MARIJUANA RISKS DETAILED

B.C. Court Ruling Assesses 'Harm' From Using Marijuana

Conservative Leader Joe Clark, Immigration Minister Elinor Caplan and the
Canadian Alliance all seek parliamentary debate as to whether Canada should
decriminalize, or even legalize, the use of marijuana in Canada.

This debate is at least in part being spurred by a Supreme Court of Canada
decision to review the merits of Canadian marijuana law. A ruling on the
constitutionality of the prohibition is expected this winter. The decision
might uphold the law, or it might force the federal government to limit its
interest in the drug to regulation, as is done with alcohol and tobacco.

One of the cases the court will review involves Randy Caine, a British
Columbia man who was charged in 1993 with possession of a "roach" of marijuana.

His initial trial before Provincial Court Judge Francine Howard lasted five
years and ended in April 1998 with a conviction, which was then appealed to
the British Columbia Appeal Court, which upheld the conviction in a
two-to-one decision.

That ruling is now before the Supreme Court.

In its 56-page decision, the B.C. Appeal Court included a summary of Judge
Howard's findings as to the "harm" caused by marijuana; findings it notes
mirror those found in numerous other court decisions.

The following is the Appeal Court's summary of Judge Howard's findings of
the harm caused by marijuana.

IN order to provide a "sound factual foundation" relating to the purpose
and background of the Narcotics Control Act, including its "social,
economic and cultural context," Judge Howard analyzed a wide array of
written material. She considered scientific findings, reports and studies
and heard from six expert witnesses. Five expert witnesses were called by
the lawyers for Mr. Caine and one, Dr. Kalant, for the Crown.

The learned trial judge noted that an estimated four to five million
Canadians have tried marijuana. Statistics suggest that in 1993 (the year
in which Mr. Caine was charged) 4.2 per cent of Canadians over 15 years of
age had used marijuana in the past year. In addition, statistics show that
95 per cent of marijuana users are "low/occasional/moderate users," while
five per-cent are "chronic users," meaning that they smoke more than one
joint per day.

On the basis of the evidence put before the court, Judge Howard made the
following findings of fact:

1. The occasional to moderate use of marijuana by a healthy adult is not
ordinarily harmful to health, even if used over a long period of time.

2. There is no conclusive evidence demonstrating any irreversible organic
or mental damage to the user, except in relation to the lungs. Reports of
lung damage are limited to chronic, heavy users such as a person who smokes
at least one and probably three to five marijuana joints per day.

3. There is no evidence demonstrating irreversible, organic or mental
damage from the use of marijuana by an ordinary healthy adult who uses
occasionally or moderately.

4. Marijuana use causes alteration of mental function and should not be
used in conjunction with driving, flying or operating complex machinery.

5. There is no evidence that marijuana use induces psychosis in ordinary
healthy adults who use marijuana occasionally or moderately. In relation to
the heavy user, the evidence of marijuana psychosis appears to arise only
in those having a predisposition towards such a mental illness.

6. Marijuana is not addictive.

7. There is a concern over potential dependence in heavy users, but
marijuana is not a highly reinforcing type of drug, like heroin or cocaine.
Consequently, physical dependence is not a major problem. Psychological
dependence, however, may be a problem for the chronic user.

8. There is no causal relationship between marijuana use and criminality.

9. There is no evidence that marijuana is a gateway drug and the vast
majority of marijuana users do not go on to try hard drugs.

10. Marijuana does not make people aggressive or violent, but on the
contrary it tends to make them passive and quiet.

11. There have been no deaths from the use of marijuana.

12. There is no evidence of an amotivational syndrome. Chronic use of
marijuana could decrease motivation, especially if such a user smokes so
often as to be in a state of chronic intoxication.

13. Assuming current rates of consumption remain stable, the health-related
costs of marijuana use are very, very small in comparison with those costs
associated with tobacco and alcohol consumption.

The trial judge also referred to the findings of the LeDain Commission of
Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs (1972-73), chaired by Gerard
LeDain (later LeDain J. of the Supreme Court of Canada). After almost four
years of public hearings and research, the majority of the commissioners
concluded that simple possession of marijuana should not be a criminal
offence. The commission made the following findings with respect to marijuana:

1. Cannabis is not a "narcotic."

2. Few acute physiological effects have been detected from current use in
Canada.

3. Few users (less than one per cent) of cannabis move on to use harder and
more dangerous drugs.

4. There is no scientific evidence indicating that cannabis use is
responsible for other forms of criminal behaviour.

5. At present levels of use, the risks or harms from consumption of
cannabis are much less serious than the risks or harms from alcohol use.

6. The short-term physical effects of cannabis are relatively insignificant
and there is no evidence of serious long-term physical effects.

Despite these findings, the trial judge also concluded that marijuana is
not a "completely harmless drug for all individual users." She referred to
these findings of the LeDain Commission:

1. The probably harmful effect of cannabis on the maturing process in
adolescence.

2. The implications for safe driving arising from impairment of cognitive
functions and psychomotor abilities.

3. The possibility, suggested by reports in other countries and clinical
observations on this continent, that the long-term heavy use of cannabis
may result in a significant amount of mental deterioration and disorder.

4. The role played by cannabis in the development and spread of multi-drug
use by stimulating a desire for drug experience and lowering inhibitions
about drug experimentations.

JUDGE Howard also reviewed an Australian government report completed in
1994 known as The Hall Report: Hall, Solowij, and Lemon, National Drug
Strategy: The Health and Psychological Consequences of Cannabis Use,
(Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1994).

On the authority of the Hall Report, Judge Howard made the following
conclusions about the "acute" effects of cannabis use:

1. Naive users should be careful and if they choose to smoke cannabis, they
should do so with experienced users and in an appropriate setting.

2. No one should be studying, writing an exam, or engaging in other complex
mental activities while in a state of intoxication induced by cannabis.

3. Pregnant women should not smoke cannabis.

4. The mentally ill or those with a family history of mental illness should
not use cannabis.

5. No one should drive, fly or operate complex machinery while under the
influence of marijuana.

Judge Howard also referred to what the Hall Report called "chronic
effects:" the adverse effects that might occur from the daily use of
cannabis over many years. Despite the "considerable uncertainty" regarding
this research, the trial judge made a number of conclusions. She was
satisfied that the "major probable adverse effects" for chronic use include
respiratory diseases, the development of a "cannabis dependence syndrome,"
and "subtle forms of cognitive impairment, most particularly of attention
and memory, which persist while the user remains chronically intoxicated
and may or may not be reversible after prolonged abstinence from cannabis."

Judge Howard also referred to the Hall Report's findings on "major possible
adverse effects" from chronic use. These effects need to be confirmed by
further research and, indeed, two of the Hall Report's findings had already
been disproved by the time of trial.

The trial judge listed the remaining findings:

1. An increased risk of developing cancers of the aerodigestive tract, i.e.
oral cavity, pharynx and esophagus.

2. A decline in occupational performance marked by underachievement in
adults in occupations requiring high-level cognitive skills, and impaired
educational attainment in adolescents.

The Hall Report also identified three traditional "high risk groups":

1. Adolescents with a history of poor school performance.

2. Women of childbearing age.

3. Persons with pre-existing diseases such as cardiovascular diseases,
respiratory diseases, schizophrenia or other drug dependencies.

Judge Howard noted at paragraph 48 of her reasons for judgment that, apart
from the "rare and transient" acute effects noted above, a healthy adult
who is a low/occasional/moderate user of marijuana would not face
significant health concerns from smoking marijuana.

The trial judge also considered the "risk of harm to others or to society
as a whole" from smoking marijuana. She found that the only such risk could
be from a person in a state of intoxication should he or she drive, fly or
operate complex machinery. However, the trial judge noted that Sec. 253 of
the Criminal Code already prohibits such activities.

The trial judge also considered the "burden upon society" brought about by
smoking marijuana. She concluded that current rates of marijuana
consumption have not caused any burden on the health-care system,
particularly when compared with the costs associated with alcohol or tobacco.

The learned trial judge also considered the harm caused by the prohibition
of marijuana possession in the Narcotics Control Act. She made the
following summary at paragraph 63 of her reasons for judgment:

1. Countless Canadians, mostly adolescents and young adults, are being
prosecuted in the "criminal" courts, subjected to the threat of (if not
actual) imprisonment, and branded with criminal records for engaging [in]
an activity that is remarkably benign (estimates suggest that over 600,000
Canadians now have criminal records for cannabis-related offences);
meanwhile others are free to consume society's drugs of choice, alcohol and
tobacco, even though these drugs are known killers.

2. Disrespect for the law by upwards of one million persons who are
prepared to engage in this activity, notwithstanding the legal prohibition.

3. Distrust, by users, of health and educational authorities who, in the
past, have promoted false and exaggerated allegations about marijuana; the
risk is that marijuana users, especially the young, will no longer listen,
even to the truth.

4. Lack of open communication between young persons and their elders about
their use of the drug or any problems they are experiencing with it, given
that it is illegal.

5. The risk that our young people will be associating with actual criminals
and hard-drug users who are the primary suppliers of the drug.

6. The lack of governmental control over the quality of the drug on the
market, given that it is available only on the black market.

7. The creation of a lawless subculture whose only reason for being is to
grow, import and distribute a drug that is not available through lawful means.

8. The enormous financial costs associated with enforcement of the law.

9. The inability to engage in meaningful research into the properties,
effects and dangers of the drug, because possession of the drug is unlawful.

Judge Howard summarized her findings on the "harm" posed by marijuana use
at paras. 122-6 of her judgment:

THERE is a general risk of harm to the users of marijuana from the acute
effects of the drug, but these adverse effects are rare and transient.
Persons experiencing the acute effects of the drug will be less adept at
driving, flying and other activities involving complex machinery. In this
regard, they represent a risk of harm to others in society. At current
rates of use, accidents caused by users under the influence of marijuana
cannot be said to be significant.

There is also a risk that any individual who chooses to become a casual
user may end up being a chronic user of marijuana, or a member of one of
the vulnerable persons identified in the materials. It is not possible to
identify these persons in advance. As to the chronic users of marijuana,
there are health risks for such persons. The health problems are serious
ones but they arise primarily from the act of smoking rather than from the
active ingredients in marijuana. Approximately five per cent of all
marijuana users are chronic users. At current rates of use, this comes to
approximately 50,000 persons. There is a risk that, upon legalization,
rates of use will increase, and with that the absolute number of chronic
users will increase.

In addition, there are health risks for those vulnerable persons identified
in the materials. There is no information before me to suggest how many
people might fall into this group. Given that it includes young adolescents
who may be more prone to becoming chronic users, I would not estimate this
group to be minuscule.

All of the risks noted above carry with them a cost to society, both to the
health-care and welfare systems. At current rates of use, these costs are
negligible compared to the costs associated with alcohol and drugs. There
is a risk that, with legalization, user rates will increase and so will
these costs.