AWell I see no-one bothered to read the link I posted. Nice work.
Herre it is again with some hilights copied and pasted for those of you who can‘t be bothered to educate themselves...I guess you‘re all high eating Lucky Charms in your parent‘s basements.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/rep-e/summary-e.htm
Ø The size of the national production has significantly increased, and it is estimated that 50% of cannabis available in Canada is now produced in the country;
Ø The main producer provinces are British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec;
Ø Estimates of the monetary value of the cannabis market are unreliable. For example, if 400 tons are grown yearly in Canada, at a street value of $225 per ounce, the total value of the Canadian production would be less than $6 billion per year, less than the often quoted value of the BC market alone;
Ø An unknown proportion of national production is exported to the United States; and
Ø A portion of production is controlled by organized crime elements.
Ø In its natural state, cannabis contains between 0.5% and 3% THC. Sophisticated growing methods and genetic progress have made it possible to increase THC content in recent years, but it is impossible to estimate the average content of cannabis available in the market; it is reasonable to consider that content varies between 6% and 31%.
Ø THC is fat soluble and readily spreads in the innervated tissues of the brain; it reaches a peak in the blood plasma in less than nine minutes and falls to approximately 5% after one hour.
Ø The body is slow to eliminate THC and inactive THC metabolites can be detected in urine up to 27 days after use in the case of regular users.
Ø Psychoactive effects generally last two to three hours and may last as many as five to seven hours after use.
Ø The epidemiological data available indicates that close to 30% of the population (12 to 64 years old) has used cannabis at least once;
Ø Approximately 2 million Canadians over age 18 have used cannabis during the previous 12 months, approximately 600,000 have used it during the past month, and approximately 100,000 use it daily. Approximately 10% used cannabis during the previous year; and
Ø Use is highest between the ages of 16 and 24.
For youth in the 12-17 age group, we observed that:
Ø Canada would appear to have one of the highest rates of cannabis use among youths;
Ø Approximately 1 million would appear to have used cannabis in the previous 12 months, 750,000 in the last month and 225,000 would appear make daily use; and
Ø The average age of introduction to cannabis is 15.
Ø Most experimenters stop using cannabis;
Ø Regular users were generally introduced to cannabis at a younger age. Long-term users most often have a trajectory in which use rises and falls;
Ø Long-term regular users experience a period of heavy use in their early 20s;
Ø Most long-term users integrate their use into their family, social and occupational activities; and
Ø Cannabis itself is not a cause of other drug use. In this sense, we reject the gateway theory.
Ø Cannabis itself is not a cause of delinquency and crime; and
Ø Cannabis is not a cause of violence.
Ø The immediate effects of cannabis are characterized by feelings of euphoria, relaxation and sociability; they are accompanied by impairment of short-term memory, concentration and some psychomotor skills; and
Ø Long term effects on cognitive functions have not been established in research.
Ø Most users are not at-risk users insofar as their use is regulated, irregular and temporary, rarely beyond 30 years of age;
Ø For users above 16, at-risk use is defined as using between 0.1 to 1 gram per day; and
Ø Available epidemiological data suggests that approximately 100,000 Canadians might be at-risk users.
Ø The Committee feels that, because of its potential effects on the endogenous cannabinoid system and cognitive and psychosocial functions, any use in those under age 16 is at-risk use.
Ø More than one gram per day over a long period of time is heavy use, which can have certain negative consequences on the physical, psychological and social well-being of the user. According to the epidemiological data available, there is reason to believe that approximately 80,000 Canadians above age 16 could be excessive users;
Ø For those between the ages of 16 and 18, heavy use is not necessarily daily use but use in the morning, alone or during school activities;
Ø Heavy use can have negative consequences for physical health, in particular for the respiratory system (chronic bronchitis, cancer of the upper respiratory tract);
Ø Heavy use of cannabis can result in negative psychological consequences for users, in particular impaired concentration and learning and, in rare cases and with people already predisposed, psychotic and schizophrenic episodes;
Ø Heavy use of cannabis can result in consequences for a user's social well-being, in particular their occupational and social situation and their ability to perform tasks; and
Ø Heavy use of cannabis can result in dependence requiring treatment; however, dependence caused by cannabis is less severe and less frequent than dependence on other psychotropic substances, including alcohol and tobacco.
Ø Between 5% and 12% of drivers may drive under the influence of cannabis; this percentage increases to over 20% for young men under 25 years of age;
Ø Cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in automobile driving. Cannabis leads to a more cautious style of driving. However it has a negative impact on decision time and trajectory. This in itself does not mean that drivers under the influence of cannabis represent a traffic safety risk;
Ø A significant percentage of impaired drivers test positive for cannabis and alcohol together. The effects of cannabis when combined with alcohol are more significant than is the case for alcohol alone;
Ø Despite recent progress, there does not yet exist a reliable and non intrusive rapid roadside testing method;
Ø Blood remains the best medium for detecting the presence of cannabinoids;
Ø Urine cannot screen for recent use;
Ø Saliva is promising, but rapid commercial tests are not yet reliable enough;
Ø The visual recognition method used by police officers has yielded satisfactory results; and
Ø It is essential to conduct studies in order to develop a rapid testing tool and learn more about the driving habits of cannabis users.
Ø There are clear, though non-definitive indications of the therapeutic benefits of marijuana in the following conditions: analgesic for chronic pain, antispasm for multiple sclerosis, anticonvulsive for epilepsy, antiemetic for chemotherapy and appetite stimulant for cachexi;
Ø There are less clear indications regarding the effect of marijuana on glaucoma and other medical conditions;
Ø Marijuana has not been established as a drug through rigorous, controlled studies;
Ø The quality and effectiveness of marijuana, primarily smoked marijuana, have not been determined in clinical studies;
Ø There have been some studies of synthetic compounds, but the knowledge base is still too small to determine effectiveness and safety;
Ø Generally, the effects of smoked marijuana are more specific and occur faster than the effects of synthetic compounds;
Ø The absence of certain cannabinoids in synthetic compounds can lead to harmful side effects, such as panic attacks and cannabinoid psychoses;
Ø Smoked marijuana is potentially harmful to the respiratory system;
Ø People who smoke marijuana for therapeutic purposes self-regulate their use depending on their physical condition and do not really seek the psychoactive effect;
Ø People who smoke marijuana for therapeutic purposes prefer to have a choice as to methods of use;
Ø Measures should be taken to support and encourage the development of alternative practices, such as the establishment of compassion clubs;
Ø The practices of these organizations are in line with the therapeutic indications arising from clinical studies and meet the strict rules on quality and safety;
Ø The studies that have already been approved by Health Canada must be conducted as quickly as possible;
Ø The qualities of the marijuana used in those studies must meet the standards of current practice in compassion clubs, not NIDA standards;
Ø The studies should focus on applications and the specific doses for various medical conditions; and
Ø Health Canada should, at the earliest possible opportunity, undertake a clinical study in cooperation with Canadian compassion clubs.
Ø Public opinion on marijuana is more liberal than it was 10 years ago;
Ø There is a tendency to think that marijuana use is more widespread and that marijuana is more available than it used to be;
Ø There is a tendency to think that marijuana is not a dangerous drug;
Ø The concern about organized crime is significant;
Ø Support for medical use of marijuana is strong;
Ø There is a tendency to favour decriminalization or, to a lesser degree, legalization;
Ø People criticize enforcement of the legislation in regards to simple possession of marijuana; and
Ø There is a concern for youth and children
Ø Canada urgently needs a comprehensive and coordinated national drug strategy for which the federal government provides sound leadership;
Ø Any future national drug strategy should incorporate all psychoactive substances, including alcohol and tobacco;
Ø To be successful, a national drug strategy must involve true partnerships with all levels of government and with non-governmental organizations;
Ø Over the years, the intermittency of funding has diminished the ability to coordinate and implement the strategy; adequate resources and a long-term commitment to funding are needed if the strategy is to be successful;
Ø Clear objectives for the strategy must be set out, and comprehensive evaluations of these objectives and the results are required;
Ø At the developmental stage, there is a need to identify clear and shared criteria for “successâ€;
Ø The core funding for the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse (CCSA) has been insufficient for it to carry out its mandate; proper funding for the CCSA is essential;
Ø There is a need for an independent organization - the CCSA - to conduct national surveys at least every second year; there is also a need to achieve some level of consistency, comparability and similar time frames for provincially-based school surveys;
Ø Coordination at the federal level should be given to a body that is not an integral part of one of the partner departments; and
Ø Canada's Drug Strategy's should adopt a balanced approach - 90% of federal expenditures are currently allocated to the supply reduction.
Ø Early drug legislation was largely based on a moral panic, racist sentiment and a notorious absence of debate;
Ø Drug legislation often contained particularly severe provisions, such as reverse onus and cruel and unusual sentences; and
Ø The work of the Le Dain Commission laid the foundation for a more rational approach to illegal drug policy by attempting to rely on research data. The Le Dain Commission‘s work had no legislative outcome until 1996 in certain provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, particularly with regard to cannabis.
Ø The MMAR are not providing a compassionate framework for access to marijuana for therapeutic purposes and are unduly restricting the availability of marijuana to patients who may receive health benefits from its use;
Ø The refusal of the medical community to act as gatekeepers and the lack of access to legal sources of cannabis appear to make the current regulatory scheme an “illusory†legislative exemption and raises serious Charter implications;
Ø In almost one year, only 255 people have been authorized to possess marijuana for therapeutic purposes under the MMAR and only 498 applications have been received - this low participation rate is of concern;
Ø Changes are urgently needed with regard to who is eligible to use cannabis for therapeutic purposes and how such people gain access to cannabis;
Ø Research on the safety and efficacy of cannabis has not commenced in Canada because researchers are unable to obtain the product needed to conduct their trials;
Ø No attempt has been made in Health Canada's current research plan to acknowledge the considerable expertise currently residing in the compassion clubs;
Ø The development of a Canadian source of research-grade marijuana has been a failure.
Ø The annual cost of drug enforcement in Canada is estimated to be between $700 million and $1 billion;
Ø Reduced law enforcement activities resulting from amendments to the drug legislation on cannabis could produce substantial savings or a significant reallocation of funds by police forces to other priorities;
Ø Due to the consensual nature of drug offences, police have been granted substantial enforcement powers and have adopted highly intrusive investigative techniques; these powers are not unlimited, however, and are subject to review by Canadian courts;
Ø Over 90,000 drug-related incidents are reported annually by police; more than three-quarters of these incidents relate to cannabis and over 50% of all drug-related incidents involve possession of cannabis;
Ø From 1991 to 2001, the percentage change in rate per 100,000 people for cannabis-related offences is +91.5 - thus, the rate of reported cannabis-related offences has almost doubled in the past decade;
Ø The number of reported incidents related to the cultivation of cannabis increased dramatically in the past decade;
Ø Reported incident rates vary widely from province to province;
Ø Cannabis was involved in 70% of the approximately 50,000 drug-related charges in 1999. In 43% of cases (21,381), the charge was for possession of cannabis.;
Ø The rate of charges laid for drug offences vary significantly from province to province;
Ø The uneven application of the law is of great concern and may lead to discriminatory enforcement, alienation of certain groups within society, and creation of an atmosphere of disrespect for the law; in general, it raises the issue of fairness and justice; and
Ø Statistics on seizure seem to confirm an increase in cannabis cultivation in Canada and also a shift in police priorities regarding this offence.
Ø The cost of prosecuting drug offences in 2000-2001 was $57 million with approximately $5 million or roughly 10% of the total budget relating to prosecuting cannabis possession offences;
Ø In 1999, it was estimated that Canadian criminal courts heard 34,000 drug cases, which involved more than 400,000 court appearances;
Ø The Drug Treatment Court initiatives seem very encouraging, although comprehensive evaluations are needed to ensure such programs are effective;
Ø Disposition and sentencing data with respect to drug-related offences are incomplete and there is an urgent need to correct this situation;
Ø Correctional Service Canada spends an estimated $169 million annually to address illicit drugs through incarceration, substance abuse programs, treatment programs and security measures; expenditures on substance abuse programs are unreasonably low, given the number of inmates who have substance-abuse dependence problems;
Ø A criminal conviction can negatively affect a person's financial situation, career opportunities and restrict travel. In addition, it can be an important factor in future dealings with the criminal justice system; and
Ø Provincial courts of appeal have so far maintained the constitutionality of cannabis prohibition. They have found that because there is some evidence of harm caused by marijuana use that is neither trivial nor insignificant, Parliament has a rational basis to act as it has done, and the marijuana prohibition is therefore consistent with the principles of fundamental justice in section 7 of the Charter. These decisions have been appealed, and the Supreme Court of Canada will soon decide whether cannabis prohibition is constitutionally sound.
Ø Prevention is not designed to control but rather to empower individuals to make informed decisions and acquire tools to avoid at-risk behaviour;
Ø A national drug strategy should include a strong prevention component;
Ø Prevention strategies must be able to take into account contemporary knowledge about drugs;
Ø Prevention messages must be credible, verifiable and neutral;
Ø Prevention strategies must be comprehensive, cover many different factors and involve the community;
Ø Prevention strategies in schools should not be led by police services or delivered by police officers;
Ø The RCMP should reconsider its choice of the DARE program that many evaluation studies have shown to be ineffective;
Ø Prevention strategies must include comprehensive evaluation of a number of key elements;
Ø A national drug strategy should include mechanisms for widely disseminating the results of research and evaluations;
Ø Evaluations must avoid reductionism, involve stakeholders in prevention, be part of the program, and include longitudinal impact assessment;
Ø Harm reduction strategies related to cannabis should be developed in coordination with educators and the social services sector; and
Ø Harm reduction strategies related to cannabis should include information on the risks associated with heavy chronic use, tools for detecting at-risk and heavy users and measures to discourage people from driving under the influence of marijuana.
Ø The expression 'drug addiction' should no longer be used and we should talk instead of substance abuse and dependency;
Ø Between 5% and 10% of regular cannabis users are at risk of developing a dependency;
Ø Physical dependency on cannabis is virtually non-existent;
Ø Psychological dependency is moderate and is certainly lower than for nicotine or alcohol;
Ø Most regular users of cannabis are able to diverge from a trajectory of dependency without requiring treatment;
Ø There are many forms of treatment but nothing is known about the effectiveness of the different forms of treatment for cannabis dependency specifically;
Ø As a rule, treatment is more effective and less costly than incarceration;
Ø Studies of the treatment programs should be conducted, including treatments programs for people with cannabis dependency; and
Ø Studies should be conducted on the interaction of the cannabinoid and the opioid systems.
· The costs associated with all illegal drugs were $1.4 billion, compared with $7.5 billion in the case of alcohol and $9.6 billion in the case of tobacco.
· Expressed as a percentage of the gross domestic product, the total costs for all substances was 2.67%. Of this, 0.2% was for illegal drugs, 1.09% for alcohol and 1.39% for tobacco.
· The principal costs of illegal drugs are externalities, that is, loss of productivity - $823 million, health care - $88 million, and losses in the workplace - $5.5 million, for a total of about 67% of all costs related to illegal drugs.
· The cost of public policies, or opportunity costs, represent about 33%.
· The cost of enforcing the law represents about 29.2% of all costs, or about 88% of all policy costs. The balance goes to prevention, research and administration.
Ø The lack of any real national platform for discussion and debate on illegal drugs prevents the development of clear objectives and measurement indicators;
Ø The absence of a national platform makes exchange of information and best practices impossible;
Ø Practices and approaches vary considerably between and within provinces and territories;
Ø The conflicting approaches of the various players in the field are a source of confusion;
Ø The resources and powers of enforcement are greatly out of balance compared with those of the health and education fields and the civil society;
Ø The costs of all illegal drugs had risen to close to $1.4 billion in 1992;
Ø Of the total costs of illegal drugs in 1992, externalities (social costs) represented 67% and public policy costs 33%;
Ø The social costs of illegal drugs and the public policy costs are underestimated ;
Ø The cost of enforcing the drug laws is more likely to be closer to $1 billion to $1.5 billion per annum;
Ø The principal public policy cost relative to cannabis is that of law enforcement and the justice system; which may be estimated to represent a total of $300 to $500 million per annum;
Ø The costs of externalities attributable to cannabis are probably minimal - no deaths, few hospitalizations, and little loss of productivity;
Ø The costs of public policy on cannabis are disproportionately high given the drug's social and health consequences; and
Ø The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse is seriously under-funded; its annual budget amounts to barely 0.1% of the social costs of illegal drugs alone (alcohol not included). Its budget should be increased to at least 1%; that is, approximately $15 million per annum.
Ø The series of international agreements concluded since 1912 have failed to achieve their ostensible aim of reducing the supply of drugs;
Ø The international conventions constitute a two-tier system that regulates the synthetic substances produced by the North and prohibits the organic substances produced by the South, while ignoring the real danger the substances represent for public health;
Ø When cannabis was included in the international conventions in 1925, there was no knowledge of its effects;
Ø The international classifications of drugs are arbitrary and do not reflect the level of danger they represent to health or to society;
Ø Canada should inform the international community of the conclusions of our report and officially request the declassification of cannabis and its derivatives.
In our view, it is clear that if the aim of public policy is to diminish consumption and supply of drugs, specifically cannabis, all signs indicate complete failure.
Ø Billions of dollars have been sunk into enforcement without any greater effect. There are more consumers, more regular users and more regular adolescent users;
Ø Billions of dollars have been poured into enforcement in an effort to reduce supply, without any greater effect. Cannabis is more available than ever, it is cultivated on a large scale, even exported, swelling coffers and making organized crime more powerful; and
Ø There have been tens of thousands of arrests and convictions for the possession of cannabis and thousands of people have been incarcerated. However, use trends remain totally unaffected and the gap the Commission noted between the law and public compliance continues to widen.
There is a lot there and basically all I did is copy the point form conclusions from each section.
