Editorial:

Brian Taylor Editor

By Barb St.Jean, life & business partner
As per Brian Taylor, Editor-in-Chief
I ‘m writing this editorial for Brian, as he has been in the hospital now for more than 6 weeks at the time of print. He underwent emergency surgery and had subsequent complications, but we all expect a full recovery, hopefully in the near future. We would like to thank all of our friends, staff & volunteers for their extraordinary support and dedications to us personally as well as to the magazine, the business and, most of all, the cause. Words don’t express our gratitude for having you all share in our lives.
This edition concentrates on the down & dirty of who will get rich from the tragedies of the chronically ill, when the fortunes are made in the new cannabis economy? The world is changing and our vision includes the availability of safe and affordable cannabis to all those in need. But the question remains, how? Do we wish to see the rise of the giants as in the pharmaceutical industry, or do we see an inclusive model that brings in from the cold the small players and establishes the Farm Gate model for production and distribution, like the Dutch? Or do we capitalize and create a multiple level environment that will benefit all the players: patients, entrepreneurs, corporations and governments? Learning from our past and not repeating the same mistakes, like the gun registration, is of paramount importance. We need to control the outcome and not fall asleep at the switch, like at the end of alcohol prohibition when, the day after, all the shelves were stacked and the rules and plans were already in place.
A truly Canadian model would make the medical access program irrelevant and unnecessary. It would recognize Cannabis Hemp & Cannabis Marijuana as natural health products and regulate them under a model that would incorporate a workable structure. It would encourage the business sectors such as manufacturing, retail, health & science, food services, agricultural, etc. to invest in the future of a legal cannabis economy. Other countries around the world are miles ahead of Canada. The shape of this new economy will be influenced by many factors. But the most important being who will wake up first? &the race is on. Your comments and letters are appreciated, keep them coming.
Issue #5 will focus on the new cannabis research required by governments and the massive amounts already done that governments don’t remember.
Keep the faith!

L e t t e r s
LOVE THE MAG
Hi, I picked up a copy of your last issue and loved it. Very, very informative. I would love to put Cannabis Health on the rack in my hemp shop. Thank you.
Carol Gwilt, Bogart s Joint Cafe & Hemp Shop, Maple Ridge, B.C.

GREAT JOB
Hello, I just wanted to say I just read your magazine and you and your staff should be proud. I just moved to Salmon Arm last summer and love the outdoor growing weather here. Picked up your mag at J.J’s hemp.I would like to find out how I could help out anyone in my area with medical needs that do not have the knowledge or space to grow their own. I love this plant and will support anyone with the same positive outlook. Thanks for your time.
Mark and Sherry

CAN YOU HELP?
Hi, just had a look at your website, very interesting. I am on permanent disability because of muscle loss and weakness caused by muscular dystrophy, affecting my whole body. I need to use a cane all the time, have a two wheel electric scooter that was purchased by The Muscular Dystrophy Association Canada (of which I am a member). It helps me get out, walk my dogs, etc. I have been using cannabis regularly (smoking, infused oil, cookies, cake, etc.) with very good results to dull the pain of very weak, overworked muscle system, by doing cannabis, I do not need as many prescription drugs, with all their side effects. My wife and I are very discrete, respectful of the law, but in this case, we feel that the law is an ass . I would appreciate if there was an inexpensive and easier alternative for me to get cannabis, for which I am paying the full market price for now, (very inconsistent questionable quality, and expensive). Can you be of any help?
Respectfully Yours,
Walt Kusmin

GW PHARMACEUTICALS
By Matt Elrod
In November 1998, a year before the Institute of Medicine rekindled North American interest in cannabinoid research and the development of cannabis-based Pharmaceuticals, the UK House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology published its report Cannabis: The Scientific and Medical Evidence, which recommended that clinical trials of cannabis should be mounted as a matter of urgency . The committee recognized the deficiencies of existing orally administered cannabis derivatives, such as dronabinol. Research should be promoted into alternative modes of administration (e.g. inhalation, sub-lingual, rectal), which would retain the benefit of rapid absorption offered by smoking, without the adverse effects . One expert who provided testimony to the Committee, Dr. Geoffrey W. Guy, was uniquely positioned to fulfill the parliamentary mandate. Dubbed the man most likely to succeed at going to pot by the Financial Times, Dr. Guy is an entrepreneur and physician who specializes in phytopharmaceuticals, plant-based medicines and their delivery systems.

Having founded Phytopharm in 1989 to develop botanical extracts and shepherd them to market, Dr. Guy is adept at navigating the cumbersome regulations governing both natural health products and controlled substances. Perhaps more significantly, unlike most medicinal cannabis enthusiasts, Dr. Guy has a reputation within Europe’s conservative medical community for playing and winning by their rules. Dr. Guy’s background made him distinctly qualified to overcome the clinical, social and bureaucratic hurdles that have thus far prevented cannabis from regaining its place in the pharmacopoeia.

Dr. Guy founded GW Pharmaceuticals, still the only company dedicated to developing cannabis-based medicines, in early 1998. A collaboration with HortaPharm BV of the Netherlands gave GW a commanding first mover advantage. HortaPharm s medicinal cannabis varieties, known as chemovars , had been standardized and stabilized for over 20 years to consistently express specific cannabinoids, however, HortaPharm lacked the ability to develop pharmaceuticals and sought drug company partners to take the next step. GW was the only company with the vision to take the HortaPharm research through the development and approval process.
Botanists initially chose 10 Dutch chemovars bred to express high quantities of either THC (delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol) or CBD (cannabidiol) for their first crop of 5,000 plants grown organically in secretive and exceedingly secure glasshouses in the south of England. The computer-controlled glasshouses are among of the most sophisticated in Europe. No chemicals are used and all pest control is biological.

A GW contractor uses supercritical fluid extraction (SFE), a fairly new technique for extracting lipophilic and volatile compounds. [6] SFE utilizes carbon dioxide, which is Generally Regarded As Safe (GRAS), making the extraction process free of organic solvents. Liquid CO2 is forced into supercritical state (SC-CO2) by regulating its temperature and pressure. Supercritical fluid is heavy like a liquid but has the penetrating properties of a gas. SC-CO2 is inert and does not interact chemically with the botanical material or the extraction apparatus.
GW is developing 3 delivery technologies; an oral spray, a tablet which dissolves under the tongue, and a compact inhaler containing miniature heating elements that vapourize cannabis extracts. The spray technology is being utilized for the Group s lead product, the CBD/THC mixture. Active compounds in the oro-mucosal spray are primarily absorbed by the lining of the mouth and the tongue and begin to take effect within about 15-20 minutes. Some of the extract may also be swallowed, providing symptomatic relief for 4 to 6 hours. The inhaler’s effects are felt almost immediately and do not last as long.

Depending on government requirements, both the spray and the inhaler may be equipped with the company’s advanced Dispensing System (ADS) , a solid-state device resembling a portable phone, which measures and monitors use to help ensure optimal dosages and prevent diversion to the black market. The tamper-resistant device can also be connected to the internet, so doctors and clinicians can remotely monitor their patients’ consumption. As Orwellian as digital drug dispensing systems that phone home might appear, currently many controlled substances must be consumed under close medical supervision. The ADS promises to grant patients who need such drugs more freedom and autonomy. For example, GW, encouraged by the Home Office, is currently collaborating with the National Addiction Centre (NAC) to trial the ADS for the administration of methadone and diamorphine (heroin) in the treatment of drug addiction. If successful, the program will extend to other countries in Europe and North America.

The ADS was originally developed to make cannabis-based products more palatable to U.S. regulatory authorities, who still classify cannabis at the highest (most restrictive) level as a Schedule I substance. Attempts by various petitioners to have cannabis rescheduled have been unsuccessful. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, U.S. authorities maintain that cannabis has no recognized medicinal value and a high potential for abuse, a position they have not seriously reconsidered since before the discovery of cannabinoid receptors over a decade ago.

GW s clinical trials have demonstrated that, once patients are no longer cannabis naive and have become accustomed to the psychoactive effects, they are both able and inclined to titrate and personally individualize their dose to achieve improvement in their symptoms without experiencing unwanted effects that might interfere with their day-to-day activities. GW consultant Dr. Ethan Russo expects precautionary labeling will be similar to that found on synthetic cannabinoid packaging, advising patients to avoid driving or operating heavy machinery until they have become accustomed to the drug. Based on their experiences and the remarkable safety profile of cannabis and cannabis-based products, GW does not anticipate a need for the ADS outside of the USA.

GW currently has 3 extracts under investigation; one derived from CBD-rich chemovars, one from THC-rich varieties and one with an even mixture of these two most promising cannabinoids. Proportions of terpenoids, flavonoids and other therapeutically active cannabinoids, such as CBC, CBG and THC-V, are consistent and monitored but left unaltered. Dr. Russo explains Flavonoids are antioxidants and anti-inflammatory components with anti-aging and cell protective responses. Terpenoids are the essential oils that give cannabis its aroma. There are many with important medical benefits that include anti-inflammatory, analgesic, bronchodilating and memory-enhancing effects. The patient receives the full complement of synergistic phytochemicals. Only the cough is removed. Together this herbal mixture produces effects and medical benefits unobtainable with synthetic THC such as Marinol . Plant varieties bred to express these less understood compounds are already being cultivated and clinical trials designed to explore their pharmacological properties are on the drawing board or underway.

One of the significant medical benefits of using whole-cannabis extracts appears to be some attenuation of the sometimes unpleasant psychoactive effects of pure THC. CBD in particular seems to soften the effect of THC and is known to have anti-psychotic properties. Another benefit is the unusual breadth of effect. These medicines have unique effectiveness for a wide range of conditions, and within the same condition, can often target multiple symptoms. For example, GW research has found that patients with multiple sclerosis have experienced substantial relief from spasticity, poor sleep, bladder dysfunction and pain, says David Hadorn, M.D., a GW consultant. Currently, MS sufferers must orchestrate the carefully timed and measured administration of several distinct, interacting, chemical entities to achieve this broad shot gun effect.

Another advantage of GW’s pharmaceutical-grade extracts is that they are likely to reach many people who would otherwise miss out on the benefits of cannabis-based medicines. This is perhaps especially true for elderly patients, many of whom have chronic pain and other symptoms, for which cannabis-based medicines would likely provide substantial relief. Most elderly patients are cannabis-naive, however, and would have great difficulty accepting the idea of toking up . A prescription oral spray would be perfectly acceptable to many such patients - literally just what the doctor ordered .

In previous Phase II trials, there was a 50% average reduction in the participant’s use of opiates. The reduction in opiate use suggests future analgesics may combine opiates and cannabinoids for their very different but complementary effects. In fact, animal studies have found that opiate/cannabinoid mixtures do not cause the severe withdrawal symptoms associated with long-term opiate use. Perhaps cannabinoids will eventually be integrated into GW’s methadone and diamorphine products.

Try as they might to divorce their company and its research from the politically-charged debate over cannabis law reform, research on whole plant extracts, more than research on synthetic analogs, is applicable to the forbidden herb. When reporting GW progress, the media tend to equate their cannabis-based medicine extracts with cannabis, often exploiting the snicker factor with pot puns and allusions to stoner stereotypes.

Interpretations also seem linked to geopolitical preconceptions. Most British papers herald GW’s encouraging findings as further evidence of the medicinal benefits of cannabis - more reason to reform medicinal cannabis laws - while U.S. papers tend to characterize cannabis-based medicines as a socially acceptable, non-psychoactive alternative to smoked cannabis. A magic prohibitionist bullet that will render herbal cannabis, and therefore efforts to reform cannabis laws, obsolete.

Cannabis law reforms are also changing the environment for cannabis-based pharmaceuticals. Some British papers have attributed gains in GW stock value to last year’s indications Parliament may reclassify cannabis from Class B to the less restrictive Class C this summer. Others cited plans for cannabis reclassification as having the opposite, negative effect on GW’s financial outlook. Some activists, such as Richard Cowan, the former national director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, expect cannabis law reforms to reduce the market viability of cannabis-based pharmaceuticals.

GW Pharmaceuticals is making excellent progress and I wish them well, but I think that their business will suffer when marijuana is legalized, wrote Cowan in his online magazine. Dr. Russo thinks the tent is big enough, the decriminalization or legalization of cannabis will likely occur in many nations, but represents no real threat to this company’s viability or ultimate profitability.

GW is walking a fine line between alarming cannabis prohibitionists, who see medicinal cannabis as a stalking horse for broader liberalization, and whole cannabis advocates, who suspect GW of trying to monopolize cannabis therapeutics and introduce products that would replace, rather than offer alternatives to, herbal cannabis. Writing for Cannabis Culture Magazine, Canadian activist David Malmo-Levine went so far as to accuse GW of conspiring to corner the world-wide market for both cannabis pharmaceuticals and cannabis plants. Others believe GW’s ultimate goal is to create, on behalf of vested interests, medicinal cannabis products that do not produce the illicitly sought side-effect of euphoria. This is simply untrue, insists Dr. Russo, GW Pharmaceuticals extracts contain predominantly THC, predominantly CBD or a 1:1 THC/CBD mix, as well as the essential oil terpenoids and flavonoids of the natural herb. If someone used a sufficient dose of the extracts containing THC, they would become high.

GW does not expect cannabis as a plant to disappear, continued Russo, However, cannabis the plant can never be accepted by the FDA as a smoked prescription medicine as the rules stand. Standardized cannabis-based medicine extracts can. For the person who wishes HMO reimbursement or coverage under a national health service policy for a defined prescription medicine that will help with their condition, it is the ticket. Not everyone grows grapes when there is Cabernet Sauvignon on the shelf. Similarly, some will toke on homegrown, while others will reach for the vapourizer, and others for the standardized prescription product. Nothing will advance the acceptance of cannabis faster than good quality research of this type.

Noted cannabis expert Dr. Lester Grinspoon has a similar vision. we are going to have two distribution systems for medical cannabis. One will be the conventional model of pharmacy-filled prescriptions for FDA-approved medicines derived from cannabis as isolated or synthetic cannabinoids and cannabinoid analogs. The other will have more in common with some of the means of distribution and use of alternative and herbal medicines. The only difference, an enormous one, will be the continued illegality of whole smoked or ingested cannabis. In any case, increasing medical use by either distribution pathway will inevitably make growing numbers of people familiar with cannabis and its derivatives. As they learn that its harmfulness has been greatly exaggerated and its usefulness underestimated, the pressure will increase for drastic change in the way we as a society deal with this drug.

GW is now capable of producing medicine for 20,000 patients per annum. They expect to have their first product, for treating multiple sclerosis and neuropathic pain, on the UK market by the end of 2003. The company plans to price its products competitively with other medicines used for similar conditions and at levels that allow provision under governmental health insurance plans.

Based on discussions with national regulatory authorities, GW anticipates gaining approval for their first line of extracts in Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Canada within months of UK approval. The timing of approval of GW products in the United States is less certain because the company has yet to receive final guidance from the FDA concerning how much additional research, if any, will be required for approval in the US. They will also need a development partner to handle promotion and distribution in North America. Dr. Hadorn predicts that it will probably be at least two years following UK approval before GW’s medicines are available in the United States.

Would Hemp Prosper in a liberal regulatory regime?

"Industrial hemp - sometimes maligned, sometimes ignored, sometimes hyped, wonder plant overloaded with hyperbole - has been grown in Canada commercially since 1998. While it is legal to grow hemp for fiber and seed, hemp cultivation in Canada labors under a license system administered by Health Canada. Hemp, because it is cannabis sativa, still falls under the definition of a controlled substance.

It’s a challenging situation leading to obstacles faced by few other industries. 5 years old, Canada’s hemp industry is having an interesting time of it.
By Arthur Hanks

For those unfamiliar with this country’s hemp regulations, licenses are required for each step in the value chain. Growers are licensed, fields are licensed, cleaners are licensed, processors are licensed. While a criminal record check is required for your application, none of the other requirements are especially onerous (GPS your crop, use only certified seed, fill out all the forms completely), provided one is growing hemp legitimately for seed or fiber on an agricultural basis.

The hemp regulations do not allow for hemp to be grown for horticultural purposes. Field scale only, folks. Don’t call me about hemp bonsai or decorating your backyard. It’ll never happen.
The industry’s fortunes rest in part on tight seed controls. As stated, there is a requirement to use only certified seed. This means that there is no common hemp seed & no seed saving is allowed, and every year farmers must purchase their planting seeds from a licensed seed seller. All seeds that are sold are on an approved list of cultivars.

All hemp seed is evaluated according to THC: only strains that are under a 0.3% THC threshold are allowed to be grown. In food processing, only trace amounts of THC (10 parts per million, 10 ppm, is the ceiling) are allowed in finished products such as food or cosmetics. For fiber, most of the regulations are on the field level and less stringent. Once the hemp fiber is off the field, it is out of the regulations. So lets keep most of the discussion focused on seeds. The intent of the regulations is to head off unwanted cannabis proliferation. Of course, by keeping a tight lid on industrial hemp, Health Canada has unwittingly done its part to protect the black market. Ironies in politics will never cease.

Most people working in the industry are comfortable with the existing standards. Being business people, they tend to be regulation liberals, and would like less; however, they also see the quality control that the regulations bring and demand of the industry. The fact that a full paper trail is kept for hemp seed products, creates a fully accountable industry; there is a level of control that is exceptional among much of the food industry. Is this industry growing? On a field scale production has ranged wildly, from 2,700 inaugural hectares in 1998 to a sky high 14,000 h in 1999 to 2002 's level of 1,530 h. Much action is off the field. In the last 5 years, several sharp entrepreneurs have started up hemp seed food companies or developed hemp body care lines: some of the Canadian brands you may see on a health food store shelf include Hempola, Manitoba Harvest, Ruth 's Hemp Foods, MUMS Original, Hemp Oil Canada, Cool Hemp, Fast Fuel, Ancient Harvest. Interestingly, these are all start-ups. Nature 's Path, Omega Nutrition and Honey bar are some established Canadian companies that have developed new products that include hemp. The big guys (like McCain 's, President 's Choice, Tim Horton 's) don 't bother with hemp. So the field is wide open. There is certainly a lot of diversification: at one point this author counted 12 varieties of hemp oil on the market, including regional brands. But there are also increasingly diverse products: where once you may expect to see hemp only in oil, seed and dehulled seed forms, increasingly shoppers will find things like bars, cereals, pasta, chips and baked goods made with hemp. Hemp has a lot of potential as a healthy ingredient: in the future, you may find yourself eating hemp more and more, but you will only know if you read the ingredient label.

After 5 years, with a fresh, secure domestic supply of seed, customers are finding out for the first time, how flexible, tasty and nutritious hemp foods are. And there 's science to back it up; a small amount of research studies are underway that are testing the efficacy of hemp seed nutrition. This work takes place in a larger context regarding the roles of healthy oils and fats in the diet. A growing understanding of essential fatty acids in the nutritional business community and in the health press is helping to create a positive commercial climate for hemp seed products.

On these terms hemp sounds like a success story. But just how much of a success is it? Because it is such a new, and hence still small industry, it is challenging to come up with an estimated worth of the sector. The government 's official measuring arm, Stats Canada keeps no data on the hempseed trade, nor does Health Canada keep track on what everyday shoppers are buying. So, no help from the feds. How about the industry itself: almost all companies are privately held, and the sector is competitive, so financials are kept private, which is understandable. Based on estimates and extrapolations of what self-disclosed data is available, the market for hemp food & body care products is in the $40 million dollar range (USD). The hemp seed food business is in the $5-10 million USD range. There is considerable value added here, as the farm gate value of current level of seed (grain) production is only about $2 million dollars maximum.

Considering that Canada 's French fry export to the U.S. is over $200 million CDN a year, Canada 's hemp industry is small potatoes indeed.

Many of hemp 's specific problem are agriculture problems. The sector on the whole is changing, with fewer farmers at work, consolidation happening on all levels, high debt loads and a high risk and failure rate for new age ventures. It 's a challenging time on the farm and rural communities and the ability and capability to embrace new industries promised by hemp is limited. The sector is stressed.

Now in 2003, Canada seems to be on the verge on reforming the nation 's marijuana laws. Liberalization is anticipated, though its anyone 's guess on how the law will be written. To the matter at hand, will the business of hemp become more attractive with the marijuana laws changing? That 's a good question, but as marijuana, whether for medicinal or personal use, is covered under a different part of the CDSA than hemp is, the short-term effect on hemp that a reform of the marijuana laws will bring will be negligible.

Consider this: John 's and Mary 's right to have a legal stash will not likely affect the hemp regulations regarding allowable THC in the field or in finished hemp products. Similarly, John and Mary may have a handful of plants at home under lights, but that will not compete with the farmer who has 200 acres seeded. Nor will John and Mary be able to create much in the way of value-added industry with the handful of stalks they harvest. Maybe a few cottage industries could do hemp weaving and spinning from stalks pulled from a backyard plot, but lets not dress that up more than we need to. Few people are doping it with (legal) flax right now. And maybe with hemp bonsais, landscape architecture could take off under the right hustling horticultural entrepreneur. But these would be new industries, and wouldn’t 't have an effect on what we have in place right now.

One could even make the case that liberalization will have a negative effect on the hemp industry. Given concerns about genetic pollution as with GMO 's and, in some quarters, the shift in the food system towards identity preserved (IP) production, and considering cannabis being as pollen prolific as it is, there is very real concern that genetic pollution could occur. Allegedly this has already happened, however, without land-use plans in place, the scenario could lead to some unhappy situations.

There is also the question of U.S. market access. As American officials are sometimes willfully obtuse about the differences between hemp and marijuana, would such liberalization on Canada 's part complicate access further? Would there be some sort of blow-back? Would Canadian hemp products be treated with even more scrutiny at the border? You know how they get, post 9-11 &.

More significant than the law changing would be the regulatory climate change that would come with it. Canada 's hemp industry does not need really wholesale regulatory reform, but it would benefit from a lighter touch. Some deft touches could be placed around seed issues. I will bring up one relevant current issue. Currently, one of the favored cultivars (Finola, which is a shorter/earlier grain variety of hemp), is being taken off the List of Approved Cultivars because it has relatively high THC.

Finola is not a high THC cultivar, and usually tests at the lower limit of the testing scale (0.05). But consistently, somewhere in Canada, year after year, some fields are found above the 0.3% allowable limit. So you know, the issue is not necessarily genetic, as THC levels fluctuate according to environmental variables, like heat and stress such as hail, as well as being affected by latitude (levels rise closer to the equator). No matter that hemp with 0.4% THC, while exceeding regulations, is still not even close to being marijuana, and this higher level won 't change the THC levels on the valued seed, once the seed is cleaned and processed. Outrageous! Why should we almost lose one of our top cultivars over what is essentially a technicality? This species has an attractive fatty acid profile, produces a pleasant oil and was reportedly chosen to be grown for 40% of last year 's 1,500h national commercial hemp crop.

Anyhow, it seems that Finola will be given a second chance, with a revived breeding program. This is good news, and a relief.

Further to seed, what also needs to be reconsidered is our over-reliance on certified stock. Prices are usually around $2/lb and under, depending on cultivar availability. (Seeding rate is typically 30 lbs/acre). Now certified seed delivers quality for a higher price, which is an excellent deal, but having more on farm flexibility and choice could also expand the market for all seed. Common seed would certainly make ambitious large scale hemp biomass plantations more economically attractive.

You also have to ask yourself whether sampling and testing of hemp field crops should even be necessary when the grower is using certified seed. And if Health Canada is not as worried about the illegality of marijuana as much, and therefore is less concerned about cannabis proliferation, what kind of purpose do these regulations have?

If you ask me, THC-free hemp is not the answer, as the compound has a biological role in the plant 's life. There are no zeros in nature. However, we need low THC varieties for everyday food consumption and cosmetic use. So, what 's needed are boundaries, and that 's what we have. The question is, what should those boundaries be?

The Hemp industry has made a good case to date with its management of THC levels. For example, the Industry standard Test Pledge regulates levels beyond what government requires).
Outside of such proposals, there are some upcoming changes in the regulatory front. These considerations may all become extremely relevant ones.

Coming down the pipeline for 2003 is another hemp risks and benefits study from Health Canada. An earlier version was leaked to the press in the summer of 1999; this draft caused a small storm of outrage in the industry. The report, slammed by independent researchers, causing a re-think on Health Canada 's part. The study was never released, but had a half life on the web. The 2003 version is highly anticipated; whatever its findings, its contents will set the tone for a subsequent stakeholders meeting between industry and government in 2004. This meeting will be an opportunity to recraft the regulations,

It will be interesting to see if there is indeed a regulatory climate change coming. Is it too early? Massive wholesale reform of Canada 's hemp rules is unrealistic to expect; these regulations will not be dumped in some prairie slough. But it is desirous that they are reformed. The industry needs regulations that encourage quality and de-emphasizes control.

As stated, many of hemp 's challenges are due to other factors, principally economic issues, and not just the fault of existing regulations. However, a liberalization of the nation 's marijuana laws would improve the regulatory climate and lead to a lighter regulatory touch that would bring benefits to the industry. The business of hemp will grow more attractive in a liberal regulatory environment that reinforces and rewards good business practices.

Arthur Hanks is a Saskatchewan writer who never grows tired of hemp for some reason.
He can be reached at hcfr@sk.sympatico.ca. Web site: http://www.industrialhemp.net/mydomain/hempreport/

John Conroy - Legal Eagle
On March 14th in P.E.I. court, the judge read out the decision on the Ronald Barry Stavert case, who was charged with simple marijuana possession and made application to quash the information arguing that it does not disclose an offence known to law. The accused based his application, essentially, on the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in R. v. Parker (2000) 146 CCC (3d) 193, which declared the prohibition against possession of marijuana in s. 4 of the CDSA invalid due to its failure to provide for legal possession of marijuana for medical uses. Below are some excerpts from the decision, with the full document on the web at http://cannabislink.ca/legal/stavert.htm

The applicant submits that the Federal Crown is estopped from arguing that s4 of the CDSA is valid legislation on the basis that the Parker decision is binding on the Federal Crown throughout Canada.

What the Ontario Court of Appeal clearly did in Parker was declare the marijuana possession prohibition in s4 of the CDSA to be invalid without exception. It also suspended the declaration of invalidity for a period of twelve months “...to provide Parliament with the opportunity to fill the void”. (Parker at page 40)

The Federal Crown did not appeal the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Parker, and there has been nothing presented to the court in the instant application to indicate that Parliament did anything to avail itself of the opportunity to pass remedial legislation to cure the defect in s4. The foregoing preceded the Ontario Court of Justice decision in R. v. J.P. [2003] O.J. 1 of January 2nd, 2003, which in turn appears to have prompted this application.

What then of the position of the Federal Crown in other jurisdictions across Canada? Is the Federal Crown bound throughout Canada, as the prosecutor throughout Canada, of all CDSA offences by the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Parker which it chose not to appeal? Put another way, is the Crown estopped from arguing that its marijuana possession law is valid in Prince Edward Island, when it has been declared invalid in a decision which, as a final judgment, binds it in Ontario?

There is no question that the applicant here raises the same issue as was involved in Parker. He challenges the validity of the law prohibiting simple possession of marijuana by virtue of this application, as did Mr. Parker.
Secondly, there is no question that the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Parker is a final judgment since

The Crown made no attempt to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Clearly, any person charged in Ontario with simple possession of marijuana could rely on the Parker decision in an application such as the accused has brought before this Court. Since the Crown is bound in relation to all simple possession of marijuana charges arising in Ontario due to the operation of stare decisis, all persons in the Province of Ontario, all 12 million of them, have acquired an immunity from prosecution for marijuana possession, which may be anything from short term to permanent and in fact counsel indicated on this application that all simple possession charges were being adjourned in Ontario pending the outcome of the appeal in the J.P. case.

When the Ontario Court of Appeal rendered its judgment in Parker, the Federal Crown essentially had two options: it could have appealed or it could have elected not to appeal and accept Parker as a final judgment. It chose the latter approach

The decision in Parker was not a judgment in personam which applied only to Mr. Parker. The Ontario Court of Appeal’s ruling struck down that part of s4 of the CDSA which prohibited marijuana possession. Clearly, that ruling became the law in Ontario as of July 31st, 2000, subject to the one year suspension of the operation of the declaration, which afforded Parliament what should have been an ample opportunity to pass remedial legislation, if it had chosen to do so.

A stay of proceedings is therefore entered in this matter.

Question: What is your view on this case?

Answer: No one should plead guilty or take diversion for a simple possession case. They should plead not guilty, file a constitutional challenge to the effect that the federal government failed to comply with Parker in the Ontario Court of Appeal as evidenced by Hitzig and argue the P.E.I. case to the effect that Parker is binding on the federal Crown in B.C. as in Ontario and P.E.I. because they didn’t appeal Parker and the MMAR do not comply with the Parker declaration, so simple possession is legal.

As you all know, we are back in the Supreme Court of Canada May 6th at 9:30 a.m. on Caine, Malmo-Levine and Clay. Hopefully, we will get a good decision in our favour this year or early next.

John Conroy, Q.C., CONROY& COMPANY
Barrister and Solicitor
2459 Pauline Street, Abbotsford, BC V2S 3S1
Telephone: (604) 852-5110
Fax: (604) 859-3361
Website: www.johnconroy.com

What Now?
We are following the stories of the people we covered in our last issue who have been prosecuted in the U.S.A. and Canada for their support of medicinal marijuana patients. Where are they now?

Jim Wakeford
“The Crown has dropped or stayed all charges. I am a free man. It is hard to get used to the reality that for me it’s all over, the constitutional challenge and all the criminal charges from 4 arrests in two provinces over a period of two years,” said Jim in a recent e-mail to our journal.

Jim is still challenging laws, though. He has just been refused an insurance claim for stolen marijuana. This refusal demonstrates that the insurance industry wants absolutely nothing to do with either medical marijuana or the 900 people now allowed by Health Canada to use and grow it. Officials in the Insurance Bureau of Canada said that underwriters will not provide even basic homeowner’s or tenant’s insurance to people who they know grow marijuana, even if legally allowed to do so.

“The sad reality, however, remains that I have no grower, no real space to grow and hence no regular supply of marijuana. That has been the case since I started using marijuana therapeutically in 1996. That has to change.” Jim Wakeford closed.

Ed Rosenthal