Search results
2016 United Nations General Assembly Special Session on the World Drug Problem, which took place in April 2016. The document then turns to the legal treatment of marijuana in Canada, including the prevalence of use of marijuana in this country. It then examines different regulation approaches – including legalization and
- 424KB
- 24
- Overview
- The Final Report of the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation
- Table of Contents
- Foreword
- Executive Summary
- Chapter 1: Introduction
- Chapter 2: Minimizing Harms of Use
- Chapter 3: Establishing a Safe and Responsible Supply Chain
- Chapter 4: Enforcing Public Safety and Protection
- Chapter 5: Medical Access
November 30, 2016
The Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
The Honourable Jane Philpott
Minister of Health
The Honourable Ralph Goodale
•Foreword
•Executive Summary
•Chapter 1: Introduction
•Our mandate
•The Canadian context
•A global perspective
When the Task Force first assembled in June 2016, we each brought a range of individual perspectives on cannabis. Over the months that followed, we came to appreciate the collective importance of our varied viewpoints and to recognize the potential impact of our work. This report is the result of a truly national collaboration, and we are proud to have been involved in it.
We have discovered that the regulation of cannabis will touch every aspect of our society. One of the predominant features of our deliberations has been the diversity of opinions, emotions and expertise expressed by those who came forward. People and organizations gave generously of their time and reflections. We explored the issue in remote corners of Canada as well as outside our borders. We heard from parents, patients, practitioners, politicians, police and the media. Our focus ranged from global treaty obligations to the homes and municipalities in which we live. We heard anxiety about such things as driving, youth access and "sending the wrong message," but we also heard a desire to move away from a culture of fear around cannabis and to acknowledge the existence of more positive medical and social attributes. Meanwhile, as we went about our mandate, dispensaries continued to challenge communities and law enforcement, new research findings emerged, new regulations appeared, and the media shone their light on issues of quality and regulatory gaps.
Because of this complexity and diversity of input, and the challenges associated with designing a new regulatory framework, we recognize that there will be much discussion around the implications of our recommendations. However, like scraping ice from the car windows on a cold winter morning, we believe that we can now see enough to move forward.
The current paradigm of cannabis prohibition has been with us for almost 100 years. We cannot, and should not, expect to turn this around overnight. While moving away from cannabis prohibition is long overdue, we may not anticipate every nuance of future policy; after all, our society is still working out issues related to the regulation of alcohol and tobacco. We are aware of the shortcomings in our current knowledge base around cannabis and the effects of cannabis on human health and development. As a result, the recommendations laid out in this report include appeals for ongoing research and surveillance, and a flexibility to adapt to and respond to ongoing and emerging policy needs.
This report is a synthesis of Canadian values, situated in the times in which we live, combined with our shared experiences and concerns around a plant and its products that have touched many lives in many ways. For millennia, people have found ways to interact with cannabis for a range of medical, industrial, spiritual and social reasons, and modern science is only just beginning to unpack the intricacies of cannabinoid pharmacology. We are now shaping a new phase in this relationship and, as we do so, we recognize our stewardship not just of this unique plant but also of our fragile environment, our social and corporate responsibilities, and our health and humanity. This report is a beginning; we all have a role to play in the implementation of this new, transformative public policy.
In closing, we recognize and thank all those who contributed to our work, in particular our colleagues on the Task Force, the Secretariat and Eric Costen, who provided outstanding leadership. We formally acknowledge Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for his vision in initiating this process and for seeing it through. Finally, we thank the Ministers of Health, Justice and Public Safety for trusting us to prepare and deliver this report. On behalf of all Canadians, we now place our trust in our Government to enable and enact the processes required to make the legalization and regulation of cannabis a reality.
Introduction: Mandate, Context and Consultation Process
On June 30, 2016, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, and the Minister of Health announced the creation of a nine-member Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation ("the Task Force"). Our mandate was to consult and provide advice on the design of a new legislative and regulatory framework for legal access to cannabis, consistent with the Government's commitment to "legalize, regulate, and restrict access."
To fulfill our mandate, we engaged with provincial, territorial and municipal governments, experts, patients, advocates, Indigenous governments and representative organizations, employers and industry. We heard from many other Canadians as well, including many young people, who participated in an online public consultation that generated nearly 30,000 submissions from individuals and organizations. The Task Force looked internationally (e.g., Colorado, Washington State, Uruguay) to learn from jurisdictions that have legalized cannabis for non-medical purposes, and we drew lessons from the way governments in Canada have regulated tobacco and alcohol, and cannabis for medical purposes.
A Discussion Paper prepared by the Government, entitled "Toward the Legalization, Regulation and Restriction of Access to Marijuana," informed the Task Force's work and helped to focus the input of many of the people from whom we heard. The Discussion Paper identified nine public policy objectives. Chief among these are keeping cannabis out of the hands of children and youth and keeping profits out of the hands of organized crime. The Task Force set out guiding principles as the foundation of our advice to Ministers: protection of public health and safety, compassion, fairness, collaboration, a commitment to evidence-informed policy and flexibility.
In considering the experience of other jurisdictions and the views of experts, stakeholders and the public, we sought to strike a balance between implementing appropriate restrictions, in order to minimize the harms associated with cannabis use, and providing adult access to a regulated supply of cannabis while reducing the scope and scale of the illicit market and its social harms. Our recommendations reflect a public health approach to reduce harm and promote health. We also took a precautionary approach to minimize unintended consequences, given that the relevant evidence is often incomplete or inconclusive.
Minimizing Harms of Use
We begin our report by thanking those Canadians, experts, youth, Indigenous leaders, Elders, stakeholder organizations, government representatives, researchers, advocates, and patients, who took the time to participate in this consultation. Your views, advice and experiences have been insightful and invaluable.
We are thankful for the counsel provided by Mr. Bill Blair, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, who served as Government liaison to the Task Force.
Introduction: a public health approach
In taking a public health approach to the regulation of cannabis, the Task Force proposes measures that will maintain and improve the health of Canadians by minimizing the harms associated with cannabis use. Most of the measures we propose seek to minimize harms in the population as a whole. We also consider more targeted means to minimize the harm to individuals, particularly children, youth and other vulnerable populations. A discussion of the harms associated with cannabis-impaired driving can be found in Chapter 4, Enforcing Public Safety and Protection. Based on evidence that the risks of cannabis are higher with early age of initiation and/or high frequency of use, the Task Force proposes a public health approach that aims to: Delay the age of the initiation of cannabis use; Reduce the frequency of use; Reduce higher-risk use; Reduce problematic use and dependence; Expand access to treatment and prevention programs; and, Ensure early and sustained public education and awareness. Cannabis: the essentials Cannabis sativa is a plant that is used for its psychoactive and therapeutic effects and, like all psychoactive and therapeutic substances, carries certain risks to human health. Cannabis contains hundreds of chemical substances and more than 100 cannabinoids, which are compounds traditionally associated with the cannabis plant. Among these, two cannabinoids have received the most scientific interest: delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). THC has therapeutic effects and is the compound chiefly responsible for the psychoactive effects of cannabis, while CBD has potential therapeutic but no obvious psychoactive effects. The effects of cannabis are due to the actions of its cannabinoids on biological "targets," a system of specific receptors and molecules found throughout the human body, together called the endocannabinoid system. The current science also suggests that other compounds in cannabis, such as aromatic terpenes and flavonoids, may also have pharmacological properties alone or in combination with the cannabinoids. Assessing the risks Risk is inherent in all discussions on the health effects of cannabis, yet our understanding of risk is constrained by more than 90 years of prohibition, which has limited our ability to fully study cannabis. We know more about the short-term effects of cannabis use (e.g., psychoactive effects and effects on memory, attention and psychomotor function). We are less certain about some of the longer-term effects (e.g., risks of permanent harms to mental functioning and risks of depression and anxiety disorders) but more certain about others (e.g., dependence). The following is a snapshot of the risks of harms associated with cannabis use: Risks to children and youth: Generally speaking, studies have consistently found that the earlier cannabis use begins and the more frequently and longer it is used, the greater the risk of potential developmental harms, some of which may be long-lasting or permanent. Risks associated with consumption: Certain factors are associated with an increased risk of harms, including frequent use and use of higher potency products. Driving while impaired by cannabis is associated with an increased risk of accidents and fatalities. Co-use with alcohol may pose an incremental risk for impaired driving and co-use with tobacco may increase smoking-related lung disease. Risks to vulnerable populations: Studies have found associations between frequent cannabis use and certain mental illnesses (e.g., schizophrenia and psychosis) and between frequent cannabis use during pregnancy and certain adverse cognitive and behavioural outcomes in children. Risks related to interactions with the illicit market: These include violence and the risks associated with unsafe products, illicit production and exposure to other, more harmful illicit substances. As noted in Chapter 1, in addressing these risks we are sometimes faced with trade-offs when choosing among different regulatory approaches, since reducing some risks could result in increasing others. We often turned to our guiding principles to help us make difficult choices. In our roundtable discussions and throughout the submissions we received, stakeholders often noted that, alongside the risks of use, there are also benefits, including for relaxation purposes, as a sleep aid or for pleasure. Notably, there is emerging evidence with regard to the use of cannabis as an alternative to more harmful substances, suggesting a potential for harm reduction (see also Chapter 5, Medical Access). The Task Force agrees that further research should be a priority. Learning from the regulation of tobacco and alcohol In assessing the measures presented in this chapter, at times comparisons are made with the ways alcohol and tobacco are regulated. In some ways the substances are comparable, being associated with factors such as impairment, dependence, health harms and widespread use. However, there are important differences in risks, social and health impact, and prevalence of use. The 2009 World Health Organization (WHO) ranking of leading global risk factors for disease includes alcohol (ranked 3rd) and tobacco (6th). Notably, it does not include cannabis. In comparing levels of risk, it is important to consider patterns of use and the high global prevalence of alcohol and tobacco use. As well, years of research data collection and evaluation have provided information on the individual and societal impacts of alcohol and tobacco use that is not yet available for cannabis. Nevertheless, the Task Force acknowledges that, based on current levels of use and available information on mortality and morbidity, the harms associated with the use of tobacco or alcohol are greater than those associated with the use of cannabis. In this report we recommend a series of measures that are, in some cases, stricter than those that exist for tobacco or alcohol in Canada. Given the relative harms, we acknowledge this contradiction but believe that the regulation of these substances has been inconsistent with WHO disease risk ranking and remains inconsistent with known potential for harm. In designing a regulatory system for cannabis, we have an opportunity to avoid similar pitfalls. The Task Force recognizes that the regulatory regimes for alcohol and tobacco continue to evolve. It is our hope that our experience with cannabis regulation will be used to inform the further evolution of alcohol and tobacco regulations.
Minimum age
Setting a minimum age for the purchase of cannabis is an important requirement for the new system. The age at which to set the limit was the subject of much discussion and analysis throughout our deliberations. As with many of the other measures discussed in this chapter, a minimum age is intended to support the Government's objective to protect children and youth from the potential adverse health effects of cannabis by putting in place safeguards that better control access. In Canada, minimum ages for alcohol and tobacco sales have been set by the federal government (for tobacco) and by the provinces and territories (for both substances). Some have set the legal age for purchase at 18, others at 19. However, we know that age restrictions on their own will not dissuade youth use; other complementary actions - including prevention, education, and treatment - are required to achieve this objective. What we heard The Task Force heard broad support for establishing a minimum age for the sale of cannabis. However, the youth with whom we spoke did not believe that setting a minimum age alone would prevent their peers from using cannabis. Some health experts argued that there was no clear scientific evidence to identify a "safe" age of consumption, but agreed that having a minimum age would reduce harm. There was a general recognition that a minimum age for cannabis use would have value as a "societal marker," establishing cannabis use as an activity for adults only, at an age at which responsible and individual decision-making is expected and respected. We heard from many participants that setting the minimum age too high risked preserving the illicit market, particularly since the highest rates of use are in the 18 to 24 age range. A minimum age that was too high also raised concerns of further criminalization of youth, depending on the approach to enforcement. Ages 18, 19 and 21 were most often suggested as potential minimum ages. Health-care professionals and public health experts tend to favour a minimum age of 21. A minimum age of 25, often cited as the age at which brain development has stabilized, was generally viewed as unrealistic because it would leave much of the illicit market intact. In U.S. states where cannabis is legal, governments have aligned the minimum age at 21 for alcohol and cannabis consumption. There was considerable discussion regarding the importance of national consistency. Having the same minimum age for purchase in all provinces and territories was thought to mitigate problems associated with "border shopping" by youth seeking to purchase cannabis in a neighbouring province or territory where the age is lower. In this regard, we heard suggestions that governments could learn from the challenges associated with alcohol age limits, which are inconsistent across the country. A range of public health and other experts recommended that the federal government set the minimum age, and that the provinces and territories be able to raise the age but not lower it. Others argued that, for the sake of clarity and symmetry, the minimum age for purchasing cannabis should be aligned with the current provincial and territorial ages for sales of alcohol and tobacco. Many suggested that 18 was a well-established milestone in Canadian society marking adulthood. Considerations Research suggests that cannabis use during adolescence may be associated with effects on the development of the brain. Use before a certain age comes with increased risk. Yet current science is not definitive on a safe age for cannabis use, so science alone cannot be relied upon to determine the age of lawful purchase. Recognizing that persons under the age of 25 represent the segment of the population most likely to consume cannabis and to be charged with a cannabis possession offence, and in view of the Government's intention to move away from a system that criminalizes the use of cannabis, it is important in setting a minimum age that we do not disadvantage this population. There was broad agreement among participants and the Task Force that setting the bar for legal access too high could result in a range of unintended consequences, such as leading those consumers to continue to purchase cannabis on the illicit market. For these reasons, the Task Force is of the view that the federal government should set a minimum age of 18 for the legal sale of cannabis, leaving it to provinces and territories to set a higher minimum age should they wish to do so. To mitigate harms between the ages of 18 and 25, a period of continued brain development, governments should do all that they can to discourage and delay cannabis use. Robust preventive measures, including advertising restrictions and public education, all of which are addressed later in this chapter, are seen as key to discouraging use by this age group. For many in the legal and law enforcement fields, the key issue is not the minimum age itself but the implications for those who ignore it, including those who sell to children and youth, and those under the minimum age who possess and use cannabis. These are addressed in Chapter 4, Enforcing Public Safety and Protection. Advice to Ministers The Task Force recommends that the federal government set a national minimum age of purchase of 18, acknowledging the right of provinces and territories to harmonize it with their minimum age of purchase of alcohol.
Promotion, advertising and marketing restrictions
In designing a system for the regulation of cannabis, we are creating a new industry. As with other industries, this new cannabis industry will seek to increase its profits and expand its market, including through the use of advertising and promotion. Because of the risks discussed earlier in this chapter, regulation aims to discourage use among youth and ensure that only evidence-informed information is provided to adults. Restrictions on advertising, promotion and related activities are therefore necessary. Our society's experience with the promotion of tobacco and alcohol is instructive, since the promotion of these products is recognized as an important driver of consumption and of the associated harms. In response, many governments have restricted how tobacco and alcohol may be promoted. In Canada, there are different approaches to each. The federal Tobacco Act restricts the promotion of tobacco products, except in limited circumstances. It also specifically prohibits promotion by means of a testimonial or endorsement, false or misleading advertising, sponsorship promotion, lifestyle advertising (which evokes images of glamour, excitement, and risk) and advertising appealing to young people. Advertising that promotes a tobacco product by describing brand characteristics or providing information (factual information about a product and its characteristics, availability or price) are permitted in limited circumstances, such as in publications and in locations not accessible to young people. Provincial and territorial laws also set stringent limits on promotion of tobacco products. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's Code for Broadcast Advertising of Alcoholic Beverages includes federal restrictions on the promotion of alcohol in radio and television broadcasting. It includes prohibitions on advertisements that appeal to minors, that encourage the general consumption of alcohol and that associate alcohol with social or personal achievement. Each province and territory also has its own rules restricting the promotion of alcohol. Despite regulations such as the advertising code, alcohol is heavily marketed and promoted to adults in Canada. What we heard In the Task Force's consultations, the majority of health-care professionals, as well as public health, municipal, law enforcement and youth experts, believed there should be strict controls on advertising and marketing of cannabis. We heard that such restrictions would be necessary to counter the efforts by industry to promote consumption, particularly among youth. There were also concerns expressed that companies would market products to heavy users or encourage heavy use, and exploit any exceptions that are left open. We heard strong support from, among others, educators, parents, youth and the public health community for comprehensive marketing restrictions for cannabis similar to those for tobacco. Such restrictions were considered to be necessary because the evidence from our experience with tobacco and alcohol suggests that partial restrictions send mixed messages about use. Several public health stakeholders also recommended plain packaging for cannabis products, similar to the approach taken by Australia for tobacco products and which are soon to be applied to tobacco products in Canada. Plain packaging refers to packages without any distinctive or attractive features and with limits on how brand names are displayed (e.g., font type, colour and size). The industry representatives from whom we heard, while generally supportive of some promotion restrictions - particularly marketing to children and youth, and restrictions on false or misleading advertising - made the case for allowing branding of products. It was suggested that brand differentiation would help consumers distinguish between licit and illicit sources of cannabis, helping to drive them to the legal market. As well, to achieve "brand loyalty," companies would have the impetus to produce high-quality products and would be more accountable to their customers. In our online consultation, some were opposed to tobacco-style advertising restrictions for cannabis because, in their opinion, cannabis is less harmful than either tobacco or alcohol. For some online respondents, allowing in-store advertising for cannabis brands offered a potential compromise: youth would be protected from exposure to mass marketing and advertising, while producers and retailers could still engage and communicate with consumers of cannabis of legal age and in regulated environments. Considerations The Task Force agrees with the public health perspective that, in order to reduce youth access to cannabis, strict limits should be placed on its promotion. In our view, comprehensive restrictions similar to those created by tobacco regulation offer the best approach. There is also a concern that the presence of any cannabis promotion could work against youth education efforts. The challenges with creating partial restrictions (i.e., only prohibiting advertising targeting youth) are well documented. In practice, it is difficult to separate marketing that is particularly appealing to youth from any other marketing. The Colorado officials with whom we met echoed this concern, noting that their partial restrictions for cannabis advertising made it challenging to avoid advertising that reaches, or is appealing to, youth. A partial restriction focusing on marketing to youth becomes even more problematic if one considers the 19-to-25 age group; it will be legal for those in this age group to purchase, but the evidence of potential harm suggests that use within this group should be discouraged as a matter of health. Trying to prohibit marketing that is appealing to this age group compared to people in their late 20s or 30s would be impossible. The Task Force believes that, while there should be a federal minimum age of 18 for the reasons explained above, other policies, such as comprehensive marketing restrictions, will be needed to minimize harms to the 18-to-25 age group. Comprehensive advertising restrictions should cover any medium, including print, broadcast, social media, branded merchandise, etc., and should apply to all cannabis products, including related accessories. Such restrictions could still leave room for promotion at the point of sale, which would answer industry concerns about allowing information to be provided to consumers and some branding to differentiate their products from the illicit market and other producers. This assumes that the point of sale is a retail outlet not accessible to minors (see Chapter 3, Establishing a Safe and Responsible Supply Chain); the Tobacco Act allows information and brand preference advertising in places where young persons are not permitted, and those provisions could be used as a model. If branding were permitted, along with limited point-of-sale marketing and product information, we are concerned that this information would still make its way to environments where minors would be exposed and influenced, much as they are today by alcohol and tobacco brands. The Task Force feels there is sufficient justification at this time for plain packaging on cannabis products. Such packaging would include the company name, as well as important information for the consumer, including price and strain name, as well as any applicable labelling requirements (see the "Cannabis-based edibles and other products" and "THC potency" sections in this chapter). Any promotion, marketing or branding that is allowed should still be subject to restrictions, such as lifestyle advertising (similar to the Tobacco Act restrictions), false or misleading promotion (as for food, drugs and any other consumer product), the encouragement of excessive consumption (similar to standards for alcohol) and therapeutic claims (similar to restrictions for drugs or natural health products in the Food and Drugs Act). In setting restrictions, the federal government should consider options for oversight and enforcement. This should include effective oversight by government, possibly supplemented by industry self-regulation (as is the case with pharmaceuticals). Advice on the appropriate penalties for those companies that violate these requirements is outlined in Chapter 4. Advice to Ministers The Task Force recommends that the federal government: Apply comprehensive restrictions to the advertising and promotion of cannabis and related merchandise by any means, including sponsorship, endorsements and branding, similar to the restrictions on promotion of tobacco products Allow limited promotion in areas accessible by adults, similar to those restrictions under the Tobacco Act Require plain packaging for cannabis products that allows the following information on packages: company name, strain name, price, amounts of THC and CBD and warnings and other labelling requirements Impose strict sanctions on false or misleading promotion as well as promotion that encourages excessive consumption, where it is allowed Require that any therapeutic claims made in advertising conform to applicable legislation Resource and enable the detection and enforcement of advertising and marketing violations, including via traditional and social media
Introduction
As noted in Chapter 1, two of the major themes that formed the basis of the Task Force's discussions and consultations were "establishing a safe and responsible production system" and "designing an appropriate distribution system." We noted during Task Force consultations that conversations surrounding these two themes coalesced into an integrated discussion about the entire supply chain, encompassing production (commercial and personal cultivation), distribution and retail. This chapter will mirror that shift and discuss how to regulate the supply chain in its entirety. Decisions on production, distribution and retail have clear implications for businesses hoping to enter the cannabis industry, including how to ensure a diversity of participants. It is apparent that there is significant interest and speculation about the potential for new revenues generated by this industry. Supply chain management also has significant implications for consumers and communities. Price, product quality and accessibility can all be affected, depending upon what route the Government chooses to take. Notwithstanding this interest and the far-reaching implications of decisions made regarding the nature and scope of the new industry, the Government's principal interest should be to establish an efficient, accountable and transparent system for regulatory oversight of the supply chain, emphasizing the protection of health and safety and reducing diversion to the illicit market.
Production
Cannabis production ranges from the cultivation and harvest of the plant material, and its subsequent preparation, to the manufacture of products using cannabis as a raw material including concentrates and other derivatives. What we heard Throughout our consultations, there was support for commercial production of cannabis being left in the hands of the private sector. The vast majority of respondents to the online consultation expressed a preference for a competitive private-sector production model, noting that this would allow for a greater variety and diversity of products with fair pricing. However, some organizations believed that a government monopoly would be the best approach to control and regulate the production of cannabis, noting that this model was best placed for controlling use, preventing diversion, minimizing advertising and helping to control pricing. In both models, respondents indicated an expectation that the federal government would continue to regulate production. Most respondents thought that cannabis distribution and retail should be regulated by the provinces and territories. Having the federal government regulate cannabis production was seen as essential for a variety of reasons; such as to ensure that consumers in all regions of the country have access to quality-controlled products that are free from harmful pesticides, fungi and bacteria, heavy metals and other harmful substances. The federal government was seen as being well-placed to establish and oversee a national regulatory system of quality control, given that such a system is already in place for the production of cannabis for medical purposes. Many noted that the current federal system of cannabis for medical purposes could be used as a starting point for a new national system for legalized and regulated cannabis. Under the current system, companies seek licences from Health Canada to produce and distribute cannabis for medical purposes and must comply with a set of strict rules to meet safety and quality standards and security provisions. Many of those standards were seen as applicable when contemplating production in the new legal system in order to protect public health and safety. As noted in Chapter 2, the processing of extracts is one area where stakeholders saw regulation as key to mitigating significant potential harms. Some stakeholders expressed concern that, under a regulated, non-medical cannabis framework, the current security requirements would be unnecessarily strict, such as the requirement to keep security video recordings for two years. Some expressed concern that the cost of compliance with such security regulations might suppress competition in the marketplace and could potentially shut out smaller, new producers in favour of larger companies or conglomerates that could better afford these measures. We heard from representatives of those currently operating in the illicit cannabis economy who differentiated themselves from organized criminal enterprises. They expressed a keen desire to legitimize their businesses by transitioning into the legal market but were also concerned that they would be excluded by design, or due to their current involvement in the illicit market. They, and others, made strong calls for a diverse marketplace in which barriers to the participation of smaller producers (sometimes referred to as "craft" or "artisanal") and not-for-profit entities are kept to a minimum. Likewise, in order for these individuals or businesses to be eligible to qualify for government-issued licences, they asked that some allowance be made for individuals who may have criminal histories with cannabis. Some stakeholders questioned the current requirement for licensed producers to grow cannabis indoors. They expressed concern that prohibiting outdoor cultivation would create a financial barrier for smaller enterprises to enter the market. We also heard that indoor growing does not promote environmental stewardship, due to significant electrical and water costs. The cannabis for medical purposes system requires the testing of products for impurities such as heavy metals and microbial contaminants through approved laboratories. Many noted that this requirement needed to be extended to the new system. We also heard that product labels need to accurately and reliably reflect THC and CBD potency, allowing consumers to make informed decisions. Industrial hemp Varieties of the cannabis plant known as hemp have long been cultivated for use in commercial and industrial applications such as construction materials, rope and clothing. In 1998, through the Industrial Hemp Regulations (IHR), the Government provided for the creation of an industrial hemp industry in Canada. The IHR set out a licensing and permit scheme through which industrial hemp producers are able to cultivate hemp, defined as cannabis plants that have less than 0.3% THC. Currently, producers are permitted to use only the seeds, grains and fibres from the hemp plant. We heard from members of the hemp industry that, although low in THC, hemp can contain high levels of non-psychoactive CBD. Despite this, the rules around growing hemp have mainly reflected concerns that hemp fields could be a cover for growing high-THC cannabis. Hemp producers face burdensome requirements, including the need for repeated field testing to ensure that the THC threshold is not exceeded, the requirement to re-apply for a licence every year and a requirement to submit maps of every field where industrial hemp is grown. In addition, it is unlikely that producers will grow high-THC cannabis since the growing environment for hemp is not conducive for flowering varieties of cannabis that contain higher concentrations of THC. Further, the IHR require the destruction of plant material for which there is no authorized use, including parts of the plant that are high in CBD. We have heard that increasing interest in the therapeutic value of CBD presents an economic opportunity for hemp producers, as hemp may be a rich source of CBD for therapeutic products. Considerations The Task Force agrees that the new regulatory framework should ensure that products meet rigorous safety and quality standards in order to protect public health and safety. For example, only approved fertilizers and pesticides should be allowed; potentially hazardous moulds should not be present; product-specific THC and CBD potencies, including serving sizes, should be established and verified; and potentially hazardous extraction processes should be undertaken with the proper safety measures in place. Given the federal government's experience with regulating the medical cannabis system, commercial production should continue to be regulated by the federal government, and should include appropriate licensing fees to recover the costs of administration. This will require sufficient laboratory testing capacity to ensure that the products manufactured meet specific quality standards and that the stated potency for specific products is accurate. The framework should draw from the good production practices already established for licensed producers of cannabis for medical purposes, including the use of approved pesticides, testing for solvent residues, testing for THC and CBD levels, and sanitation of premises and equipment. At the same time, the framework should reconsider existing security requirements that are in place under the Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations. We acknowledge that security requirements should not be so strict that they are prohibitively expensive or difficult to implement, thus creating unnecessary barriers to entry into the regulated marketplace. Given the significant interest that exists among a diversity of citizens, industry sectors and investors to participate in this new regulated market, it will be necessary to have an effective, accountable and efficient regulatory program in place at the time of implementation. In developing the new system for licensing cannabis producers, it will be important to understand the size and nature of the new regulated market and to determine whether controls to align supply with likely demand are required to avoid situations of oversupply, which could lead to negative outcomes. Some congruence between the amount of cannabis required to meet the demands of the Canadian market and the total quantity allowed for production could serve to minimize risks, at least in the early years of implementation as the marketplace develops. For example, this could be done by limiting the number of production licences issued or the total amount that any one producer is allowed to supply. There are several advantages to using production controls in the early period of implementation, including: Encouraging market diversity by creating a space for smaller-scale production through graduated licensing and fee structures, and preventing the development of monopolies or large conglomerates; Preventing an oversaturation of the market, potentially contributing to over-consumption or problematic consumption; Controlling cannabis prices by increasing or decreasing the number of production licences issued or by imposing limits on the size of facilities; and Creating an administratively efficient regulatory program that is resourced appropriately. However, limiting the number of production facilities or the size of those facilities must be balanced against the possible miscalculation of demand that would create opportunities for illicit producers to fill the void. Diversion can also be addressed through a requirement that all businesses in the cannabis supply chain implement a seed-to-sale tracking system, similar to that used in the U.S. states that have legalized cannabis. Such a system would monitor the movement of cannabis plants and resulting products throughout the supply chain - from production to distribution to final sale. Such a system has several other benefits, including the ability to trace products in the event of a recall, and can be helpful for producers in the management of their inventory. In order to limit the environmental impact of the cannabis industry, outdoor production should be permitted with adequate security requirements. Encouraging responsible environmental practices through less reliance on indoor lighting, irrigation networks and environmental controls (i.e., heating and cooling, humidity controls) can contribute to substantially reducing the environmental footprint of cannabis production facilities. Outdoor growing could also help reduce costs and enable entry for smaller "craft" producers. While the new legislation will apply to cannabis, including industrial hemp, we believe a lighter regime should be designed to regulate the industrial hemp industry. With respect to CBD and other compounds derived from hemp or other sources, each substance should be reviewed and regulated depending on its risks. Advice to Ministers The Task Force recommends that the federal government: Regulate the production of cannabis and its derivatives (e.g., edibles, concentrates) at the federal level, drawing on the good production practices of the current cannabis for medical purposes system Use licensing and production controls to encourage a diverse, competitive market that also includes small producers Implement a seed-to-sale tracking system to prevent diversion and enable product recalls Promote environmental stewardship by implementing measures such as permitting outdoor production, with appropriate security measures Implement a fee structure to recover administrative costs (e.g., licensing) Regulate CBD and other compounds derived from hemp or from other sources
Distribution
A well-functioning distribution system - where the chain of custody is well-controlled - is critical to the overall success of the new regime. What we heard As noted above, while the federal government was generally seen as best placed to regulate the production of cannabis, most respondents believed that the provinces and territories should be the principal regulators of wholesale distribution. Indeed, most jurisdictions noted during our consultations that they had well-established and sophisticated government alcohol distribution networks that provided a secure and reliable means to distribute product. It was noted that these systems, especially the administrative systems and other controls already in place, could be leveraged to distribute cannabis and be tailored to the specific needs of each jurisdiction. Considerations Implementing a government monopoly on wholesale distribution has been widely supported. It has proven effective with alcohol as a means to prevent diversion and to maintain controls over supply. Advice to Ministers The Task Force recommends that the wholesale distribution of cannabis be regulated by provinces and territories.
Introduction
The Task Force heard the need for clear, enforceable rules to ensure all Canadians and law enforcement agencies understand what is permitted (and under what conditions) and what continues to be prohibited in the new legal regime. We also heard that penalties for contravening the rules need to be proportional to the contravention and that the criminal justice system should only be employed where necessary. Currently, the impact of being arrested and convicted for simple cannabis possession offences has serious ramifications. The stigma of arrest, and the possibility of having a criminal record, are life-long consequences.
Illegal activities
What we heard Notwithstanding the Government's objective to eliminate the illegal market, law enforcement cautioned us that even a well-regulated, accessible and competitive industry will not completely eliminate illicit activity related to cannabis. While most consumers will prefer to purchase cannabis from a reliable, regulated, legal source, the Government should expect that there will continue to be attempts to operate outside of the legal regime. In moving to enact this new regime with clear rules, criminal penalties should be reserved for the most serious offences. There was strong support for addressing infractions by regulated parties - producers, distributors and retailers - within a regulatory framework, except where such activity threatened public safety. A key area of concern was trafficking of cannabis. Many suggested that illicit production, trafficking, possession for the purposes of trafficking, possession for the purposes of export, and the import/export of cannabis outside of the new legal framework should continue to be prosecuted through criminal law. And, the focus should remain on illicit activities for commercial gain, not "social sharing". Given the additional risks associated with early and frequent use of cannabis, there was widespread agreement that criminal sanctions should be maintained with respect to providing cannabis to youth. Some respondents questioned whether criminal penalties would be appropriate in all situations, such as a family member providing a small amount of cannabis to youth for consumption at home (provincial and territorial alcohol schemes generally provide exemptions for such situations). Overwhelmingly, respondents took the view that the criminalization of youth should be avoided. Most felt that criminal sanctions should be focused on adults who provide cannabis to youth, not on the youth themselves. There was general agreement that non-criminal approaches should be implemented to discourage youth from possessing or consuming cannabis. Measures such as peer-organized support programs, community service and attendance at education courses were seen as effective means of giving youth the tools to assess, and better understand, the harms of their cannabis use. Some respondents raised concerns with the ticketing of youth, as this might lead to inequitable situations for youth living in challenging socio-economic circumstances. Considerations We recognize that organized crime is involved in the illicit cannabis markets, domestically and internationally. A robust and regulated production, distribution and retail network that meets demand in the domestic market will help curb the illicit market and help identify those who operate outside the legal market. The sale of cannabis to minors should remain a criminal offence, as one of the primary objectives of legalization is to keep cannabis out of the hands of youth. Consideration should be given to excluding certain situations from criminal penalties, such as when a parent provides a small amount to a teenager to use while in a private setting. We are mindful of the negative consequences that involvement in the criminal justice system can have for youth, especially disadvantaged or marginalized youth, and believe that this should be avoided to the extent possible. To that end, we do not believe that simple possession of cannabis by youth should be a criminal offence (apart from the limits on personal possession, discussed below). When youth engage in activities that are defined as criminal offences under the new framework, the discretion and flexibility available in the criminal justice system, in particular under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, should be used constructively to minimize these negative consequences. Regulatory sanctions should be proportionate to the contravention and include a range of enforcement options. For example, monetary penalties could be used to encourage licensed businesses to comply with the rules around packaging requirements for edible products, labelling on products and mandatory testing of products. Repeat violations or product safety concerns could be treated more severely (i.e., licence revocation or mandatory product recalls). In serious cases (e.g., trafficking to foreign markets), the ability to lay criminal charges must be retained. The majority of Task Force members believe that criminal offences should also be retained for other serious offences such as illicit production and trafficking. Although some criminal offences relating to cannabis should continue to exist, they do not have to be in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. During our consultations, a few individuals and organizations raised questions about the form that the new legal framework would take and, in particular, whether cannabis should be removed from the scope of the CDSA. Ultimately these will be matters for the Government to determine, as our discussions have focused on the substance of the new framework rather than its form. However, the Task Force sees several advantages to the creation of new federal legislation dealing with cannabis. This new legislation could bring together, in a single coherent set of provisions and regulations, the full range of issues relating to cannabis, including the production and marketing of cannabis products, their medical uses and regulation of the hemp industry. It could contain administrative sanctions to enforce the regulatory regime as well as a set of criminal offences. If cannabis were to remain under the CDSA, extensive amendments would be required to give effect to our recommendations. Separate legislation dedicated to cannabis would recognize a new beginning and provide a clear framework for industry and members of the public. Advice to Ministers The Task Force recommends that the federal government: Implement a set of clear, proportional and enforceable penalties that seek to limit criminal prosecution for less serious offences. Criminal offences should be maintained for: Illicit production, trafficking, possession for the purposes of trafficking, possession for the purposes of export, and import/export Trafficking to youth Create exclusions for "social sharing" Implement administrative penalties (with flexibility to enforce more serious penalties) for contraventions of licensing rules on production, distribution and sale Consider creating distinct legislation - a "Cannabis Control Act" - to house all the provisions, regulations, sanctions and offences relating to cannabis
Personal possession
Under a regulated system, adults who choose to use cannabis should be able to carry it with them to use responsibly. To some people, there should be no limits on the ability to carry a legal substance while, to others, possession of large amounts of cannabis could indicate intent to traffic. Deciding whether to recommend a limit on personal possession was a major issue for the Task Force. What we heard The Task Force heard different points of view on whether there should be a limit on the amount of cannabis an individual could have in their possession or on their person at any given time. Many law enforcement officials argued in favour of personal possession limits, suggesting that such limits could be used as a tool to identify, investigate and prosecute individuals who may be engaging in illicit activity. This argument gains support from the fact that all other jurisdictions that have legalized cannabis have established a personal possession limit (see Table 2). Table 2 - Personal possession limits for non-medical purposes in other jurisdictions that have legalized cannabis \t\tUruguay\tWashington\tDistrict of Columbia\tOregon\tColorado\tAlaska Personal possession limits 40 grams per month. Customers must register at point of sale (pharmacy); the information is collected in a federal database A combined maximum of: 1 oz. dried product 16 oz. infused solid product 72 oz. infused liquid product 7 g concentrates 2 oz. or less\t8 oz. 1 oz. can be carried on the person 1 oz. or its equivalent\t1 oz. Total 40 grams per month\t28.5 grams dried (or the equivalent)\t57 grams\t226 grams (only 28.5 g can be carried on the person)\t28.5 grams\t28.5 grams While quantity alone is not indicative of trafficking, it can be an indicator and, in conjunction with other indicators (e.g., large amounts of cash on hand, small individual packages of cannabis), could help in determining whether to lay trafficking charges. The focus of investigative efforts should be on whether someone has the intent to traffic and not exclusively on the amount they possess. We were reminded that someone with an amount of cannabis under the prescribed limit could also be guilty of trafficking. The Task Force also heard from a number of respondents who believe that a personal possession limit is unnecessary. They argue that there is no possession limit for legally purchased alcohol and tobacco, and that a personal possession limit would be impractical to enforce. Considerations All jurisdictions that have legalized cannabis for non-medical use have instituted a possession limit. The majority of the Task Force agrees that instituting a similar limit in Canada would be a reasonable precaution that may also provide clarity to assist law enforcement efforts. The amount of non-medical cannabis that individuals are permitted to carry on their person in a public place should be limited to 30 grams. A corresponding limit should be imposed on the amount that can be sold to an individual at one time. As in other jurisdictions, this limit would apply to dried cannabis. An equivalent possession and sales limit for non-dried forms of cannabis will need to be developed. Offences with respect to exceeding the limit should be dealt with through graduated administrative penalties (e.g., tickets, seizures, fines) except where there is evidence of intent to traffic. Advice to Ministers The Task Force recommends that: A limit of 30 grams be implemented for the personal possession of non-medical dried cannabis in public A corresponding sales limit be implemented for dried cannabis Equivalent possession and sales limits for non-dried forms of cannabis be developed
Introduction
The regulatory framework proposed by the Task Force for non-medical cannabis is influenced by prior medical regimes - in particular, through the establishment of safeguards for product quality and security and of safety provisions to prevent diversion. The courts have recognized the rights of patients to access cannabis for medical purposes. The Canadian context dates back to the late 1990s and the first constitutional challenges to the Government's general prohibitions on access to cannabis. Patients argued that the prohibitions in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act forced them to choose between their liberty and access to a necessary medicine, which was often supplied by compassion clubs and medical dispensaries that emerged to support the therapeutic use of cannabis. In order to preserve the general prohibitions, the Government allowed access for medical purposes. Starting in 1999, this was achieved by issuing exemptions to allow individuals access on an exceptional basis. This exemption-based scheme was challenged and found to be deficient by the courts and was replaced in 2001 by a regulatory framework. However, patients subsequently contended in a series of successful court challenges that the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) placed a number of unreasonable limits on their access to cannabis. The regulations were amended a number of times to address these constitutional deficiencies and ultimately were replaced, in 2014, by a new framework known as the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (MMPR). Unlike the MMAR, where patients could cultivate to supply their personal medical needs or designate someone to do so for them, the MMPR was based solely on commercial production, whereby individuals requiring access could purchase quality-controlled product from a producer licensed by Health Canada. In a constitutional challenge to the MMPR, Allard v. Canada, the plaintiffs argued that the elimination of personal and designated person cultivation as had existed under the MMAR limited the availability and affordability of their medication. In its 2016 decision, the Federal Court of Canada declared the MMPR unconstitutional on the basis that it did not provide patients with reasonable access to cannabis - that is, a reasonable choice of strains available at adequate prices and in the quantity required to meet medical needs. In response, and during our consultations, the Government introduced new regulations, the Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations (ACMPR), in August 2016. In addition to maintaining the system of access provided by licensed producers, the ACMPR provide patients with options to produce their own supply of cannabis for medical purposes in accordance with the daily amount outlined by their physician, to designate someone else to do so, or to purchase cannabis from a producer licensed by Health Canada. While the Task Force was not involved in the development of the ACMPR, in formulating our advice on the future of medical access we have considered how this latest iteration of the Government's medical access regime works and how it is perceived by those most impacted by it.
One system or two?
While stakeholders appreciate that the formal clinical evidence base is incomplete, there is agreement that many individuals suffering from a variety of serious medical conditions derive therapeutic benefits from both THC and CBD. This makes these patients' use of cannabis different from that of non-medical users, even though the product (dried cannabis, cannabis oil, etc.) being used is the same. While there was general agreement on the legitimacy of medical use, there were two very different perspectives as to the need for a separate system for medical access to cannabis. We recognize that these perspectives and views were shaped by the system that exists today - a system that is an exemption or carve-out to the general prohibitions that are otherwise in place. On the one hand, there is a view that a separate system is necessary to preserve medical access. This is the dominant view of patients, who related to us the decades of effort, most often through court challenges, to gain access to cannabis for medical purposes. While acknowledging that cannabis for non-medical purposes will be legal and more broadly available for those who choose to use it, patients stressed that they use cannabis out of necessity, not choice. Patients expressed concerns that their needs would not be accommodated in the new system and that the access rights they have today could be lost. The following issues emerged as key areas of concern for them: the loss of recognition that their use of cannabis is for medical purposes and occurs under the supervision of a physician; shortages of supply; barriers for young people; and the stigma associated with having to purchase cannabis for medical purposes from a non-medical retail outlet. On the other hand, we heard that there is no need for a separate system, as the end of prohibition will mean that those who need to access cannabis for medical purposes will be able to do so legally. This is the prevailing view of members of the medical community, who have long-standing concerns about being responsible for authorizing the use of a substance that is not an approved medicine and who see no need to play the role of "gatekeeper" moving forward. We also heard about the potential challenges posed by the operation of dual systems, both from an administrative and an enforcement perspective. Law enforcement and municipal representatives warned against perpetuating the abuse of licences to create large-scale grow operations.
Access
During our consultations, we heard many compelling personal stories of how cannabis is making a difference to Canadians living with serious health challenges such as cancer, HIV/AIDS, multiple sclerosis, arthritis and fibromyalgia. We also heard about the role that cannabis can play in pain management and palliative care, and the relief that cannabis, particularly strains with high levels of CBD and low levels of THC, offers to children with severe forms of epilepsy. We also learned that many individuals have come to use cannabis for medical purposes after exhausting other conventional treatments and medications. Several patients told us that their use of cannabis has enabled them to limit or eliminate their use of powerful narcotic drugs such as opioids. These patients and their advocacy organizations worry that the access they have today will disappear under a system that does not acknowledge medical use as separate and distinct from non-medical use. In their view, removing the prohibitions on cannabis and moving to a single, non-medical system does not acknowledge the legitimacy of medical use nor the reasonable access rights that have been recognized by the courts.
People also ask
Is marijuana legal in Canada?
Would legalization of marijuana be a good idea in Canada?
What is Canada's New marijuana law?
When was medical marijuana legalized in Canada?
May 25, 2016 · The results from public opinion polls conducted over the past two decades have revealed that an increasing majority of Canadians agree with the decriminalization or legalization of marijuana. 12–16 For example, a recent poll conducted in 2015 by the Forum Research suggested that 68% of Canadians favor relaxing marijuana regulations in Canada ...
- Mohammad Hajizadeh
- 2016
Jun 28, 2023 · Legalization of cannabis in Canada appears to have reduced cannabis arrests and increased access to a variety of more potent cannabis products at lower prices. Since 2019, recent cannabis use in Canada has modestly increased among adults but not among adolescents.
Aug 6, 2018 · On June 19, 2018, the Canadian Parliament passed Bill C-45—the Cannabis Act—to legalize and regulate the production, distribution, and consumption of cannabis. At the time of writing, Bill C-45 awaits the formality of Royal Assent.
- Jean-François Crépault
- 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00220
- 2018
- Front Public Health. 2018; 6: 220.
Date modified: 2022-09-22. Learn about the current status of canabis (marijuana) laws in Canada, and the work being done to legalize and regulate it.
May 24, 2016 · May 2016. International Journal of Health Policy and Management 5 (8):1-4. DOI: 10.15171/ijhpm.2016.63. Authors: Mohammad Hajizadeh. Dalhousie University. Citations (74) References (37) Abstract....
