davidmalmolevine
(superposter)
4/18/01 08:01 PM
|
Last chance to stop Rock from playing pot monopoly
[Post#: 118513
]
|
|
|
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 11:04:35 PDT [Show full headers]
From: "David Bourgeois" [Add to Address Book]
Subject: 3PDF FilesFromHealthCan.AboutNewPotLaws
Hello,
Here's the 3 PDF files which should be read for an understanding of
Canada's new(Apr.7) Marijuana laws. Also, if you want to protest (& I
think we should, often & loudly), you have only 30 days (until May 7th).
Page 18 of the New Laws PDF has all the info on how, when & to whom
you should comment.
One suggestion is to e-mail ... Bruce_Erickson@hc-sc.gc.ca
You must cite Canada Gazette,Part 1, and the date of publication of
this notice (Apr.7,2001)
Another is to phone (613)957-2826 or fax (613)946-4224.
Another is to write to: Bruce Erickson,
Office of Controlled Substances,
Department of Health,
Address Locator 3503 D,
Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada
K1A 1B9
P.S. Remember, you must cite Canada Gazette, Part 1, and the date
of publication of this notice (Apr.7,2001).
***We should keep them very, very busy (even overloaded) dealing
with our concerns!!!
Your buddy,
David Bourgeois
B.C.M.P.
Candidate for Surrey-White Rock
The above letter was sent to me via e-mail with a bunch of attachments (the new proposed regs)......I suggest getting in contact with this candidate if you still haven't seen the new hoops - um... regulations that rock has drawn up. I'm of the opinion we risk overregulating all herbs if we over-regulate one of them........so I'm in favor of regulating cannabis like we do herba and coffee beans....and all those other "non-fatal with simple advice" botanicals.
"I have struggled against tyranny. I didn't do that in order to substitute another." Desmond Tutu
|
talisman
(journeyman)
4/22/01 09:12 AM
|
Re: Last chance to stop Rock from playing pot monopoly
[Post#: 119807
/ re: 118513
]
|
|
|
6:10 PM 21/04/2001
Bruce Erickson,
Office of Controlled Substances,
Department of Health,
Address Locator 3503D,
Ottawa, Ontario,
K1A 1B9;
Tel: (613) 957-2826
Fax:(613) 946-4224
email: bruce_erickson@hc-sc.gc.ca
Mr. Erickson,
The following are my concerns as required by Canada Gazette, Part 1, Apr.7,2001:
Cannabis patients in the first category (with only a year to live) need only get the approval of their doctor. But Cannabis patients in the second category will have to find a medical specialist willing to attest that "all conventional therapies" have been tried and found "medically inappropriate." Cannabis patients who fall into the third category will have to find two willing specialists.
If you are in category one and you survive longer than two years, you are obligated to get out of category one is tantamount to saying that should Cannabis has the effect of prolonging life, then it is should be made more difficult to obtain qualifications!
There are many other medicines that are far more powerful, much more dangerous and have far more significant side effects that are not regulated in this way; they need only a normal doctor to be prescribed. With Cannabis, now you need to see a specialist. This is not a matter of approving the drug, it is a matter of approving the patient.
The proposed regulations raise serious questions about how many specialists and doctors will be willing to support an application for medical marijuana. Last year, Canadian medical licensing authorities discouraged doctors from
prescribing medical cannabis with vague threats about recording their names and endangering their licenses. Under the new regulations, doctors who prescribe pot will have to supply Health Canada with reams of personal information including their provincial medical license numbers.
The Ministry of Health threatens to provide all of this information to the provincial authority responsible for licensing that doctor if the Ministry of Health believes that the doctor has "contravened a rule of conduct
established by the [medical licensing] authority." Which, ironically, might include a rule against prescribing cannabis to patients. Health Canada will also tattle on doctors for prescribing cannabis if the doctor is found
guilty of a drug offence (like smoking cannabis), or if the doctor makes a "false statement under these regulations." So if Health Canada disagrees with a doctor's recommendation that only cannabis can help a particular
patient, that doctor might lose his license.
The proposed regulations also raise questions about how many medpot patients will be willing to apply, given Health Canada's penchant for releasing such information to the press and police. The proposed regulations invasively require that applicants - like doctors - supply tons of
personal info, as well as two current photos of themselves. Additionally, medpot applicants may be subjected to expensive application fees (which personally I cannot afford).
For compassion clubs it is a huge step backward, because those who apply for an exemption have to mention one of two things, either they are going to produce the marijuana themselves, or they are going to get it from an licensed distributor. In article 4, patients have to name a supplier, and in article 6 the reason [for refusing the patient's application] is that the distributor mentioned is not licensed according to the legislation. And there is no licensing for organizations, just individuals. So there
are no licenses for compassion clubs. And any patient mentioning that their supplier is a compassion club will be automatically denied.
Growers will also be heavily scrutinized under the proposed regulations. Growers must pass criminal record checks, supply personal information, and have no prior drug offences in the past ten years. They can supply only one medical cannabis patient each, and a maximum total of only three growers can operate in a single location. Growers must also make their grow-locations available to unannounced, unwarranted inspections, during which inspectors may snoop through any computer data, records or
information, look into any container that might contain marijuana, and "seize any substance" found on the premises.
The proposed regulations promise that all personal information will be kept confidential, except in the case of a complaint. Should anyone, a disgruntled neighbour, an ex-spouse, or even a cop, complain about a licensed grower, an inspector will make a record, and the Minister of
Health can notify local police forces, initiating an investigation or even a raid against the grower.
Medical growers are unlikely to seek licenses under these conditions, and so medical users who have to name a licensed provider on their application are unlikely to seek government approval, unless they are growing their own cannabis themselves. This leaves medical cannabis users
largely where they were before the new regulations: with no realistic way of getting medical cannabis from an outside supplier.
In writing to you this letter, this is my attempt to bring to your attention that the fact of the matter is that these Regulations are beyond unacceptable, they are discriminatory.
Wayne Phillips
|
DAWEEDKING
(journeyman)
4/22/01 11:54 AM
|
|
Re: Last chance to stop Rock from playing pot monopoly
[Post#: 119873
/ re: 119807
]
|
|
|
April 20th 2001
Dear Health Canada,
I writing in response to the proposed Marijuana regulations set forth to go in effect July 15th 2001. I have several points from a growing point of view, that deserve some immediate consideration and attention.
We currently work very closely with Federal Section-56 Excemptees, we are the Marijuana Compassion Club of Windsor, located in Windsor Ontario. We are the ones who supply a clean, cheap, safe, and medical grade marijauna to the people you give the right to to use it. Without us they will tell you a regular supply is expensive, unclean, and indeed very hard for them to find.
I wonder how the growing part of the proposal, to license growers, is suppose to work.
Financially, Economically, and Compassionatly, they make no sense, and if passed through are going to make things worse, for sick and ailing Canadians to find this benificial medicine.
We have handfulls of Section -56 holders that your offices has gave out.
Yet the patients do not carry with them Marijuana growing experience, culitivation rights, the financial means needed, or even the desire to do it.
If a patient falls ill and can not attend a crop it is surly doomed to die. With section -56 excemptees being so ill this is inevitable to happen. Thusly they not only fail at growing but lose money as well, in needless purchases of hydroponic equipment, lights, seed purschases, hydro costs, set up and ongoing growing purchases, growing books ect.
The ones who do not have cultivation rights obviously are not finding there medicine, and have to look to a unclean, expensive, illegal, corrupt, and unhealthy black market supply.
To give the right to a patient to grow there own Marijuana is fine, but you need to make a supply available to the sick that have no desire to grow, or can't grow.
- Outdoor growing requires a extremly secretive location to prevent theft, yet but must be
open enough to all day sun. 1km from a school makes anyone is a city pretty much
automatically overlooked.
- The lifecycle of the Marijauna plants takes 5-6 months outdoors for a crop, and this can
only be done only once a year here in this Canadian climate.
- Outdoor growing is way less yeilding then indoor growing, and a harvest of medicine
would need to last the patient a year, thusly a garden of alot more plants is needed.
- Not properly stored Marijuana begins to break down and detearerate after three to four
months. Makes the balance of a outdoor crop useless, and undesirable to use.
With these options in mind a outdoor operation is not a very good choice to a grower medically or not. The alternative and safer method is a indoor growing operation, hydroponic or soil organics.
- A basic indoor, and initial equipment setup with light runs $500.00 - $700.00 dollars
- Alot safer, private, and secure.
- Higher yeilds per plant, and a crop can be finshed or cycled in three months, means a lot
less plants.
- Growing can be done indoors all year, in any season, or weather conditions.
As far as growing or producing a clean and medical grade marijuana is concerned, a indoor operation is the best, safest, and securest way to grow.
Giving the right to caregivers to produce and supply this medicine is a must, and I commend you on your desicion to do just that. However the way the licensing and proposed regualtions are set out, this entire program is doomed to fail, not work, and make it even harder for a sick and dieing Canadian patient, especially the excemptees, to obtain medicine.
I would like now to point out a few major points in the new proposed regulations.................
- (Section - 23) The maximum number of plants and quantity of Marijuana.
The set out regulations allow a designated grower or section-56 holder to only cultivate the very minimal amount of medicine or plants. This to a unexperienced OR experienced grower is going to be very hard to acheive.
Male marijuana plants are not grown and smoked, they are elimenated. Only the floral clusters of the female plants are used as smokable marijuana. Male and female plants are established in the plants flowering stage, and plants do not show there sexes until flowering commences. Before a plant goes into flowering, "propogation" MUST be learned. Propogation is the process of cloning from a mother plant, it is done to ensure the next crop will be a garden of all useable female plants, and done so a grower will not have to purschase and plant additional seeds every harvest.
A gardener as far as marijuana growing is concerned, needs a cloning area, a vegative room, and a seperate flowering area. And at the bear minimum, at the very least, a cloning area and a flowering area.
Its a well known fact about marijuana seeds being expensive, thusly the purschase of new seeds every harvest would be extremly expensive. Also, after marijuana seeds are planted males and females would average 50 percent each, thusly each crop half of the plants are destroyed or elimenated. A entire pointless and expensive way to grow, and a unacceptable method for a sick and ailing patient.
The Minimum amount of plants grown MUST be raised to account for these points above, and to consider the entire lifecycle of the Marijuana plant must be considered.
- (Section - 27 b and 30 c) Has not been found guilty, within 10 years preceding the application of a drug offence.
Clearly with 66,000 Canadians carrying with them a marijuana possesion charge elimenating this kind of experience from applying is a serious error. This leaves a select few of experienced growers in Canada eligble to apply. A section -56 holder indeed will have trouble finding a grower. There will be no list announced by the Government, listing all the eligable growers in Canada, as one grower can grow for only one patient.
Marijuana related charges and possesions should be dropped or considered removed from the list of past 10 year offences.
- (Section - 42) Marijuana Seed
Marijuana seeds are no secret, and big business in Canada. One seed distributer in Canada boasts over 400 different strains from 25 plus different seed companys. They all come in 10 seed packages and range in price from $20.00 to $450.00 for ten seeds. However buying seeds in Canada remains illegal, and so does the selling of them, even though no one in Canada has ever been charged or convicted in dealing with Marijuana seeds.
But with the limits on the plants grown a patient will have to sucumb to regular purchases of illegal seeds, and at high prices. Just $100.00 for ten seeds and only 3 times a year is a $300.00 bill to a grower, or sick patient who needlessly to say cannot afford this. A general excemption is in order for all seed distributors, or licences for a marijuana seed breeders hein and within Canada.
- (Section - 44) The holder of a license to produce shall not produce marijuana in common
with more then two other holders of licences.
This is only benificial to the ailing section-56 holders in the extremly and rare occasion that three section-56 patients would be living or growing all in the same location. What are the odds on that happening. To many other innocent and eligable excemptees will continue to suffer.
As well I understand and have been informed that there is to be NO compenstion to be given whatsoever from a Section-56 holder to their own one designated grower.
- (Section - 47) Inspection
(a) Open and examine any container found there that could contain Marijuana
(b) Examine anything found there that is used or is capable of being used to produce or keep
marijuana
(c) Examine any records, electronic data or other documents found there dealing with
marijuana, other then dealing with a medical condition of a person, and make copies or take
extracts.
(d) Use or cause to be used any computer system found there to examine electronic data
referred to in paragraph (c)
(e) Reproduce, or cause to reproduce, any documant from electronic data referred to in
paragraph (c) in the form of a printout or other output.
(f) Take any document or output referred to in paragraph (c) or (e) for examination or copying.
(g) Examine any substances found there and, fr the purpose of analysis, take samples as
resonabley required.
Any container that could contain marijuana, is entirly every nook and cranny and container in ones home. This clearly is discrimatory and opens this up to basically a single male or single female. I ask you for a mommnet to hypathentically consider that a license has been put into your hands. If you have a wife, children, or family, thats alot of containers and personal things to search on the entire primeses.
A family man considering in becoming licensed could and will not allow or open their home on a regular basis, to a inspector to search through their wifes and familys things, as well as search the on-primese, non relevant computers. A severe invasion of privacy on a prospective grower seperate and away from a growing room area.
And to do this not being allowed to accept any compensation whatsoever makes this bear no sense at all. The onsite growing area or room should "only" be considered in a inspection.
Marijuana indoors "cannot" be grown for free.
1 - 1000 watt light - ballast, bulb, reflector, taxes, out the door =$350.00 a 400 watt is $220.00
1 - seperate conversion bulb for the flowering stage including taxes= $200.00
pumps, timers, fans, intake/exhaust, electrical cords and surge bars, pails or pots, purschasing and procuring of soil or hydroponic mediums, reflective materials, stands, nutirents, yearly water consumption, added security ect = min $300.00-500.00
- Seeds - $100.00 and without plant numbers going up to consider "propogationing" this number could be times 3 for the year.
- yearly hydro consumption of a 1000 watt lighting is $25.00 per month x 12 months = $300.00 adding fans, pumps, exhaust and timers increases this another $100.00 yearly or to a total of $400.00 in hydro electric power consumption.
Were up to a minimum of $1350.00 - $1850.00 in initial set up fees and operating costs for the "first" year indoors. And all done with free labour for 365 days a year. This as well is only a one light set up growing only 6 large plants per crop.
Additional years growing would be cheaper as intial purchases of equipment have be aquired, however it is going to still be at a high financial cost to a ongoing grower, exceptionaaly and especially with this no compenstion considered. In ongoing seed purchases, replacement equipment, the procuring and/or purchasing of growing mediums and hydro bills ect.
Again it will be quite tough, or nearly imposible for a medical patient to find a grower that is willing to take on these kind of finacial burdens for free. Free labour as well. And agreeing and be willing to submit to the unannounced regular searches.
The alternative is a seperate and entirly different location dedicated to only growing.
a minimal and additional $500.00 per month in rent times 12 months= $6000.00
plus the initial setup and ongoing yearly fees of $1350.00 brings this to a whopping $7300.00
Now a seperate address would need 365 days a year maitanance. This would result in a individule grower or sick patient in spending a whopping amount of time and money in travelling expenses and labour ect.
Now $7300.00 divided by 12 months is $ 608.00 per month to supply to one patient only, their required and needed medical marijuana. No 365 day a year labour considered, and no compensation allowed, all for free? Wow !
Now we may be compassionate but deffinetly no one could be or is this crazy, to even consider growing marijuana for one patient, in a alternative location, all for free labour, and PAY a minimal of $7300.00 to do it for the year.
Therefore the first option is the only next choice with less finacial burden and agreeing to home searches. Still carrying with it a the hefty financial and time consuming burden of growing. $1350.00 devided by 12 months is a $122.00 burden to a grower, or patient and much time consumed providing they got it all right.
Now I have to say again we may be compassionate but deffinetly no one could be, or is this crazy, to even consider growing marijuana for one patient, in there own home, all for free labour, and PAY a minimal of $1350.00 -$1850.00 to do it for the year.
There is a 2 to 3 year learning curve for all new growers depending on the way and how they went about learning to grow. They will need to learn growing theory from a grower or growing book, growing vidio, and/or on the internet. And then still after that they will need to learn much practical growing, from there own trail and errors in their own growing rooms. A very hard thing to do, and put on the shoulders of a ill excemptee, who cannot even roll their own joints.
The excemptees we are involved with now depend on us for a supply, its cheap, safe, clean and effective. We have heard and seen first hand, many horror stories on how excemptees have had turned to the streets and black market for a expensive, unclean, or unsafe supply. They have had to turn to the streets, as there excemptions never carried with it cultivation rights, and or their attempts at growing have been futile.
We urge you take make drastic changes in the existing marijuana proposal. Then those experienced growers underground, will want to come above ground and put what they know to use, for the goodness and benifit of all medical marijuana patients, and be able to do it legally.
I asked you on the phone Mr. Erikson, if any of you had discussed anything with a Marijuana grower before writing this proposal. You said, you had not. A group of people wrote these regulations without the knowledge of the marijuana plants lifecycle, or marijuana in general. is wrong, and surly to fail.
I as a Canadian and with the knowledge I posess, willing, and free of charge, to come to Ottawa anytime for a meeting. To discuss the fundamentals and basics of growing Marijuana. Working together a proposal can be met, and one that is fully benificial to all medical patients and caregivers.
Fred Pritchard
___________________________________________________________
What is Compassion ?
"Compassion is litrally not being able to sleep at night, knowing that one of Canada's own sick and dieing Federal Section -56 excemptees, paid $300.00 for FIVE grams of marijuana, and is being blackmailed by street hoods for her pills".......................DWK
___________________________________________________________
DaWeedKing
www.daweedking.com
L E G A L I Z E
|
talisman
(journeyman)
4/23/01 02:28 PM
|
|
Re: Last chance to stop Rock from playing pot monopoly
[Post#: 120231
/ re: 119807
]
|
|
|
This is an updated version of ny earlier letter. Hopefully I've made clear any areas that convoluted, spelling errors, and other oversites. If any care to use it,or any part of it, go for it.
Monday, April 23, 2001
Bruce Erickson,
Office of Controlled Substances,
Department of Health,
Address Locator 3503D,
Ottawa, Ontario,
K1A 1B9;
Email: bruce_erickson@hc-sc.gc.ca
Mr. Erickson,
The following are my concerns of the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement as required by Canada Gazette, Part 1, Apr.7, 2001:
1. Cannabis patients in the first category (with only a year to live) need only get the approval of their doctor. But cannabis patients in the second category will have to find a medical specialist willing to attest that "all conventional therapies" have been tried and found "medically inappropriate." Cannabis patients who fall into the third category will have to find two willing
specialists.
If you are in category one and you survive longer than two years, you are obligated to get out of category one; that is tantamount to saying that should cannabis have the effect of prolonging life, then it is should be made more
difficult to obtain the necessary qualifications!
There are many other medicines that are far more powerful, much more dangerous and have far more significant side effects that are not regulated in this way; they need only a normal doctor to be prescribed. With cannabis, now you need to see a specialist. This is not a matter of approving the drug; it is a matter of approving the patient while unnecessarily burdening any physician or specialist that would approve cannabis as medicine. This is not only
inappropriate, and discriminatory, it is inefficient in terms of physician workload, physician-to-patient time ratio; it will also draw much needed resources from an already cash strapped Health System.
2. The proposed regulations raise serious questions about how many specialists and doctors would be willing to support an application for medicinal cannabis. Last year, Canadian medical licensing authorities discouraged doctors from prescribing medicinal cannabis with vague threats about recording their names and endangering their licenses. Under the new regulations, doctors who prescribe cannabis will have to supply to Health Canada reams of personal
information including their provincial medical licensing numbers.
3. The Ministry of Health threatens to provide all of this information to the provincial authority responsible for licensing that doctor if the Ministry of
Health believes that the doctor has "contravened a rule of conduct established by the [medical licensing] authority." Which, ironically, might include a rule against prescribing cannabis to patients. Health Canada will also inform on
doctors for prescribing cannabis if the doctor is found guilty of a drug offence (like smoking cannabis), or if the doctor is deemed to have made a "false statement under these regulations." So if Health Canada disagrees with
a doctor's recommendation that only cannabis can help a particular patient, that doctor might lose his license. On what criteria is this based ...bureaucratic whim, the patients' past criminal record, doctor chastisement,
or Health Canada's less than proven track record of getting it right.
4. The proposed regulations also raise questions about how many medpot patients will be willing to apply, given Health Canada's penchant for releasing such information to the
press and police. The proposed regulations invasively require that applicants, on behalf of the patient supply tons of personal info, as well as two current and specific photos of the patient. Additionally, medpot applicants may be subjected to expensive application fees (which personally I cannot afford - if I could find physician willing to forego the above).
5. For compassion clubs it is a huge step backward, because those who apply for an exemption have to mention one of two things, either they are going to produce the cannabis themselves, or they are going to get it from a licensed
distributor. In that patients have to name a supplier, if that distributor mentioned is not licensed according to the legislation the patient exemption is revoked/denied. There is no licensing for organizations/compassion clubs, just
individuals. And any patient mentioning that their supplier is a compassion club will be automatically denied.
6. Growers will also be heavily scrutinized under the proposed regulations. Growers must pass criminal record checks, supply personal information, and have no prior drug offences in the past ten years. They can supply only one medical cannabis patient each, and a maximum total of only three growers can operate in a single location. Growers must also make their grow-locations available to unannounced, unwarranted inspections, during which inspectors may snoop through any computer data, records or information, look into any container that might
contain cannabis, and "seize any substance" found on the premises.
7. The proposed regulations promise that all personal information will be kept confidential, except in the case of a complaint. Should anyone, a disgruntled
neighbour, an ex-spouse, or even a cop, complain about a licensed grower, an inspector will make a record, and the Minister of Health can notify local police forces, initiating an investigation or even a raid against the grower.
8. Medical growers are unlikely to seek licenses under these conditions, and so potential medical patients who have to name a licensed provider on their application are unlikely to seek government approval, unless they are growing their own cannabis themselves. This leaves medical cannabis patients largely where they were before the new regulations: with no realistic way of getting medical cannabis from an outside supplier.
9. There is no Canada Customs and no Revenue Agency considerations, thereby rendering restrictions on potential patient mobility in and out of the country; no Revenue Agency considerations creates a "grey area" regarding taxation and record keeping necessities. All while further complicating both Canada Customs and Revenue Agency policy.
10. Grounds for refusal by the Ministry work at cross-purposes of its supposed intended purpose as required by the order of Justice Sheppard.
11. The ongoing impact that this Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement will have enormous negative impact not only on Health Canada but also on all involved. To attempt to offset this cost by passing it along to the patient undermines any notion of the universality of health care in Canada by setting into play mechanisms by which only those that can afford these imposed costs will have access.
This letter brings to your attention that this Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement is beyond unacceptable in that it creates undo burden where in fact none should exist, it is gives cause to discriminatory practice; in effect this
Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement does not meet the requirements as set down by Justice Sheppard.
Wayne Phillips
|
shiznitz
(enthusiast)
4/25/01 02:19 PM
|
|
Re: Last chance to stop Rock from playing pot monopoly
[Post#: 121082
/ re: 120231
]
|
|
|
Talisman,
thanks, I just sent your letter...
I would have written my own but didn't have the time,
still felt like sending him my concerns, so thanks again
for posting your letter, it's very good. So is your's, DA WEED KING!
LEGALIZE...
|
TaxPayer
(member)
4/26/01 08:03 PM
|
|
Re: Last chance to stop Rock from playing pot monopoly
[Post#: 121657
/ re: 121082
]
|
|
|
The following was my letter. I received a standard reply a few days later, saying that my comments would be included, etc., etc. I may have goofed the detail on how many patients a provider could supply as I read it was one, then read it was three in other documentation. I quoted the "Gazette...." portion as the subject.
Concerning the new medical cannabis regulations, the special
registration procedures for doctors are punitive, unusual and seem
designed to dissuade doctors from prescribing cannabis. The permission
to prescribe is generally based on a "last resort" basis, which is
punitive to patients who may already have a history of medical relief
using cannabis.
The regulations for providers are punitive to patients who may have
found a talented grower of quality material who is now restricted to a
single patient. Agricultural success is a mix of talent and science, not
science alone. Properly produced material has a much higher medical
value and patients shouldn't be deprived of that quality by provider
restrictions.
I don't believe the new regulations substantially alter the conditions
which led to the Parker decision in the Ontario Supreme Court and I will
be severely disappointed in that court if it finds the new regulations
satisfactory after the next challenge. The regulations do not treat
cannabis equally to other medications. Since there is no substantial
evidence to show harm to society caused by cannabis(as opposed to the
condition of it's prohibition), I believe the constitutional argument in
the Parker case will stand as will others in progress.
I want my elected officials to get tough on crime and remove the
lucrative cannabis trade from their hands by legalizing and regulating
sale as is done with alcohol. In this case doctors could recommend or
warn patients about cannabis use according to their best judgement,
without the fear of professional or government reprisals that the new
registration procedures will cause. This would have the additional
benefit of stimulating industry in inebriant, foodstuff and
manufacturing sectors.
This middle aged voter feels the only way to effectively manage cannabis
use is full legalization. I expect criminal sanctions for export to
intolerant countries would remain. This would not eliminate the criminal
trade, but would focus policing efforts on an area that the public at
large can respect.
I want my elected government to recognize that this plant has been used
effectively and safely for thousands of years and that the prohibition
of the last 80 years is based on racism and fear. Abraham Lincoln
recognized that the cause of temperance would not be served by
prohibition, and history proved him right. Learn from the alcohol
prohibition experience and take this plant out of the criminal domain by
simply regulating it's production and sale.
Honest people have to admit the health danger in everything we eat,
drink and breathe when moderation is ignored. We believe we are still
free to make adult lifestyle choices and need our government to show
this is true.
As an adult, I understand how difficult it is for the average citizen
and for politicians to propose legalization. The public at large knows
it's the right thing to do, though many are frightened to say. Most
Canadians openly support de-criminalization. We need a courageous
government to do the right thing and end the prohibition, reap the
benefits of a taxable industry and show true compassion to the
suffering.
The lengthy procedures outlined by the Health Ministry for medical
cannabis use shows fear, not compassion and not an intelligent
assessment of the legal status of this plant.
|
talisman
(journeyman)
4/27/01 12:12 PM
|
|
Re: Last chance to stop Rock from playing pot monopoly
[Post#: 121839
/ re: 121657
]
|
|
|
Taxpayer: I like the style of your letter...specifically the way you've phrased a few things. Since you've posted it here I figure you wouldn't mind if I used certain aspects of that in future letters that I send to politicians.
I send out between at least 3-6 per week so I need all the inspiration I can find.
Shiz: Go for it, that's why I post!
|
Fleur_Anarchiste
(stranger
)
4/27/01 02:56 PM
|
Re: Last chance to stop Rock from playing pot monopoly
[Post#: 121880
/ re: 118513
]
|
|
|
Hello to all,
I tought it would be interesting to present a french version of a letter for Mr Erickson, so that all canadians could voice their concerns.
Cannabinophiles et cannabiculteurs, À vos plumes! l'heure est venue de manifester contre les manoeuvres politiques gouvernementales en matière de cannabis. Écrivez un courriel ou une lettre à :
Bruce Erickson,
Office of Controlled Substances,
Department of Health,
Address Locator 3503 D,
Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada
K1A 1B9
courriel : Bruce_Erickson@hc-sc.gc.ca
Dans votre lettre, vous devez absolument faire mention de la Gazette Canadienne, Partie 1 et la date de publication de celle-ci, soit le 7 avril 2001. Il ne reste pas beaucoup de temps puisque la date limite est le 7 mai 2001.
Vous pouvez également appeler au: (613)957-2826 ou même envoyer un fax : (613)946-4224
L'objectif devrait être de créer une vague de commentaires venant de tout bords. Je vous conseille de regarder les archives du quotidien Le Devoir afin de trouver de l'information générale sur les récents changements à la loi, et pour plus de détails, le site de Santé Canada :
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/francais/archives/communiques/2001/2001_34f.htm
Voici donc la lettre :
Monsieur Bruce Erickson, il me semble que que je doit m'avancer en tant que bon citoyen afin de vour rappeller quelquechose, tel qu'inviter dans la Gazette Canadienne, Partie 1, du 7 avril 2001. Je vous inviterais à lire attentivement le texte ci-dessous, tirer du quotidien Le Devoir(24 avril 2001). Je suis certain qu'à la lecture de ce texte, vous saurez orienter les directives vers une meilleure loi, car c'est bien de la loi qu'il s'agit, Mr Erickson. Les chétifs changements annoncés par le Ministre de la Santé, l'honorable Allan Rock, ne nous ont pas du tout impressionnés. Au moment où il était temps d'ouvrir un débat national sur l'échec de la prohibition, sur la révision des lois et des messures répressive, le gouvernement choisit timidement de règlementer. J'invite le ministre Rock, et vous même Mr.Erickson, à lire l'extrait ci-présent et à communiquer avec Bruce K. Alexander et Marie-Andrée Bertrand, afin d'orienter la loi vers une politique de controle des risques. Je me demande bien à quel moment que vous,législateurs, comprendrerez que nous parlons ici de dignité humaine et que la répression auprès de citoyens pour qui le seul tord que l'on puisse leur reprocher est la consommation d'une petite plante verte est outragement honteuse. La chasse aux sorcières doit cesser, et comme vous le constaterer dans le texte, on y souligne qu'ils sont 5 millions de canadiens à tirer des bénéfices de cette plante pour des raisons multiples, et pourtant on les pourchasse inutilement. Or, au même moment, le gouvernement prévoit maintenir la législation qui entrave directment les droits fondamentaux destinés à tous les canadiens tels que garantie par le Chapitre 7 de la Partie 1 de la Charte canadiennes des droits et libertés : "Chacun a droit à la vie, à la liberté et à la sécurité de sa personne; il ne peut être porté atteinte à ce droit qu'en conformité avec les principes de justice fondamentale". Ne faites pas la sourde oreille à 90% de canadiens qui souhaite voir l'autorisation de l'usage du cannabis à des fins thérapeuthiques. Or, les récents changement en cette matière ne sont pas du tout convainquants. Je soumet ce questionement au Ministre Rock : comment ce fait-il qu'une personne souffrante doit encore quémander à son médecin et à au Ministère de la Santé pour la permission d'utilisé une substances douce comme le cannabis alors que la morphine et l'héroine ne nécéssitent pas autant de démarches? et je dois m'empêcher d'énoncer les énormes tords causer par des drogues fortes permises, telles que le tabac, la caffeine et l'alcool. Pour cela, réferrez vous auprès des experts ci-haut mentionnés et au texte que voici.
La dépendance aux drogues dures est un mythe. Une écrasante majorité d'utilisateurs échappent à l'esclavage de la cocaïne, du crack ou de l'héroïne. Les lois sévères adoptées au Canada reposent sur du vent.
Telle est la nature des propos-chocs lancés par les deux sommités , hier à Ottawa lors de la reprise des travaux du Comité sénatorial sur les drogues illicites.
Sous l'égide de leur collègue Pierre-Claude Nolin, une poignée de sénateurs ont entrepris une révision des lois sur le cannabis dans une approche de réduction des méfaits. Les audiences permettent de traiter des autres drogues comme en témoignent les présentations de M. Alexander et Mme Bertrand. Les deux experts ébranlent les idées reçues.
En s'appuyant sur des recherches scientifiques et sur ses 30 années d'expérience, le psychologue Bruce Alexander s'est attaqué au «mythe de l'accoutumance provoquée par les drogues», un concept sur lequel sont fondées les politiques antidrogues depuis un siècle.
Selon M. Alexander, les seules preuves concrètes de cette accoutumance reposent sur les témoignages de certains toxicomanes et de recherches techniques sur des animaux de laboratoires. «Ces éléments de preuve ont été embellis dans les médias d'information au point que l'idée d'une accoutumance provoquée par les drogues est devenue une vérité d'évidence qui n'appelle aucune vérification», a dit M. Alexander, un représentant du Département de psychologie de l'Université Simon Fraser, en Colombie-Britannique.
M. Alexander admet que certains consommateurs d'héroïne ou de cocaïne ont contracté une dépendance aux conséquences horribles. «Par contre, je nie que les drogues provoquent l'accoutumance et je nie l'utilité des lois draconiennes sur les drogues qui reposent en partie sur l'idée qu'elles le font.»
Le psychologue cite en preuve de nombreuses recherches scientifiques menées dans le monde au cours des 25 dernières années. Il ressort de ces travaux que la très grande majorité des utilisateurs d'héroïne, de crack ou de cocaïne évitent de sombrer dans la toxicomanie.
Enquête aux États-Unis
À titre d'exemple, une enquête menée aux États-Unis en 1990 auprès d'élèves de niveau secondaire révèle que 8,6 % d'entre eux ont pris de la cocaïne à un moment ou l'autre de leur vie. Moins d'un utilisateur sur 80 est considéré comme un cocaïnomane. Parmi les étudiants qui ont terminé l'école secondaire, la proportion de toxicomanes chute à 1 sur 400.
«Il est de la plus haute importance que le Sénat se demande pourquoi une croyance totalement fausse, jamais documentée, a pu recevoir un appui universel dans les médias d'information, chez des scientifiques de renom, au gouvernement du Canada et dans la population», estime M. Alexander.
Marie-Andrée Bertrand a apporté un début de réponse à cette question. Professeure émérite à l'École de criminologie de l'Université de Montréal, Mme Bertrand a consacré sa carrière à la remise en question des politiques antidrogues.
Les parlements nationaux sont restés «sourds et aveugles» aux rapports des experts et aux pressions populaires depuis plus d'un siècle. Ils sont plus sensibles à leur image de gardiens de l'ordre et au renouvellement de leur mandat, estime Mme Bertrand, qui reprend ici une thèse de la chercheuse Diane Riley.
Mme Bertrand estime que la conjoncture actuelle est propice à l'élaboration d'une nouvelle stratégie sur les drogues. La plupart des utilisateurs de drogues illicites à des fins récréatives ne sont un problème ni pour elles-mêmes, ni pour personne. «Les consommateurs ordinaires, c'est-à-dire 90 à 95 % des personnes qui font usage de drogues illicites, ne sont pas des toxicomanes et n'ont jamais affaire aux services judiciaires et pénaux», dit-elle.
Des études scientifiques montrent par ailleurs que le cannabis n'est pas très dangereux. Une certaine décriminalisation de la substance règne en pratique. La police et la justice assouplissent leurs actions même si l'État maintient des lois prohibitives.
Mais, encore aujourd'hui, la moitié des activités de la police en regard de la loi sur les drogues sont centrées sur des affaires de possession simple de marijuana, a rappelé Mme Bertrand. «La prohibition n'est tout simplement pas applicable.»
©Le Devoir 2001
Mr Erickson, recevez mes humbles salutations, et n'hésiter pas à me contacter afin de corriger une erreur vieille de 78 années...la prohibition.
Alexandre Bessette
|
TaxPayer
(member)
4/27/01 08:09 PM
|
|
Re: Last chance to stop Rock from playing pot monopoly
[Post#: 121929
/ re: 121839
]
|
|
|
Thanks Talisman and that is why I post. Correct me where I'm wrong so next time I can write it better and use whatever you like. The more our voices sound as one, the more we will be heard. A professional speaker taught me a long time ago that in trying to get something through to an adult audience you have to Tell them, tell them and tell them again.
|
|
