Evidence of meeting #27 for Health in the 41st Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was effects.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Associate Professor, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
No, I think that's an excellent summary.
In particular, what I've heard in regard to some of the anti-nausea effects is that it's perhaps the most effective anti-nausea agent, particularly for people who have HIV/AIDS-related wasting and also for cancer sufferers who are dealing with the side effects of chemotherapy. I've heard that it not only reduces actual nausea but reduces some of the feelings that precede nausea, so that it's particularly effective in reducing their suffering.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Some public health officers across the country have asked for the decriminalization of marijuana, not just medical, but marijuana, because medical is a totally different set of uses. They have suggested, in fact, that it is less harmful than alcohol and tobacco.
Now, we talked a lot about the smoking effects of marijuana, and of course we all know that the amount of tar and benzopyrenes in smoked marijuana is higher than that in tobacco. However, what do you know of studies with regard to using canna oil, the oil of cannabis, and with regard to eating cannabis, in many instances? How does that stand up against any of the negative consequences of this smoking? Although I don't believe anybody could smoke 10 to 20 a day...they'd be under a table somewhere.
I think when we look at the amount of tar and benzopyrenes, we're weighing it up against the amount of cigarettes that people can smoke in one day and the amount of joints that you can smoke in any one day. Can you elaborate on the oil and the use of the leaves in food?
Doctoral Candidate, University of Victoria, As an Individual
There are many effective alternative methods of ingestion for cannabis and they're growing in popularity in the medical cannabis population. We see edibles. You can bake it into oils or butter and use it as a baking compound; you can make a tincture out of it so it can be used sublingually; or you can create an oromucosal spray. Additionally, it's interesting to note that technologies have evolved that allow people to get the benefits of smoked ingestion, including rapid onset of effect and use of titration, without actually smoking it. I'm talking about vaporizers that have been developed.
It's interesting to note that a product called the Volcano Medic has Health Canada's approval as a medical device, and it's being used in research and by patients. In our research, patients have been shown to use vaporizers at a much higher rate than the general population. There seems to be a health conscious aspect within medical cannabis use. Users are very aware of some of these concerns, and they're using these devices and methods of ingestion as alternatives.
Unfortunately, under a Health Canada program, we're currently only allowed to ship raw cannabis to patients, rather than oils, tinctures, or alternatives that would allow patients to do something other than smoke it.
NDP
NDP
Dany Morin NDP Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Before I move on to my questions, I just want to say that I am a bit disturbed by the attitude of my colleagues opposite who seem to be attacking our witnesses. I think we should be very respectful of people who take the time to come testify before a committee. I am referring specifically to Ms. Adams, who is questioning our witnesses' studies and credentials, as well as Mr. Young, who is accusing one of our witnesses of having a financial interest in the sale of marijuana for medical purposes. After all, the Conservative government has decided that, as of this year, people have to buy their medical marijuana from third parties instead of growing it at home. So I feel that these comments are somewhat ambiguous.
Here are my questions for the witnesses.
It has been mentioned several times that marijuana has as many benefits as risks. Ideally, we would all like to live in a world where no one consumes any drugs, including marijuana. In 2007, one of the pillars of the government's drug policy was harm reduction. Today, one witness said that marijuana's level of dependence is very, very low compared with other types of addictive substances.
In the event of a government change or a new government measure to reinsert harm reduction into the drug policy, what kind of a role do you think marijuana could play in reducing harm?
Doctoral Candidate, University of Victoria, As an Individual
An evidence-based public health approach to regulating cannabis—which we're seeing now in Washington state and Colorado—allows adults to use cannabis for recreational purposes, regulates it by age, and regulates the amount that's allowed to be used. This would probably be the best step forward that Canada could take in order to keep it out of the hands of youth, and in order to ensure that those who are using cannabis have a safe supply and know what they are using through labelling practices.
If we moved towards regulated access to cannabis, I think we would likely see, as research suggests, a slight increase in the use of cannabis by the general population, maybe a 2% to 4% increase. We base that on looking at other jurisdictions that have taken similar paths, but we would see a subsequent decrease in the use of alcohol and alcohol-related problems, including drinking and driving, domestic violence, and property crime. We'd also likely see a reduction in the use of pharmaceutical substances, whether used for recreational purposes or medical purposes, and we'd see a reduction in the use of other substances that are currently illicit as well.
From a public health perspective, a net benefit perspective, and a cost perspective—because we're all Canadian taxpayers paying into our health care system—we'd probably see, as the evidence suggests, a net benefit through regulated access, not to mention the cost savings of not having to criminalize thousands of Canadians each year and bring them through the current criminal justice system. That is not a very effective approach to reducing the harms associated with cannabis. Giving people criminal records, or sending them to jail, can hardly be called a public health measure.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Libby Davies
I'll just point out that we're back to a seven-minute round now, so you actually have about three minutes left.
Associate Professor, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
If I could add to that, I think that it would also provide a better tone to our dialogue with young people if we accurately communicated risks and harms. I am also concerned that our current approach of prohibition hasn't prevented people from using cannabis at all, but it has caused them to use cannabis that can't be regulated for quality with regard to pesticides or moulds and mildews. I think if we were to regulate, people would know what they were getting, and they would know what they were getting in terms of THC content as well. So generally I think that amongst those who use cannabis now, that would certainly have a public health benefit.
NDP
Dany Morin NDP Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Thank you.
I would like to make a connection with what you just said, Dr. Walsh. In your presentation, you mentioned that the medicinal properties of THC and cannabidiol are basically what we are interested in, and not the plant as such.
Mr. Lucas, in your answer, you said that Health Canada prohibits your company from shipping the THC and CBD chemical agents in other forms that may be less harmful to health. My colleagues opposite still expressed their reservations, since the inhalation of smoke could be carcinogenic and could therefore be bad for health.
I agree with you and share your apprehensions when it comes to such means of consuming those chemical agents. Have the authorities told you why it is prohibited to distribute these chemical agents in other forms? Can you tell us whether shipping oils or other forms would be a good idea?
Doctoral Candidate, University of Victoria, As an Individual
Unfortunately, Health Canada has never justified its decision to only allow us to provide patients with raw cannabis.
There was never a good reason put forward. I think this is the start of our program. I don't think this is the end point of the medical marijuana program. I strongly suspect that due to pushback from physicians, largely, as well as from patients, Health Canada will have to consider allowing medical cannabis producers to ship out cannabis in other forms for ingestion if they really have a concern with smoked ingestion.
Right now all we can do as federal providers is to give people instruction on how they might turn cannabis into oils or butters to be able to do their own baking, but surely we would never give, for example, a raw poppy seed to someone and ask them to make their own opiates out of it, so I think we're asking people to produce medicines that can otherwise be safely and effectively produced in a lab setting to allow them to have an alternative to smoking.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Libby Davies
Okay. Thank you very much.
We'll now go to Mr. Wilks for seven minutes.
Are you sharing your time with someone?
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Libby Davies
Okay. Would you like me to tell you when you're about halfway through?
Conservative
David Wilks Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Sure. Thank you very much, Chair.
I want to get back to the comment made with regard to criminalization and how thousands of Canadians get criminal records each year.
Could either one of you give me an example of that with regard to one to thirty grams of cannabis marijuana?
Doctoral Candidate, University of Victoria, As an Individual
I was a city councillor in Victoria from 2008-2011, and I can tell you from the latest numbers I've had—I haven't looked at these in a while—that in 2008 we had about 300 cannabis arrests in the city of Victoria, two-thirds of which were for under an ounce of cannabis. In other words, over one in three of our cannabis arrests in the city of Victoria were for less than an ounce of cannabis. Currently—I think you're probably familiar with the statistics—50,000 Canadians or so get arrested for cannabis-related charges. In Canada, most of those arrests are for personal possession.
Conservative
David Wilks Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
With regard to personal possession of one to thirty grams, how many of those arrested got criminal records?
Doctoral Candidate, University of Victoria, As an Individual
I certainly don't have that statistic.
Conservative
Doctoral Candidate, University of Victoria, As an Individual
No, absolutely not.
Conservative
David Wilks Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Well, I'll tell you that they don't, and I'll tell you why. Under subsection 4(5) of the CDSA since 1995, when Allan Rock changed it from an indictable and summary conviction offence both, to a summary conviction offence only, you cannot fingerprint for summary conviction offences. So since 1995, there hasn't been a single Canadian—not one—fingerprinted for possession of one-to-thirty grams under subsection 4(5) of the CDSA, guaranteed. They may have been charged with another offence on top of it, but individually they have not been convicted, because they legally cannot be.
What would you say to that?
Doctoral Candidate, University of Victoria, As an Individual
I would say that this would be news to me. I'd be curious to find out if that were an accurate description of what's going on here in Canada.
Conservative
David Wilks Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
I would suggest that you do that, because under subsection 4(5) it's been that way since 1995.
Having said that—that people get arrested and are not given a criminal record—can I get your understanding of a recent comment by the Canadian Chiefs of Police with regard to a ticketable offence for recreational marijuana use of one to 30 grams?
Doctoral Candidate, University of Victoria, As an Individual
You want just my general comments?
Doctoral Candidate, University of Victoria, As an Individual
To be honest, I think it would be a step in the right direction. I think it would be a small step, but it would be a step in the right direction.
I would have concerns, because of evidence that comes from Australia, of a net-widening effect. That would be my concern as a social researcher. When a few states in Australia tried this in the first place, they actually saw an increase in the number of cannabis-related charges because police found it easier to hand out tickets than to write up a whole case arrest form.
But I think anything that takes a step to remove the criminal penalties associated with behaviour that otherwise doesn't have a significant public health or public safety impact on Canadians, and that is widely supported by Canadians, I think is a step in the right direction.