when asked if "Employees at Health Canada's MMAD treat me in a friendly and courteous manner", respondents were split, with 35.6% "agreeing" or "strongly agreeing", 27.6% "uncertain", and 36.8% "disagreeing" or "strongly disagreeing". 

When the statement "I have full confidence in the ability of the Health Canada employees that administer this program" was put to patients, 76.8% "disagreed" or "strongly disagreed", with only 5.9% "agreeing" or "strongly agreeing" with the statement, and 17.4% stating that they were "uncertain". 

Finally, when asked "I am able to get help from Health Canada in regards to my medical use of cannabis whenever I need it", 8.2% "agreed" or "strongly agreed", while 70.6% "disagreed" or "strongly disagreed", with 21.2% uncertain.

The final question of the survey asked participants to rate their overall satisfaction with Health Canada's medical cannabis program, and 15.1% of patients state that they are "completely" or "somewhat satisfied", 12.8% uncertain, and 72.1% either "somewhat" (20.9%) or "totally unsatisfied" (51.2%). 

This suggests a very poor patient perception of the service quality at Health Canada Marihuana Medical Access Division, with many potential improvements in application processing times, cannabis selection and quality and overall responsiveness to patient queries and concerns.





Overall Satisfaction with Health Canada Medical Cannabis Program. Bar graph of overall level of satisfaction with Health Canada's medical cannabis program reported by survey participants (n = 86).

In a federally-funded report titled "Our Rights, Our Choice,' which examined the human rights, ethical and legal challenges faced by people living with HIV/AIDS who choose to use medical cannabis, the Canadian AIDS Society found that although between 14 to 37% of people living with HIV/AIDS used cannabis to address their condition, many had faced hurdles accessing the federal program. The CAS report states that: access to the federal program remains hindered by barriers such as a lack of awareness of the program's existence, mistrust in the government, misinformation about the program and difficulty in finding a physician to support their application. 

Thousands of seriously ill Canadians must therefore choose between breaking the law to use the therapy of their choice, or going without, which in many cases compromises their well-being and quality of life.
The results of this federally authorized medical cannabis patient survey support the findings of the CAS study and other research into the MMAR/MMAD.

Discussion

Creating policies and procedures for safe patient access to medical cannabis has proven to be a challenge in Canada and around the world. In the U.S., the 14 states that allow for the legal use of cannabis continue to struggle to protect patients, address access issues, and mitigate community concerns, all of which is made all the more complicated by ongoing resistance and active legal threats by the federal government. 

In Canada, patients face multiple challenges to safe access: 
1) resistance from the medical community to act as gatekeepers to the program; 
2) an onerous application process; 
3) a very limited and much-criticized cannabis supply; 
4) limited income and a lack of national cost-coverage; and 
5) ongoing social prejudice against the use of medical cannabis. 

Results from this survey suggest that reducing bureaucratic obstacles while increasing patient options for access would result in greater levels of patient participation and overall satisfaction with the federal program.

While there is a remarkable diversity in the demographics and medical conditions of cannabis patients, some common themes emerge from this research. It is clear that patients' would like to have a choice of many different strains and forms of ingestion in order to more safely and effectively address their many different symptoms and conditions. Since cost continues to be a significant obstacle for patients with low or fixed income, provincial or federal cost-reduction or coverage policies should be implemented. 

The high bureaucratic burden on both patients and physicians is reducing participation in the program, so allowing healthcare providers to treat cannabis like any other medicine would likely improve uptake and might also alleviate some of the social stigma associated with the therapeutic use of cannabis. Since this study and Health Canada's own statistics show that the majority of participants in the Canadian federal program chose to produce their own medicine, policies and procedures should be put in place that maintain the option of personal production while also ensuring that both patients and communities are protected from the dangers of poorly-cultivated cannabis. 

This could range from basic information from Health Canada on safe production practices to electrical inspections at the municipal level. Additionally, with over half of respondents currently accessing cannabis through dispensaries and growing evidence that these organizations build social capital and provide an environment that is conducive to health and healing, the federal government should work with dispensaries to develop regulations that would incorporate this community-based model of access into Canada's medical cannabis program.

Finally, many of the challenges faced by the MMAD could have been addressed or avoided through a more robust and active strategy for patient engagement and involvement. Although there are many stakeholders directly or indirectly affected by the federal medical cannabis program - municipalities, police, physicians, etc. - the key stakeholders are the Canada's critically or chronically ill who could or do benefit from the use of cannabis. Unfortunately, the short history of the MMAR/MMAD shows that the needs and concerns of patients has all too often been ignored or overshadowed by other interests and concerns. 

The future success of this cutting-edge program will depend largely on the willingness of the federal government to create a truly patient-centered approach to medical cannabis access, including active and ongoing engagement with end-users, support for research into the potential harms and benefits of medical cannabis, and increased options for patients, potentially through the regulation of community-based dispensaries.

There are a few limitations to this study. Although participants represented about 5% of the patient population in the program at the time of the survey there is no way to know how representational this cohort is to the rest of the participants in the MMAD since Health Canada has never released any demographic information about federally authorized users. Additionally, since recruiting was largely done online and through medical cannabis patient lists and groups, it is possible that this more active population has a higher level of dissatisfaction with the federal program. 

However, the general demographics of participants in this study is similar to those identified by Reinarman in a recent U.S.-based study, and many of the patient needs and challenges that came to light in this survey support previous research on Canada's medical cannabis population and associated federal program. It is hoped that this survey, which represents the first polling ever conducted solely on federally authorized patients in Canada, will assist policy-makers here and abroad develop more patient-centered strategies for safe access to medical cannabis.

 <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Too Bad They Didn't Finish This
A Hell Of A Lot Sooner!

Blaine Barrett