The 2000 decision in R v. Parker held that individuals with a medical need had the right to possess cannabis for medical purposes. This decision brought in the MMAR regulations which allowed patients to grow their own medicine rather than purchase from the one designated supplier at the time.
However, in 2013, Health Canada announced new regulations for medical cannabis that was to replace the previous MMAR regulations and which eliminated the right for patients to grow their own. These new regulations resulted from our Canadian BC neighbors stepping up and persevering all the way to the Supreme Court for our charter right to consume cannabis medicine rather than be limited to its dried plant form.
In 2014, the MMPR regulations took effect which required all personal growers under the previous MMAR regulations to cease and desist -growing their own plant based medicine.
The new MMPR regulations required patients to order their medicine (sight unseen) from commercial growers that have been licensed by Health Canada as a Licensed Producer (LP). These new regulations were put into effect after Health Canada lost when the MMAR - then MMPR regulations were challenged on the basis that it limited cannabis use to only that in dried form. In other words, patients were legally denied ingesting the medicine in its most effective form and it remained illegal to produce effective RSO (Rick Simpson Oil) to reverse cancer,
By transferring the right to grow medical cannabis out of the patient's hands and into large conglomerates that operate for profit, contravenes patients charter rights and the regulations put forward by Health Canada demonstrate a gross miscarriage of their duty to help Canadians improve their health - their stated mandate - reason to be.
The first challenge of the MMPR was the case of R. vs. Smith in which the MMAR was initially challenged (which then turned into the MMPR) as unconstitutional since it limited medical use of cannabis to only that in its dried form. This restriction forces patients to chose between a legal but inadequate treatment and that of an illegal but more effective one (smoking was permitted as a complementary medicine BUT ingesting the plant in its most effective form was illegal - because it replaces conventional medicine?)
Despite Health Canada's inadequacy in meeting their stated mission of improving the health of Canadians, their new regulations - MMPR - severely restricted access to the medicine and reduced the quantity allowed to a level that makes it impossible to produce effective oral medication needed for severe diseases.
The second challenge involving the MMPR and charter rights infringement was Allard et al v. Canada. At issue in this case was the violation of charter rights and the MMPR as these regulations do not guarantee the necessary quality, strain and quantity being available under the single source system that Health Canada devised with the LP concept. In other words, at issue in this case was the right to grow.
Health Canada contended that concerns about the MMAR led the government to reform those regulations. The concerns raised by Health Canada at trial were found to be invalid as they had no evidence to support the claims they made which included: home growers became ill from their crop (since the plant was not being controlled in a corporate environment?); the public safety issues reported including residential fires and residential theft - which were unsupported with evidence and the claims of harm arising from fertilizers and other chemicals used on the medicine and not controlled. Obviously no evidence could be supplied for this latter claim as no home grower would dream of using harmful chemicals on this plant.
A charter infringement raised by the plaintiffs was that even though the government would reap big benefits under the new regime in terms of cost savings, those patients in need of the medicine would be greatly impacted with increased costs.
A contended issue of Health Canada involved their concern with medically appropriate dosages since overdosing is pursuant to over-prescribing and these are a serious problem as seen with prescription pain pills. This was despite expert witnesses testimony to the contrary. Also an expert witness for Health Canada, from the Netherlands stated that there are no medical indications for using cannabis in excess of 5 grams per day.
Another witness for HC was Dr. Daeninck who asserted that the College of Family Physicians of Canada agreed that 1 - 3 grams per day was medically sufficient, although no evidence was provided in support of those claims. This author found his assertion suspect since the College has continually contended that there was a lack of significant scientific evidence to support its use and should their member doctors decide to prescribe it, they were advised to assert that it was only after all conventional therapies were attempted but ended up being unsuccessful.
Dr. Harold Kalant, MD, PhD, another witness for the Defense, a researcher with U of T in Alcohol and Drug Abuse, argued that no scientific evidence exists that supports a specific method of consumption as being more effective in treating a particular condition. He further asserted that he was unable to find a single scientific study comparing the therapeutic effects of dried cannabis to that of ingesting it orally. (Seriously?)
In much the same vein as the issue of consumption, it was argued that lack of scientific research exists relating to specific medicinal uses of different strains. Dr. Kalant, the Defendant's witness, agreed that although different strains may have different chemical compositions, the lack of scientific research does not support whether different strains have different medicinal effects for various illness suffered by patients. He further questioned whether the large number of the 'so-called' strains advertised on the internet, are in fact strains as defined botanically. He stated that the alleged medical efficacy of particular strains is not backed by clinical testing or scientific research but instead they are based either on subjective anecdotal reports or promotional advertising by producers.
The expert witnesses presented by Health Canada, the defense, continually testified at the lack of scientific evidence that exists on cannabis and the lack of dosage guidelines - all which boils down to those purporting to be authoritative on a plant in which their 'professional opinion' is opined on previous research that has since been proven wrong, have no authority on a plant they know nothing about.
Although what we are told is 'conventional medicine' - basically all the pharmaceutical pills, are supposedly scientifically proven as effective, clinically trialed and scientifically peer reviewed, as being effective.
The title to this blog should be "Big Pharma Disrupted (or Interrupted?) since the claim for their manipulated scientifically proven medicine does not stand up to anecdotal evidence - that which is based on continual observation of fact.
As an aside:
The number of patents filed by GW Pharma in the UK and the University of Mississippi in the US (two organizations allowed to grow, study and own the findings in the cannabis plant) are extensive and include the cannabinoids CBC, CBG and THCV along with terpenes in the treatment of numerous diseases and disorders including cancer, inflammatory diseases, intestinal and/or gut disorders, Crohn's, ALS, MS, ADHD, mood disorders such as bipolar, schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, PTSD, depression, anxiety and more.
