Doctors say pot-smoking should be banned for Canadians under 21

The Canadian Medical Association does not support or oppose legalization, but makes a range of go-slow recommendations.

The CMA says “ideally” the minimum pot-smoking age should be 25. It says scientific evidence shows the brain is still developing up to and beyond 25 years. But the physicians’ association acknowledges that is likely unrealistic.   (Dreamstime)  

By Tonda MacCharles

 

OTTAWA—Canada’s doctors are calling for strict limits on legalized pot smoking, saying the minimum age should be 21. And amounts and potency of products sold to those under 25 should be tightly controlled, the Star has learned.

In a brief for a federal task force studying the legalization of marijuana, the Canadian Medical Association does not support or oppose legalization, but makes a range of go-slow recommendations.

It urges more money be spent on research, medical and social services for addictions treatment, a ban on home cultivation, a ban on smoking non-medical marijuana in public places, and pilot projects before a full national rollout of legalized marijuana.

Several of its concerns will find high-profile support from Canada’s police chiefs. 

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police is recommending in a private submission to the task force a uniform minimum legal pot-smoking age across Canada, leaving the age designation to health professionals. The police chiefs also oppose home cultivation, and say a lot more money needs to be spent on training officers and developing an efficient and effective roadside drug impairment detection device.

The police chiefs’ submission like the CMA’s raises big red flags for the Liberal government as it inches closer toward overhauling Canada’s drug laws.

The CMA says “ideally” the minimum pot-smoking age should be 25. It says scientific evidence shows the brain is still developing up to and beyond 25 years. 

But the physicians’ association acknowledges that is likely unrealistic.

Dr. Jeff Blackmer, who headed the CMA’s policy formulation group, said in an interview that the experience of other jurisdictions that have already loosened pot laws and “the reality in terms of the implementation of this type of regime” led the doctors to settle on 21 years of age as the minimum.

“It’s trying to find that balance between what the scientific evidence says and what is sort of the art of the possible,” he said.

Even now, as marijuana use remains illegal, its use among youth aged 15 to 24 is double that of the general population, the CMA says. 

Under a legalized system, those aged 25 and older are likely to share with their underage friends and so the physicians’ group is calling for regulations that would mandate lower maximum purchase levels and lower THC (tetrahydrocannabinol, the active ingredient) levels in product sold to those under 25.

Blackmer said public health concerns must be at the heart of any new legal regime because data shows nine per cent of marijuana smokers will go on to develop a dependence at some point — a figure that rises to 17 per cent when an individual starts using in adolescence.

The police chiefs association won’t publicly release its submission over concerns some of the content would give organized crime a blueprint to work around.

But in an exclusive interview with the Star, Gatineau Police Chief Mario Harel, CACP president, said a big concern for police leaders is law enforcement’s “capacity” to deal with drug-impaired driving.

“We have to be frank, it’s actually a problem — driving under the influence of different drugs and marijuana is one of them,” said Harel. He said police across Canada anticipate a “big surcharge of work” when a new regime is in place. 

Police now use a standard sobriety test to detect a drugged driver. Simple roadside testing devices — akin to roadside breathalyzers used to detect alcohol impairment — are still in development and haven’t been approved under Canadian law for police use.

“We need those tools to be efficient on the side of the road so we can process people rapidly to shorten the time that their liberty is limited on the side of the road. You don’t want to be an hour and a half on the side of the road to do those sobriety tests,” he said.

The other issue is that training is costly. Officers certified as drug recognition experts must be specially trained — in the United States — an expensive exercise, said Harel. Quebec and Vancouver are working on training programs, and the CACP says proper police training should be certified and anchored in Canada.

Harel said the CACP — which in 2013 supported a decriminalization or “ticketing” option for simple possession of marijuana — will also not take a position for or against legalization but said it will work with the government to ensure public safety. 

“We’re not policy-makers. We’re there to apply the law. We’re there to ensure the safety of the community and if the community decided that it was okay to legalize marijuana — well, our job is to apply the law, and to ensure the safety of the public.”

The police chiefs’ written brief is to be submitted shortly. Meanwhile, the deadline for Canadians to provide opinions to the federal task force passed last week.

The task force received nearly 30,000 submissions, via an online consultation page, emails, or written briefs.

Now it’s up to the nine members appointed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to make sense of the morass and to report by the end of November.

The briefs have not been publicly posted on the federal government’s website.

However, the Star canvassed several organizations about their submissions — a range of papers that paint a complex picture in the face of what appeared to be a simple Liberal campaign promise last year: to legalize marijuana.

The Arthritis Society, Canadians for Fair Access to Medical Marijuana and Canadian AIDS Society made a joint submission that recommends a distinction between medical and recreational users to ensure more than 67,000 critically and chronically ill patents have a safe and regulated supply.

Their brief says the government should allow a variety of distribution options, such as compassion clubs, pharmacies, in addition to mail order and self-production, noting “there is no one-size-fits-all distribution model” to meet the needs of people in remote regions, far from pharmacies or other dispensaries.

They say medical cannabis should not be subject to sales tax, as other prescription drugs are exempt.

Currently, it is taxed. They say any tax collected from recreational pot sales should be poured back into research into medical cannabis, in contrast to the CMA, which argues any tax haul should be poured back diverted back to provinces for the delivery of health care, to offset the anticipated rise in costs for addictions and mental health.

The three patient groups point to a January 2016 analysis by CIBC economist Avery Shenfield that estimated federal and provincial governments stand to reap $5 billion in tax revenue from the regulation of pot. 

They also argue Health Canada should recognize medical cannabis as an authorized therapeutic product so it can be covered under health insurance plans. 

Jonathan Zaid, founder and executive director of Canadians for Fair Access to Medical Marijuana, said the focus has to stay on patients. “Lots of the talk, lots of the business, lots of the money is on the recreational side, it’s not on the medical side, so we’re really concerned that the government will basically abolish the medical system and just have one cannabis system for everyone. We really want to ensure that patient needs are not forgotten in this process.” 

Canada’s pharmacists recommend the federal government should designate local drugstores as the best option to manage and dispense medical marijuana. They didn’t endorse any particular option for recreational pot, but are concerned about the lack of clinical oversight of medical pot in a relaxed regime. There are some 9,750 community pharmacies in Canada along with 285 hospital pharmacies.

The CMA opposes the idea of having pharmacies distribute medical marijuana, saying it “could lend it credibility as a pharmaceutical medication, whereas placing it in liquor stores would send the message that it needs strict and formal controls.”