Published: Tuesday, 04 October 2016 1:Oct
Updated: June 23, 2017
We must all be responsible adults especially *law enforcement and other professionals in the media and health care fields and seriously look at and listen to the scientific evidence.
Cannabis keeps getting compared to the toxic (deadly) drug alcohol. Cannabis is not toxic. Cannabis and alcohol are just not the same. Under the influence behaviours are not the same as alcohol or pharmaceutical drugs for the most part.
Daily medical cannabis consumers generally gain experience and build up a tolerance. Most adults would not be impaired if they took an aspirin for a headache. The same can be said for daily medical cannabis consumers when consuming small amounts over the course of a day.
This is not to say experienced medical cannabis consumers can't become impaired by consuming cannabis concentrates, edibles or larger quantities of flowers even.
Several years now pharmaceutical drug advertisements have included warnings about possible side affects that could cause impairment, statements like, know how our drug affects you before operating motor vehicles or equipment. In other words consumption does not automatically equal you're impaired.
Distracted driving and walking is impaired behaviours. Parents drive while distracted by their children. Pet owners drive while distracted by their pets. Using a cell phone. Lack of sleep, human emotions, stress, mental health and more are all part of the important impaired issue.
Education based on scientific evidence only without the typical proven reefer madness nonsense.
Be responsible and never drive whenever “impaired” from consuming any substance or distracted or for any other reasons!
*Irresponsible law enforcement and media professionals
See Dr. Susan C. Boyd, a B.C. researcher's book "Killer Weed: Marijuana Grow Ops, Media and Justice". about how law enforcement and media are not telling the facts.
Google Dr. Susan C. Boyd's "Reefer madness is governmental"
Note: Dr. Susan C. Boyd is a member of Liberal government "Task Force on Marijuana Legalization and Regulation"
March 17, 2017
NORML Canada's President John Conroy wrote:
"US NHTSA Drugs & Alcohol Crash Risk Case Control Study Dec. 2016 and No Prison for Pot!!"
Attached file: 812355_DrugAlcoholCrashRisk.pdf (released Dec. 2016)
"Dear Mr. Costen, Mr. Blair and Mr. Sidhu" click the link to the left to view text part of John's message published on NORML Canada (1978) website.
February 1, 2017
Cannabis Use and Driving: Knowledge Translation Strategy Recommendations
In reviewing the evidence relating to cannabis impairment and driving, we have highlighted several main considerations with respect to context, tone, and audience when developing messaging for public education. This document outlines these considerations.
June 3, 2016
Motor Mouth: Hysteria over ‘high driving’ is all half-baked
Marijuana, by most measures, is not in any way the scourge that alcohol is
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration finds that drivers who use marijuana are at a significantly lower risk for a crash than drivers who use alcohol.
August 5, 2014
Since marijuana legalization, highway fatalities in Colorado are at near-historic lows
April 6, 2012
Marijuana Users Are Safer Drivers Than Non-Marijuana Users, New Study Shows
Medical Marijuana Laws, Traffic Fatalities, and Alcohol Consumption
D. Mark Anderson University of Montana and Daniel Rees University of Colorado
16 states have passed medical marijuana laws, yet very little is known about their effects. Using state-level data, we examine the relationship between medical marijuana laws and a variety of outcomes. Legalization of medical marijuana is associated with increased use of marijuana among adults, but not among minors. In addition, legalization is associated with a nearly 9 percent decrease in traffic fatalities, most likely to due to its impact on alcohol consumption. Our estimates provide strong evidence that marijuana and alcohol are substitutes.
The Effects of Cannabis Compared with Alcohol on Driving
PMC Journal: Authors - R. Andrew Sewell, MD,corresponding author James Poling, PhD, and Mehmet Sofuoglu, MD, PhD
CANADA SAFTEY COUNCIL
DRIVERS ON POT - ISSUES AND OPTIONS
HOW CANNABIS USE AFFECTS DRIVING
Alcohol causes more impairment than cannabis and carries a demonstrably higher crash risk. Drivers under the influence of cannabis are acutely aware of their impairment. They consciously try to drive more cautiously, for example by slowing down, focusing their attention and avoiding risks. Drinking drivers show more risk taking and aggression in their driving, have no insight into their impairment, and do not try to compensate.
CANADA SAFTEY COUNCIL
HOW DOES POT AFFECT DRIVERS?
The psychoactive chemical in marijuana is tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). THC has a very different effect from alcohol. Pot users are acutely aware of their impairment - that is, they feel "high" - and some try to compensate by driving more cautiously.
• Cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in automobile driving.
REPORT OF THE SENATE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON ILLEGAL DRUGS - SenateReport.ca
CANNABIS: OUR POSITION FOR A CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY
Chapter: 8 Driving under the influence of cannabis
• Cannabis, particularly in the doses that match typical doses for regular users, has a negative impact on decision time and trajectory.
• Cannabis leads to a more cautious style of driving.
• The effects of cannabis when combined with alcohol are more significant than for alcohol alone.
Cannabis & impaired driving -
International Centre for Science in Drug Policy - calgary420.ca/pdf/driving/ICSDP-2.pdf
Published: Monday, 12 September 2016 1:Sep
Task Force on Marijuana Legalization & Regulation (TFMLR)
Toronto TFMLR meeting August 30, 2016
Craig Jones - NORML Canada's Executive Director wrote:
On August 30th I attended the meeting of the cannabis legalization task force in Toronto.
There were ~24 people around the table, including municipal enforcement officials, senior scientists from CAMH, mental health researchers, secretariat members and advocates for access to medicinal cannabis.
I was the only representative from a legacy organization — and one of the few to make a formal submission to the Task Force.
The Task Force members told us they had visited Colorado and Washington State and learned much from their deliberations there — mostly in terms of “don’t do this” kinds of lessons.
Anne McClennan approached me before the session began to tell me that she had read NORML’s submission — the night before the meeting — and “found very little to disagree with.” She did find the Summative Comments on the Task Force paper a little harsh, but agreed with me that the Task Force paper had more than whiff of reefer madness about it (“think about the children").
The actual meeting consisted of a slow walk through the major considerations in their Discussion Paper with the intention of hearing from various stakeholders on all aspects of concerns surfaced by the Task Force.
I made the point — generally accepted by everyone around the table — that the federal government simply COULD NOT legislate on all aspects of cannabis once legalization was in force because many of the fine-grain details would devolve to provincial and even municipal jurisdiction.
I have to report that I think NORML got a fair and respectful hearing* (curious to learn of John Conroy’s experience). Dan Werb and myself agreed on almost everything — as I expected — and I was glad to have the input of a research scientist from the University of Toronto who was able to explain in appropriate detail how different routes of administration affect the cannabis user differentially.
*On more than one occasion Anne McClennan would make an observation in words that could have come directly from NORML’s submission.
Not all of the Task Force members were present, and of those that were present, not all spoke up. But of those that were I made a point of asking — in private, during the lunch break — “what have you learned in this process?”
McClennan admitted that the biggest challenge would be unlearning the many popular misconceptions that have long surrounded the cannabis issue (probably reflective of her own learning).
The former deputy head of the RCMP admitted that he no longer anticipated an explosion of use and impaired driving after legalization.
The Director General of the Secretariat told me that he was impressed with the diversity of views across Canada — at the variability of considerations around access in remote places like Northern Canada.
To sum up, a good day. I thought the Task Force was very respectful of NORML’s views. I thought they were receptive and willing to learn.
Vancouver TFMLR meeting September 1, 2016
John W. Conroy - NORML Canada's President (1978 to present) wrote:
I appeared before the Task Force on Legalization and Regulation today, September 1 in Vancouver. I found it to be a very pleasant experience with numerous great participants who brought a lot to the table and the Task Force members were very receptive and shared with us some of the huge cultural differences that exist in relation to this issue in the north, compared to the south and in the West, compared to at least some parts of the East. Not everyone has had the experience that we have had particularly in British Columbia now for many years and it is a challenge to bring something in that takes into account such differing perspectives.
Eric Costin was present, executive director of this government initiative and some of you will recall, he was in charge of the medical program for while at Health Canada and gave evidence in Allard.
Bill Blair, MP and Parliamentary Sec. to the Minister of Justice, who is the conduit between this Task Force was also present, and based on my prior experience with him he continues to be very reasonable on this issue and I think because of his police experience more knowledgeable of the situation on the ground.
The Chair of the Task Force Anne McClellan was also very open and frequently commented on the significance of what they were hearing and learning.
Dr. Mark Ware, the Vice Chair was also present, and was very receptive to the information they were receiving and particularly in relation to the medical marihuana issue and the new ACMPR and potential problems between the injunction patients and transitioning to the new regulations. I think they clearly understood that there will have to be a separate medical and recreational stream particularly depending upon what the legal model looks like though probably no matter what because of the distinct issues.
Prof. Susan Boyd of the Task Force was also present, and she was a witness for the Plaintiffs in Allard, and clearly supportive.
George Chow, a member of the Vancouver Board of Variance, but not sitting as long as he is on the Task Force also appeared to be very supportive and made some good contributions.
Perry Kendall, our chief BC Medical Officer in Task Force member was also very interested and then made very good contributions.
There were 5 staff or support persons to the Task Force, including Diane LaBelle, legal counsel to the Ministry of Health with whom I expect to have good positive future discussions.
There were 13 of us, including a number who are well known to the cannabis community and very supportive and I thought everybody made great contributions that were very well received.
Clearly the impaired driving issue and trying to construct a fair model engendered significant discussion and clearly will be a big issue for the politicians. Apparently there are some coroner statistics that allegedly determine cannabis to be the cause in certain fatal accidents and I will be doing some further investigation into them, specifically in keeping them posted on the information and developments I continually get from the U.S. on this issue.
The minimum age limit was part of a significant discussion and I think and hope that at the end of the day, they accepted that what's important is what they decide to do to those under the minimum age that they set and that they should not use the criminal law. If they are going to continue to use the criminal law, for those "outside the scheme" they are simply going to have major problems and prejudice many young people. I think they are genuinely interested in alternatives to the use of the criminal law and there was discussion about adults selling alcohol to minors, tobacco issues and to try and come up with something sensible and not use the criminal law.
All in all a very good and informative day I think for all present, focusing on genuine learning and grappling with specific issues. At the end of the day it must be remembered that they have received over 30,000 submissions and are now doing the traveling consultations and have to report by November on simply how they think legalization (not decriminalization) should be done through Bill Blair to the 3 Ministers – Justice, Health and Public Safety.
That is where the politics will enter into the situation and given the continuing fears and hysterics from some quarters and the fickleness of politicians we are not likely to see what we think is "the right way to do it" and I think we can anticipate several years of restrictions that hopefully will fall away over time.
I started out being quite critical of the Discussion Paper in its use of the terms "addictive" and criticisms of home growing accusing the authors of not being up to date and being in fact misleading and that they obviously hadn't read Allard before they wrote the paper. Remember the Task Force did not commission that paper and it was simply presented to them as the background discussion piece. Yesterday was opiate overdose day in BC involving true addicts cut off by their doctors who go to the streets and die and how the use of the criminal law in that area is responsible for the entire situation.
There is a lot of work to be done to educate the public and some members of the Task Force on the differences between cannabis consumption and alcohol consumption, impaired driving, and workplace issues.
I think the Task Force members are genuinely listening and learning and trying to come up with realistic recommendations based on hearing all sorts of perspectives across the country that some of us have never been exposed to.
I came away feeling very good about the day, but my skepticism remains about what the government will do.
Hope this helps some of you who are about to appear.
Vancouver TFMLR meeting September 2, 2016
Kirk Towsaw - NORML Canada's Pacific Regional Director wrote:
Busy day but I wanted to give a short recap of last Friday's Legalization Task Force meeting. The process is that the TF will make recommendations to Bill Blair who is acting as point person for three Ministers (Justice, Health and Public Safety). Mr. Blair will deliver the recommendations with his own comments and the government will do what it does.
The meeting covered five topic areas (set out in the discussion paper available to the public and which formed the basis for some 30,000 or more submissions already received by the TF). I believe that the TF is committed to doing its best to recommend a path forward that works for all Canadians. I also believe that there will be lots of things people don't agree with and lots of room for improvement. I also believe, as does the TF, that whatever legalization looks like on day one will not be the end of the matter and that changes over time are almost inevitable.
My key points were that any system has to be inclusive, can't be so hard to participate in that ordinary Canadians are frozen out, that a cannabis related criminal record should not be any barrier to participation, that legacy producers and distributors need to be included, that nobody under an age limit should ever have criminal charges arising from cannabis, that possession and plant limits are illogical and should not exist, that home production is a necessity and that there must be a separate medical system at least for home production (if there is a plant limit on rec production), access to all cannabis products (if some are not allowed in rec) and cost-reimbursement. Obviously there is and was a lot more but those are the highlights.
The group in the room was largely in agreement with much of this and with each other. People were there from public health, from medical professions, from First Nations, from research and from activism. Many familiar faces and some new ones.
The TF noted that the BC meetings were very good and that they learned a lot throughout this process. They also made clear that different parts of the country look at this issue very differently from each other. Finally, in response to diatribes from Pam McColl (who left at lunch without explanation) they made clear that this was about how to legalize not whether to legalize.
I think that production in the new regime will be federally controlled but that distribution will be provincially regulated. This means that provincial politicians need to be courted, educated and lobbied for the distribution system or systems that will be created. It also means that the current ACMPR producers are very likely to be allowed to participate in the new regime (unsurprisingly and of course they should be permitted like everyone else). In response to a specific question about obstacles in the current regime I said that the security clearance process needs fixing, that the security requirements are nonsense and a huge and unnecessary financial burden, that the timing of processing applications needs to dramatically improve and that the government should set basic quality control standards (eg, labelling requirements and levels of unwanted inputs) but should not micromanage how producers meet those standards.
There was a lot more and I may have some time to get into details in specific areas but the above is a general recap.
Apologies in advance for not being able to answer specific questions.