This Timeline Follows the course of trial events alongside articles published in the Cannabis Digest and in the Media as well as videos.
As fate would determine, on a chilly Dec. day in 2009, I was arrested in the bakery and charged with possession of THC for the purpose of trafficking. After holding me for eight hours in a cold, bright room, they let me out, shivering, just before midnight. Upon returning to the Club, where Ted and a few employees were still waiting, it quickly became clear that I had the full support of the Club, and that this was going to be an important case.
Ted gives an emotional speach to News Reporters only days after Owen is arrested
Shaw cover the Bakery Raid
January 14th i attended the Victoria Courthouse to fulfill my Promise to Appear notice, however, I was not on the court docket. We took this to mean the crown was unlikely to pursue charges.
Initially, we thought the government would not proceed with the charges, and held a press conference announcing 'no charges' and our online recipe book
Ted and Owen appear on A Channel News
Enter story info here
Charges of Possession of THC for the purpose of Trafficking and possession of Cannabis (marihuana) arrive, including a two-page criminal record of someone with a different middle name. Based in part on this mistaken identity, the Crown was recommending four months jail time. It was at this time that the magnitude of the trial began to set in. For the next three years, I would be bound to champion the medical cannabis movement.
The Return of the Charges and the upgrade of the Cannabis Digest Announced
by Ted Smith Despite their humble appearance, cookies may bring big changes to the cannabis laws in Canada. On the surface, cannabis cookies look no different than any other. Legally, however, cannabis cookies create a complex problem that has huge medical and economic implications. Victoria police are tired of hearing about pot cookies; the public knows very little about them but would like to see them for sale; members of the Cannabis Buyers’ Clubs of Canada cannot sleep without them; drug companies are scrambling to mimic their effects; and Canadian cannabis laws may not be able to stand when they are properly investigated. A recent raid late 2009 on the bakery of the CBC of C has proven all of the above points, and more (see CD #23). Charges of possession and possession for the purposes of trafficking against Owen Smith (not related to me) were laid on Dec. 3, when complaints from a neighbour led police to a downtown apartment where the club’s food and skin products were made. When the Crown did not enter charges against Owen into court in Jan., as the promise to appear notice stated would happen, we assumed everything was being dropped. Now, however, the Crown has decided to proceed with this, giving Owen another notice to appear in court at 2 p.m. on Apr. 29 to face two charges of possession for the purposes of trafficking. So, while for a time we thought that reason would prevail and the crown would not spend its resources arguing a court battle it is destined to lose, it appears we have a fight on our hands. Over the years in Victoria, the police, politicians, and public have learned a great deal about cannabis cookies and other alternatives to smoking herb. In Nov. 1996, I made a presentation to Victoria city council, showing them our cannabis salve. I thanked the police for their policy of non-harassment (which did not really exist) and informed those present of our plans to get a storefront. A new idea occurred to me just before International Medical Marijuana Day, Nov. 15, 1999, and when I gave away 101 cannabis cookies with the media and police watching, it was the first time the local press informed the public about eating cannabis for medical purposes. The following year I was arrested trying to give away 420 cookies, eventually being convicted of trafficking THC by a jury and sentenced to 1 day in jail. It appears THC, CBD, and CBN, the three most abundant and active chemicals present in the cannabis plant, are all listed as separate drugs in the CDSA. When the CBC of C was raided by police in Jan., Mar., and June 2002, then again in Feb. 2003, we had even more opportunities to use the media to inform the public about our activities. None of the issues regarding the production of extracts came up in the first trial of the club, when we received acquittals for trafficking cannabis from Justice Chaperon. In the second trial, however, the crown dropped the charges of trafficking cannabis and focused instead on convicting me of trafficking cannabis resin, using the food and skin products as evidence. Before that trial in Jan. 2005, it had not occurred to me that cannabis extracts were not legally protected by the MMAR, and we had not prepared our defence to challenge that issue. Upset at the decision, my lawyer, and the regulations, I filed an appeal. After reading my factum, the Department of Justice and Crown admitted that I was at least due a new trial, given some errors in law made by the judge. Rather than proceed with a new trial, the crown told the BC Court of Appeal to drop the entire matter. The fact that cannabis resin products are technically illegal is a fundamental flaw within the MMAR. While constantly raising fears of the potential harms of smoking herb, Health Canada has never formally informed the public that using a cheesecloth to strain butter from plant material, or otherwise extracting the essential oils, is legally considered producing cannabis resin or THC. So if a person with a licence to grow cannabis makes hash by shifting dry bud over a screen to collect the THC crystals, they have produced a different drug according to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and are subject to stiff penalties if caught with it. It seems from our experience at the CBC of C, that eating small amounts of low- dosage cannabis products is very important for people facing almost every kind of medical difficulty. This is why we have gone out of our way to make several types of edible and topical cannabis products at the lowest cost possible. As I joked at the 1st Annual Cannabis Convention of the Vancouver Island University Hempology 101 Club, it is my hope that by improving people’s health with inexpensive cookies they will stay alive a few extra years and be able to buy more herb from the club in the meantime! The drug regulatory system has been created to protect consumer’s health and pharma- ceutical company’s investments, in theory. These regulations are so restrictive and expensive that no plant material has gone through all the requirements to become an approved drug in Canadian history. Cannabis is only legally available in Canada because the courts have forced them to create a system that provides access to the herb. So while cannabis can be legally prescribed, it is not an approved drug. That would require extensive testing that no drug company is willing to pay for. It appears the only research on cannabis use being done in this country is more focused upon potential medical problems that people with mental health issues could face. As far as anyone knows, Prairie Plant Systems, the company that owns the patent for the standard operating procedures to produce cannabis in Canada according to the contracts they have “won,” is not involved in any other studies. With no studies focused upon the medical uses of cannabis, it is hard to imagine the day when it becomes an approved drug. Drug companies are very aware that if people can make their own medicines without much cost, their revenues will be dramatically affected. They are actively working to develop and sell drugs that contain or mimic cannabinoids, but their goals are profit motivated. Therefore, it is counter-productive for them to pay for studies on medicines made from the actual plant. So while Health Canada was forced to create the MMAR to provide legal access to cannabis for medical purposes, by not funding the research necessary for the herb to become an approved drug the government has allowed things to stagnate. There is no hope for resolution without more direction from the courts, as all of the changes made to improve the MMAR have come from court decisions. The courts cannot force drug companies to do the studies required for cannabis to become an approved drug. They can, however, tell Health Canada that until cannabis is an approved drug, doctors should only be required to confirm that a patient has been diagnosed with a serious medical problem. Ignorance and liability concerns are quickly raised by doctors unwilling to sign MMAR forms, leaving the vast majority of sick Canadians with no recourse but to break the law, or suffer unnecessary pain and premature death. Until cannabis becomes an approved drug, doctors will be reluctant to recommend its use by people suffering from serious medical problems. Using legal arguments from the Morgentaler decision that successfully defended access to abortions as a medical necessity, we are prepared to again defend our right to determine our health care once we have been diagnosed with a permanent,physical disability or disease. We are lucky to have he Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as it is a great aid in the protection of the innocent and vulnerable against the application of unjust laws, regulations, and by-laws. Until such time as cannabis becomes an ap- proved drug, we believe that requiring a doctor’s diagnosis of a permanent, physical disability or disease should be enough for a person to try using cannabis. This bake-op trial will give us several opportunities. We hope to challenge the fact that cannabis resin, THC, CBD, and CBN are not included in the MMAR by proving with science and personal stories that making food and skin cannabis products in the kitchen are safe, easy, and much healthier than the alternatives. We will prove the MMAR is too difficult to get into in the first place. We will also demonstrate to the courts and public that our club has been diligent in its efforts to provide a safe place for sick people to obtain quality medicines in a relaxed environment and that the CBC of C is worthy of legal protection. Several court decisions, like our earlier Chaperon judgement, have recognized the importance of professionals growing and distributing this herb. Just last year, Health Canada made an amendment to the MMAR allowing a grower to help two people instead of being limited to growing for just one person, as the regulations originally stated. This has frustrated many who have hoped for the day that individuals would be able to legally provide medicine to multiple patients, just like every other medicine used by doctors. As a remedy to the situation we will be asking the courts for an Exemption #56 from the CDSA to conduct research on the various medical applications of cannabis. This would be similar to the exemption from the law that InSite in Vancouver received under the federal Liberal government that the current government has refused to renew and instead has sought to shut the organization down. When the Supreme Court of Canada considers the InSite case, they will be laying out a framework for cannabis dispensaries to use the Exemption #56 mecha- nism provided in the CDSA. There are many things supporters can do to help us with the trial, research, and public relations campaign. We will be seeking members willing to testify as to their use of our products. Though we will not be able to get everyone in front of a judge, we do want to fill the courtroom every time Owen makes an appearance. We will try to publicly post court dates on the hempology.ca forums. It should be known that sometimes the courtroom changes during the day, and when at the courthouse it is always best to check the list posted by the front door. Writing letters to the editor or news directors throughout the trial is an easy way to educate the public, and applies pressure on the media to accurately report the situation. Send- ing messages about the uses of cannabis to individual politicians, agencies, and other government departments is another great way to help get cookies legally in the medicine cabinet. For the past five years, we have been collecting information from members trying to document the benefits of cannabis compared to prescription drugs. In the near future we will be releasing a new format for that research, making it easier for us to collect data and track changes in health over time. Though it has been a great challenge trying to include members in the changes we have considered to the research project, we hope that the new format will give people an easy way to help prove the value of these medicines and our club. One of the best ways people can help us is to speak out. Tell your family, friends, co-workers, neighbours, and others, that you use this herb as a medicine—and you will have done us a great favour. This bake-op trial will take a while to be entirely resolved. Our club is uniquely positioned to strike down the MMAR, and inform the public about the edible and topical applications of cannabis.
Hosted at the Sunset Room, alongside 'the Moon Collective', a Full Room for a night of dancing, hosted by Ted Smith
Hosted at the Sunset Room
Enter story info here
Attended Court to set dates for the trial with Kirk Tousaw, a leading expert in cannabis law who had recently moved to Vancouver Island.
Discussing the details of the trial, assessing the need for a 'voir dire', confirming dates
Kirk Tousaw attended by phone on behalf of Owen Smith. Meanwhile we gathered four club members and an expert witness, Dr. David Pate, to explain the importance of the edible and topical medicine to the court, as well as its overall safe and therapeutic profile. While continuing to assist people in gaining access to this medicine, we prepared to challenge the laws and defend our charter rights.
The third in succession to hammer out the details. Including the length of the 'voir dire', the nature of the constitutional challenge, and the format of the trial proper.
By Ted Smith Every once in a while, a court case determines the direction of Canadian society. It is a rare occasion when unique circumstances challenge the courts to strike a balance between individual freedoms and public security. Often precedent helps guide a judge towards generally accepted principals of justice that predetermine rules of evidence, court procedure, and sentencing. Sometimes, though, situations are so different that there is no clear direction for the court to take. Starting on Jan. 16, in Victoria, B.C., such a trial will be commencing. The stakes are high. If the crown wins, drug companies have exclusive rights over cannabis-based medicines. This could eventually force patients to use pills or inhalers rather than make cookies or creams from plants grown in their back yard. If the defendant, Owen Smith (no relation to me), wins, then the government could be forced to change the Marijuana Medical Access Program or he just simply be granted an acquittal. It all started on an average afternoon in Dec. 2009. Owen was busy baking in a downtown apartment, with music cranked. A knock on the door and moments later police were inside asking questions. Here are some excerpts of the pretrial summary written by lawyer Kirk Tousaw. I) Mr. Owen Smith, in his role as an employee of the Cannabis Buyers Club of Canada, an unincorporated “compassion club” operating for the past fifteen years in Victoria, British Columbia, produced cannabis byproducts for the exclusive use of the members of the CBC of C, all of whom find relief from the conditions and symptoms as a result of the cannabis-based medicines sold by the organization. These byproducts include (a) cannabis medicines in the form of cookies, lozenges and other products for oral administration; and (b) cannabis infused oils, salves and patches for topical administration. Accordingly, this case represents another in a long series of challenges to the validity of the federal government’s medical cannabis exemption scheme and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act as applied to producers and distributors of cannabis for medical purposes. On several prior occasions over the 10-year-plus existence of the program, various aspects of the government’s scheme, set out in the Marihuana Medical Access Regulation, as amended, have been declared invalid and contrary to the dictates of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Each time, the federal government’s response to the Courts’ declarations of invalidity has been inadequate, leading to further constitutional challenges. In many other cases, including one involving the founder and proprietor of the CBC of C (Mr. Leon Edward “Ted” Smith), Courts have granted judicial stays of proceedings to accused persons engaged in producing and/or distributing cannabis for bona fide medical purposes II: A) The general thrust of the evidence from these patient witnesses is (a) that medical cannabis and cannabis products provide them with relief from their conditions and symptoms at least as effectively as pharmaceutical options and with less significant negative side effects; (b) that it has been difficult and/or impossible for them to obtain access to the legal protections of the MMAR program; (c) that it has been difficult or impossible for them to obtain a lawful supply of cannabis medicine; (d) that they have obtained cannabis and cannabis products from the CBC of C and find those products to be effective; and (e) that the use of cannabis products manufactured by Mr. Smith and obtained from the CBC of C is preferable, on safety and efficacy grounds, to consumption of dried cannabis by means of smoking or vaporizing. II: C) Mr. Smith intends to call Dr. David Pate to provide expert evidence generally related to (a) the safety and efficacy of medical cannabis and cannabis byproducts; (b) the nature of the cannabis plant, its active ingredients and extracts; (c) the scientific basis for preferring or requiring the use of cannabis byproducts such as those produced by Mr. Smith for certain conditions and/or symptoms, or for certain individuals including some or all of the patient witnesses; and (d) the medical benefits of ingesting cannabis extracts/byproducts as opposed to smoked or vaporized modes of administration. III: C) More specifically, and without limitation, he intends to argue that the impugned legislation is invalid and contrary to sections 7 (and 12) because (a) persons for whom cannabis (including preparations and derivatives as identified in Schedule II) provides medicinal benefit are constitutionally entitled possess cannabis for their personal medical use without fear of criminal sanction and those that produce cannabis for them are constitutionally entitled to do so; (b) the CDSA/MMAR scheme, and in particular the limitation of the MMAR exemption to possession of dried cannabis only, is arbitrary, constitutes an illusory defence to criminal liability and carries penalties that are grossly disproportionate to the state objectives embodied by the legislation and associated regulations; and/or (c) that the CDSA/MMAR scheme and/or the enforcement and administration of that scheme creates further barriers to accessing the legal protections of the program and a lawful supply of safe, effective cannabis based medicine. With veteran crown advocate Peter Eccles arguing for the government, this trial will be a battle from the beginning. He has acknowledged he really enjoys prosecuting medical cannabis cases because it is interesting law and he feels more comfortable in the room because he is not sending nasty people to jail that could threaten him if he wins. This trial could take much longer than the 20 days scheduled to begin Jan. 16, as there are a couple of arguments never tried before by medicinal cannabis activists. The first is an attempt to find the government in contempt of previous court decisions. The second rare move is to call a jury trial instead of being heard by judge alone. Usually, constitutional issues and matters of law are dealt with strictly by the judges. If the charges are serious enough to give the defendant a chance to call a jury, then the jury is given the opportunity to decide if there is sufficient evidence to determine guilt but matter of law are still left to the judge. However, there is a rarely used section of law that allows juries to grant acquittals if they determine the defendant had a medical necessity to do so. Instead of starting to pick the jury the week before the trial begins, Justice Johnson has developed cold feet about allowing them to hear all of the evidence being presented for the constitutional arguments, and may try to proceed with the legal arguments first. If this is how things move forward, then it will almost be like having two separate trials, except the expert testimony will not be heard by the jury, unless the judge rules the law is a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and grants Owen an acquittal before the jury is called. In many ways that would be the best case scenario, but if that fails then Owen will still have a chance before the jury to get an acquittal. One of the first decisions Justice Johnson will make is whether to, essentially, force the crown to send officials from Health Canada to defend the drug approval process. In particular, we need to question bureaucrats and a scientist about why cannabis derivatives like THC are not included in the MMAR when they are generally recognized as being healthier to use than smoking herb. Only officials from Health Canada can explain why THC can be sold legally as Marinol for $8 a pill, but patients can be prosecuted for making cookies and salves. Health Canada has mislead patients to think they can turn their cannabis into edible and topical products without fear of arrest, but this is simply not the case. Even if found guilty, Owen should face little to no consequences. In many cases involving medicinal cannabis clubs, even when defendants are found guilty, they are routinely given absolute or conditional sentences. For example, in the case of Matt Beren, a grower for the Vancouver Island Compassion Society, he was found guilty of growing over 900 plants with a license for nine but was given an absolute discharge because the justice recognized he was acting in good faith and attempting to alleviate suffering in the face of inadequate regulations. This situation is so unique the crown has no idea the value of the medicine they took. They have not yet provided a sentencing report either, something usually submitted long before the trial begins in an attempt to convince the defendant to plead guilty. Several special interest groups will have their eyes on this trial. Patients who benefit much more from noncombustible cannabis products than from smoking herb or using pharmaceutical products will be the most concerned, as their quality of life often depends upon the cheap, easy medicine they can make with this plant. The quality and length of their lives depends upon this decision. In fact, most of us will likely find ourselves suffering from a medical problem that cannabis helps with before we die. Looked at in that light, this trial affects all Canadians directly, for if the government can stop people from making medicines from plants, then we will all suffer. Obviously, people who work in other medical dispensaries across the country will be watching this trial, as offering these alternatives to smoking has been an important service these groups have provided. If the green light is given, a sudden surge of interest in these alternatives could appear. Alternatively, if we lose, everyone could lose, especially with the mandatory minimum sentences being brought in by the Conservatives this Spring. If we lose, the big winners will be drug companies. They are the only ones who stand to profit by maintaining the status quo. The crown will no doubt argue that, just like patients cannot make their own morphine from poppies, they should not be able to make their own oils from cannabis. Eccles will rant about the importance of standardization and the drug approval process to guarantee safety, efficacy, and consistency. So, ultimately, this is a battle between nature and science. The crown would have it that science ruled the world, and that the natural world is something to exploit, tame, refine. We beg to differ. Exactly how this trial will proceed is anyone’s guess. The unique circumstances, evidence, and arguments will make every day in court interesting. In the end, though, the judge should have little choice but to let Owen walk away with his head up high.
For four weeks in Feb., I sat in the front row of the Supreme Court of British Columbia to attend the Voir Dire (trial within a trial) to determined whether the law regarding cannabis extraction is unconstitutional. These four weeks were our opportunity to challenge the constitutionality of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) and make available, to those with access, medically suitable methods of ingestion alternative to inhalation, specifically oral and topical. In order to qualify the refinement process necessary for making these products, we attempted to explain in detail exactly where in the plant, the medicine that should be available to those in need, is. Few people know that while “dried marihuana” can be authorized under the MMAR in Canada, any process that separates the medical compounds from the plant material is illegal: including sieve, colander, or cheesecloth. When an authorized MMAR patient, with their doctor, check a box on the B1 or B2 application form marked “Oral,” nowhere is this micron thin definition of illegal production made clear. To help clarify matters for the court, we invited Dr. David Pate from California to share his expert knowledge in Botany and Pharmaceutical Chemistry.
Hempology footage of the Trial Press Conference
CHEK 6 News , Bakery Trial.
By Louise Dickson, Times Colonist January 18, 2012 2:46 AM In March 2006, former Victoria mayor Alan Lowe wrote to Tony Clement, then federal health minister, asking him to immediately review Canada's medical marijuana regulations "to determine where improvements can be made to ensure a better quality of life for those Canadians in need of medical assistance." The letter, written on behalf of Victoria city council, was entered as evidence Tuesday at the trial of Owen Smith, head baker for the Cannabis Buyers' Club of Canada (CBCC). Smith, 29, has been charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking THC, one of the active ingredients in marijuana, and unlawful possession of marijuana on Dec. 3, 2009. Smith has essentially admitted he used a View Street apartment as a commercial bakery, making pot cookies and other cannabis-based products for sale through the club. However, he is raising a constitutional challenge against Health Canada's marijuana access regulations and the validity of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. In the March 20, 2006, letter, Lowe told Clement the issue of public access had been raised at city council by a number of citizens who rely on marijuana to manage pain. Although the previous federal government had endorsed the medicinal properties of cannabis, "adequate production and distribution channels do not appear to be in place," wrote Lowe. "In the absence of this infrastructure, many Canadians will continue to suffer the debilitating effects of their illnesses without the benefit of effective pain management techniques." Four years earlier, on April 18, 2002, the city passed a resolution declaring that the federal laws regarding cannabis need to be changed, especially for people with incurable medical conditions. The city also proclaimed Nov. 15 International Medical Marijuana Day and encouraged everyone to act with tolerance, compassion and understanding toward people who need cannabis to relieve their pain. The documents were entered by defence lawyer Kirk Tousaw during the testimony of Ted Smith, proprietor of the CBCC and no relation to the accused. Ted Smith, 42, testified that when he moved to Victoria in September 1995, he met a woman called Leslie at the Sacred Herb hemp shop. Leslie volunteered in the AIDS community in James Bay, making pot cookies, brownies and medical salves. "When they ate the cookies, they'd put the weight back on . . . it made them want to live again." Ted Smith decided he wanted to help people who were dying from cancer or suffering chronic pain. On April 1, 2001, he opened the club at 826 Johnson St. Between 2001 and 2003, the club was raided a number of times, he testified. Ted Smith was convicted of trafficking in resin, but the conviction was dropped on appeal. He was granted a stay of proceeding on another trafficking offence. Tousaw entered a number of letters between Ted Smith and Health Canada into evidence. In the documents, Smith questions why Health Canada's marijuana access regulations only allow people authorized to use marijuana to possess it in dried form. "My client was trying to get some understanding why the regulatory scheme would allow people to smoke dried marijuana versus what he perceived to be less harmful ways of getting cannabis into the body by eating or applying it topically," said Tousaw. In 2006, a letter from a Health Canada official to Ted Smith says as long as the plant is dried first, any preparations made after that are acceptable. The statement was retracted by another official in 2008. ldickson@timescolonist.com
Victoria Community TV Presents: Face to Face with Ted Smith of the Cannabis Buyers' Club of Canada (Censored Version). We talk about the medicinal and other benefits of marijuana and how the laws that prevent people from self-medicating are antiquated, unjust and, in all probability, put in place to serve the pharmaceutical industry and other corporations that want marijuana to be illegal. The original program showed how simple it is to produce creams, lotions and medicines from hemp, but that version was censored because of federal laws that would probably have put us all in prison. (The TarSands are great, marijuana will put you in jail?? That's our corporate country.) On our community tv station: Channel 11 in Victoria and Saltspring Island Saturday at 9PM and 11:30PM Sunday at 9PM and 11:30 PM (please note the changed times, so that children would not be exposed to these horrible ideas - yes this is true.) Also on the internet at: http://vimeo.com/17180282 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udjaNusmzWo PRODUCED BY LAZARUS PRODUCTIONS Also watch Pasifik.ca: usually Saturdays and Sundays at 8:30PM Check out : www.pacificfreepress.com and www.pej.org Read: StreetNewz and Focus Magazine Listen to : CFUV radio (101.9 FM) Believe in democracy and don't trust the corporate-owned-media. Fight The Corporations! ICTV can be reached at jetkino@yahoo.ca
By Louise Dickson, Times Colonist January 24, 2012 2:17 AM A cannabis expert has concluded that there is no scientific or medical basis to differentiate between whole dried marijuana plants and cannabis resin. On Monday, David Pate, cofounder of the International Hemp Association, told B.C. Supreme Court Justice Robert Johnston that the two primary therapeutic compounds of cannabis (THC and CBD) are found in the resin. "The plant matter itself is not a desired therapeutic component," Pate wrote in an affidavit entered into evidence at the trial of Owen Edward Smith, the head baker for the Cannabis Buyers' Club of Canada. "This is because plant matter can contain a variety of harmful or unwanted compounds which may include heavy metals, fertilizer residue, pesticides, moulds and insect remnants." Smith 29, was charged on Dec. 3, 2009, with possession for the purpose of trafficking THC, one of the active ingredients in marijuana. He is also charged with unlawful possession of marijuana. Smith was charged after the manager of an apartment building complained to police about a strong smell wafting through the building. Police obtained a search warrant and discovered the suite was being used as a bakery. Officers recovered substantial quantities of cannabis-infused olive and grape seed oil, as well as pot cookies, destined for sale through the club. Smith has launched a constitutional challenge against Health Canada's medical-marijuana access regulations. His defence lawyer, Kirk Tousaw, is challenging the validity of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act regarding marijuana. Tousaw is arguing that the medical marijuana program is unduly restrictive and constitutionally flawed because those authorized to use medical marijuana can possess it only in dried form. Cannabis plant matter may not be good for people with gastrointestinal problems, said Pate, who holds a masters degree in biology and a PhD in pharmaceutical chemistry. There are a number of ways to ingest the active compounds in cannabis, he wrote in the affidavit. It may be smoked or vapourized. It can be eaten in food products - such as brownies or cookies - prepared with cannabis-infused oil or butter. People can also use oil-based preparations with resin extract and apply it directly to the skin. Another way to ingest cannabis compounds is to spray an alcohol extract of the resin under the tongue. People who suffer from gastrointestinal conditions such as Crohn's disease or irritable bowel syndrome can benefit from ingesting cannabis-based medicines, said Pate. This provides the benefit of direct therapeutic action, which can be more effective and require fewer doses.
The Official Funraiser for the CBCoC bakery trial and constitutional challenge that is currently ongoing. If you would like to support this cause but don't know how, this night can offer you the opportunity to dance together with us as we face these important challenges. Talented Musical Entertainment for your wiggling pleasure includes: Cannabinoid (Live) - VIM Records / Red Robot Records / BeLeaf http://soundcloud.com/cannabinoid Chronikal - Night Vision / UK http://soundcloud.com/chronikal Florian - Sunset Labs www.sunsetlabs.ca/florian RizeOhm, Entelechy & RichGaud - Returning Saturn
a brief appearance in court to find out when Justice Robert Johnson will deliver his decision on the Voir Dire
We'd love to hear from you. Please send questions or feedback to the below email addresses.
Before contacting us, you may wish to visit our FAQs page which has lots of useful info on Tiki-Toki.
We can be contacted by email at: hello@tiki-toki.com.
You can also follow us on twitter at twitter.com/tiki_toki.
If you are having any problems with Tiki-Toki, please contact us as at: help@tiki-toki.com
Close