Cannabis News Stop the Drug War!
  Patients Take Pot Fight To Court
Posted by CN Staff on May 25, 2002 at 11:58:57 PT
By Tracey Tyler, Legal Affairs Reporter  
Source: Toronto Star  

medical Seven Canadians who use or distribute medical marijuana are asking the courts to strike down federal access regulations that are "a cruel hoax" and to order Ottawa to provide them with hundreds of kilograms of pot grown in an abandoned Manitoba mine.

The regulations, set up to provide sick people with legal access to marijuana, are unduly restrictive and have made obtaining the drug difficult because the government is demanding medical declarations that few doctors will sign, the group of seven told a Queen's Park news conference yesterday.

Catherine Devries, 43, of Kitchener said she uses marijuana to combat nausea and loss of appetite resulting from a condition known as arachnoiditis, which affects the nerve endings in her spinal column and has left her with loss of bowel function and hooked to an intravenous line 16 to 20 hours a day.

Unable to obtain the necessary declarations from a medical specialist, she has been forced to turn to black-market marijuana, which at times has been so contaminated she has ended up in hospital, she said.

"Seriously ill Canadians are going on safari looking for drug dealers in a black market to provide them with medicine," said Osgoode Hall law school professor Alan Young, one of four lawyers representing the group.

The government "will do nothing without a court breathing down their neck," so "we've decided to strike back," Young said.

In a notice of application filed with the Ontario Superior Court, the seven are asking that the federal government be ordered to distribute marijuana harvested from an abandoned copper mine in Flin Flon, where it was grown under a $5.7 million government contract for intended use in clinical trials. Health Minister Anne McLellan recently said the marijuana was too impure to use.

The government could not obtain standardized seeds from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, so it had to rely on seedlings culled from more than 185 strains seized in Canadian police raids.

Nevertheless, Young said the supply is probably among the safest his clients have known. They are asking the court to strike down the regulations on the basis that they violate guarantees of fundamental justice under the Charter of Rights.

If that happens, the law making it a criminal offence to possess marijuana would also be wiped off the books, Young said. That's because in July, 2000, the Ontario Court of Appeal ordered the federal government to construct a viable regulatory system within a year or the possession offence would become invalid. The system that followed was "a cruel hoax," Young said.

The government came up with a set of rules that say that, unless a person wanting to use medical marijuana is terminally ill and expected to die within a year, he or she must supply declarations from as many as two medical specialists, who are required to state there are more benefits than risks in the patient using pot and to recommend a dosage.

The Canadian Medical Association, at least two of its provincial counterparts and the insurer for Canadian doctors have warned physicians against signing the declarations.

However, Andrew Swift, a health department spokesperson, said some doctors have signed.

Since the regulations were introduced last year, 255 people have been granted permission to use medical marijuana.

Some are terminally ill and needed no declarations, but others did, he said.

In an affidavit filed with the court, Dr. Philip Berger, a Toronto family physician who treats AIDS patients, said requiring declarations from specialists "makes little sense" for HIV patients, who tend to be treated by "a small cadre" of family doctors.

"I do not know what specialists I would refer my patients to," he said.

The requirement that doctors recommend a marijuana dosage "is impossible to comply with," Berger said, and it would be "reckless" to do so, given variations in cannabis strains and potency.

Note: Federal access regulations dubbed `a cruel hoax'

Source: Toronto Star (CN ON)
Author: Tracey Tyler, Legal Affairs Reporter
Published: May 24, 2002
Copyright: 2002 The Toronto Star
Website: http://www.thestar.com/
Contact: lettertoed@thestar.com

Related Articles & Web Sites:

Canadian Links
http://freedomtoexhale.com/can.htm

Canada Medical Marijuana
http://www.medicalmarihuana.ca/

Charter Allows Use of Pot, Civil Suit Says
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12951.shtml

Kitchener Woman Plans Pot Suit
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12923.shtml

Ailing Canadians to Sue for Promised Pot
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12915.shtml

Analysis: Canada Seeks Standardized Hash
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12835.shtml


Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help

 
Comment #3 posted by Ethan Russo MD on May 25, 2002 at 15:37:51 PT:

Toonces
You are exactly right. All the giants of medicine that used cannabis in the 19th and early 20 century (Osler, Gowers, Reynolds, Weir Mitchell) commented on the fact that the dose needed to be started slowly, titrated upwards, and regulated according to the patient's need. What is really so hard, unless you choose to remain ignorant?

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #2 posted by el_toonces on May 25, 2002 at 14:57:15 PT:

Individualized dosing?
Ethan --- Surely you don't mean there is no way to look in the PDR and calculate a maximum and minimum dose for any given patient? Alas, I know that is EXACTLY what you mean and it's driving my docs crazy that they have no "standardized" dosing chart by which to 'assess' (judge?) my dosing requirements for Marinol or the whole plant......

You would think that the fact I hadly require any narcotic pain medicine (I took 5 mg oxy IR on the morning on May 17th, the only dose since May 12th or so) would tell them something, though?

Why are docs such 'control freaks' in the sense that they just can't grasp that results can be obtained without giving every patient the 'standardized' dose or some multiple of such a fictional entity?

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #1 posted by Ethan Russo MD on May 25, 2002 at 13:58:31 PT:

Key Word: Titration
Although modern medicine is uncomfortable with such a concept, in cannabis therapeutics, "one size does not fit all." Properly applied, cannabis requires individual dose titration to attain clinical benefits without sides effects. Although this sounds complicated, it works beautifully in practice. Successful club programs instruct their patients in much the same manner that project nurses do in the UK in the GW clinical research program.

In essence, the dose of a cannabis medicine is that which provides relief without producing adverse effects.

As a very rough measure, many clinical conditions will be controlled nicely by dose-equivalents of 7.5-20 mg of THC per day. This based on my clinical use of Marinol, study of the GW results, and calculated dosages from smoked cannabis. No Canadian physician can guess a dose without talking to the patient, assuming a bunch of variables, and measuring the THC content of the patient's material. Such assays are generally unavailable.

In the end, the patient knows the dose by using the amount that works



[ Post Comment ]


  Post Comment
Name:        Password:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comment:   [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]

Link URL:
Link Title:


Return to Main Menu


So everyone may enjoy this service and to keep it running, here are some guidelines: NO spamming, NO commercial advertising, NO flamming, NO illegal activity, and NO sexually explicit materials. Lastly, we reserve the right to remove any message for any reason!

This web page and related elements are for informative purposes only and thus the use of any of this information is at your risk! We do not own nor are responsible for visitor comments. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 and The Berne Convention on Literary and Artistic Works, Article 10, news clippings on this site are made available without profit for research and educational purposes. Any trademarks, trade names, service marks, or service names used on this site are the property of their respective owners. Page updated on May 25, 2002 at 11:58:57