Canopy Growth Corp (WEED)

[Bonno]

More Supreme Disappointments

By David Malmo-Levine on May 1, 2023
FacebookTwitterRedditPinterestPartager

CANNABIS CULTURE – The Supreme Court of Canada rejects Quebec home-grow rights – judges and attorneys on both sides of the argument assume cannabis is a hard drug worthy of tight regulations and instead focus on jurisdictional arguments.

“Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”

– H.L. Mencken, In Defense Of Women, 1918 (1)

The Supreme Court of Canada, who back in 2003 (2) rejected my “harm reduction/harm principle” arguments in favour of the “cannibal argument” (no joke) (3) have done it again and disappointed an entire province worth of pot gardeners. On April 14 th , 2023, The Supremes released their decision in Murray-Hall v. Quebec (Attorney General). The bottom line? Pot is too dangerous for the people of Quebec to grow at home.


Image #1: “Quebec ban on homegrown cannabis plants unconstitutional, lawyer tells Supreme
Court – It’s up to province to regulate how cannabis is consumed, says lawyer for Quebec Émilie
Warren” · CBC News · Sep 15, 2022
According to a “plain-language summary” supplied by the Supremes, the excuse for preventing anyone in Quebec from growing their own pot has to do with the “hard drug” nature of cannabis – the risks from the wacky tabacky that justify a minimum age: “According to the Chief Justice, the prohibitions act as incentives for the integration of consumers into the legal cannabis market that ensures ‘control of the quality of the products offered, education on the risks of cannabis consumption and compliance with rules on the minimum age for purchasing cannabis’, among other things. Such provincial legislative action in the field of public health comes within the provinces’ jurisdiction over property and civil rights and residual jurisdiction over matters of a merely local or private nature.” (4)

If you search for “minimum age” in their actual decision, they mention it three times – in paragraphs 5, 42 and 45. I’ve provided the offensive paragraphs and a “no-bullshit translation” below each one to provide further clarity:

“[5] The enactment of the federal Act represents a paradigm shift in the Canadian legal landscape. Canada has moved from a suppression-based approach to a scheme that gives the provinces responsibility for determining the framework for the sale and distribution of cannabis within their borders. In other words, the provinces are being called upon to make laws, within their fields of jurisdiction, concerning a substance that was previously subject to criminal prohibitions for nearly a century. The statutes and regulations passed by the provinces in parallel with the federal Act primarily establish rules governing the sale of the substance, for example with regard to the location, operation and staff of the stores where the various cannabis products are sold. Much of the provincial legislation also sets out additional restrictions that supplement the federal legislative framework, including with respect to the minimum age required to purchase cannabis, the applicable limit on the possession of this substance and the places where it may be consumed in public.” (5)

Translation: We have shifted from a prohibition to a cartel. The cartel relies on tight regs which
themselves require an updated myth of reefer madness.

“[42] In reality, the impossibility of possessing and cultivating cannabis plants at home without risking penal sanctions has the effect of steering Quebec consumers to the safe source of supply that is the SQDC. As a result, they receive quality-controlled products and advice from sales employees who have been trained on the risks associated with cannabis consumption (on the first point, see ss. 29, 44 and 45 of the provincial Act and the Regulation to determine other classes of cannabis that may be sold by the Société québécoise du cannabis and certain standards respecting the composition and characteristics of cannabis, CQLR, c. C-5.3, r. 0.1; on the second point, see s. 1 and Sch. I of the Regulation respecting training on the retail sale of cannabis and information to be communicated to a purchaser in the course of a cannabis sale, CQLR, c. C-5.3, r. 1). The fact that consumers buy from the SQDC also means that they are subject to a series of requirements, the most important of which seems to me to be the one setting a minimum age of 21 years for purchasing cannabis from the SQDC.” (6)

Translation: Even though we’ve attempted to shift the market to a corporate-based profit-focused minimal- quality cartel, we will continue to promote the myth that cartel pot is cleaner than dispensary pot, and that budtenders have the necessary “training” to deal with the “risks” of pot. And the “most important” thing to remember is that pot is much, much too dangerous for anyone under 21 to use, so we must guarantee everyone will provide a valid I.D. indicating the proper age has been achieved to obtain cannabis – or all hell might break loose.
‘

“[45] In short, when viewed together with the other provisions of the provincial Act, ss. 5 and 10 do not have the separate and independent objective of prohibiting the possession and cultivation of cannabis plants for personal purposes. The prohibitions themselves must be seen as one means among a broad range of measures that the Quebec legislature has deemed necessary in order to achieve the provincial Act’s public health and security objectives. In particular, the prohibitions act as strong incentives for the integration of “consumers into . . . the legal market” that ensures, among other things, control of the quality of the products offered, education on the risks of cannabis consumption and compliance with rules on the minimum age for purchasing cannabis (see s. 16.1 para. 1 of the Act respecting the Société des alcools du Québec; see also R.F., at para. 12).” (7)

Translation: Legal pot means quality pot, educated pot dealers and – most importantly – that those under 21 do not get their hands on the devil’s broccoli. If people in Quebec are allowed to grow their own pot they will immediately lose all that safety – their pot will be shitty chemmy bunk shwag, they’ll use it in the most ignorant fashion, and it will be the Breakfast Club all over again – happy, hungry, relaxed, inspired teens all over the place.

The horror.

The horror.


Image #2: The Breakfast Club, 1985
The people who live in the real world of facts and evidence know that cannabis does not cause mental problems for the young – the evidence is by now completely and totally overwhelming. I’ve gathered this evidence and put it here.

And here.

And here too:

POTFACTS.CA

Since the time I’ve gathered the above evidence that Reefer Madness 2.0 is a total scam, even more evidence has come to my attention. On August 3 rd , 2015, yet another study on cannabis use and “physical or mental health problems” (such as psychosis) in young men was published and then ignored, because the conclusions arrived at did not follow the official narrative. In Bechtold, et al., the conclusion was that cannabis use by young men in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania didn’t cause any detectable problems;

“After controlling for potential confounding variables such as alcohol, tobacco, and hard drug use, socioeconomic status, whether the young men had health insurance, and early health status (prior to marijuana use), findings from this sample indicated that chronic marijuana users were not more likely than late increasing users, adolescence-limited users, or low/nonusers to experience several physical or mental health problems in their mid-30s. In fact, there were no significant differences between marijuana trajectory groups in terms of adult health outcomes, even when models were run without controlling for potential confounds. This is particularly striking given that men in the early onset chronic group were using marijuana (on average) once per week by late adolescence and continued using marijuana approximately 3– 4 times a week from age 20 to 26 years.” (8)

And, keeping in mind that most of Canada has allowed (to a certain extent) home growing of cannabis, a 2022 analysis of the health effects of all this home-grown pot found that: “Implementation of Canada’s cannabis legalization framework was not associated with evidence of significant changes in cannabis-induced psychosis or schizophrenia ED presentations.” (9)

These conclusions were echoed in a joint Minnesota/Colorado study from January 2023, which compared the health problems of twins who lived in legalized and non-legalized US states: “We used a longitudinal, co-twin control design in 4043 twins (N = 240 pairs discordant on residence), first assessed in adolescence and now age 24–49, currently residing in states with different cannabis policies (40% resided in a recreationally legal state). We tested the effect of legalization on outcomes of interest and whether legalization interacts with established vulnerability factors (age, sex, or externalizing psychopathology). . . . Recreational legalization was associated with increased cannabis use and decreased AUD (alcohol use disorder)
symptoms but was not associated with other maladaptations. These effects were maintained within twin pairs discordant for residence. Moreover, vulnerabilities to cannabis use were not exacerbated by the legal cannabis environment. ” (10)

There’s no real debate about all this in the academic world – the studies that attempt to provide evidence for cannabis harming the developing minds of young people generally ignore the studies that provide evidence to the contrary, and vice versa. Academics, government, media, judges and lawyers generally ignore the second set of studies which disprove Reefer Madness 2.0 and only cite the studies which claim it’s a real thing. Because most if not all of the academics who disprove Reefer Madness 2.0 are too timid to call out the scammers in high-profile campaigns, they sort of become part of the scam through their silence. At the very least, they almost always leave it to the unaccredited – those who are smart enough to read their reports but not dependent on getting grants to survive – to call out these bullshit studies instead. The unaccredited can easily be ignored by the media – they have no accreditation, after all. Regarding the “quality control” justification for tight regulations, I’ve gathered evidence to the
contrary on that topic too.

Here.

And here

And here

And here.

And here.

And here.

And here

Regarding the special “training” that legal bud-tenders have received in order to sell pot safely,
it seems to me that it either consists of the advice illegal activist/legacy dispensaries have been
providing for decades, or else industry propaganda about how dangerous black-market pot is
and how young people should never ever use it.


Image #3: “The year in provincial pot politics,” DECEMBER 22, 2022
https://stratcann.com/insight/the-year-in-provincial-pot-politics/
Pot activist Lawyer Jack Lloyd was quoted in the media regarding the Quebec home-grow
challenge, arguing that his upcoming jurisdictional argument for Manitoba home-grow rights
was stronger than the Quebec jurisdictional-based challenge:

“‘Quebec’s goal was to strengthen their Provincial monopoly and sales, like R v Comeau,’ he
continues. ‘Manitoba’s goal is to issue penal sanction against cannabis growers, which is a
purely criminal issue and thus outside of the Province of Manitoba’s jurisdiction.’” (11)

I emailed Jack to make sure I understood his argument, and asked him about the prospects of a future challenge based on less jurisdictional, more (to me at least) substantive arguments:

DML: “As a layperson with zero legal training, it appears to me – on the surface – that both the Quebec and the Manitoba challenges involve jurisdiction issues rather than whether or not cannabis is a hard drug that requires tight regulations such as age limits. Have I got that right?”
Jack Lloyd: “It is about jurisdiction correct!”
DML: “OK. Second question. Even if you win the Manitoba challenge allowing some Manitobans to grow
in their homes, won’t cannabis still be over-regulated like a hard drug in Manitoba? Won’t
teens still unable to use it, poor people still unable to grow it in their window boxes,
landlords still able to forbid growing it, grow limits such as the number of plants allowed or
the limit being ‘per household’ instead of ‘per person’ still existing, the rich still having the
ability to form a producer cartel through expensive licensing requirements, a limited number
of licenses still limiting the number of people able to sell it, expensive and discriminatory
licensing fees still keeping the non-wealthy out of the production and retail economies, and
industrial hemp still over-regulated to the extent that our forests still keep getting cut down
because hemp paper is made artificially expensive and hemp ethanol still having no chance of
competing with non-renewable energy?
Third question. Do you ever see a day when the premise that cannabis should be regulated
like a hard drug itself would be challenged, eliminating not just some of the problems with
cannabis over-regulation, but all of them at once? What would it take to get to that day? How
much money would it cost? What is the likelihood of there being a lawyer in Canada who is a
cannabis activist interested in launching a challenge like that pro-bono?”

Jack: “I am so sorry I don’t know the answers to your questions so I can’t assist at this time.”

It appears to me that currently, all the pot activist lawyers and the remaining pot activists with enough money to afford lawyers are unable or unwilling or not interested in making legal arguments that involve questioning whether or not cannabis is a hard drug deserving of tight regulations. They all seem satisfied with arguing about which level of government has the power to determine what kind of tight regulations cannabis users and dealers and growers will suffer under.

It seems to me that the survival of humanity is dependent on removing the red tape around industrial hemp to allow it to compete with non-renewable energy (12) and also dependent on allowing everyone to participate in the re-emerging herbal healthcare industry (to deal with soul-destroying, life-destroying poverty) and also dependent on setting legal precedents that render the ability to scapegoat harmless groups of people impossible. None of that will be achieved making jurisdictional arguments that keep hard-drug pot regs in place, or focusing on removing excise taxes, or fighting for tokenism within the industry. These self-limiting tendencies within the remaining pot movement are as disappointing as any shitty decision to come out of the court system.

I don’t know exactly how our movement will move towards bringing these more substantive issues into the law courts and the courts of public opinion. All I know is that my role remains to create awareness on these issues, and to encourage the readers of Cannabis Culture and the viewers of Pot TV to share this information, create more of it, and support the groups and the people who are spreading it around. Perhaps one day someone in a position to call bullshit in an effective way will do so – raising awareness about these issues increases the likelihood of that happening.



1) H.L. Mencken, “In Defense Of Women”, 1918
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1270/1270-h/1270-h.htm
2) R. v. Malmo-Levine; R. v. Caine, 2003-12-23
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2109/index.do
3) “The majority compared cannabis users to animal abusers and pimps (para. 109)
cannibals (para. 117) and those who commit incest (118). Unlike animal abusers,
exploiters of vulnerable people and those who desecrate corpses, cannabis users are a
large minority of people who produce no identifiable harm. Clearly, the Supreme Court
had it out to get us from the beginning. Why else did they ignore comparisons with
homosexuals and alcohol dealers in favor of comparisons with those who eat dead
people?”
“What I learned from going to the Supreme Court of Canada self-represented on pot
dealing charges,” David Malmo-Levine, October 15, 2009
https://www.cannabisculture.com/content/2009/10/15/what-i-learned-going-supreme-
court-canada-self-represented-pot-dealing-charges/
4) Case in Brief: Murray-Hall v. Quebec (Attorney General)
https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/cb/2023/39906-eng.aspx#criminallaw
5) Murray-Hall v. Quebec (Attorney General), Supreme Court Judgments, 2023-04-14, 2023
SCC 10 Case number: 39906
https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/19829/index.do
6) Ibid.
7) Ibid.
8) “Chronic Adolescent Marijuana Use as a Risk Factor for Physical and Mental Health
Problems in Young Adult Men,” Jordan Bechtold, University of Pittsburgh School of
Medicine, Theresa Simpson and Helene R. White, Rutgers University, Psychology of
Addictive Behaviors, © 2015 American Psychological Association, August 3 rd , 2015, Vol.
29, No. 3, 552–563, p. 557
https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/adb-adb0000103.pdf
9) “Associations Between Canada’s Cannabis Legalization and Emergency Department
Presentations for Transient Cannabis-Induced Psychosis and Schizophrenia Conditions:

Ontario and Alberta, 2015-2019,” Callaghan, Sanches, Murray, Konefal, Maloney-Hall,
Kish, The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 2022, pp. 1-10
10) Recreational cannabis legalization has had limited effects on a wide range of adult
psychiatric and psychosocial outcomes, Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2023,
Stephanie M. Zellers Open the ORCID record for Stephanie M. Zellers, J. Megan Ross ,
Gretchen R. B. Saunders , Jarrod M. Ellingson , Tasha Walvig
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/recreational-
cannabis-legalization-has-had-limited-effects-on-a-wide-range-of-adult-psychiatric-and-
psychosocial-outcomes/D4AB5EB78D588473A054877E05D45F16
11) “Supreme Court upholds Quebec’s right to ban growing cannabis at home,” APRIL 14,
2023
https://stratcann.com/news/supreme-court-upholds-quebecs-right-to-ban-growing-
cannabis-at-home/
12) Hemp Can Still Save the World, David Malmo-Levine, January 29, 2020