Health Minister outraged by SCofC pot edibles ruling. NF

[fishing n autograph]

Did I say they didn't? No, that wasn't the topic of conversation

 

We can have a conversation about the evils or tobacco and alcohol and big farm if you wish but that is for a different thread

Edited June 13, 2015 by FishnNAutographs

[OhioFisherman]

Is pot harmful or addictive? What I do know is that I've been around and experienced the swingin 60's in High School. Several potheads from then are alive today and don't know what year it is. I have a cousin in the States that chain smokes the Stupid Stick for the last 45 years. He couldn't hold down a job for more than a month and has been on Welfare for the past 25 years. A few out here on the lake are exactly the same, all on disability and their life is growing and smoking then repeat. I can say only one has a violent nature, and that's when he doesn't have any. I don't have any documentation to copy and paste only my observations from seeing it for the past 45 years or so. Like anything in excess is not good, but in my experience to say it is not addictive or not harmful to at least some is Bull.

Agreed, in part. I also grew up in the swinging 60's, and smoked pot. I was able to put it down or take a break from it anytime I felt like it, same with alcohol for me. When they started random testing here for commercial drivers I also got that message, put it down completely.

 

I saw people and worked with them that couldn't seem to get the message, some failed drug tests, some alcohol. I know a lot more " potheads " that have managed to hold down jobs, and stay alive that alcoholics. Pretty crappy when you are 45-50 and your liver is gone and be sitting home or hospitalized on disability waiting to die or a transplant?

 

Imagine the outrage if the government tells you go fish, but only for carp?

[GbayGiant]

On Thursday, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down an appeal by the federal government to maintain the nonsensical status quo with regards to medical marijuana. The rules had stipulated that medical marijuana could only be possessed and consumed in its dried form, which meant chronically ill users were essentially restricted to smoking it. This made no sense whatsoever; a terminal lung cancer patient with a license to use medical marijuana, for example, should not be limited to lighting up. Yet under Sections 4 and 5 of the Controlled Drug and Substances Act, the creation and consumption of medical marijuana in alternate forms — in tablets, ointments, in baked goods or extracts — was prohibited.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court called out the restriction for what it was: “arbitrary.” The Court ruled that the denial of legal alternative forms of consumption violated the guarantee of life, liberty and security of the person under Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by forcing ill users to choose between “a legal but inadequate treatment and an illegal but more effective choice.” Limiting people to smoking medical marijuana, the Court added, “subjects the person to the risk of cancer and bronchial infections associated with smoking dry marihuana.”

This is just basic common sense: permitting the use of a substance but stipulating the specific way it must be used, especially when that method is arguably more physically harmful than all other ways, is simply asinine policy. Indeed, the government has not, and did not, offer a sound explanation as to why those who are licensed to possess and use medical marijuana should be forced to smoke it, rather than consume it in teas, baked goods, pills or extracts. So the Supreme Court ruled against it, and rightly so.

This case dates back to 2009, when Owen Smith, a baker for the Cannabis Buyers Club of Canada, was arrested and charged after police found marijuana-infused cookies and oils in his Victoria apartment. Smith challenged the law and was acquitted at trial, and the decision was held up last summer at the B.C. Court of Appeal. The Court gave the federal government a year to change the law; it instead challenged the decision at the Supreme Court, which ended up supporting the trial judge’s conclusion.

The decision should have a profound impact on the lives of Canadians suffering with chronic pain or disease, including the families of children with severe epileptic disorders. Last year, Postmedia reported on the story of six-year-old Liam McKnight, who suffered with epilepsy so severe he was experiencing dozens of seizures per day. Though Liam and his family had tried dozens of medications, none of them seemed to help. Then Liam’s mom gave him cannabis oil, and he was seizure-free after 10 days. Unfortunately, because of the rules on marijuana consumption, Health Canada effectively said the kindergartener, if continuing to legally take marijuana, would have to smoke it.

That shouldn’t have to happen anymore. Indeed, the Supreme Court’s decision is a win for families like Liam’s, and a win for common sense. Ill Canadians should not be told they can use marijuana and at the same time arbitrarily restricted as to the method of consumption. We’re glad the Supreme Court recognized that, even if the federal government did not.

National Post

Edited June 13, 2015 by GbayGiant

[fish_fishburn]

There has never been a known case of anyone overdosing and dying from cannabis. A study I read recently said in order to overdose you would have to smoke 1500 joints in an hour. Now if you ate to many brownies at a sitting you may feel like your gonna puke but you will be fine in an hour or two. The govt reason for this smoke only policy was nothing more than them protecting their bedfellow big pharma. Big pharma knows that consuming weed oil will cure many diseases and ailments because the CBO and CBD in the carboxolized oil are a cure for many diseases and we cant have that. I have a friend who had type II diabetes he was taking two or 3 needles a day to keep his insulin in check. He bought a pound of good weed and had someone make oil out of it. He took it twice a day and in three weeks he was no longer doing needles and his blood/sugar levels were normal. He takes it now once a week for maintenance and everything is good. He said when he mentioned it to his doc he didn't seem to surprised or interested in his finding.

 

So sometimes when things seem so ridiculous and asinine with govt policy if you follow the money you will probably find your answer.

[GbayGiant]

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/ID/2669296418/

 

Trial

 

https://youtu.be/oEWm6ZeMqUg

 

https://youtu.be/Tp9RnRKVkM8

Edited June 14, 2015 by GbayGiant

[OhioFisherman]

I watched the first one, there are some dangerous drugs out there!

 

 

 

http://www.drugwatch.com/tylenol/

[GbayGiant]

The question I’m answering today is ‘how much marijuana does it take for someone to overdose?’ My friend is well aware that no one in recorded history has ever died from a marijuana overdose. But he wants to know if there is any amount of marijuana that someone could overdose from. According to a 1988 United States administrative law hearing:

“7. Drugs used in medicine are routinely given what is called an LD-50. The LD-50 rating indicates at what dosage fifty percent of test animals receiving a drug will die as a result of drug induced toxicity. A number of researchers have attempted to determine marijuana’s LD-50 rating in test animals, without success. Simply stated, researchers have been unable to give animals enough marijuana to induce death.

8. At present it is estimated that marijuana’s LD-50 is around 1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response.

9. In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity.”

Even if someone is smoking marijuana concentrates or ‘dabs’ which can be 3-4 times more potent than their flower counterparts, that’s still hundreds of pounds of marijuana dabs within a 15 minute period. A person would pass out before they experienced a lethal dose level of marijuana. Something could harm the person if they fell while passing out resulting in death, but that’s different than the marijuana itself causing death. Some readers are probably wondering why the federal government fights so hard against marijuana research. Maybe it’s because every time they research marijuana they find out how wrong they are…

[outllaw]

its about money. no more no less.. goverments accept this. after all big pharma pays into re-election funds.

[Steve]

Actually recent studies have shown that marihuana damages short and long term memory and significantly effects developing brains of young adults. Pot is not harmless. Especially today's hydroponically grown marihuana which is genetically modified to produce a THC content of close to and over 24%.

 

Can you point me to those statistics? Not that I don't trust you saying you read them, I'm sure you did.

I'd be more interested in WHO generated the statistics.

 

I the cops will be the last folks who get on board....after all, they have spent their whole lives hearing about how bad it is....tough to all of a sudden hear its not so bad....in fact, its not bad at all...

 

tough to change what you have believed (or been told) for so many years.

[fishing n autograph]

Source: Smith M, Lang W, Csernansky J, et al. Hippocampus. 2015.

 

It's the most recent, however, there needs to be more research done because it's relatively difficult to get proper control groups.

Edited June 14, 2015 by FishnNAutographs

[fishing n autograph]

Studies involved researchers as Northwestern and Harvard

[Andy]

The Dutch have recently classified marijuana with a THC content above a certain amount as a hard drug with the likes of cocaine and heroin. They have been tightening up their liberal (by our standards) policy on marijuana. Dutch studies have noted the increased risk of schizophrenia in adolescents who smoke marijuana regularly as well. Google will bring some of them up. I think The Nature of Things had an interesting show on it as well.

[fishing n autograph]

The Dutch already came out and said legalizing marijuana and prostitution was a mistake

[GbayGiant]

The Dutch know

[Dutch01]

Actually recent studies have shown that marihuana damages short and long term memory and significantly effects developing brains of young adults. Pot is not harmless. Especially today's hydroponically grown marihuana which is genetically modified to produce a THC content of close to and over 24%.

I would have to see who paid for those studies before I give them any weight. At any rate, I clearly stated in my post that I am not advocating use by minors.

 

I could talk about LD-50 dose and many other measures of a compound's toxicity, but frankly this is not an issue of whether marijuana is healthy. It is an issue of rights. If being unhealthy was the primary consideration for legalizing any product, our lives would look very different. No more car exhaust, alcohol, sugar, cigarettes, cheeseburgers, etc for anyone. And don't get me started on food safety. The government allows wholesale use of Glyphosate (aka Roundup, a known carcinogen) in our crops. They can't do that and then claim marijuana is unsafe.

 

The bottom line issue is that I don't recognize the government's right to restrict my freedom unless they can show the exercise of that freedom infringes on someone else's rights. My use of marijuana is my business and no one else's.

 

The Dutch already came out and said legalizing marijuana and prostitution was a mistake

This is not entirely accurate. There are a number of factors that have led to increased pressure on the Dutch government to move away from liberal drug policy. France and Germany have been putting pressure on them to "toe the line", and (in response to an anti immigration backlash), a Christian Conservative Coalition came to power, headed by a man named Geert Wilders. He attempted to reverse Dutch drug policy, but many city mayors revolted. The Mayor of Amsterdam said he would refuse to obey any order to crack down on marijuana. Luckily, Geert was exposed for the racist psycho that he is, and his coalition is no longer in power. The fight continues, but the Dutch will never have a policy remotely close to our version of Prohibition.

 

It is not that the Dutch are "Pro drugs". Quite the opposite in fact. Many Dutch people are actually quite conservative regarding drugs. However, they tend to believe it is better sold by regulated shops than in a dark alley. Of note, despite their liberal drug policy, they have a lower per capita rate of drug use than we do (another example of the ineffectiveness of prohibition).

 

I leave you with this food for thought. According to Jeffrey Miron, a senior lecturer at Harvard University, the USA spent more money last year on marijuana prohibition (over $20B) than on the entire budget for NASA. Can anyone seriously tell me with a straight face that this is money well spent? That it's more important to stop me from having a joint after work than to work towards scientific discovery for mankind's future? If so, I would say you need to check your priorities.

Edited June 14, 2015 by Dutch01

[GbayGiant]

"Good grief. What on earth has federal Health Minister Rona Ambrose been nibbling? Steroid-laced Alberta cheeseburgers? She certainly hasn’t been chowing down on soothing cannabis cookies.

Her dyspeptic reaction to the Supreme Court’s ruling this past week legalizing reefer brownies and Mary Jane tisanes raised more eyebrows than a whiff of skunk at a church picnic. It came across like a spasm of ‘roid rage. Or a bit of self-serving Conservative political posturing in the run-up to a federal election.

“Frankly, I’m outraged,” Ambrose declared. “I’m outraged by the message that judges are sending that they think that they can approve a drug into a medicine without clear clinical scientific evidence and without safety reviews.” Cannabis “is not a drug … not a medicine,” she insisted.

Well, not on Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Reefer Madness-obsessed watch. Health Canada could make it an approved medicine, but won’t. The Tories are ideologically dead set against anyone using marijuana. While two in three Canadians want it legalized or decriminalized, the Tories are forever bashing Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau for proposing to legalize. And they can’t bring themselves to decriminalize, as New Democrat Leader Tom Mulcair proposes.

But for all Ambrose’s sputtering, the Supremes weren’t trying to practice medicine without a licence by declaring marijuana a cure for what ails us. They were just upholding the law of the land.

Medical use of marijuana for seriously ill people, while controversial, has been legal in Canada since 2001 after the courts ruled that cannabis has some “medicinal value” and can be of “therapeutic assistance.” It is commonly used to offer relief to those who suffer from cancer, HIV/AIDS, multiple sclerosis, migraine, epilepsy, spinal cord injuries and other conditions.

Ambrose’s own department, Health Canada, has licensed no fewer than 25 firms to grow the stuff. Some 50,000 Canadians use it, lawfully. And yes, Ottawa can claim its tax cut.

But until now Health Canada rules effectively forced people to smoke medical marijuana. And that violated the Constitution by unreasonably interfering with “life, liberty and security of the person” in two ways, the court ruled: People who wanted to consume marijuana in, say, a cookie would face prison while a smoker would not. That’s patently unfair. And forcing people to smoke exposes them to cancer and bronchial infections. That’s just dumb. Rightly, the court found these rules both arbitrary and unhealthy.

So brownies, cookies, teas and whatever other concoction ailing people can whip up in the kitchen blender are now on the menu. As they should be.

Despite Ambrose’s wild assertion that the high court justices are branching out into the drug-approval business, this ruling gives the judicial nod to baking brownies for sick people, nothing more. The federal government, under Liberals and Tories alike, has long since given the nod to medicinal toking. This minister needs to chill out."

 

Toronto Star

[leaf4]

Its funny. I have a lot of relatives in Holland, they come over and don't understand the idea behind how popular it is to smoke weed, to them it'd be like having a beer after work and it wouldn't be a second thought about it but I think because it is so readily available to them they have the ability to shluff it off

[Dutch01]

Its funny. I have a lot of relatives in Holland, they come over and don't understand the idea behind how popular it is to smoke weed, to them it'd be like having a beer after work and it wouldn't be a second thought about it but I think because it is so readily available to them they have the ability to shluff it off

 

This is kind of my point. It's only attractive because we make it taboo, and it's only valuable because we make it illegal. Time to change our approach.

[Andy]

The articles I've read suggest Glyphosate is a probable carcinogen. Compared to many of the herbicides that had been used in the past, it is extremely safe. The one article compares the cancer risk of using glyphosate to that of the occupational cancer risk of being a barber. Are we all going to stop getting haircuts too? That's the trouble with these arguments, people pick and choose their stats to suit their position.

I don't care if an responsible adult smokes a joint in his basement after work while watching TV, I really don't.

But I've have seen the effects of prolonged marijuana use by young people and you will never convince me that it is harmless.

[kickingfrog]

Harmless is interesting term.

 

A quick list of things that are NOT harmless.

 

Alcohol

tobacco

prescription drugs

aspirin

sugar

food

cars

water

the ground

 

Seems kind os silly doesn't it.

[DRIFTER_016]

Harmless is interesting term.

 

A quick list of things that are NOT harmless.

 

Alcohol

tobacco

prescription drugs

aspirin

sugar

food

cars

water

the ground

 

Seems kind os silly doesn't it.

 

You forgot a big one AIR!!!

[Dutch01]

The articles I've read suggest Glyphosate is a probable carcinogen. Compared to many of the herbicides that had been used in the past, it is extremely safe. The one article compares the cancer risk of using glyphosate to that of the occupational cancer risk of being a barber. Are we all going to stop getting haircuts too? That's the trouble with these arguments, people pick and choose their stats to suit their position.

I don't care if an responsible adult smokes a joint in his basement after work while watching TV, I really don't.

But I've have seen the effects of prolonged marijuana use by young people and you will never convince me that it is harmless.

I could be wrong, but I don't believe I have ever proclaimed marijuana as harmless. I've put forth the argument that regardless of if it is harmless or not, I don't believe the government has the right to restrict my use.

 

I have only argued the relative safety of marijuana in response to those attempting to use that argument as a justification for prohibition.

 

Also, please note that the following people used marijuana (some long term), and seem to have and avoided becoming basement dwelling losers:

 

-Carl Sagan (PhD in both astrophysics and astronomy)

-Bill Gates (a well known supporter of legalization in Washington State)

-Steve Jobs (founder and CEO of Apple)

-Barack Obama

-Sanjay Gupta

-Rush Limbaugh

-George Clooney

-Michael Bloomberg (billionaire Mayor of NYC)

-Ted Turner

-David Letterman

-Morgan Freeman

-Maya Angelou (Poet, Author and Civil Rights activist)

-Phil Jackson (Hall of Fame NBA coach)

-William Shakespeare (Researchers found traces of cannabis on clay pipes uncovered in the garden of Shakespeare's home in Stratford-upon-Avon).

-George Washington (a hemp farmer interested in the medicinal properties of cannabis, making diary entries that showed he was growing varietals with a high THC content).

-Christopher Columbus (In 1492, Columbus's ships carried seeds of Cannabis Sativa, thus making Columbus responsible for introducing marijuana to America).

-Sir Richard Branson (billionaire founder of the Virgin empire)

-Stephen King

-Arnold Schwarzenegger (Actor turned Governor of California)

 

 

Perhaps the people you are referring to would have gone that way regardless of if their drug of choice was marijuana, alcohol, cocaine or any other drug of their choice. The notion that if some people can't handle themselves accordingly, all people should be prohibited as a result, is antithetical to the free democracy we aspire to live in. Your "friends" should to take responsibility for their personal failures and not blame marijuana.

 

On Glyphosate: Glyphosate is not harmless, and is on the second highest tier of believed carcinogens categorized by the UN. Roundup ready GMO crops use the same genetic strain for all crops grown worldwide. This kind of monoculture farming leaves the world food supply vulnerable to a single pathogen. This is the opposite of fostering biodiversity. Roundup ready crops have led to Glyphosate resistant super weeds. This has led to farmers mixing Glyphosate with other pesticides, including neonicotinoids (believed to be responsible for Colony Collapse Disease, killing bees worldwide and endangering our ability to pollinate our food crops). The notion that this is safe for use in our food chain is something only Monsanto could say with a straight face.

Edited June 15, 2015 by Dutch01

[Dusky]

Why would anyone surprise by Health Minister outraged by SC of C pot edibles ruling?

 

Her professional qualifications are columnist, communication consultant, policy analyst, public policy consultant. Nowhere in her professional qualifications or experience she comes close to medical sciences or science in general per say. But that is perfectly alright for Harper to assign her Health Minister portfolio.

[GbayGiant]

I could be wrong, but I don't believe I have ever proclaimed marijuana as harmless. I've put forth the argument that regardless of if it is harmless or not, I don't believe the government has the right to restrict my use.

 

I have only argued the relative safety of marijuana in response to those attempting to use that argument as a justification for prohibition.

 

Also, please note that the following people used marijuana (some long term), and seem to have and avoided becoming basement dwelling losers:

 

-Carl Sagan (PhD in both astrophysics and astronomy)

-Bill Gates (a well known supporter of legalization in Washington State)

-Steve Jobs (founder and CEO of Apple)

-Barack Obama

-Sanjay Gupta

-Rush Limbaugh

-George Clooney

-Michael Bloomberg (billionaire Mayor of NYC)

-Ted Turner

-David Letterman

-Morgan Freeman

-Maya Angelou (Poet, Author and Civil Rights activist)

-Phil Jackson (Hall of Fame NBA coach)

-William Shakespeare (Researchers found traces of cannabis on clay pipes uncovered in the garden of Shakespeare's home in Stratford-upon-Avon).

-George Washington (a hemp farmer interested in the medicinal properties of cannabis, making diary entries that showed he was growing varietals with a high THC content).

-Christopher Columbus (In 1492, Columbus's ships carried seeds of Cannabis Sativa, thus making Columbus responsible for introducing marijuana to America).

-Sir Richard Branson (billionaire founder of the Virgin empire)

-Stephen King

-Arnold Schwarzenegger (Actor turned Governor of California)

 

 

Perhaps the people you are referring to would have gone that way regardless of if their drug of choice was marijuana, alcohol, cocaine or any other drug of their choice. The notion that if some people can't handle themselves accordingly, all people should be prohibited as a result, is antithetical to the free democracy we aspire to live in. Your "friends" should to take responsibility for their personal failures and not blame marijuana.

 

On Glyphosate: Glyphosate is not harmless, and is on the second highest tier of believed carcinogens categorized by the UN. Roundup ready GMO crops use the same genetic strain for all crops grown worldwide. This kind of monoculture farming leaves the world food supply vulnerable to a single pathogen. This is the opposite of fostering biodiversity. Roundup ready crops have led to Glyphosate resistant super weeds. This has led to farmers mixing Glyphosate with other pesticides, including neonicotinoids (believed to be responsible for Colony Collapse Disease, killing bees worldwide and endangering our ability to pollinate our food crops). The notion that this is safe for use in our food chain is something only Monsanto could say with a straight face.

France has announced a ban on over the counter sales of a brand of weedkiller from garden centres after the active ingredient was classified as "probably carcinogenic to humans" by the UN.

The UN’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate in March as "probably carcinogenic to humans", and is the active ingredient in Roundup.

The weedkiller is used by amateur gardeners as well as farmers and is the foremost product of American biotechnology giant Mosanto.

French Ecology Minister Segolene Royal told France 3 television on Sunday: "France must be on the offensive with regards to the banning of pesticides."

 

 

"I have asked garden centres to stop putting Monsanto's Roundup on sale" in self-service aisles, she added.

Glyphosate was introduced in the 1970s under the brand Roundup and is the most-produced weedkiller in the world, according to the IARC.

The agency's evaluation of glyphosate saw "limited evidence" of a type of cancer called non-Hodgkin lymphoma, as seen in studies in the United States, Sweden and Canada conducted among farm workers since 2001.

Monsanto strongly contested the IARC classification, commenting that "relevant, scientific data was excluded from review."

 

Monsanto said in a statement: "As consumers ourselves, safety is a priority for every person who works at Monsanto.

"We want to be clear: All labeled uses of glyphosate are safe for human health and supported by one of the most extensive worldwide human health databases ever compiled on an agricultural product.

"In fact, every glyphosate-based herbicide on the market meets the rigorous standards set by regulatory and health authorities to protect human health."

http://www.independe...r-10319877.html

Edited June 15, 2015 by GbayGiant

[irishfield]

Well she's not the Health Minister anymore. Guess she should have looked into what her job title was before she let her "ethics" get in the way of doing her job!