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 fairness. professional. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fairness. professional. Show all posts

Tuesday, 3 March 2015

How To Bugger The System by a Cop!



 

An Ex Police Sergeant Tells How And Why You Should fight ALL Speeding Fines

 

This relates to British Coppers but

Originally published in DriftSpec.org  August 2, 2014 By Matt Agorist

“‘Indiscriminate revenue gathering’

It is absolutely disgusting.

The government and the Police Force

Need to hang their heads in shame.”

Sounds like here!!

My name is Stan. I am a retired Sergeant of the Police force for 14 years. I was also a police prosecutor at times, so I know what I am talking about. I spent half my life in Magistrates Court during my time in the Force. I was only ever a very fair copper, and I am proud of my time in the job, looking after the interests of citizens, often to the detriment of my family and my health.I never booked any driver for a trifling offence “ever”. People committing trifling offences commonly used to get a warning and a licence / vehicle check. It had to be serious before I booked anyone.

I am so annoyed at what is happening these days, in what I call “Indiscriminate revenue gathering” It is absolutely disgusting. The government and the Police Force need to hang their heads in shame. If you did a survey of current serving members of the police forces in this country, you would be hard pushed to find many who disagree with me.


I know how the legal system works, and I know how to beat the system. This is how to do it, and if about 10% of all drivers booked follow my specific instructions, then the entire system will crash and become unworkable to the extent, that the government will have no choice but to stop issuing fines for every type of traffic offence. The whole lot of them. Seriously.

I do not feel guilty about coming out with this information, as I think it’s about time someone stood up for hard working, civil minded, law abiding taxpayers in this country, who are being screwed.
This is very simple and very basic. The idea is to clog up the system in the traffic camera office and the courts by drivers exercising their rights to remain innocent until proven guilty.

SIMPLE BASIC LEGAL STEPS TO FOLLOW

1. Do not accept the alleged offence. There are numerous valid reasons to dispute every single alleged offence. Often the charges are incorrect or the evidence is illegally or incorrectly gathered.

2. Challenge it; tell them that you are going to defend the matter. Make them earn their miserable $150 or $200 or whatever. They have to prepare evidence and witnesses. Just the wages for the camera operator or the Policeman on the day of the court, will be more than the actual fine. You are also taking a camera operator or a member of the Police Force off the street for the day. But it won’t get to that point…..read on….

3. If a court date is ever set, and it does not suit you, do not accept it, ask for a delay to a time and place that suits you.

4. When they re set the date, delay it as often as possible. keep pleading not guilty all through the process. You have every right to be sick, or go for an adjournment if the day does not suit for any legitimate reason. For example you may have pressing family or work commitments which prevent you from attending a particular court on a particular day.

5. If it ever actually gets to court, (which is unlikely if everyone does this) and if you are unwell that day ring the court in the morning and tell them that you cannot make it as you are sick. The camera operator and a police prosecutor will already be at court, and will be greatly inconvenienced, by having to come back another day. The whole time this is going on, the amount of paperwork involved at the traffic camera office is huge. Several staff are involved, and it rapidly becomes very costly, probably running into thousands. …..with me so far…..keep reading…….

6. The court system is then placed under such a massive load by people who wanted “their day in court” that it simply will not be able to cope unless they open up about another 50 magistrates courts, and this is obviously going to cost the government a lot more than any revenue raised. If all the above fails, which is highly unlikely….and you actually go to court and get convicted……you have a right of appeal. Make sure you appeal the conviction. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to see what happens. They are not going to spend millions chasing hundreds.

7 Tell everyone you know to challenge their alleged offences, and the entire system will crash within a few weeks.

Please pass this on
ALWAYS REMEMBER
THAT YOU ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY
THAT THERE IS A VERY HIGH PROBABILITY
THE EVIDENCE USED AGAINST YOU IS WRONG.
IT IS YOUR RIGHT TO CHALLENGE ANY ALLEGED OFFENCE.
THIS IS WHY COURTS EXIST
SO USE THEM
A LOT!
Regards,
Stan


Like, share, and comment,


Make a change!



This isn’t hard to do, but it will help everyone.


The article originally published at Driftspec.org and although it is from our friends from across the pond, the information is invaluable as well as universally applicable.

The Above Is Good Advice
Heed it

Blaine Barrett

Thursday, 19 June 2014

The KKK of Canadian Medicine



The President of the CMA

Is

The Grand Wizard of the White Brotherhood


He changes to Green for the OR

 

My regular readers wil have noticed that a great deal of my recent focus has been on Dr. Louis Hugo Francescutti, the current President of the Canadian Medical Association. I checked him out when I first noticed  him and he seemed a very brilliant and compassionate man. I watched his acceptance speech after his appointment as President of the CMA last spring and I was disappointed with the focus of his Presidency enhancing the image of a Doctor: not in the eyes of the public but as seen by the Profession: a polishing of their self image?

 

I next saw him last month as he presented himself at an interview in the Huffington Post. The article was to find out  the course he was advocating to his membership at the CMA, in his role as President, concerning the crisis in Medical Marijuana. I was stunned by his presentation as an ignorant buffoon with stupid, short, off the cuff answers to questions that deserved a professional response. His answers suited his presentation as an ignorant Asshole and I named him one here in my blog. His answers can be summed up in one sentence: His advice to his membership:

“Don’t sign an application for Cannabis!

Anyone who claims Marijuana has any Medical benefit is a liar!”

 I could not understand why he turned his coat until:

1.    I ran across a Stats Canada report on Canadian Mortality related to the medical condition requiring attention that caused the death.

2.    I read another column that set the Cost of Canadian Medical Care at an estimated $212 Billion; set the average income of Canadian Physicians at $250K with a range from $200K-307

3.    I read another column that moaned that the debt burden of graduates from Canadian Medical school was excessive and accounted for years of time delay and low physicians salaries to reach a level with any significant profit. Poor guys!

It’s all bullshit.

Dr. Francescutti is a brilliant man with a depth of knowledge that is truly amazing. I read several of his replies to questions at a meeting of the Health Committee and several other addresses to various groups. My conclusion is that Dr. Francescutti probably knows more about the benefits of Cannabis therapy than any one of us reading this. A man as brilliant and curious as he is does not sit in a position of ignorance in the middle of a propoganda war for 12 years. There  has been an exponential rise in testimonial evidence that marijuana has many benefits. There has also been an exponential rise in scientific studies by disciplines outside medicine all over the world he discounts because they do not meet the statistical support of a Big Pharma drug. He refuses to accept that it is not a drug but an herb with no known risks from its use.

 

It’s an act! Dr. Lou is fully aware that if the public see him in his suit and being the expert speaker he is they will know he is intentionally lying and not believe anything he says. If his public image is that of a Harley riding wanna be redneck who fires off answers without thinking his audience will think he’s a short term idiot that somehow got elected and he’ll be gone in less than a year. They might even forgive the membership a pass for simply being cowards afraid of his punitive side. It’s a simple delay tactic and that is all he and the CMA simply want: a time extension of its dismissal of Cannabis as a Cure because the potential loss of business.

Both he and the rest of the AMA are fully aware that Cannabis Can Cure Cancer. The last thing the medical profession wants is a cure for any condition requiring repeat medical care. It bulldozes their bottom line.

Cannabis Cures Cancer

The Stats Canada report on Mortality showed me that 40% of the entire cost of the Canadian Medical System was due to one single cause - Cancer. That is a huge chunk of money but how much is that?

The next column identified that the cost of the entire Medical System was $212 Billion and 40% amounted to $84 Billion for Cancer. That is a terrible financial monster the Medical Profession has become.

Just how terrible is almost unimaginable. The 84 billion is the cost to the state of all the doctors rendered services, in effect their salaries, and a job loss of 40% of the profession is not to be ignored. Already these articles are pointing out how hard it is to get by on their salaries of an average of about $250,000 with a maximum of $307,000. They are also moaning about how hard it is for Medical Graduates to repay huge student loans to cover their education on a salary range for residents of only $50,000-$80,000.

 

I will be commenting on these in a later post but please understand that the 84 billion for salaries is the tip of the iceberg. What about the loss of 40% to the mountain of investments they own in their interlocked snarl of Doctor Incorporated Businesses that owns almost all of the physical medical system of supply and demand and depends on repeat patient visits and care needs as its base of earnings.

How big are those investments? HUGE!! Go to: Cannabis Cures Cancer at

http://goan-smee.blogspot.ca/2013/12/cannabis-cures-cancer.html

More to follow:

Blaine Barrett

 

Monday, 16 June 2014

The New Health Canada/CMA Conspiracy



Dr. Francescutti is No Asshole
He’s Just a Lousy Actor Mimicking One



EQUAL STUPIDITY ON BOTH SIDES

In her most recent announcement of changes to the MMRP Health Minister Rona Ambrose brilliantly and effectively drove a stake into the heart of all Medical Marijuana patients and pending applicants. She is simply used a little increase in administrative requirements and costs as a deterrent to any doctor considering treating a patient. That minor increase in costs is the tipping point because besides turning treatment and appointments of a patient into cost to the doctor, it also creates fear of a monitoring process by third parties that could lead to inspection by their colleges and damage to their practice.

Francescutti clapped his approval at the increased invasion of privacy because it stops the treatment of Cannabis patients by doctors. Dr. Francescutti and the CMA are fully aware that any “Cure” for a medical condition requiring treatment means the loss of a customer and all future profits. If cannabis does cure cancer and is proven to do so then the economic damage to the Canadian Medical System will be catastrophic. No-one seems to realize that a cure for cancer is direct threat to 40% of the jobs in the system. I have known that the impact of a cure would damage the medical care system but I never realized the size of the damage.

I found out that the entire cost of Canadian medical treatment last year is fairly accurately estimated to be about $212,000,000,000 (that’s Billion). WOW! Then I stumbled across a Stats Canada report on Mortality rates that assigned a percentage to about ten categories of the causes that created that great big number. The mind blowing revelation that 40% or $84 Billion of the cost of Canadian medical care is due to one single disease-CANCER!

If no-one else in the health system is aware of the danger of job reduction; Dr. Francescutti and his 75,000 CMA members certainly are. I had Dr. Francescutti pegged as an asshole because of presentation in an interview, but he’s not. He’s a brilliant man and he’s acting a part to play his public image. More on that in a follow-up post.

The reality for all of us who want access to Medical Marijuana is that there is no way to get it without great difficulty and expense and we are forced back into breaking the law again. We are denied access because any doctor stupid enough to sign for a patient is forced to comply with extremely complex procedural interview and examination instructions from his College; combined with excessive reporting of his compliance after every visit; plus now a third party evaluation of his compliance with the procedures; having any deviation being reported back to the College; and subject to disciplinary action. Finding a doctor was difficult before Rona’s announcement but now is almost impossible.

In simple terms: treatment of a marijuana Patient means a doctor must spend excess time for both interview and examination with no additional compensation for the lost time: then you have to spend even more time writing reports of your compliance with policy with no compensation for your lost time: Then you have to submit your reports for a microscopic examination for errors by a bunch of bean counters who justify their employment by finding them. They don’t trust you even then and the LP your patient buys his medication has to report every client he has and complete details of their purchase history to make certain they haven’t omitted to report that they were writing 5 gram prescriptions instead of the maximum 3 allowed. Only a fool or a martyr is going to accept a patient and sign a prescription to allow him to purchase his meds. The consequences are all negative and in the CMA’s best interests.

In the meantime it is business as usual and the longer the “Cure” is denied the members have secure employment. The Supreme Court will rule it NFG again but until Rona and Louis are gone we are all fucked.

Quotes:
Rona Ambrose
Minister of Health
“We have consulted with healthcare licensing bodies who expressed a need for the data on how doctors and nurses are authorizing marijuana to their patients and in which quantities. The proposed regulatory amendments will further strengthen public health and safety by ensuring appropriate oversight and monitoring.”

???
As if there wasn’t enough already, she guarantee access to spyware in a doctor’s office. That’s Big Brother looking over your shoulder, Doc.:Keep your nose clean.
<><><><><><><><>
Dr. Trevor Theman
President: Federation of Medical Regulatory Authorities of
Canada
"The Federation of Medical Regulatory Authorities of Canada strongly supports the proposed amendments that will enable its Members to exercise their duty in the best interest of the public. Medical regulatory authorities require access to this information so they can hold physicians accountable to a high standard of care when they choose to authorize patient access to marijuana for medical purposes."

???
Of course Dr. Theman strongly supports this because it’s a guarantee of work for his crew of fact checkers looking for piddley shit to report and look useful; just a wee bit of bias. It ignores the fact that there is no set standard of care for Cannabis treatment in Canada because the Medical Community who will create the standards doesn’t know shit from shinola when it comes to treatment much less dosage.
I will end this now but a follow up post will follow to examine in detail just what motivates a brilliant speaker and master of language like Francescutti try to appear like a stupid fool who can’t put more than two or three grunts together to answer a question an interview with a display of hostility and disbelief.
Until then
Blaine Barrett



Sunday, 20 April 2014

CANADIAN JUSTICE IS JUNK- PART II






THE CANADIAN CONSTABULARY
THE BASTARDS AT FAULT

OR



COPS

THE

Corps Of Prejudiced Sadists

More and more, every day, control of the Law and Order governing the people of Canada is increasingly being usurped by the collective Canadian Police Forces. The average cop has become a personal threat to, and someone to be feared by every individual he confronts. No longer does he Serve and Protect the public: he now serves his masters and Protects his fellow Cops.

The Cop in your face wasn’t born that way: He was born smart; he was probably a good guy until he absorbed the mental and physical brainwashing of his training. He looks decent enough even now. What could have ground and molded him into this hostile enemy at the gate? Who was he and what turned the soul sour? That is a long story but we can we can place the fault directly on the training and regimen of:

THE CANADIAN CONSTABULARY

The Cop Mold Process

Believe it or not, once upon a time all the Cops who are stamping on our civil and legal rights were the good guys of their generation when it came to the NICE Index! They are part of the top 2% of applicants who manage to pass the entrance exam and be accepted into the Force
In order to become a cop an applicant has to pass an entrance examination that is more or less the equivalent of an assessment by three Psychological Tests
1.    California Personality Inventory (CPI),
2.    The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire Scales (16P), and
3.    The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)
When used to assess police candidates, analysts developed a
"Typical Cop" profile group with group members found to be:
1.    self-disciplined,
2.    socially bold,
3.    extroverted,
4.    emotionally tough, and
5.    Low in experienced anxiety.
They also ranked significantly higher on scales of:
6.    "Poise and self-assurance,
7.    achievement potential,
8.    intellectual efficiency,
9.    social insight, and
10.                       To be more likely to seek social contact than the control group.”
By any standards this pool of young recruits is an ideal base for any training program and is the cream of the crop. Instead of a positive blossoming to butter the sour cream churned turns rotten. There’s obviously something wrong with the churn: what’s wrong with it?

Constabulary, as I use it, is an organizational structure designed to enforce order in the ranks of a semi-military force. It was developed by the British Army around the time of the Crimean war in the Mid-1800’s and was returned to Britain and created the structure of the Metropolitan Police Force under Sir Robert Peel. Law enforcement officers work in a quasi-military, structured institution. There are mental health concerns associated with working within a "quasi-military structure" and other mental health concerns of working in an "institution."

Military organizations require the sacrifice of the individual for the good of society. The "individual" is not a consideration; the "goal" of the group is paramount. In a military organization, the focus is on punishing the individual if he is not up to standards. It is a de-humanizing process to recognize that you are only valued as a part of a machine.

The “institution' takes the same attitude, only a step further. In an institution, you are locked in a set process and the process is more important many times than, not only the individual, but also the goal. When an officer does a remarkable job of police work, perhaps even saves a life, he can still be reprimanded if he doesn't file the proper paperwork. The paperwork describing an action in many cases is more important to the institution than the action itself. Both the quasi-military nature of police work and the functioning within an institution combine for a mental health situation that is quite undesirable and very stressful. The training academy of the Police Force he is joining is the churn.

This is the recruit’s first introduction to a Constabulary: a Constabulary is a quasi-military, structured institution. Military organizations require the sacrifice of the individual for the good of society. The "individual" is not a consideration; the "goal" of the group is paramount.

In an institution conforming to procedures is paramount and the paperwork describing an action in many cases is more important to the institution than the action itself. No gray 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”

The first step in this character transformation process is to isolate the individual from all contact with outside society and force him to adjust to his brother police officers for all social contact. ) They are isolated. The wearing of a badge, uniform and gun makes a law officer separate from society. The wearing of a uniform will tend to make any person de-humanize people who are without a uniform. Just wearing a badge or a gun can cause people to act more aggressively.  You are encouraged to feel like you’re a member of an elite group: the top 2%.This is the beginning of inclusion as part of the Blue Brotherhood and police training especially is designed to strip the individual's previous identity and "make" a police officer.

People deal with them differently and treat them differently, even when they are not working. The police uniform, badge and gun are universal symbols of power and authority. When the individual puts on the uniform, he assumes the authority that goes with it. He expects and commands obedience and respect from the public. Donning the uniform and wielding the power of the job contribute to what is known as the "police personality" and the Us versus Them problems that develop from this intensive brainwashing.

After isolation in training, the recruit is further alienated from his prior social circle by being required to work rotating shifts and a posting away from home. Shift work is not normal. The "rotating shift" schedule is very taxing on an officer's life. Our bodies are adjusted on what is called "circadian schedules" which is a repetitive daily cycle. Our bodies like to have a regular eating time, sleeping time, waking time, etc. 

An officer doing shift work never gets a chance to stay on a schedule. This upsets his physical and mental balance in life. The changing work schedule also upsets the routine patterns that are needed in healthy marriage and family development. Strong marital and family development is based on rituals, like dinners together, "inside jokes," repeated activities, etc. The rotating shift worker has less chance to develop these rituals and his relationships suffer. This predisposes the officer's family to potential problems ranging from divorces, to children acting-out. 

The recruit’s new "at work" world is very negative. He sees the bad part of society and even the stress is different. Cops have a different kind of stress in their jobs, called "burst stress". At any time in the course of a shift there can be a call with an indication of violence. The officer gets an adrenalin rush with the perception of danger and there is the inevitable “fight or flight” reaction. There may be no danger but that knowledge follows the mental and physical arousal of the reaction. Cops have a job that requires extreme restraint under highly emotional circumstances and they require special training to adjust to a completely different world with a whole new set of survival tools.

Almost all cops age too quickly, see too much pain and suffering, lose trust in almost everyone (because EVERYONE lies to the police), and lose their social grounding. In addition to the work there is the pressure to do it right and conform to the institutional rules fof documentation in addition to learning Chapter and verse of a bewildering variety of laws to be enforced. This happens in the first several years of employment and is accompanied by a progressive disillusionment with society that has to be replaced with a new social circle with members who can be trusted. 

The Constabulary has this all under control with the assignment of the recruit to a more senior member as a partner on patrol. This is his mentor in survival: both on the job and off but most importantly how to conform to the completely new society he has been thrust into without his consent. He is now a member of the Blue Brotherhood and he now learns the rules and regulations that will determine his long term survival in a hostile environment like the Constabulary he joined.

Within the course of the first two years after his training and indoctrination is complete, the recruit has had enough experience with both Constabulary and the members of the Brotherhood to make a final judgement of his choice of a career as a Law Officer.
To remain is to abandon all his previous life and connection to Canadian Society and join his new found officer friends in a society that will protect him and provide guidance for a lifetime career. It is a leap into the “Us” and “Them” mentality and with the support of the Brotherhood there is no deterrent for any violation of the law that he might perform in the course of his duties: Job security above all else.

The Police Officer knocking on your door right now has made the decision to remain a Police Officer and join his new Society- the Blue Brotherhood. As a career decision that is probably a wise choice but by doing so he swears an oath to obey the rules of the Society in exchange for his comrades’ support if he makes a mistake in the course of his duties, or even in his off hours. Unfortunately the rules of the Brotherhood have expanded to cover not only the Arbitrary Discipline rendered by the Constabulary they work for, but have been perverted to avoid any responsibility for ignoring and violating the accepted laws of Canadian Society.

That is the subject of my next post in this series:

The Blue Brotherhood
How The Culprits Work

An examination of the Brotherhood and its rules:

Stay tuned
Blaine Barrett


Monday, 14 April 2014

CANADIAN JUSTICE IS JUNK- PART 1



CANADIAN JUSTICE IS JUNK
HERE IS WHY!

Introduction: This is the first in a series of posts regarding the problems that exist within the Canadian Justice System. This first one deals with the source of the problem and the following posts will deal with other contributing factors that create the impulse for our Policing to fall into a Fascist mode
Over the course of the last decade on an ever increasing basis the Canadian Public has been witness to the deterioration of the Justice system into one where secrecy, lies, ignorance, obstinacy and submission are the controlling forces governing the conduct of the National Police Forces or Canadian Constabulary, The relationship between Police Officers and the Public has deteriorated to the point of mutual hostility and mistrust and contaminates our whole society.

Up until about thirty years ago if a Police Officer knocked on a citizen’s door in midmorning and asked if he could ask some questions he would be invited in, offered a coffee and his questions answered without reservation. There would be no suspicion of any ulterior motive; he was a friend who could be trusted.
THEN

In the same circumstances today a wise citizen will refuse the Officer entry to the residence unless he has a warrant and will refuse to answer any questions until in the presence of a judge, If any Cop is granted entry to the residence; anything he sees, or is told, is recorded as evidence that can be used to prosecute and convict you but none of that evidence can be used to defend yourself.
NOW
Watching this change in the relationship over the years I have tried to find the source of the disaffection and why the split occurred, but it is only in the past few months that I feel I have traced the origin back to a mistake made by Lyin” Brian Mulroney in 1985. In the interest of covering his own dirty tracks he created the Access to Information Act R.S.C., 1985, c. A-1 that specifically was intended to “extend the present laws of Canada that provide access to information under the control of the Government of Canada.

Passage of the Act was automatic considering Brian had the largest Majority Government in Canadian history. In his attempt to gain respectability and support, he accepted and protected the Canadian Constabulary’s role of secrecy with regard to investigations in progress concerning virtually all criminal activity.

Brian wasn’t smart enough to realize that he was dealing with a Constabulary, a structure created by the British military to maintain discipline in the ranks; and who opposed any reduction their control. He also missed the fact that the rank and file within the Constabulary had bonded together into what has been called the “Blue Brotherhood”. This opposing group was created out of necessity to resist the arbitrary disciplinary nature of the Constabulary. They were effective in influencing the list of exemptions for investigations that effectively grants all Police officers who commit a crime complete immunity from prosecution.

The moral of the story is that whenever a complaint is lodged against a police officer for a violation of any law it automatically initiates an investigation and details are not open to scrutiny.

At this point in Canadian history we are in a period where the police can commit crime with impunity because the Act prevents all information about the progress and nature of the investigation from being revealed.

As if this level of protection wasn’t enough there has been a corruption of the investigatory procedures to restrict the investigation to another Constabulary detachment. In short only Cops investigate crimes by other Cops. That is the topic of my next post regarding the worst advice given to Lyin’ Brian.by:


THE CANADIAN CONSTABULARY
THE BASTARDS AT FAULT

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