VIEWPOINT: JUST KEEP PASSING IT AROUND

The federal Ministry of Health's new legislation on the medical use
of marijuana is an interesting study in contradictions.

On one hand, it supposedly makes it easier for Canadians suffering
from chronic pain or debilitating illness to gain access to a drug
that can potentially improve their quality of life. On the other,
however, it fails to set out any guidelines as to where the average
patient - who in all likelihood has no concept of how to grow B.C.'s
most controversial export crop - can get a clean, consistent supply
of the medication.

Nor does it necessarily make it easier to legally possess the wacky
weed. Consider the process:

First, an applicant must supply their full name, date of birth and
gender, as well as a complete address, along with an indication of
whether the applicant intends to grow their own or buy from a
licensed dealer.

Next, the applicant has to obtain a medical declaration, which
includes the doctor's full name, address and telephone number. The
medical declaration has to outline the applicant's medical condition,
what category the condition falls under, the dosage of marijuana (in
grams) recommended and how it is to be "administered". Further, it
has to assure all other drugs have been tried or considered.

You follow that up with photo ID with picture restrictions
reminiscent of passport photos (at least 43x54 mm but not more than
50x70 mm and shot against a plain contrasting background. It then has
to be certified by the medical practitioner treating the applicant as
an accurate representation of the patient.

There's also a little math that needs to be done to determine the
monthly allotment of marijuana any patient can have at any given
time. And oh, by the way, if your application is approved, your
licence expires in a year and you have to provide a majority of the
information again. It would be easier to get a rolling prescription
for morphine. Small wonder people like Mark Russell are starting
buyers' clubs.

The jury is out on the medical benefits of marijuana. Formal
scientific studies seem to be few and far between, and those that are
out there provide results the government says are generally
inconclusive. Anecdotal support is strong and easy to come by, but
the scientific community is loath to accept what it views as
non-empirical data.

The government holds that lack of scientific data out as the reason
the new legislation is so restrictive. They need time to study
marijuana and its medicinal effects further, they say; to gather
further input from the medical community. But the lack on conclusive
evidence hasn't stopped doctors from talking about the positive
health effects of a glass of red wine.

The truth is likely less about science and more about politics.
Marijuana and the war on drugs are political hot potatoes. No one
wants to make a firm decision. But that's what government is supposed
to do. Not in this case. Government, instead of discussions of
health, has opted for political policies.