Why would Reimer think we're interested in his letters to Health Canada? If you want to get a feel for just how ridiculous our medical marihana (sic) rules are, go to Health Canada or read below. You'll get a feel for how ridiculous they are. I urge everyone to apply for a medical exemption - CALL - 1 - 866 -337-7705 AND THEY'LL SEND AN APPLICATION TO YOU! YOU DON'T NEED A GOOD MEDICAL REASON. ANY KIND WILL DO!
July 8, 2003Health Canada
Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch
A.L. #3503B
Ottawa, ON
K1A 1B9
Attn: Cindy Cripps-Prawak
Dear Ms Cripps-Prawak:
Re: OCMA-2907-03
I acknowledge receipt of your letter of July 4. Thank you for taking the time to speak with me on the same date. Thank you also for the one-month extension which, I fear, will be my last. I do not intend to trouble my family physician (Dr. Baxter) or neurologist (Dr. Freedman) with any further correspondence. You have, by virtue of past authorizations and anew by virtue of this letter, my permission to seek, from either physician, and they are authorized to provide to you, any information concerning myself, at Health Canada's expense.
Assuming for the sake of argument that marijuana (you really should start spelling it correctly at Health Canada - your misspelling is becoming sort a cult joke) is a "drug" there is no reason, in my respectful submission, why it should be treated differently from any other drug. If I, in consultation with my family physician, choose to use it, Dr. Baxter should be able to prescribe it, without requiring the imprimatur of a specialist, and without having to answer bogus and esoteric questions such as whether or not "all conventional therapies" have been tried and have failed. It is enough that I and my physician feel marijuana use is an appropriate therapy, especially since marijuana is far more benign than any other "drug" with which I am familiar.
Multiple sclerosis is an unpredictable, nebulous disease. Symptoms are not easily comparable between patients nor even, from one time to another, within an individual patient. I have many different symptoms which fluctuate and even vanish and reappear at various times and in largely unpredictable fashion, depending upon a myriad of factors. Drug therapies, from what little I have learned, can control some symptoms but neither stop the progression of nor "cure" the disease. The particular form of M.S. from which I suffer is even less understood and less predictable than others.
Many proposed drug therapies for M.S. are to some measure experimental, and many involve what I understand to be fairly intrusive drugs.
My understanding is that some pharmaceutical drug therapies (probably steroids) might provide some mitigation of some of my symptoms. What I have heard about the potential deleterious side-effects of such drugs has prompted me to decide not to use them. I have avoided the use of pharmaceutical drugs all my life (I rarely take so much as an aspirin) and so long as my M.S. symptoms remain manageable with use of only marijuana, I will continue this therapy.
Your question to my physician about the use of "alternate therapies" is unanswerable and a red herring given the nature of my illness. To take your rationale to its illogical extreme, for example, I could control my chest and back pain by taking enough morphine or codeine to render myself comatose. Does that therefore become a "conventional therapy" that I must try as a precondition to obtaining a marijuana exemption?
If physicians treating M.S. are vouching for marijuana use and attesting that their patients have tried, unsuccessfully "all conventional therapies" then, with all due respect, I would suggest those physicians are stretching the truth, and I bless them for their courage and common sense. If you at Health Canada don't already appreciate this, then bless you for your naivete.
Section 16b) ought to allow that marijuana is recommended because it is an appropriate therapy in all the circumstances and poses no danger and such endorsement, if necessary at all, should be required only from any one physician.
I could, theoretically, try some other therapy that would control some of my symptoms, but, so far as I know, none available would ameliorate as many symptoms as marijuana does. Therefore, I would continue using marijuana in any event to control the remaining symptoms.
In any event, you have consistently reminded me that I will ultimately have to meet the M.M.A.R. criteria, which requires signature of my specialist, which will not occur so long as the C.M.P.A. position remains unchanged.
I also remind you that Health Canada apparently received Dr. Baxter's letter April 27, then engaged in some bogus (and ultimately abandoned) dispute with me over my photograph, and then wrote to Dr. Baxter in June requesting further information. In the meantime, my exemption had expired May 30 and my many calls requesting information went largely unanswered. This is totally unacceptable.
It will probably transpire that the failure of Health Canada to provide a supply of medical marijuana by tomorrow (the deadline stipulated in Mr. Justice Lederman's decision of January 9, 2003) will ultimately result in a finding that the M.M.A.R. and the informal precursor scheme (under which my original exemption was granted) are invalid by virtue of being unconstitutional. Therefore, my need for medical marijuana will henceforth be determined according to reasonable criteria rather than Health Canada's criteria. Even this much justification by myself will be necessary only if, in fact, there currently exists any law governing the possession of marijuana in Ontario from July 2001 (the deadline stipulated by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Parker, which decision the Federal government chose not to appeal further) to the current date. It is entirely likely that no marijuana prohibition scheme currently exists in this province. It is only a matter of time until the courts confirm this to be the case.
I will be happy to answer any further questions you have. My physicians can be approached by you as set out above. In the meantime, I will continue to grow and consume marijuana according to the dictates of common sense, and not the dictates of Health Canada. While I would appreciate receiving a further exemption, I don't feel one is legally or practically necessary.
Yours truly, Rick Reimer
July 15, 2003.
Health Canada
Attn: Director, Office of Cannabis Medical Access
I understand Ms Cripps-Prawak has left this position. PLEASE ENSURE THIS LETTER IS PUT INTO THE HANDS OF HER REPLACEMENT IMMEDIATELY!
I have left messages for either Ms Cripps-Prawak or her replacement or Cheryl Anderson to call me. I have left these phone messages on July 10, 11, 14 and 15. None has been returned. In spite of my fax and letter, no-one informed me there were special forms on-line to order the marijuana and seeds I have already ordered and sent payment for.
Along with the hard copy of this letter you will receive completed "Application to Obtain Marihuana Seeds or Dried Marijuana" and completed and sworn Appendices 1 and 2. I am seeking, as previously ordered, both dried marijuana and seeds. Your form suggests that only one or the other can be ordered at one time. I see absolutely no reason for this. I want to smoke some marijuana as soon as possible, and also grow some for later. Is there something in the regulation which limits applicants to one or the other? If so, why?
PLEASE IMMEDIATELY SEND ME A COPY OF THE REGULATION UNDER WHICH THESE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN PROMULGATED.
Portions of the "Applicant Certification For Dried Marihuana" and "Applicant Certification For Seeds" have been amended, as I am very mindful of your admonition that falsely certifying information in the forms will jeopardize any future supply.
DO YOU HONESTLY EXPECT PEOPLE TO SWEAR THAT THE "…product to be obtained from Health Canada will be the only marihuana obtained, from any source, for possession or use by me." You are either incredibly naïve or are encouraging people to lie. Do you expect me to throw away whatever marijuana I have before signing the Certification, secure in the knowledge that Health Canada will put a joint into my hands within minutes? It's been 8 years and you haven't put a single gram of marijuana into the hands of any Canadians yet (with the probable exception of Prairie Plant Systems employees).
These forms are an affront to intelligence and common sense. They are another insult hurled at sick Canadians.
If the underlying Regulation genuinely supports these forms, it must be Kafkaesque indeed. I'm sure it will be an entertaining read. PLEASE SEND IT IMMEDIATELY.
I COMPLY WITH ALL LOGICAL REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN MARIJUANA AND SEEDS, AND HAVE ALREADY PLACED AN ORDER IN WRITING, CLEARED THE DELIVERY WITH MY PHYSICIAN, AND SENT PAYMENT IN FULL IN ADVANCE. SEND MY MARIJUANA AND SEEDS IMMEDIATELY!
Yours truly, Rick Reimer
December 2, 2002.
Health Canada
Attn: C.S. Cripps-Prawak
Re: OCMA-01394-02
I am returning applicant's portion of questionnaire. While I greatly appreciate the offer of a further 6-month extension (to May 30, 2003) I doubt the C.M.P.A.'s position (and consequently my specialist's position) will change. Eventually, renewals will stop and I will again be without an exemption through no fault of my own. Surely, even the most optimistic lawyer advising Health Canada must realize the M.M.A.R. will not meet the constitutional hurdle set by the Ontario Court of Appeal (R. v. Parker) when former exemptees like myself are losing their exempt status without any change in their underlying medical condition.
Since November 1998, I have been requesting a meeting with the Minister of Health to discuss this important issue. Why? I have offered, and offer now some expertise on the subject which, in my respectful submission, is greatly needed. My experience is that Health Canada is utterly unequipped to deal with either the medical or legal implications of marijuana use. Witness my recent arrest due to improper advice from a Health Canada employee to the police to the effect that:
a) exemption holders are required by law to show proof of exemption to police on demand (this does not apply to pre-M.M.A.R. exemptions), and
b) she (the Health Canada employee) was not at liberty to tell police whether or not I held a current exemption (I have given this permission specifically and repeatedly).
Is the Minister satisfied with the current quality of advice she receives on these issues?
Yours truly, Rick Reimer
November 25, 2002
Health Canada
Re: OCMA-00006-02
I am requesting an extension of my s. 56 exemption, currently due to expire November 30, 2002. As I told Cheryl Anderson today, my specialist (Dr. Freedman) is unwilling to endorse my cannabis use due to the position taken by the Canadian Medical Protective Association. You have, on file, the recent endorsement of Dr. Brian Baxter.
If an extension is issued, please call me and post by ordinary mail, rather than expend funds for courier delivery.
Yours truly, Rick Reimer
August 7, 2003.
Health Canada
O.C.M.A.
Attn: Valerie Lasher
Acting Director
Dear Ms Lasher:
I am responding to your letter of August 1st, received by me today.
I confirm that Cheryl Anderson told me today (thank you, Cheryl) that a new renewal of my section 56 exemption has been issued. I told her it was not necessary to fax same, so long as I knew it was in existence, as I have no intention of carrying such papers on my person in any event. At the recent (July 29, 2003) demonstration on Parliament Hill, to which both you and Minister McLellan were invited, I burnt my then valid exemption papers. Because my exemption predates the M.M.A.R., I am under no obligation to present any proof of exemption to police. I have confirmed this with your predecessor (Ms Cripps-Prawak). Erroneous advice on this issue given in the past by Health Canada to the police has resulted in my arrest, and I wish to avoid any repetition. I also wonder what steps you have taken to resolve the potential difficulty of police arresting and/or detaining a person who purports to hold an exemption, at times when the 1-866-337-7705 phone number is not staffed. I understand that no alternative information source is offered outside business hours, and I wonder about the quandary that both police officer and exemptee might find themselves in if an arrest were to take place, for example, at 5:00 p.m. on the Friday of a long weekend. This is particularly a concern for pre-M.M.A.R. exemption holders (such as myself) who do not have a photo I.D. card but instead a sheaf of non-identifying papers that look for all the world like a clumsy attempt at a ruse, and which still seem, inexplicably, to be totally foreign to many Canadian police officers. What has Health Canada done to familiarize law-enforcement authorities with its forms and the law in connection therewith? Precious little, I fear.
In connection with my own exemption, please let me know what inquiries you have made to satisfy the concerns raised in your letter to the effect that the failure to have tried all other potential therapies disentitles me to a continued exemption. If you have put questions to my physician(s), I would like to know what those questions are. I've had an exemption since March 2000. My Multiple Sclerosis has deteriorated. Please explain why my licit, unobtrusive and medicinally beneficial marijuana use of 3+ years' standing should again become a criminal act, should again become a threat to my own liberty, a confrontational issue for the authorities, and a financial burden to all taxpayers.
I thank you for sending me a copy of Regulation SOR2003-261. It appears to do nothing, legally, other than exempt contractually produced marihuana (sic) from the F.D.A. and F.D.R. I had asked you to send me the regulations which stipulate that an exemptee may receive dried marijuana or seeds but not both, and the regulations which prescribe the swearing of nonsensical factual statements required by Appendices 1 and 2 as a condition of placing an order. I see nothing but the "Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement" which arrives at a "preferred option" but does not enact same. How does this legislatively codify the interpretation which your office appears to have arrived at in its "Interim Policy"?
Your "Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement" makes it clear that even considering a strategy to distribute marijuana is being done begrudgingly, and purely in reaction to the Hitzig decision. Health Canada sates that a policy is required "…pending clarification by the courts of the government's roles and responsibilities…" Do you (and your lawyers) not yet understand that the obligation to determine those roles and responsibilities lies with the government, and through the democratic process? Had the government taken this mandate seriously, and acted to assist medicinal marijuana users (as Health Canada, in successive press releases has promised to do) rather than shirking and abdicating this mandate, the Courts would not have been compelled to act. The tenor of your Analysis Statement (and implicit complaints about the failure of the Ontario Court of Appeal to grant a stay) makes it clear the government is hoping to run out the clock on another court-imposed deadline, and thereafter shirk this mandate further.
Laughably, your Statement warns that a "regulatory vacuum" could lead to further problems. It is the government alone that is responsible for the legislative vacuum which is the genesis of this problem. By failing to respond appropriately to the Parker decision (Ont. C.A.) and then by failing to act in a timely fashion (falsely confident that a stay was forthcoming?) in response to the trial decision in Hitzig, and then scrambling to implement an unexamined and nonsensical interim policy (with no apparent foundation in legislation or regulation, and certainly no foundation in common sense) the government alone is setting the stage for such a "regulatory vacuum". You then lament that such a vacuum would "…exacerbate existing concerns with respect to the availability…" of marijuana, by throwing the validity of the M.M.A.R. into doubt. What a joke! Access to marijuana for (among others) medicinal users would be immensely facilitated by the invalidation of section 4 and/or by the potential invalidation of sections 5 and/or 7 of the C.D.S.A. Other prohibition initiatives would be hindered, but that is another issue. What the Ontario courts are "threatening" is the true form of "decriminalization" towards which we ought to be moving democratically. Canadians no more need laws about marijuana than we need laws about asparagus or onions. Those who choose to grow their own will do so. Those who choose to trade with friends or relatives will do so. Those who choose for whatever reason to buy in some market will do so. When they do, they will buy in an open market, unaffected by bogus and haphazardly enforced prohibitions. I pray for such an enlightened approach, but fear that no current Western government would voluntarily cede the potential tax revenue of marijuana. The current "decriminalization" bill proposed by Mr. Cauchon, by simultaneously increasing demand and constricting supply, is destined to foster (and fester into) the blackest illegal market Canada has ever seen. Legalization, as recommended by the Senate Committee on Illegal Drug Use will render the criminal participation in drug use a relatively insignificant problem akin to the current bootleg alcohol industry. True decriminalization, as outlined above, would go even further to remove any criminal element from the marijuana trade, by denying any significant profit.
Protestations that the government's hands are tied by International Treaties are purely illusory. Other countries have openly violated such treaties vis-à-vis cannabis without repercussion, and in any event our Canadian Medical Marihuana scheme puts us in violation already. It is only concerns arising from our southern border which cow us into believing we have some higher obligation than other nations to toe the line demarcated by the U.S.A.
Another laughable provision is your insistence that a $5.00 per gram charge is some kind of "cost recovery". It would appear to be a tax grab in that the actual cost of production of marijuana (when illegality is discounted) is dramatically lower than this. In this case, I believe, however, that ignorance rather than greed has driven this decision. God Bless the government for its naivete, but after countless tales of undercover police blithely paying $15.00 per gram (while traffickers snigger into their bongs) the government actually believes it is offering medicinal users some kind of bargain! In fact, black market buyers currently pay about $5.00 per gram for quantities of around 500 grams, and any true licit "cost recovery" price should be significantly lower.
Now, to my particular situation. I currently have approximately 80 plants planted, and hope to harvest them in September. The success of this year's harvest will depend on a myriad of factors, not the least of which is theft from myself committed by those intimidated by the government's bogus prohibition scheme. At the moment I am smoking the "shake" (low T.H.C. concentration leaves) from last year's plants. I therefore need dried marijuana now, plus I need seeds to start plants next spring. The seeds I planted this year, obviously, came from an illegal source since at that time there was no legal source. I cannot keep a plant from this year to "clone" next year as I don't have facilities (or skills, for that matter!) to over-winter a plant. I cannot produce my own seeds for next year, as the fertilization of this year's plants would ruin their potential to produce currently usable T.H.C. It is obvious again that the person(s) responsible for drafting the "Interim Policy" do not have (or must disavow) any actual knowledge of marijuana cultivation, and I urge you to consider seeking some credible and candid advice. You might actually take the bold step of speaking to people who have experience!
If the aim of the interim policy is to prevent medicinal users from distributing to recreational users, why not just say so? Maximum possession limits are already stipulated, so preventing excess production can't be the justification. There is no plausible reason for denying me both seeds and marijuana, when I clearly have need for both and laws are already in place to prevent me from distributing any or from having too much.
Your appendices require me to swear that:
1) "I…cannot produce marihuana myself…" - I have deleted that provision since I can and am growing marijuana plants now. The problem is that I am out of smokeable marijuana at the current time;
2) "…the product obtained from Health Canada will be the only marijuana obtained, from any source, for possession or use by me." - I have deleted this provision as I don't intend to destroy any marijuana currently in my possession (or likely to be in my possession if and when you deliver) regardless of what Health Canada may or may not do;
3) "I do not have marihuana plants at any stage of production" - I have deleted this provision as I do have plants growing and I see no reason why they should disentitle me to other relief;
4) "…the seeds to be obtained from Health Canada will be the only marihuana seeds obtained from any source for use by me." - I have deleted this provision since I'm not foolish enough to limit myself to 30 seedlings (minus whatever number which turn out to be male) for next year.
My order for both seeds and dried marijuana is entirely reasonable and remains outstanding. Please fill it as soon as possible. I am prepared for the moment to pay G.S.T. and P.S.T., subject to future protest. The next issue, I suppose, will be the propriety of Ontario residents paying Provincial Sales Tax (when residents of other provinces do not) simply because Ottawa happens to be within Ontario.
I promise there will be new issues, just as inane and Kafkaesque, that will pop up after the sales tax issue is resolved. The cannabis plant was here long before mankind got up on its hind legs. The cannabis plant will still be here long after mankind has vanished. In the meantime, any attempt to control it through legislation is a "pipe-dream". I hope the government will soon realize this and quit playing this silly mug's game of prohibition.
Yours truly, Rick Reimer
Cc: Alan Young
Cc: Rt. Hon. Anne McLellan, Minister of Health
Cc: Rt. Hon. Martin Cauchon, Minister of Justice
Cc: Senator Claude Nolin