Canadian pot laws struck down

[goof2]

Just to make sure I'm getting this, the Canadian government (and Health Canada) decided to allow prescriptions for medical marijuana, doctors have not jumped on the prescription bandwagon with sufficient fervor, this is due to pressure from the same government that enabled prescribing it in the first place, and that pressure is in response to American disapproval? I must be missing something because that does not strike me as a logical progression.

[Papa_Complex]

The programme started in 2001, IIRC, which means that it started under Jean Chretien (a Liberal). The current government is Conservative and led by someone who believes things like draconian drug laws serve a valid purpose. He also wants to create more mandatory minimum sentences, for various crimes, and increase the size of our prison system (something that would definitely be needed, if he continues trying to follow an American model).

The Canadian Medical Association has taken a stand that doctors should prescribe, if they feel comfortable, but that more research is needed.

[shmike]

Originally Posted by goof2

Just to make sure I'm getting this, the Canadian government (and Health Canada) decided to allow prescriptions for medical marijuana, doctors have not jumped on the prescription bandwagon with sufficient fervor, this is due to pressure from the same government that enabled prescribing it in the first place, and that pressure is in response to American disapproval? I must be missing something because that does not strike me as a logical progression.

You obviously don't believe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7v0o27BPIIk

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

The programme started in 2001, IIRC, which means that it started under Jean Chretien (a Liberal). The current government is Conservative and led by someone who believes things like draconian drug laws serve a valid purpose. He also wants to create more mandatory minimum sentences, for various crimes, and increase the size of our prison system (something that would definitely be needed, if he continues trying to follow an American model).

The Canadian Medical Association has taken a stand that doctors should prescribe, if they feel comfortable, but that more research is needed.

The article said 2001, but has anything changed legislatively concerning medical marijuana since then? I'd also be curious to see if the number of prescriptions issued declined significantly after Chretien left office. At least on the surface it seems to me like doctors are basing their decisions on medicine, not politics. This judge is throwing out all marijuana laws because doctors are not using the legally available means enough to satisfy him.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by goof2

The article said 2001, but has anything changed legislatively concerning medical marijuana since then? I'd also be curious to see if the number of prescriptions issued declined significantly after Chretien left office. At least on the surface it seems to me like doctors are basing their decisions on medicine, not politics. This judge is throwing out all marijuana laws because doctors are not using the legally available means enough to satisfy him.

Well I doubt that they declined, since the programme was fairly new, but they didn't increase much either. The simple fact is that the programme is there and how do you obtain more data, if you don't prescribe to the appropriate people?

Ultimately it's an issue of lack of support though. Why would a doctor prescribe something that the person wouldn't be able to get for six months, when alternatives are readily available?

From the CMA website:

CMA Position

The CMA has always recognized and acknowledged the unique requirements of those individuals suffering from a terminal illness or chronic disease for which conventional therapies have not been effective and for whom marijuana for medicinal purposes may provide relief.

The new regulations (introduced in June 2005) reduced the onus on physicians to declare the need for, and dose of, marijuana, focusing instead on an attestation of diagnosis and failure of conventional therapies.

The government has now passed regulations which are an improvement to previous regulations. These regulations reduce the potential impact on the patient-physician relationship.

The CMA provided input to the revised medical marijuana regulations and accepts that physicians who feel qualified to recommend this product to patients do so in accordance with the regulations.

The advancement of scientific knowledge about medical marijuana must be encouraged. In order to encourage the research that is necessary to advance such knowledge, government should develop innovative methods to establish the safety, efficacy, most appropriate amount to be used, and the most effective delivery mechanism for treatment of specific conditions. The same safety standards should apply to medical marijuana as to pharmaceutical health products.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Well I doubt that they declined, since the programme was fairly new, but they didn't increase much either. The simple fact is that the programme is there and how do you obtain more data, if you don't prescribe to the appropriate people?

Ultimately it's an issue of lack of support though. Why would a doctor prescribe something that the person wouldn't be able to get for six months, when alternatives are readily available?

From the CMA website:

CMA Position

The CMA has always recognized and acknowledged the unique requirements of those individuals suffering from a terminal illness or chronic disease for which conventional therapies have not been effective and for whom marijuana for medicinal purposes may provide relief.

The new regulations (introduced in June 2005) reduced the onus on physicians to declare the need for, and dose of, marijuana, focusing instead on an attestation of diagnosis and failure of conventional therapies.

The government has now passed regulations which are an improvement to previous regulations. These regulations reduce the potential impact on the patient-physician relationship.

The CMA provided input to the revised medical marijuana regulations and accepts that physicians who feel qualified to recommend this product to patients do so in accordance with the regulations.

The advancement of scientific knowledge about medical marijuana must be encouraged. In order to encourage the research that is necessary to advance such knowledge, government should develop innovative methods to establish the safety, efficacy, most appropriate amount to be used, and the most effective delivery mechanism for treatment of specific conditions. The same safety standards should apply to medical marijuana as to pharmaceutical health products.

If it is about patient care then prescribing it a lot is fine. If it is about obtaining more data then setting up a tightly managed double blind scientific trial consisting of a control group and a treatment group is what should happen. Doling out prescriptions, even if they are to the appropriate people, produces zero scientific data.

Either way it doesn't matter to me, I think medical, recreational, and commercial marijuana should be legal. From my perspective though the issue here is someone trying to override medical decisions by judicial fiat. Running marijuana through an FDA type drug approval process will do a lot more for increasing prescriptions than any decision issued from the bench.

I also fail to see how this is some sort of conservative/progressive. The article you quote above states the regulations were actually relaxed after a conservative PM came in.

[Papa_Complex]

Incorrect. Harper took office in 2006. Paul Martin, a Liberal and former Finance Minister, was Prime Minister between Chretien and Harper. Harper has been pushing a "law and order" agenda, that completely ignores that our rates of recidivism are a fraction of yours. He's been riding the "all drugs are bad" pony pretty hard, putting it away wet.

Prescribing marijuana might not provide scientific data, but it does provide statistical data. It's better than nothing, but could be done in conjunction with scientific studies.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Incorrect. Harper took office in 2006. Paul Martin, a Liberal and former Finance Minister, was Prime Minister between Chretien and Harper. Harper has been pushing a "law and order" agenda, that completely ignores that our rates of recidivism are a fraction of yours. He's been riding the "all drugs are bad" pony pretty hard, putting it away wet.

Prescribing marijuana might not provide scientific data, but it does provide statistical data. It's better than nothing, but could be done in conjunction with scientific studies.

Yep, my bad about the PM succession. I assumed (obviously incorrectly) that Chretien was replaced with the conservative. That does add a bit more weight to prescription rates depending on conservative vs. liberal PMs though. You have 5 years from enactment with liberals and 5 years after with conservatives to compare to each other. It certainly wouldn't be definitive, but it would be interesting to see none the less.

Just prescribing it provides no data. With all the issues inherent in that "method" it would do nothing more than provide some simple anecdotes. The article states doctors aren't prescribing marijuana because there isn't enough scientific data establishing its effectiveness. Taking the article on its face it seems to me the judge is overruling the doctors' medical opinion.

I don't know how the drug approval process works up there, but down here they run the studies first to determine how effective the drug is compared to its dangers before approving it to be widely prescribed. By no means is that process 100% effective but it does try to inject some dispassionate analysis to the process. I'm guessing Canada has a similar process and, if the original article is to be believed, the judge wants the process to run in reverse, if at all.

[Papa_Complex]

The text of the decision isn't available yet, but my admittedly limited information indicates that he passed judgment based on, among other things, expert medical testimony.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

The text of the decision isn't available yet, but my admittedly limited information indicates that he passed judgment based on, among other things, expert medical testimony.

I have no information either, but I'll bet there was competing expert medical testimony and they contradicted each other. I would also bet the experts on each side are advocates for their respective sides. The opinion will be interesting but I'm more curious about what happens on appeal. I'd be very surprised if this ruling doesn't get thrown out.