CANNABIS CONTROVERSY: PAINKILLER OR TROUBLEMAKER?

The debate surrounding the legalization of marijuana continues to divide
opinions of those directly impacted by cannabis use.

This was quite evident at a recent roundtable discussion at the Elizabeth
Fry Society office in Sudbury.

Part of the problem is the overall complexity of the issues surrounding the
legalization of a product millions of Canadians use.

There appears to be an abundance of conflicting information on one hand,
and not enough knowledge on the other.

The meeting was organized in an attempt to stimulate debate, raise
awareness and educate those in attendance about the topic of decriminalization.

Gerry Cooper, a manager with the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health,
was supposed to debate the issue from the perspective of supporting
legislative reform, but at the last minute, he wasn't able to make it.

Instead, Cooper's replacement, Barry Burkholder, made an emotional appeal
for reforms to the regulations governing the use of marijuana for medicinal
purposes.

Burkholder, who suffers from the affects of Hepatitis C, spinal damage and
severe arthritis, received a one-year federal exemption in 2001 to
cultivate and smoke pot, or "medicine sticks" as he calls it, to alleviate
the chronic pain from his various illnesses.

Burkholder, a recovering addict who's against recreational marijuana use,
admits he has tried alcohol, prescription pills, cocaine and other measures
to dull his physical pain, but he said his symptoms are better managed by
cannabis than any other treatment.

"Alcohol is, for me, worse than marijuana," said Burkholder, "but it's more
socially acceptable."

After using at least 10 different prescriptions some of which were given to
counteract the side-effects of other medication, and getting busted for
drug possession and trafficking, Burkholder decided to fight in court for a
legal exemption to smoke his medicine sticks.

It wasn't an easy fight though. Burkholder said he lost his house because
of legal costs.

"There's no reason I had to lose $30,000 and my house over a plant" that
grows naturally in so many countries and places around the world, said
Burkholder.

His medical exemption has since expired and he said the federal government
is making it harder to renew or obtain medicinal marijuana exemptions.

The red tape and paperwork continues to grow and many physicians won't take
the time to fill out the necessary paperwork or simply refuse to do so
because they're worried they may lose their medical license or insurance.

As well, Burkholder remains highly suspicious about "hand shaking" between
the federal government and highly-influential pharmaceutical companies that
stand to lose a lot of money if marijuana gets legalized or too many
Canadians are granted medical exemptions.

He said the issue won't get resolved until the pharmaceutical companies
discover a way to harness THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) in a pill or inhaler
form. THC is the active ingredient in marijuana.

If those companies ever devised such a method, they would gain immense
profits from the new medication, said Burkholder.

While Burkholder's argument was moving and passionate, it wasn't
necessarily the right argument to counterbalance the next speaker, Const.
Robert Brunette of the Greater Sudbury Police Service.

In a straightforward and rather uninspiring manner Brunette listed the
reasons why marijuana shouldn't be legalized.

Almost all of the reasons he listed were taken directly from Health Canada
and Canadian Police Association websites.

In a nutshell, the argument against legalization falls into two main
categories: health risks and the social message legalization would convey.

Brunette pointed to research indicating smoking marijuana is as dangerous
for a person's health as smoking cigarettes because it contains more tar
and is addictive if mixed with tobacco.

He pointed to studies indicating smoking three to five joints a day is
equivalent to inhaling 20 cigarettes.

Brunette said he doesn't buy the argument legalizing marijuana will free up
police resources.

Legalization would only increase demand, which would in turn increase supply.

And because the marijuana trade in Canada is heavily managed by organized
crime, this might actually increase the workload for police.

The counter-argument to the point is the government would probably manage
any supply and distribution network if pot was ever legalized.

Brunette said he also worried about the message being sent to children.
Legalizing marijuana is counter-productive to a healthier lifestyle.

"Why would we want to legalize something that's even worse [than
cigarettes]," said Brunette. "We already have one bad problem, let's not
add another."

He also pointed to statistics about the "gateway drug" theory which
suggests young people who try pot will eventually experiment and get hooked
on harder drugs.

"They're 85 times more susceptible to using other drugs than those who didn't."

While both presenters gave valid arguments to justify their position, the
debate broke down at times because the issue of medical use and
legalization or decriminalization are two seperate issues.

The two overlap but don't belong together. For example, if the laws were
changed to legalize marijuana, medicinal users still couldn't grow their
own pot without an exemption.

For more information, visit: www.hc.sc.gc.ca (Health Canada); www.camh.net
(Centre for Addiction and Mental Health; www.cfdp.ca (Canadian Foundation
for Drug Policy); www.parl.gc.ca (Parliament); www.hempnation.com (Hemp
Nation); and www.johnhoward.ca (John Howard Society).

Just the Facts

Exemption Categories:

There are three categories of people who can apply for cannabis medical
exemptions. Category 1: People suffering from a terminal illness who are
expected to die within a year. Category 2: People suffering from severe
symptoms of a serious medical condition like multiple sclerosis; spinal
cord injury or disease; cancer; HIV/AIDS; arthritis; and epilepsy. Category
3: People suffering from severe symptoms of a serious medical condition
other than those contained in Category 2, where conventional treatments
have failed.

Terms of Reference:

Marijuana (cannabis, pot, grass, weed, reefer, ganja, or joint) is the
flowering tops and leaves of the cannabis plant. It's usually smoked in
pipes or in hand-rolled cigarettes. Hashish (hash) is the dried, sticky
resin of the cannabis plant. It's sold in pieces and is crumbled and smoked
in a pipe or in a hand-rolled cigarette with tobacco. Oil (hash, honey or
pot oil) is an extract of cannabis or hash. It can be spread onto a
cigarette paper, rolled with tobacco and smoked or mixed with tobacco in a
pipe. THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) is the active ingredient in cannabis.
Marinol, an appetite stimulant, is a synthetic form of THC used to treat
the side effects of various medical conditions or diseases.

Policy Options:

Status quo: Leave the current laws and policies in place. De Facto
decriminalization: Instruct Crown to stop prosecuting cases of simple
cannabis possession. Decriminalization: Remove cannabis possession from the
Controlled Substances and Drugs Act and place under the Contraventions Act
as a minor ticketable offense. Controlled legalization: Legalize production
and consumption with strict controls and high taxes like alcohol and taxes.

7 per cent of population smoke pot

In 1923, Canada was one of the first countries to make possession of
marijuana illegal.

The listing of cannabis as a prohibited substance is a mystery since there
was no discussion in Parliament about making it one.

No person was charged with cannabis possession in Canada until 1937.

According to a drug use survey by the John Howard Society, seven per cent
of population in Ontario used cannabis in the last year.

The use of cannabis among Grade 7 to 12 students is higher than tobacco
(29.8 per cent vs. 23.6 per cent).

Around $400 million is spent annually by the criminal justice system on
cannabis-related offenses.