This is just the start
Class action suit would challenge new medical marijuana laws
A proposed national class action suit has been filed in Federal Court against Health Canada seeking to have proposed changes to the medical marijuana laws declared unconstitutional.
Four representative plaintiffs - Neil Allard, Tanya Beemish, David Herbert and a person identified only as J.M. - all from B.C., commenced the litigation Friday in Vancouver.
Allard has been "medically retired" since 1999; Beemish is an unemployed woman on a disability pension whose common-law husband, Herbert, grows her cannabis; and J.M. is described only as an unemployed person on a permanent disability pension since 1979.
They are seeking relief from the court on behalf of between 35,000 and 40,000 Canadians who have a permit exempting them from Criminal Code prohibitions against possession and production of pot under the medical marijuana access program established in 2001.
In the statement of claim, lawyer John Conroy says the vast majority grow their own but that 4,250 of those patients rely upon someone else to grow their medication.
Roughly 6,000, he said, are buying marijuana from Prairie Plant Systems, the sole government-approved supplier under the present system.
For the new scheme being adopted next year, Ottawa is licensing commercial cannabis producers and forcing all patients to buy from those firms, who will ship the medication via courier or other secure delivery systems.
Health Canada has predicted a huge increase in medical marijuana use and defends changing the regulations on the grounds that there are too many problems associated with the personal grow operations.
Municipalities, police and fire departments as well as community groups have all complained about the dangers and public health concerns associated with such setups in neighbourhoods.
While 27,000 of the current licences are issued to produce entirely indoors, 3,000 of them were issued to produce entirely outdoors and 2,670 to produce indoors in the winter and outdoors in the summer.
Producing outdoors is a substantial cost saver in terms of electricity and cost is a big issue as between 60 and 70 per cent of the permit holders indicate they are on disability pensions.
Most of those with personal production licences produce in their home as they cannot afford to rent space elsewhere, and they save substantially on electricity costs by partial outdoor production. The four plaintiffs say they will not be able to afford the estimated price of the medicine from the licensed producers created under the new Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations.
The legal action seeks declarations that patients have the constitutional right to not only produce marijuana for themselves but also, if unable to do so, to have a caregiver grow it for them.
As well, they want a declaration that approved patients also have a right to use cannabis in any form and that it is unconstitutional to limit them to only dried marijuana.
Conroy said they want the right to continue to produce at home or outdoors and the removal of proposed limits such as the maximum amount that a patient can possess to 150 grams.
The suit alleges that the new regulations unreasonably limit the s. 7 charter rights that have been established by previous court decisions. Conroy said he will ask for interim and permanent injunctions to exempt individuals medically approved from the change in the law pending a decision by the Federal Court. The Abbotsford lawyer pointed out that Health Canada authorized the production of 188,189 kilograms of pot during 2012 but so far only three producers have been approved to supply patients under the new regulatory system that comes into place April 1.
"It is anticipated that these licensed producers and any others that come into existence between now and March 31st, 2014 will not be able to produce a sufficient quantity to ensure that all of the approved patients have a safe continuous access and supply as of March 31st, 2014," he said.
"Consequently the class seeks to maintain the ability of each of its members to produce for themselves or have a caregiver to produce for them or, if they can afford it, to purchase their medicine from a licensed producer and that to force patients to access their medicine at a price they cannot afford from only licensed producers does not constitute a 'viable constitutional exemption' that ensures a reasonable safe and continuous supply of medicine for the patients."
[email protected]
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
