April 14, 2011 – Lawmakers and enforcers are looking for guidance on how to react to an Ontario Superior Court decision quashing Canada’s marijuana laws.

On Monday, a St. Catharines judge ruled the federal medical marijuana program unconstitutional because patients are largely prevented from legally accessing the drugs they need. Justice Donald Taliano also struck down the country’s laws against possessing and producing cannabis, giving Ottawa three months to fix the program before marijuana is effectively legalized.

The government is now awaiting direction from the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, said Tim Vail, spokesperson for Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq, who is currently running for re-election in Nunavut.

“We are disappointed with this decision,” Vail said in an emailed statement. “The independent Public Prosecution Service has to decide whether to appeal this decision.

“While the courts have said that there must be reasonable access to marijuana for medical purposes, we believe that this must be done in a controlled fashion to ensure public safety.”

Vail added that the government is considering “longer-term measures” to reform the medical marijuana program.

The Public Prosecution Service is studying the judge’s decision and has 30 days to appeal the ruling which it is expected to do.

In the meantime, the Ontario Provincial Police will continue to enforce marijuana laws — even though they may cease to exist in less than 90 days.

“It does create a legal grey zone,” said OPP spokesman Sgt. Pierre Chamberland. “Until that grey zone becomes a black and white, then the legislation remains status quo, and our actions in regards to enforcing the law remain status quo.”

In Toronto, police are waiting to consult with federal officials before deciding what impact the court decision will have on front-line drug policing.

“We need to read the decision, but also we need to speak with some colleagues in the criminal justice system,” said Toronto police spokesman Mark Pugash. “We’ll put out guidance to our officers so (they) know where we stand.”

Taliano made his ruling based on findings that Canadian doctors have “massively boycotted” the medical marijuana program.

Patients seeking a licence to obtain or grow marijuana for medicinal purposes must first find a doctor to support their application, a near-impossible task that forces sick people to resort to illegal measures, Taliano said in his ruling.

Toronto family physician Dr. Tsvi Gallant said most doctors are uneducated about the medicinal properties of marijuana and physicians are largely discouraged by their professional associations from participating in the program.

“I know most of my colleagues would refuse to touch it,” Gallant said. “A lot of family physicians will not even want to deal with it in the first place.”

Gallant said patients must also renew their medical marijuana licences every year but processing times are glacially slow.

“It’s much easier to go to the street and buy it illegally,” said Gallant, who encourages most of his patients to buy cannabis from compassion clubs. “Patients start breaking the law. And it happens again and again and again and again.” Source.

April 2, 2011 – Legalizing marijuana use has been a debate that waxes and wanes in various political climates but has always remained a hot issue with smoking embers. However, a recent poll finds most Americans support legalizing the drug.

Several states have legalized it for medical purposes and some have considered legalizing it in a broader sense. Three quarters of Americans surveyed said they support legalization of marijuana for medical treatment (74 percent) with almost half saying they strongly support it (48 percent).

However, the Harris Poll conducted in late February also found that a significant amount of Americans say they oppose the legalization of medical marijuana in their state (18 percent), and even fewer–7 percent–said they are not sure what they think about the issue.

Despite widespread approval of cannabis for medical use, lighting up a doobie for recreational purposes is far less agreeable. Two in five supported legalizing marijuana for recreational use in their state (42 percent) and half opposed it (49 percent). Some 7 percent said they were unsure and 2 percent declined to answer.

The results of the poll varied by region. Adults in the East were most supportive of legalizing marijuana for both medical use and recreational use, 80 percent and 50 percent respectively. People in the West were the next most supportive, with 76 percent supporting legalizing medical marijuana and 50 percent saying recreational use was ok.

Some 74 percent of Midwesterners supported medical marijuana legalization, but fewer than two in five okayed it for recreational use (39 percent). Southerners were the least supportive in general with only 69 percent supporting medical marijuana legalization and 34 percent for recreational use.

Marijuana has been legalized for certain medical uses in 15 states, and possession of the drug has been decriminalized in various places. California recently voted on whether or not to legalize it completely. The measure failed to pass.

Differences by Region

Adults in the East are most supportive of legalizing marijuana for both medical use (80%) and recreational use (50%). The West is the next most supportive region-76% support legalizing medical marijuana and 50% say so for recreational marijuana. While three quarters of Midwesterners support medical marijuana legalization (74%), less than two in five say so for recreational use (39%) and Southerners are least supportive of both medical marijuana legalization (69%) and marijuana legalized for recreational use (34%).

Who Should Make the Decision

While most Americans support legalizing medical marijuana, there is no consensus about legalizing marijuana for recreational use and who should decide whether or not to legalize it. A plurality of 44% of adults say it should be a state decision, 40% say it should be a federal decision, and 14% are not at all sure. There again are some regional differences-over half of Westerners (52%) think marijuana legalization should be a state decision compared to fewer in the South (44%), Midwest (42%) and East (38%) who say the same. Easterners are most likely to say it should be a federal decision (47%).

What Would the Result Be

If marijuana was legalized generally, majorities think it would cause an increase in both the number of people who use marijuana (68%) and the amount of marijuana used (68%). However, majorities also think it would increase tax revenue (75%), with 51% saying it would cause a large increase in tax revenue, as well as an increase in the consistency and standardization of marijuana used (59%). Substantial pluralities say that legalizing marijuana generally would cause a decrease in the crime rate (41%) and the amount of money spent on prisons/prisoners (44%).

So What?

Marijuana has been legalized for certain medical uses in 15 states, possession of the drug has been decriminalized in various places, and California recently voted on whether or not to legalize it completely (they voted not to do so). Americans may favor legalizing the drug for medical purposes, but many questions remain unanswered such as: what medical issues warrant the use of marijuana? Where should it be dispensed? Who should regulate production and distribution? Furthermore, some experts believe much more work is needed to ascertain the risks and benefits of marijuana use.

Methodology

This Harris Poll was conducted online within the United States between February 14 to 21, 2011 among 3,171 adults (aged 18 and over). Figures for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region and household income were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for respondents’ propensity to be online.

All sample surveys and polls, whether or not they use probability sampling, are subject to multiple sources of error which are most often not possible to quantify or estimate, including sampling error, coverage error, error associated with nonresponse, error associated with question wording and response options, and post-survey weighting and adjustments. Therefore, Harris Interactive avoids the words “margin of error” as they are misleading. All that can be calculated are different possible sampling errors with different probabilities for pure, unweighted, random samples with 100% response rates. These are only theoretical because no published polls come close to this ideal.

Respondents for this survey were selected from among those who have agreed to participate in Harris Interactive surveys. The data have been weighted to reflect the composition of the adult population. Because the sample is based on those who agreed to participate in the Harris Interactive panel, no estimates of theoretical sampling error can be calculated.

These statements conform to the principles of disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.

Source.