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 otion 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
