COURT FINDS POT RESTRICTIONS VIOLATE CHARTER

(CNS) - The federal government lost another court challenge to its
controversial medical marijuana program, and now has 30 days to
decide whether to appeal the ruling that declared one of its key
policies unconstitutional.

Under regulations, licensed producers are allowed to grow the drug
for only one patient at a time. Federal Court Judge Barry Strayer
said that one-to-one ratio violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The decision, the latest in a string of court cases, will mean more
choice for approved medical marijuana users and should provide easier
access for them to the drug.

"What the federal court effectively did was assert that the
government of Canada does not have a monopoly over the production and
distribution of medical marijuana," said Alan Young, one of the
lawyers who launched the court battle on behalf of 30 patients.

Authorized users who cannot grow their own marijuana because they are
too ill, or for other reasons, must then rely on a sole source
provider -- either a licensed private producer, if they can find one
willing to produce only for them, or the government, which buys the
plants from a Saskatchewan-based company.

"In my view it is not tenable for the government, consistently with
the right established in other courts for qualified medical users to
have reasonable access to marijuana, to force them either to buy from
the government contractor, grow their own or be limited to the
unnecessarily restrictive system of designated producers," Strayer
wrote in his decision, which was released late Thursday.

The one-to-one ratio was first struck down by an Ontario appeal court
in 2003, but the government reinstated the policy several months
later, prompting the current court challenge.

"We're reviewing the decision," said Paul Duchesne, a spokesman for
Health Canada, which regulates the program. He would not comment
further and did not indicate how quickly the government would decide
about appealing the ruling.

Young and his co-counsel Ron Marzel described the court's ruling as a
"nail in the coffin" of the one-to-one ratio policy. "In theory,
patients now have a choice whether to buy from the government or
whether to create the small collectives of patients that go to an
experienced and knowledgeable grower," said Young.