Search

In Canada, in the early 2000s, the decriminalization of cannabis for recreational use seemed imminent. Between 2003 and 2005, three government decriminalization bills were introduced in the Canadian House of Commons, but none were adopted, and decriminalization efforts were abandoned. Subsequently, Canada went beyond decriminalization and legalized recreational cannabis in 2018. This paper examines why the Canadian decriminalization efforts failed, using the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) and ACF policy change theory. Three ACF-based hypotheses to explain the failed reform attempts are developed and investigated, but none are empirically supported. A fourth hypothesis is developed using information processing insights from Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PET) but adapted to the ACF. This hypothesis is empirically supported showing that Canada's decriminalization efforts failed, despite a supportive advocacy coalition, favourable conditions in the cannabis policy subsystem and favourable conditions in the Canadian political system, because its systemic advocates did not give it priority relative to other issues from other subsystems. This finding has implications for ACF policy change theory, identifying a necessary condition for major policy change that has been potentially overlooked, and illustrates the potential for cross-fertilization between PET and ACF theories of policy change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using data on banking transactions, we analyse how people changed their spending behaviour when recreational cannabis became legal in Canada. In the data set, we identify people with purchases in a cannabis store after legalization. We apply a difference-in-difference approach to compare their spending before and after legalization. People with cannabis purchases after legalization reduced significantly and persistently their cash spending and electronic transfers, indicating a shift from the black to the legal cannabis market. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada, the cannabis industry has adapted to public health emergency orders which had direct and indirect consequences on cannabis consumption. The objective of this scoping review was to describe the patterns of consumption and cannabis-related health and safety considerations during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada. Methods: For this scoping review, we searched four electronic databases supplemented with grey literature. Peer-reviewed or pre-print studies using any study design and grey literature reporting real-world data were included if published in English between March 2020 and September 2021 and focused on cannabis and COVID-19 in Canada. A content analysis was performed. Results: Twenty-one studies met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Study designs included cross-sectional surveys (n = 17), ecological study (n = 1), conceptual paper (n = 1), longitudinal study (n = 1), and prospective cohort study (n = 1). Most were conducted solely in Canada (n = 18), and the remaining included global data. Our content analysis suggested that cannabis consumption during the pandemic varied by reasons for use, consumers' age, gender, and method of consumption. Health and safety impacts due to the COVID-19 pandemics included increased mental illness, increased emergency visits, and psychosocial impacts. Discussion: This scoping review suggested that the impact of the pandemic on cannabis consumption in Canada is more complex than simplistic assumptions of an increase or decrease in consumption and continues to be difficult to measure. This study has explored some of those complexities in relation to reasons for use, age, gender, method of consumption, and health impacts. This scoping review is limited by focusing on the breadth compared to depth. Conclusions: Legalizing nonmedical use of cannabis in Canada in 2018 has had its challenges of implementation, one of which has been the changing context of the society. The findings of this study can help inform cannabis policy updates in Canada as the country is reaching its fifth year of legalizing nonmedical use of cannabis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With Canada becoming the first G20 country to legalize the recreational use of cannabis, there has been increasing interest in the emergence of this new marketplace. Newspaper framing helps to shape public opinion on legalization and news sources play a role in determining how the public perceives the use of cannabis. This research analyzes how mainstream newspapers reported on the legalization of recreational cannabis in Canada in the years before and after legalization (between 2016 and 2019). Using a content analysis of 1,390 cannabis-related articles, 11 dominant reporting themes are identified. Over time, there was a shift from negative and sensationalist cannabis news coverage toward more balanced and progressive framing. The findings identify the influence of editorial political stance on thematic coverage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Recreational cannabis legalization (RCL) is expanding rapidly. RCL's effects on mental health issues are of particular concern because cannabis use is more frequent among people receiving psychiatric care and is associated with several psychiatric disorders. The authors conducted a scoping review to examine the evidence and discern gaps in the literature concerning the effects of RCL on mental health and to assess the factors responsible for an observed heterogeneity in research results., Methods: This scoping literature review followed PRISMA guidelines. Five databases-MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, APA PsycInfo, and Web of Science-were searched for English- or French-language reports published between January 1, 2012, and April 30, 2023., Results: Twenty-eight studies from the United States and Canada were found. The studies were classified by category of the study's data (patients receiving psychiatric care [k=1], death records [k=4], emergency department or hospital records [k=10], and the general population [k=13]) and by the diagnosis (schizophrenia or psychoses, mood disorders, anxiety disorders and symptoms, suicide or suicidal ideation, or other mental health issues) examined. The review findings revealed a paucity of research and indicated mixed and largely inconclusive results of the studies examined. Research gaps were found in the examination of potential changes in cannabis use patterns among people receiving psychiatric care and in the availability of longitudinal studies., Conclusions: Clinicians, researchers, and policy makers need to collaborate to address the research gaps and to develop evidence-based policies that reflect a thorough understanding of the effects associated with RCL., Competing Interests: The authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.

Canada legalized nonmedical cannabis in October 2018, but significant variations in municipal regulations exist. This study explored the variations that exist and pondered their potential public health consequences. A comparative analysis was completed on the regulations and guidelines that addressed retailers' location and public consumption in the municipalities of Alberta, Ontario, and Québec. Municipal regulations that addressed the location of retailers were more numerous and extensive in Alberta and Ontario (in the context of provincial private retail models) than in Québec (government‐based model). Municipalities in Alberta added more restrictions to public consumption laws as compared to municipalities in Ontario and in Québec. These additions were made to Alberta's and Ontario's provincial‐level smoking and vaping bans which used tobacco‐inspired frameworks, and to Québec's ban on smoking and vaping in all public spaces. The comparative analysis showed the importance of considering municipal cannabis regulations when studying the impact of legalization, given the significant variations that exist. Policy makers should be made aware of these variations in the regulation of cannabis in order to limit health harms and further social inequalities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cannabis was legalized in Canada for non-medical use in 2018. The goal of legalization was to improve health and safety by creating access to regulated products, with accurate product labels and warnings and no risk of contamination. However, more than 2 years post-legalization, a large proportion of purchases are still suspected to be through unlicensed retailers. This study sought to identify the factors that influenced the purchase decisions of cannabis consumers in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL).Methods: Semi-structured focus groups and interviews were conducted in NL with individuals who were > 19 and had purchased cannabis within the last 12 months. All sessions were conducted virtually, audio-recorded, and transcribed. A thematic analysis was conducted, and two members of the research team coded the data using NVivo. A combination of deductive and inductive coding was carried out, themes from the literature were identified, and new themes from the transcripts were discovered. A final coding template of the data was agreed upon by the team through discussion and consensus.Results: A total of 23 individuals (30% women) participated, with 83% coming from urban areas. While all cannabis product types were discussed, the conversation naturally focused on dried flower products. Participants discussed a variety of considerations when making purchase decisions categorized around five broad themes: 1) price, 2) quality, 3) packaging and warnings, 4) the source of the cannabis, and 5) social influences. The price difference between licensed and un-licensed sources was commonly discussed as a factor that influenced purchase decisions. Product quality characteristics (e.g. size, color, moisture content) and social influences were also considered in purchase decisions. Participants were generally indifferent to packaging and warning labels but expressed concern about the excessive packaging required for regulated products.Conclusion: This study explores the many attributes that influence purchase decisions for dried leaf cannabis. Understanding the drivers of purchase decisions can help inform policy reforms to make regulated cannabis products more appealing to consumers. Further research is needed to measure the effect of each attribute on cannabis purchase decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyzes the historical stock returns of 10 medicinal cannabis companies for the period between 2015 and 2020, when the legalization of recreational cannabis was debated in Canada. The results of our analysis indicate that the industry was responsive to the announcements of regulatory change that led towards legalization. Furthermore, we compare the performance of cannabis companies to that of similar businesses. The results of the comparative analysis indicate that the performance of the matched pairs is largely correlated over time. Additionally, the pre-legalization performance of cannabis companies was better than their post-legalization performance. Given that cannabis companies did not outperform their matched pair, we can confirm that legalization did not have a significantly positive effect on the industry. We can also infer that, from a stock market perspective, the legalization of recreational cannabis has been unsuccessful thus far. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Changing public attitudes about cannabis consumption have currently led 36 U.S. states and the District of Columbia to approve laws that make cannabis available to consumers with qualifying medical conditions. This article reviews the 36 states and the District of Columbia with medical cannabis access laws to determine if the state or the District also allows reimbursement of the costs of cannabis for a work-related health condition under that state's or District's workers' compensation insurance (WCI) laws and administrative regulations. The legal basis for a state allowing or not allowing WCI reimbursement is described. The review found that only six of the 36 states expressly allow cannabisWCI reimbursement, six expressly prohibit it, 14 states do not require reimbursement, and 10 states, and the District of Columbia, are silent on the issue. The article describes the role of the insurer, treating physician, and worker in obtaining WCI reimbursement in the six states that expressly allow cannabis WCI reimbursement. Comparisons are made to how selected Canadian provinces and territories administer cannabis reimbursement under Canada's new national cannabis legalization law. The article discusses the future role of cannabis legalization in the United States and the evolving role of cannabis from an international perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The federal Cannabis Act came into force on Oct. 17, 2018, in Canada, making Canada only the second country in the world to legalize the cultivation, acquisition, possession and consumption of cannabis and its by-products. This provided a unique opportunity to evaluate the impact of this legislation on drug-related trauma.Methods: We performed a prospective observational study on the use of cannabis and other illicit drugs in the trauma population at a lead Canadian trauma centre in London, Ontario, in the 3 months before (July 1 to Sept. 30, 2018) and 3 months after (Nov. 1, 2018, to Jan. 31, 2019) the legalization of cannabis in Canada. We defined cannabis use as a positive cannabinoid screen result at the time of assessment by the trauma team. We also screened for opioids, amphetamines and cocaine.Results: A total of 210 patients were assessed by our trauma service between July 1 and Sept. 30, 2018, and 141 patients were assessed between Nov. 1, 2018, and Jan. 31, 2019. Motor vehicle collisions were the most common cause of trauma both before (101 [48.1%]) and after (67 [47.5%]) legalization. The mean Injury Severity Score was 17.6 (standard deviation [SD] 13.0) and 19.7 (SD 14.8), respectively. Drug screens were done in 88 patients (41.9%) assessed before legalization and 99 patients (70.2%) assessed after legalization. There was no difference in the rate of positive cannabinoid screen results before and after legalization (22 [25%] v. 22 [22%]). There was a trend toward higher rates of positive cannabinoid screen results (2/10 [20%] v. 5/8 [62%]) and positive toxicology screen results (5/10 [50%] v. 6/8 [75%]) after legalization among patients with penetrating trauma, but our sample was too small to achieve statistical significance.Conclusion: We found no difference in the rates of positive cannabinoid screen results among patients assessed at our trauma centre in the 3 months before and the 3 months after legalization of cannabis; however, there was a trend toward an increase in the rates of positive results of toxicology screens and cannabinoid screens among those with penetrating trauma. These preliminary single-centre data showing no increased rates of cannabis use in patients with trauma after legalization are reassuring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2018, the government of Canada legalized cannabis for non-medical use. In addition to safeguarding public health, the main objective was to divert profits from the illicit market and restricting its availability to youth. This dramatic shift in policy direction introduces new challenges for the criminal justice system due to the persistence of unlawful distribution among persons who refuse to abide by the new law. Continuing unlawful distribution is foreseeable, in part, because of stringent measures to reduce availability by targeting participants in the illegal market. Recognizing that the most heavy, frequent, users account for the majority of cannabis consumed—and are the group most likely to keep purchasing from dealers because of lower costs and easy access—the illegal market will continue to provide a substantial (albeit unknown) proportion of the total volume. The recent change in policy in Canada provides new opportunities for research to assess how legalization of cannabis affects its use and distribution patterns. The National Cannabis Survey (NCS), administered at three-month intervals, allows for multi-wave comparison of prevalence statistics and point of purchase information before and after legalization. Drawing on the NCS, this article examines the extent to which the primary supply source has changed across the provinces, controlling for other factors and consumer characteristics. Findings are interpreted with reference to studies of cannabis law reform in North America informing research and policy observers in these and other jurisdictions, undergoing or considering, similar reforms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Canada has recently concluded its prohibition on the recreational use of cannabis, which lasted for nearly a century. However, when cannabis was first criminalized in 1923, there was effectively no use of it in Canada at that time, and scholars have struggled to identify the specific reasons for which cannabis was added to the schedule of prohibited drugs. When situated within the drug discourse of the time, the lack of an explanation for criminalization becomes less surprising; the contemporary links between addiction, drug use, and racism likely transformed any prohibitive drug control measures into the kind of policy that did not require debate or analysis on the part of Parliament. Drugs and racial minorities were presented as connected threats to the integrity of the white Canadian population and to moral order, and moral reformers capitalized on this connection to support the criminalization of drugs. While the documentary source of the criminalization of cannabis remains unknown, these discursive conditions are of far greater import in understanding why cannabis was criminalized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Medical marijuana users represent many people with disabilities in Canada. Recent legislative attempts have allowed people with disabilities to access cannabis as medicine, however the landscape is ever changing. The Cannabis Act was recently introduced, legalizing marijuana for all; however, people with disabilities have not been accounted for when it comes to the issue of access to medicine. Those who rely on cannabis as medicine and those who enjoy it recreationally are now part of the same system, for better or worse. The new medical marijuana regime, under the new Cannabis Act, boasts a "two-stream" process, and it claims that it will be maintaining and improving the old medical regime alongside the new recreational regime. The applicable taxes tell a different story. Medical marijuana has always been subject to sales tax despite being effectively prescribed by doctors to manage and treat many disabilities and illnesses. Now, with the enactment of the Cannabis Act, medical marijuana is subject to an excise tax too—colloquially known as the "sin tax." Recreational and medical marijuana are subject to the same taxation scheme, making any notion of a "two-stream" process nonsensical and blatantly unfair. The purpose of this article is to provide insight into the varying faults concerning the medical marijuana regime in Canada, with specific emphasis on the issue of taxation. In the simplest terms, taxing medical marijuana is taxing medicine and effectively taxing people with disabilities. Broken down into five parts, this article discusses the underlying reasons for the taxes surrounding medical marijuana, provides a case study of the most important tax case for medical marijuana users, scrutinizes the lack of recognition of medical marijuana as a proper prescription, outlines the ways to improve legislation, and, finally, explores a potential Charter challenge that can be effectively brought against this taxation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The decriminalization of cannabis in Canada has required a host of regulatory changes at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels. Provinces have operationalized the development of legal markets in very different ways, offering an opportunity to perform comparative analysis of business responses. This article outlines and delineates the various regulatory frameworks that have been employed at the provincial level, discusses how they have impacted the development of the legal cannabis market, and considers how they have resulted in some further regulatory changes. After reviewing coevolution as a conceptual framework, the implementation of legalization of recreational cannabis is discussed, followed by an exploration of different provincial approaches at a general level. The effects of that framework on the first phase of legal market operations are explored, with a focus on issues emanating from regulatory choices through discussions of five regions: British Columbia, the Prairies, Ontario, Quebec, and New Brunswick; each section exemplifying different priorities in the regulatory choices. Several themes emerge in the discussion. First, provincial approaches to retail licence approval have created severe bottlenecks, affecting consumer access to legal recreational cannabis. Additionally, the regulatory framework for those licences has resulted in a chilling effect on many potential entrepreneurs. Second, a reduction in black market sales has not yet occurred, largely due to the failure of some provinces to adequately provide retail licences and support legal distribution channels, or to operationalize the retail sales network. Third, many provinces struggled with operationalizing wholesale distribution to the retail stores, initially leading to administrative restrictions on store licences. Finally, issues of fairness and equity, effective displacement of the illegal market, government's role as a market regulator and participant, and other issues that emerge from the critical comparison of the provincial markets are addressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores cannabis regulation in Canada and the United States and examines how recent legalization efforts have manifested differently in each country. Although some of these differences are explained by uncompromising constitutional structures, this comparative exercise examines each system's political choices. While emphasis is placed on the Canadian experience, this article seeks to inform and enhance policy and regulation in both countries in addition to highlighting inherent ethical issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the legalization of cannabis in Canada in October 2018, research has not reached a clear conclusion on how legalization impacts adolescents' perceptions of the substance. This study sought to examine how the nationwide legalization of recreational cannabis in Canada impacted youth opinions of legalization. Surveys were administered to 398 Grade 8 students in May 2017 (pre-legalization) and 377 Grade 8 students in December 2018 (post-legalization). Participants completed an open-ended question regarding their opinion on cannabis legalization and a ranking of whether legalization of cannabis was very good (1), good (2), bad (3), or very bad (4). Analyses revealed that young adolescents primarily hold negative views toward cannabis legalization. No significant difference existed between theme frequencies or ratings when comparing responses prior to and following legalization. These results suggest that legalization of recreational cannabis use in Canada had little effect on youth perceptions of cannabis legalization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Considering its recent legalization in Canada, the health implications of Cannabis sativa exposure, including allergy, are coming to the forefront of medical study and interest. C. sativa allergy is an issue that affects recreational users of the substance, processors, agricultural workers, and contacts of Cannabis aeroallergens and secondhand product. Allergies to C. sativa are heterogenous and span the spectrum of hypersensitivity, from dermatitis to rhinoconjunctivitis to life-threatening anaphylaxis. Due to its recent legalization, sensitized individuals will have increasing exposure from direct contact to agricultural pollens. Diagnosis and treatment of Cannabis allergy are developing fields that are already showing promise in the identification of culprit antigens and the potential for immunotherapy; however, much responsibility still falls on clinical diagnosis and symptom management. Hopefully, given the current explosion of interest in and use of Cannabis, C. sativa allergy will continue to garner awareness and therapeutic strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Recreational legalization of cannabis may influence the medical use by patients. When only medical access was legally available in Canada, 4.3% of rheumatology patients reported use. With the current recreational legalization, we have reexamined the prevalence and characteristics of medical cannabis use in this same rheumatology setting. Methods: Consecutively attending rheumatology patients participated in an onsite survey comprising the following two questionnaires: 1) demographic and disease information completed by the rheumatologist and 2) patient anonymous questionnaire of health status, cannabis use (recreational and/or medicinal), and characteristics of cannabis use. Results: Of 1047 attendees from June to August 2019, with 1000 participating, medical cannabis had been used by 12.6% of patients (95% confidence interval 10.7%‐14.8%), with half continuing use for mostly pain relief. Discontinuation was due to lack of effect in 57% of patients and side effects in 28% of patients. Ever medical users were younger (61.2 vs. 64.9 years; P = 0.006), more likely unemployed/disabled (16.7% vs. 5.9%; P < 0.001), and had more previous (47.6% vs. 25.5%; P < 0.001) and current recreational cannabis use (17.5% vs. 3.1%; P < 0.001) than nonusers. Most patients used multiple methods of administration, including smoking, vaporizing, and using oral oil preparations, but were poorly knowledgeable of product content, which was bought solely via the legal medical route by only 20%, and only one‐third disclosed their use to the rheumatologist. Conclusion: Medical cannabis use has tripled for rheumatology patients since recreational legalization, with users being younger, not working, and having recreational cannabis experience. Concerning issues are the poor knowledge of the product being used, access via the nonmedical route, and nondisclosure to the physician. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recent announcement of marijuana legalization in Canada spiked many discussions about potential health benefits of Cannabis sativa. Cannabinoids are active chemical compounds produced by cannabis, and their numerous effects on the human body are primarily exerted through interactions with cannabinoid receptor types 1 (CB1) and 2 (CB2). Cannabinoids are broadly classified as endo-, phyto-, and synthetic cannabinoids. In this review, we will describe the activity of cannabinoids on the cellular level, comprehensively summarize the activity of all groups of cannabinoids on various cancers and propose several potential mechanisms of action of cannabinoids on cancer cells. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite increasing legalization and use of marijuana, there is no consensus among pediatric heart transplant institutions or providers regarding users' eligibility for cardiac transplant. We sent a survey to pediatric and ACHD transplant providers (physicians, surgeons, transplant coordinators, and pharmacists) assessing their current institution's policies and their personal opinions about marijuana use in patients being considered for heart transplantation. Of the respondents, 84% practice in the United States and Canada. Most providers (80%) care for both pediatric and ACHD patients. Respondents included cardiologists (77%) and surgeons (11%), with the remaining being coordinators and pharmacists. Most providers (73%) reported their institution had no policy regarding marijuana use in heart transplant candidates. Only 20% of respondents' institutions consider mode of consumption, with 87% and 53% approving of oral and transdermal routes, respectively, and only 7% approving of vaporized or smoked routes. While 73% of providers would consider illegal marijuana use an absolute/relative contraindication to heart transplant listing, the number decreases to 57% for legal recreational users and 21% for legal medical users. Most providers personally believe marijuana to be physically and mentally/emotionally harmful to pediatric patients (67% and 72%, respectively). Many institutions lack a policy regarding marijuana use in pediatric and ACHD heart transplant candidates, and there is considerable disagreement among providers on the best practice. With increasing legalization and use of marijuana, each institution will have to address this issue thoughtfully to continue to provide high‐quality, consistent, and equitable care for pediatric and ACHD heart transplant candidates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: With the recent legalization of nonmedical cannabis in Canada, it is important to document previous associations between cannabis use and major depressive episode and suicidal ideation, as well as the extent to which these associations have changed over time.Methods: This study uses pooled data from the 2002 and 2012 Canadian Community Health Survey's Mental Health Component, which are repeated cross-sectional surveys of nationally representative samples of Canadians 15 to 60 years of age (n = 43,466). Binary logistic regression was performed, applying weighting and bootstrapping, to examine the association between at least monthly use of cannabis and past 12-month suicidal ideation and major depressive episode (MDE).Results: At least monthly nonmedical cannabis use was associated with an increased odds of MDE and suicidal ideation, and both associations strengthened in 2012 compared to 2002. Canadians using cannabis at least once a month in 2012 had 1.59 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11 to 2.27) times the odds of experiencing suicidal ideation and 1.55 (95% CI, 1.12 to 2.13) times the odds of experiencing MDE compared to those who used cannabis at least once a month in 2002. This temporal change remained after controlling for other substance use.Conclusions: Monthly cannabis use was consistently related to both suicidal ideation and MDE, and these associations were stronger in 2012 compared to 2002. The findings of this study provide a baseline for the association between cannabis use and suicide and depression in the Canadian population that should be reevaluated now that nonmedical cannabis has been legalized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Crimen: Journal for Criminal Justice is the property of University of Belgrade, Faculty of Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This research attempts to explore the implications of Bill C-45: The Cannabis Act and how this could influence educational policy in schools. The researchers sought the perspectives of multiple stakeholders involved in education, specifically their views on mitigating the transition, and other topics such as attitudes towards policy change, drug testing, and the impacts on students and teachers. This research includes components of qualitative research, statistical analysis, and review of academic literature and policy. The qualitative research portion was undertaken through in-person interviews with three teachers, four principals, and a board of education trustee in a large city in Western Canada. The statistical analysis portion of the investigation was conducted through a survey distributed to a sample of 384 people of the general public over the age of 18. This article focuses on three of the five predominate themes found in the research: (i) sustainable approaches to educating stakeholders about cannabis following legalization, (ii) comparison of views for and against drug testing between educators and the general public, and (iii) the nature of consumption does matter. There will inevitably be countless implications to follow based upon this political shift in Canada that will directly and indirectly affect stakeholders in education. Findings addressing these perceived impacts and considerations can help educational professionals mitigate the possible negative consequences of Bill C-45. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Marijuana is increasingly recognized for its therapeutic value in human medicine. Although most veterinary research to date has been concerned with marijuana toxicity, there is some interest in the potential therapeutic value of marijuana in veterinary medicine. With the recent legalization of marijuana for recreational use in Canada in October 2018, there is a need for veterinarians and veterinary students to be in a position to address client questions and concerns on this topic. We distributed a questionnaire to current veterinary students at the Ontario Veterinary College in Guelph, Ontario, to determine their attitude(s) towards marijuana as a potential therapeutic agent in animals. The overall response rate for the questionnaire was 43.5% (207/476). Most students felt that marijuana has potential therapeutic value in animals (53.6%; 111/207), fewer were unsure (38.6%; 80/207), and a small number of students felt that marijuana does not have potential therapeutic value in animals (7.7%; 16/207). Data generated by this questionnaire identified an important distinction between two major active compounds found in marijuana: cannabidiol (CBD) and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Potential barriers to use in veterinary practice were also identified, including stigma and toxicity. Finally, many respondents showed an awareness of the limited scientific research regarding the safety and efficacy of marijuana in animals. Until a body of scientific literature on marijuana in animals becomes available, veterinarians may benefit from having an awareness of the different physiological and pharmacokinetic effects produced by different strains (including any adverse effects, and half-life), and a general understanding of current therapeutic applications of marijuana in humans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since Canada's legalization of recreational marijuana in 2018, the cannabis[1] industry has witnessed a significant number of U.S. cannabis brands moving north to Canada to capitalize on the freedom and growth potential afforded in a legalized marijuana market. The cannabis industry nevertheless appears ripe for the utilization of franchising as an expansion model, and at least one U.S. cannabis company has deployed a limited cannabis brand franchise, seemingly successfully.[2] But without a doubt, the federally illegal nature of marijuana in the United States has created significant barriers and risks to those wishing to franchise their cannabis brands. Federal prohibition of marijuana has led to a patchwork of inconsistent state laws and regulations in states that have legalized recreational marijuana. Under the CSA, transporting a Schedule I drug via interstate commerce is prohibited, meaning marijuana plants, oils, extracts, and more grown or produced in one state cannot legally be transported across state lines to another state.[118] This presents problems to those wishing to establish marijuana franchises because they are prohibited from moving the core product of their business-marijuana-across state lines when establishing new franchised units. [Extracted from the article]

The article presents addiction-related news briefs on topics such as the French government's plan to decriminalize cannabis. According to the article, the Canadian Parliament passed a federal budget bill which includes a measure to raise alcohol excise tax rates by two percent. It states that the Mexican government has legalized the medicinal use of the pharmacological derivatives of Cannabis sativa, indica, and marijuana.

Background: In 2015, a new Liberal Government came to power in Canada, elected on a platform that included legalization and regulation of cannabis for recreational purposes. Their legislation, based on recommendations from a Federal Task Force on Marijuana Legalization and Regulation, is due in early April 2017.Methods: This commentary utilizes Canadian Federal policy papers, previous literature, and internal and international agreements to examine two key areas critical to the development of a nationwide regulated market for cannabis in Canada; the need to overcome restrictions to legalizing cannabis in United Nations' drug control treaties, and the unique challenges that non-medical cannabis creates for navigating interprovincial trade policies in Canada.Results: Irrespective of UN conventions that appear to prohibit legalization of cannabis the Government is preparing to bring forward legislation as this article goes to print. At the same time significant squabbles impede the selling of even beer and wine inter-provincially in Canada. This paper identifies the challenges facing Canadian legalization efforts, but also shows how the legalization legislation may provide opportunities to engender significant change beyond the simple legalization of a specific drug.Conclusion: This commentary does not argue for any specific course of action for Canada, but rather explores the nuance of legalization absent from the declaration in the Liberal party platform. The paper argues that Canada's efforts may hasten the dismantling of the UN drug control structure, and provide renewed opportunities for intern-provincial trade in Canada. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Notwithstanding a century of prohibition, marijuana is the most widely used illicit substance in Canada. Due to the growing public acceptance of recreational marijuana use and ineffectiveness of the existing control system in Canada, the issue surrounding legalizing this illicit drug has received considerable public and political attentions in recent years. Consequently, the newly elected Liberal Government has formally announced that Canada will introduce legislation in the spring of 2017 to start legalizing and regulating marijuana. This editorial aims to provide a brief overview on potential economic, social, and public health impacts of legal marijuana in Canada. The legalization could increase tax revenue through the taxation levied on marijuana products and could also allow the Government to save citizens' tax dollars currently being spent on prohibition enforcement. Moreover, legalization could also remove the criminal element from marijuana market and reduce the size of Canada's black market and its consequences for the society. Nevertheless, it may also lead to some public health problems, including increasing in the uptake of the drug, accidents and injuries. The legalization should be accompanied with comprehensive strategies to keep the drug out of the hands of minors while increasing awareness and knowledge on harmful effects of the drug. In order to get better insights on how to develop an appropriate framework to legalize marijuana, Canada should closely watch the development in the neighboring country, the United States, where some of its states viz, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska have already legalized recreational use of marijuana. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Canada, cannabis control has long been controversially debated, yet recreational cannabis use and supply remain criminally prohibited. Recently, there has been an increased "normalization" of cannabis use as well as debates about how cannabis should best be controlled under public health approaches; increasing proportions of Canadians have indicated support for liberalizing cannabis control. The present study is based on the 2014 CAMH Monitor, an annual representative, cross-sectional, telephone interview-based survey of Ontario adults aged 18 years and over. In 2014, the CAMH Monitor assessed public opinion on several items related to the control of recreational cannabis use, production, and distribution among a sample of 2,004 respondents. Results indicate that the majority of Ontario adults support reforming the - currently criminal - control of recreational cannabis use. However, preferences for how this control should be reformed are split between decriminalization with a fine, legalization with mandatory education and/or treatment, and categorical legalization. Further, the strongest support was expressed for production and distribution regimes that are tightly regulated by the state. More liberal preferences regarding control were observed, in some instances, among male and younger respondents. Current public opinion among Ontario adults overall supports liberalizing cannabis control, yet concrete reforms would require choosing among options that are not universally supported by the population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A recent editorial in this journal provides a summary of key economic, social, and public health considerations of the forthcoming legislation to legalize, regulate, and restrict access to marijuana in Canada. As our government plans to implement an evidence-based public health framework for marijuana legalization, we reflect and expand on recent discussions of the public health implications of marijuana legalization, and offer additional points of consideration. We select two commonly cited public concerns of marijuana legalization - adolescent usage and impaired driving - and discuss how the underdeveloped and equivocal body of scientific literature surrounding these issues limits the ability to predict the effects of legalization. Finally, we discuss the potential for some potential public health benefits of marijuana legalization - specifically the potential for marijuana to be used as a substitute to opioids and other risky substance use - that have to date not received adequate attention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]