Evidence of meeting #65 for Health in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cannabis.
A video is available from Parliament.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Thank you. Thanks to all of our witnesses.
I'll start the questioning on the subject of growing in the home. I did note that Washington decided not to allow that, which I think was a very good decision, but they do have it for medical purposes. I was interested to hear from Mr. Kamin about the experience in Colorado on home grows with respect to police enforcement. Did they see issues? Were there other issues? What did you see in terms of increased exposure for the children?
2:40 p.m.
Professor of Marijuana Law and Policy, University of Denver, As an Individual
As I just mentioned, I think, at least initially, it was one of the gaps in our regulatory regime and created one of the tensions. That is, you could have dozens or hundreds of plants in a home or another private property, and often this was by people who were growing the plants consistent with medical use by either themselves or people for whom they were caregivers. In some situations, it simply was not the case. As for issues you raise with regard to exposure to children, that is regulated by Colorado law. The growing has to be done in a particular way so as not to endanger children—but again, it has been one of the tensions.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Let me talk for a minute about age. I know that both of you, in Washington and Colorado, chose 21 as the age at which someone could consume cannabis. I'm interested in knowing why you chose that age and whether that was the same or different from the drinking age in your respective states. I'll start with Colorado and then go to Washington.
2:40 p.m.
Executive Director, Colorado Department of Revenue
With that, I'll punt it to Mr. Kamin, because he was actively involved in that amendment process.
2:40 p.m.
Professor of Marijuana Law and Policy, University of Denver, As an Individual
I wasn't actually involved in the amendment, but in the implementation. The Colorado initiative was titled an initiative to regulate marijuana like alcohol and very explicitly it made 21 the age, because that was the age for alcohol. As I said, there's a tension between that and our medical laws, which permit you to get a doctor's recommendation as young as 18. Around and near college campuses, that can be an issue.
2:40 p.m.
Executive Director, Colorado Department of Revenue
If I may say briefly, while the legal age is 21, all of our public health messaging is around the age of 25. We feel very strongly that the brain is still developing until the age of 25 and that use of marijuana products, either on a limited basis or on a gross basis prior to the age of 25, potentially presents harmful effects, so all of our public campaign messages are around the age of 25.
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
We've heard the same thing from the Canadian Medical Association, so I think that's good public messaging.
Mr. Garza, do you want to share your experience about choosing the age of 21?
2:45 p.m.
Director, Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board
We didn't. As the regulator, it was done by initiative. The authors, I think, did exactly what we heard was done in Colorado, which was to use the same age as the drinking age.
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
When it's illegal federally and you have it legal state-wise, have you seen any issues for your citizens travelling to other countries where cannabis is not legal?
2:45 p.m.
Professor of Marijuana Law and Policy, University of Denver, As an Individual
I've seen it arise with visitors to the United States. There was a case that got some publicity recently in Colorado of a woman who was travelling to the United States to meet her boyfriend, who lived here. She lived in South America, and she was denied entry because she admitted that she had used marijuana once on a previous trip to Colorado. Her answer was, “Well, it's legal in Colorado.” The patient people at the border explained to her that under state law maybe, but in the United States it's not. Because she made that admission, she is no longer eligible to travel to the United States.
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Okay, good.
Another question I had is in regard to the incidence of drug-impaired driving due to cannabis. I'm interested to hear about your experience when you first legalized cannabis and then after the public education awareness campaigns. Let's start with Colorado and then go to Washington.
2:45 p.m.
Executive Director, Colorado Department of Revenue
This brings up one of the more significant points I want to impress upon you as you consider this path. I think in all states, but particularly in Colorado, because I want to speak for our jurisdiction, there is some level of disagreement as to what the statistics show. It's important, as you look at travelling down this path, that you establish the key public health metrics you want to identify and track over time. Even more important in my mind, establish who is going to be the expert in collecting that data so that you can point back to it on an unbiased, unpoliticized basis and say, “This is what's truly going on in our marketplace.”
Speaking specifically to our experience, we have seen a bit of an uptick but not a significant one. It's something we're very much focused on but not something that I would say is significantly alarming at this point in time. I think it goes back to some of the comments Mr. Garza made, which is that previously, some of that data wasn't tracked, so where you see an uptick in information or an uptick in the incidence of violations, that may be a function of reporting rather than actual occurrence, and that's something to take into consideration.
Mr. Garza, I don't know if you have had a different experience.
2:45 p.m.
Director, Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board
No, it's very similar. I think what's important is that there was no DUI nanogram threshold before legalization, and in our state, like in many of the states, medical was totally unregulated and vertically integrated, which is why it took a couple of years to bring them together last July. Now they are under one system.
There were real concerns among patients about the five nanogram limit. That's not something we placed into law; that was done in the initiative. There are many who believe that it's much too low. It's pretty clear that when it was unregulated but there was the ability for patients to grow for themselves, there were concerns about enforcement. We spoke with law enforcement after legalization. They had put their arms up in the air years ago under medical, which was passed by initiative in 1998, so it's been around for quite some time. Though unregulated, law enforcement was reluctant to go in and take people in, because there was no threshold.
It's hard to say. We haven't seen a huge increase, but I believe that there is an increase in citations, because it's being enforced in a way that it wasn't before. Now you have a five nanogram threshold. That provides law enforcement with the ability, if people don't have a medical card, or even if they do, to be able to enforce the law.
2:45 p.m.
Executive Director, Colorado Department of Revenue
I think Ms. Sampson made an important point, which is that the technology isn't necessarily there on cannabis yet to differentiate between whether it's THC in the blood or cannabinoids. That's a key differentiation in that THC obviously causes impairment and cannabinoids do not. I would note to the panel that it's similar to the fact that breathalyser technology wasn't necessarily there when alcohol was legalized. It's something to take into consideration that this industry will continue to develop. The technology will continue to develop. It's one of those issues that we need to focus on in terms of public safety and public health.
2:50 p.m.
Regional Director, National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws
If I may, NORML Canada believes that the focus should be on impairment assessment training, instead of chemical detection, because right now the science does not support the levels of THC vis-à-vis the actual level of impairment. That would open up many possible legal challenges. Cannabis can be detected in the bloodstream up to 90 days after it's used. A level of cannabinoids detected in the system does not necessarily equate to a level of impairment. That would be, I think, a serious mistake and would definitely open up numerous legal challenges. Even in the past there have been cases of people accused of driving impaired with levels of cannabis who have successfully challenged those charges. Getting officers who have training in assessing impairment from cannabis and many other factors would be a much more productive policy for Canada.
September 12th, 2017 / 2:50 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses.
Mr. Kamin, if a non-U.S. citizen is seeking entry to the U.S. and they are asked and admit to having used cannabis anywhere, are they automatically inadmissible to enter the U.S., or is that at the discretion of the officer?
2:50 p.m.
Professor of Marijuana Law and Policy, University of Denver, As an Individual
My sense is that those people are excludable but are not always excluded.
2:50 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Okay. Can you give me some sort of sense of the likelihood? Are they generally excluded or are they generally admitted?
2:50 p.m.
Professor of Marijuana Law and Policy, University of Denver, As an Individual
I don't have statistics on that. I wish I could tell you.
I know this is going to be a tension. There's an enormous border between our country and yours, and enforcement at the border in both directions will be complicated by the endeavour that you are all undertaking here. I don't have good data on how that's happening now. What I hear are individual cases of people being excluded.
2:50 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Okay, thank you.
To our Colorado folks and Washington, broadly speaking, what percentage of cannabis products in your state are edibles or concentrates, non-smokable? Do you have a ballpark estimate?
2:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Colorado Department of Revenue
I wish I had the stat off the top of my head, and frankly, it's one that I should. I apologize. We will follow up with the committee and make sure that we get that information to you. What I can tell you from a trend basis that what has been surprising to us has been the rising popularity of edibles in our marketplace as compared to the smokable product.
