Jump to content
Due to the significant updates that have taken place, you now need to login with your display name or e-mail address, NOT your login name. ×
Due to posts that are 5+ years old being rebuilt, some of the older BBCodes may not have converted properly but still be in the post. Most posts are unaffected but some using what was our custom BBCode (like [spoiler]) will be a bit broken. ×
Sign in to follow this  
Omar

Medical pot distribution ruled unconstitutional in Canada

Recommended Posts

An Ontario Superior Court judge has ruled that the federal medical marijuana program is unconstitutional, giving the government three months to fix the problem before pot is effectively legalized.

 

In an April 11 ruling, Justice Donald Taliano found that doctors across the country have massively boycotted the medical marijuana program and largely refuse to sign off on forms giving sick people access to necessary medication. [...]

 

Read the full article:

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/973886--pot-laws-ruled-unconstitutional

 

Essentially, what's going on is doctors don't know when to prescribe medical marijuana and the vast majority are against it, since there's little research to back the program. People need to get marijuana on the black market instead, branding them as criminals.

This, according to the judge, is unconstitutional. A new program has to be established within three months (part of which are dedicated to election campaigns), or else the drug becomes legal in essentially every way. I'm not sure if that would last but I've been told jurisprudence would play a part; maybe someone with more knowledge can tell us about that.

 

What solutions can be found to this problem? Do you think the government has time to install a new system? If not, how would the legalization of pot, both as a drug and as a raw material for various types of production, affect Canada (and, if applicable, the rest of the world)?

 

I, for one, don't see a solution, unless the appeal is accepted. I think no one, or at least not enough people, have the required knowledge to prescribe marijuana. If the government chooses another group to sign the forms, surely they'll be under-qualified, and will end up giving pot to anyone. Not only that, but this is much more than 2-3 months' work.


Matt: You want that eh? You want everything good for you. You want everything that's--falls off garbage can

Camera guy: Whoa, haha, are you okay dude?

Matt: You want anything funny that happens, don't you?

Camera guy: still laughing

Matt: You want the funny shit that happens here and there, you think it comes out of your [bleep]ing [wagon] pushes garbage can down, don't you? You think it's funny? It comes out of here! running towards Camera guy

Camera guy: runs away still laughing

Matt: You think the funny comes out of your mother[bleep]ing creativity? Comes out of Satan, mother[bleep]er! nn--ngh! pushes Camera guy down

Camera guy: Hoooholy [bleep]!

Matt: FUNNY ISN'T REAL! FUNNY ISN'T REAL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are going to smoke pot no matter how illegal it is. The amount of money spent on destroying the black market for marijuana could easily be saved and applied elsewhere to more harmful "drugs". Legalize it baby. As if I needed another reason to move to Canada.


phpFffu7GPM.jpg
 

"He could climb to it, if he climbed alone, and once there he could suck on the pap of life, gulp down the incomparable milk of wonder."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, trafficking, dealing etc...would still be illegal. It would only legalize the cultivation for personal consumption, and obviously personal use as well.


99 Fletching - 01/08/08

99 Theiving - 09/11/08

99 Cooking - 12/13/08

99 Runecrafting - 10/23/09

99 Strength - 05/07/10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are going to smoke pot no matter how illegal it is. The amount of money spent on destroying the black market for marijuana could easily be saved and applied elsewhere to more harmful "drugs". Legalize it baby. As if I needed another reason to move to Canada.

 

 

^^^^^ This. All true. When you make something illegal, its only more of an incentive for people to find out how to get it and use it. Just like prohibition in the US, people still found ways to get and drink beer/wine/moonshine etc. Might as well make it legal and tax the balls off of it.


~I will always have some KO in my heart <3 thanks for the memory's KO unit~

 

Old troll.

Ex-Leader of KO Unit

Ex-Member of Legendz

Ex-Member of the Wilderness Guardians

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, trafficking, dealing etc...would still be illegal. It would only legalize the cultivation for personal consumption, and obviously personal use as well.

As long as the dispensaries offer the best bud for the best price, I don't see why anyone would want to go to their local "guy" for anything. If the demand on the street is down, large scale operations will likely cease to be profitable.


phpFffu7GPM.jpg
 

"He could climb to it, if he climbed alone, and once there he could suck on the pap of life, gulp down the incomparable milk of wonder."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, trafficking, dealing etc...would still be illegal. It would only legalize the cultivation for personal consumption, and obviously personal use as well.

Yeah, but at that point it would be such a small gap between full legalization that you might as well allow it for all purpose. I mean, that's essentially making its consumption as a drug the only legal aspect when there are so many other things you can do with the plant, which seems absurd. I'm sure growing weed isn't a herculean task. Anyone who wants weed will get it.


Matt: You want that eh? You want everything good for you. You want everything that's--falls off garbage can

Camera guy: Whoa, haha, are you okay dude?

Matt: You want anything funny that happens, don't you?

Camera guy: still laughing

Matt: You want the funny shit that happens here and there, you think it comes out of your [bleep]ing [wagon] pushes garbage can down, don't you? You think it's funny? It comes out of here! running towards Camera guy

Camera guy: runs away still laughing

Matt: You think the funny comes out of your mother[bleep]ing creativity? Comes out of Satan, mother[bleep]er! nn--ngh! pushes Camera guy down

Camera guy: Hoooholy [bleep]!

Matt: FUNNY ISN'T REAL! FUNNY ISN'T REAL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People seem to forget that bootleg alcohol and tobacco are still thriving industries despite both being legal.

 

I think the "2-3" months set out by the courts is completely unreasonable, because as you said, you can't really make changes in 2-3 months.

 

I think proper research needs to be done about the effectiveness of medical marijuana, because it certainly has it's uses. If they're supported by proper research more doctors will feel comfortable prescribing it (when it's actually necessary) and that would fix this whole mess.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People seem to forget that bootleg alcohol and tobacco are still thriving industries despite both being legal.

Yeah, because there's a [cabbage]-ton of tax on them. Unless they're planning on doing that and selling it through an LCBO-type organization (not necessary as marijuana doesn't necessarily harm you, though alcohol doesn't necessarily harm you either), I don't see why there would be a significant black market.


Matt: You want that eh? You want everything good for you. You want everything that's--falls off garbage can

Camera guy: Whoa, haha, are you okay dude?

Matt: You want anything funny that happens, don't you?

Camera guy: still laughing

Matt: You want the funny shit that happens here and there, you think it comes out of your [bleep]ing [wagon] pushes garbage can down, don't you? You think it's funny? It comes out of here! running towards Camera guy

Camera guy: runs away still laughing

Matt: You think the funny comes out of your mother[bleep]ing creativity? Comes out of Satan, mother[bleep]er! nn--ngh! pushes Camera guy down

Camera guy: Hoooholy [bleep]!

Matt: FUNNY ISN'T REAL! FUNNY ISN'T REAL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an Ontario Superior Judge so it can easily be appealed up two more bars: Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada. So don't assume this is a final decision.

 

I'm with Y_Guy on this one. I know of several people who use this for medical purposes because no other medication that is available can help them.


j0xPu5R.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an Ontario Superior Judge so it can easily be appealed up two more bars: Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada. So don't assume this is a final decision.

 

I'm with Y_Guy on this one. I know of several people who use this for medical purposes because no other medication that is available can help them.

So the election shouldn't really have an effect on this, gotcha. I agree with both of you, by the way.


Matt: You want that eh? You want everything good for you. You want everything that's--falls off garbage can

Camera guy: Whoa, haha, are you okay dude?

Matt: You want anything funny that happens, don't you?

Camera guy: still laughing

Matt: You want the funny shit that happens here and there, you think it comes out of your [bleep]ing [wagon] pushes garbage can down, don't you? You think it's funny? It comes out of here! running towards Camera guy

Camera guy: runs away still laughing

Matt: You think the funny comes out of your mother[bleep]ing creativity? Comes out of Satan, mother[bleep]er! nn--ngh! pushes Camera guy down

Camera guy: Hoooholy [bleep]!

Matt: FUNNY ISN'T REAL! FUNNY ISN'T REAL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an Ontario Superior Judge so it can easily be appealed up two more bars: Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada. So don't assume this is a final decision.

 

I'm with Y_Guy on this one. I know of several people who use this for medical purposes because no other medication that is available can help them.

So the election shouldn't really have an effect on this, gotcha. I agree with both of you, by the way.

 

Just saying that if the Supreme Court says it is constitutional then the other courts' decisions are pretty much out the window. :razz: Although, yeah I do admit I forgot about the election coming up.


j0xPu5R.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was legal for people to smoke pot as long as it was under a certain amount?


SWAG

 

Mayn U wanna be like me but U can't be me cuz U ain't got ma swagga on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was legal for people to smoke pot as long as it was under a certain amount?

It was legal to possess less than 30g for a couple of months but then it was undone, if I read correctly in another article.


Matt: You want that eh? You want everything good for you. You want everything that's--falls off garbage can

Camera guy: Whoa, haha, are you okay dude?

Matt: You want anything funny that happens, don't you?

Camera guy: still laughing

Matt: You want the funny shit that happens here and there, you think it comes out of your [bleep]ing [wagon] pushes garbage can down, don't you? You think it's funny? It comes out of here! running towards Camera guy

Camera guy: runs away still laughing

Matt: You think the funny comes out of your mother[bleep]ing creativity? Comes out of Satan, mother[bleep]er! nn--ngh! pushes Camera guy down

Camera guy: Hoooholy [bleep]!

Matt: FUNNY ISN'T REAL! FUNNY ISN'T REAL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think proper research needs to be done about the effectiveness of medical marijuana, because it certainly has it's uses. If they're supported by proper research more doctors will feel comfortable prescribing it (when it's actually necessary) and that would fix this whole mess.

 

I think they should have to prove that marijuana is harmful enough to ban, and if they can't then full legalization. But that will never happen, I'm doubtful that we will see marijuana legalized in our life times

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they should have to prove that marijuana is harmful enough to ban, and if they can't then full legalization. But that will never happen, I'm doubtful that we will see marijuana legalized in our life times

We're in the US now, but apparently it's not just about health concerns.


Matt: You want that eh? You want everything good for you. You want everything that's--falls off garbage can

Camera guy: Whoa, haha, are you okay dude?

Matt: You want anything funny that happens, don't you?

Camera guy: still laughing

Matt: You want the funny shit that happens here and there, you think it comes out of your [bleep]ing [wagon] pushes garbage can down, don't you? You think it's funny? It comes out of here! running towards Camera guy

Camera guy: runs away still laughing

Matt: You think the funny comes out of your mother[bleep]ing creativity? Comes out of Satan, mother[bleep]er! nn--ngh! pushes Camera guy down

Camera guy: Hoooholy [bleep]!

Matt: FUNNY ISN'T REAL! FUNNY ISN'T REAL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they should have to prove that marijuana is harmful enough to ban, and if they can't then full legalization. But that will never happen, I'm doubtful that we will see marijuana legalized in our life times

We're in the US now, but apparently it's not just about health concerns.

 

Never was about health concerns, but it's a damn good way to demonize a harmless substance and make people scared of their kids becoming weed smokers. Doing actual legit testing to see if it has any major negative impact on health (which would come out that it doesn't) would also be a pretty damn good way to get the truth out. Which is why I guess we've never seen a legit study done by the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bit ridiculous, as said in a few posts above. 3 months is not enough time for them to change the system and the judge in question has really made it impossible for the government to do anything.

 

I think the view of the doctors is the one people should be using. If doctors are so opposed to prescribing it due to a lack of any study into it's benefits, why should it be prescribed?

 

Basically, the Judge thinks people should be allowed access because, as in the quote, it is "necessary", but doctors (the people with qualifications in medicine) have seen no proof of this. So in short, somebody with no medical training is saying that they can't not prescribe something that has no benefits? That seems totally reasonable.


Want to be my friend? Look under my name to the left<<< and click the 'Add as friend' button!

zqXeV.jpg

Big thanks to Stevepole for the signature!^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bit ridiculous, as said in a few posts above. 3 months is not enough time for them to change the system and the judge in question has really made it impossible for the government to do anything.

 

I think the view of the doctors is the one people should be using. If doctors are so opposed to prescribing it due to a lack of any study into it's benefits, why should it be prescribed?

 

Basically, the Judge thinks people should be allowed access because, as in the quote, it is "necessary", but doctors (the people with qualifications in medicine) have seen no proof of this. So in short, somebody with no medical training is saying that they can't not prescribe something that has no benefits? That seems totally reasonable.

Watch the video I posted. That person feels less pain when he gets high; a simple test could probably show that. Besides, if it's not proven to have negative effects, then why not?


Matt: You want that eh? You want everything good for you. You want everything that's--falls off garbage can

Camera guy: Whoa, haha, are you okay dude?

Matt: You want anything funny that happens, don't you?

Camera guy: still laughing

Matt: You want the funny shit that happens here and there, you think it comes out of your [bleep]ing [wagon] pushes garbage can down, don't you? You think it's funny? It comes out of here! running towards Camera guy

Camera guy: runs away still laughing

Matt: You think the funny comes out of your mother[bleep]ing creativity? Comes out of Satan, mother[bleep]er! nn--ngh! pushes Camera guy down

Camera guy: Hoooholy [bleep]!

Matt: FUNNY ISN'T REAL! FUNNY ISN'T REAL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I think the view of the doctors is the one people should be using. If doctors are so opposed to prescribing it due to a lack of any study into it's benefits, why should it be prescribed?

 

Basically, the Judge thinks people should be allowed access because, as in the quote, it is "necessary", but doctors (the people with qualifications in medicine) have seen no proof of this. So in short, somebody with no medical training is saying that they can't not prescribe something that has no benefits? That seems totally reasonable.

 

There aren't any studies because the government knows that if they conduct any then they will have no choice but to legalize it.

 

To me it seems not so much that doctors are opposed to people using it, they just don't think that they should be the ones who get to determine who does and does not need it:

Taliano found doctors essentially act as gatekeepers to the medical marijuana program but lack the necessary knowledge to adequately give advice or recommend the drug. He also found that Health Canada has made “no real attempt to deal with this lack of knowledge.”

 

On May 7, 2001, the Canadian Medical Association wrote a letter to the federal health minister expressing concerns with recommending a drug that has had little scientific evidence to support its medicinal benefits.

 

“Physicians must not be expected to act as gatekeepers to this therapy, yet this is precisely the role Health Canada had thrust upon them,” the letter stated.

 

Doctors aren't the most educated on the matter anyway, just because they're an authority figure doesn't mean they know what's best.

 

It's a bit ridiculous, as said in a few posts above. 3 months is not enough time for them to change the system and the judge in question has really made it impossible for the government to do anything.

 

The government has had literally decades to prove the ill effects of marijuana, and yet we're still waiting. And that's ignoring the question of why should the government get to decide what I do with my own body. Amsterdam doesn't seem to have any problems with marijuana

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's ignoring the question of why should the government get to decide what I do with my own body

In Canada, if you're sick, the government is going to pay for your health care, so in a sense that argument's not completely valid


Matt: You want that eh? You want everything good for you. You want everything that's--falls off garbage can

Camera guy: Whoa, haha, are you okay dude?

Matt: You want anything funny that happens, don't you?

Camera guy: still laughing

Matt: You want the funny shit that happens here and there, you think it comes out of your [bleep]ing [wagon] pushes garbage can down, don't you? You think it's funny? It comes out of here! running towards Camera guy

Camera guy: runs away still laughing

Matt: You think the funny comes out of your mother[bleep]ing creativity? Comes out of Satan, mother[bleep]er! nn--ngh! pushes Camera guy down

Camera guy: Hoooholy [bleep]!

Matt: FUNNY ISN'T REAL! FUNNY ISN'T REAL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's ignoring the question of why should the government get to decide what I do with my own body

In Canada, if you're sick, the government is going to pay for your health care, so in a sense that argument's not completely valid

 

Which I am paying for. Granted I agree with this for the more serious drugs, but for something like marijuana, the argument is just silly. Although it is a valid counter to my wondering why the government should control what I do to my body. Then again, how much money does the government spend on arresting, trying, and housing drug users in prisons? They pose no risk period to public safety

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bit ridiculous, as said in a few posts above. 3 months is not enough time for them to change the system and the judge in question has really made it impossible for the government to do anything.

 

I think the view of the doctors is the one people should be using. If doctors are so opposed to prescribing it due to a lack of any study into it's benefits, why should it be prescribed?

 

Basically, the Judge thinks people should be allowed access because, as in the quote, it is "necessary", but doctors (the people with qualifications in medicine) have seen no proof of this. So in short, somebody with no medical training is saying that they can't not prescribe something that has no benefits? That seems totally reasonable.

Watch the video I posted. That person feels less pain when he gets high; a simple test could probably show that. Besides, if it's not proven to have negative effects, then why not?

 

Doctors prescribe things to have a positive effect. If they wanted to prescribe something with no negatives the would prescribe water. It isn't that it has no negatives, it's that they have no proof it is beneficial.

 

A simple video is not enough for medical research. If a whole countries doctors see there is not enough proof, there is a serious lack of information out there. They are much better of prescribing something they know is beneficial than something they don't know.

 

Again, to the post above, I'm not saying it has negative effects. People seem to be confusing this with legalising Marijuana. This is about doctors not knowing the positives well enough to prescribe it over something else.

 

There aren't any studies because the government knows that if they conduct any then they will have no choice but to legalize it.

 

Please show me proof of this here-say.

 

Although I may just leave this thread as I often get so tired of arguing with people who are always saying to legalise marijuana without any first hand experience of it or it's effects, not knowing any research other than online videos, movies and other non-academic sources, often because they just think it is cool or the 'thing' to argue for.


Want to be my friend? Look under my name to the left<<< and click the 'Add as friend' button!

zqXeV.jpg

Big thanks to Stevepole for the signature!^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Doctors prescribe things to have a positive effect. If they wanted to prescribe something with no negatives the would prescribe water. It isn't that it has no negatives, it's that they have no proof it is beneficial.

 

A simple video is not enough for medical research. If a whole countries doctors see there is not enough proof, there is a serious lack of information out there. They are much better of prescribing something they know is beneficial than something they don't know.

 

Doctors are not infallible wells of knowledge. Just because they are authority figures doesn't mean they know what is best in every situation.

There aren't any studies because the government knows that if they conduct any then they will have no choice but to legalize it.

 

Please show me proof of this here-say.

 

Although I may just leave this thread as I often get so tired of arguing with people who are always saying to legalise marijuana without any first hand experience of it or it's effects, not knowing any research other than online videos, movies and other non-academic sources, often because they just think it is cool or the 'thing' to argue for.

 

What here-say? Can you think of any recent studies that were actual fair and unbiased studies that looked into the merits of marijuana by the government? Marijuana is mainly illegal because of the perceived consequences of using it, if those turned out to be lies, then I would expect public uproar would cause them to have to make it legal.

 

As to your last bit, I am a law student and I have never met a professor (that is someone with a PhD or Masters, what are your qualifications?) that has ever been against full legalization. And maybe if you spent some time researching the origin of marijuana and drug prohibitions in general, you would see that they aren't rooted in the idea that they are harmful for your health. We have cigarettes that are PROVEN to be very bad for your health and cause all sorts of cancer, yet marijuana, which hasn't had a death attributed to it, is illegal.

 

Despite the Obama administrations tacit support of more liberal state medical marijuana laws, the federal government still discourages research into the medicinal uses of smoked marijuana. That may be one reason that even though some patients swear by it there is no good scientific evidence that legalizing marijuanas use provides any benefits over current therapies.

 

 

Lyle E. Craker, a professor of plant sciences at the University of Massachusetts, has been trying to get permission from federal authorities for nearly nine years to grow a supply of the plant that he could study and provide to researchers for clinical trials.

 

But the Drug Enforcement Administration more concerned about abuse than potential benefits has refused, even after the agencys own administrative law judge ruled in 2007 that Dr. Crakers application should be approved, and even after Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. in March ended the Bush administrations policy of raiding dispensers of medical marijuana that comply with state laws.

 

Marijuana is the only major drug for which the federal government controls the only legal research supply and for which the government requires a special scientific review.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/health/policy/19marijuana.html

 

It's not a site I know at all, but I'm not going to go and look for a bunch of studies FOR you about something that is pretty common knowledge.

http://current.com/news/91113022_top-10-marijuana-studies-that-the-government-regrets.htm

 

 

The National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse (a.k.a. "the Shafer Commission"), appointed by then-President Richard Nixon, formally made its recommendation on March 22, 1972.

 

"Neither the marihuana user nor the drug itself can be said to constitute a danger to public safety," concluded the report's authors, led by then-Gov. Raymond Shafer of Pennsylvania. "Therefore, the Commission recommends ... [the] possession of marijuana for personal use no longer be an offense, [and that the] casual distribution of small amounts of marihuana for no remuneration, or insignificant remuneration no longer be an offense."

 

Despite the commission's recommendations, Nixon and Congress ignored the report. Since then, more than 13.2 million Americans have been arrested on marijuana charges, including some 735,000 in 2000 - the last year for which federal data is available.

Gee imagine that

 

Also Dr Heath's 1974 (I think that was the year) study where he practically suffocated some monkeys with marijuana smoke and then claimed that marijuana was dangerous! (after he exposed the monkeys to ridiculous amounts)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, to the post above, I'm not saying it has negative effects. People seem to be confusing this with legalising Marijuana. This is about doctors not knowing the positives well enough to prescribe it over something else.

 

Wait, are you trying to say that you think marijuana should be legalized, but that the doctors need studies to back it up? As in, the doctors don't want to prescribe it because they don't have any empirical evidence that it has no major negatives (even though it's fairly common knowledge and there are lots of good studies) and that we need studies to legitimize it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just responding to the video. People many people like the guy in the video claim that medical marijuana is the only pain killer that works for them say that because they want to believe that. The mind is a powerful thing. And people telling themselves that will be enough for them to think the pain is less. Granted many of the common prescription pain killers (vicodin, oxycontin, Percocet) will make the person a lot less functional that smoking marijuana. However who says you cannot just take 800mg of tylenol or something else similar. And have similar feeling of pain reduction depending on what you have.

 

Im not saying this because Im anti marijuana, but if you legalize it for medical uses youve basically got no choice but to legalize it for all purposes. Just its use would quickly spread outside the use of patients.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.