219-2211 West 4th Avenue

Vancouver BC

V6K 4S2

Dear Dr. David Suzuki:

I watched your show, The Nature of Things, on Thursday, January 28, 2010, concerning the relationship between marijuana consumption and schizophrenia. I know you were not the writer/director (Bruce Mohun was), but you are responsible for evaluating the science of documentaries you present on your show. I was shocked by the weakness of the studies in the program, the wild misinterpretation of data, and the almost nonsensical conclusion generated.

I have been monitoring marijuana research for 40 years, and I have been watching the pot-schizophrenia research closely for about 10. The conclusion I have reached is the opposite of that reached by The Downside of High: Marijuana does not increase the risk of schizophrenia. It does relieve the symptoms of schizophrenia, however, making it an attractive drug for those who suffer from this disease.

Whether you agree with my conclusion is not the point. The point is, rather, that The Downside of High is a scientific mess, its most significant fault being that it did not examine alternative hypotheses. When you’re examining a disorder with an onset between the ages of 15 and 25 and linking it with behaviours (smoking pot) that begin about the same time, behaviours that without question relieve symptoms of the disorder, you are bound to find high correlations between the behaviours and the disorder. As a scientist, you know that this is dangerous territory and that any interpretations of the correlations must made with great caution. Alternative explanations MUST be examined as well.

In my opinion, the research in The Downside of High is essentially worthless. Without exception, the data were generated by what philosophers of science call “quasi-experimental designs.” They are not true experiments, which require randomization of subjects into groups: the groups are then treated differently and outcomes assessed. A true experiment, in this case, would require a large sample of several thousand teenagers, split by randomization into two groups, one of which would smoke five joints a day for ten years, the other refraining from cannabis for the same time. This kind of study, of course, is unethical, which is why medical research, especially epidemiology, is fraught with interpretative perils.

The groups to be compared in The Downside of High are not formed randomly. They are defined by pre-experimental differences, in most cases as “schizophrenic” or “not schizophrenic.” These groups differ, in addition to mental disorder, in an almost infinite number of ways. Any difference in a dependent variable could be attributed to any one of these millions of variables — to a single one only with great risk of invalidity. I’m sure I needn’t explain quasi-experimental designs, and their perils, to you, one of the premier scientists of our generation.

The alternative hypothesis, that marijuana use does not increase the risk of schizophrenia, was not mentioned in The Downside of High, although it was refuted, poorly. Especially troubling to the pot-schizophrenia hypothesis are data showing absolutely no relationship between increases in marijuana use among teenagers between 1970 and the present and increases in diagnosed schizophrenia. Two such studies are attached at the bottom of this letter. In The Downside of High , the scientists tried to explain such results by claiming “reporting variations,” an explanation totally without empirical support.

All in all, the science in The Downside of High is shabby indeed, the more probable alternative hypothesis is not discussed at all, and the conclusions, in my opinion, are incorrect. It is not a significant contribution to the debate of a serious issue. I am surprised, therefore, that such a knowledgeable scientist as yourself would let this program slip through your scientific filters.

Sincerely,

James Geiwitz, Ph.D.

Attachment:

Science: The development of the number of new schizophrenia

cases in the UK does not support the hypothesis that cannabis use

increases schizophrenia risk

According to research of scientists at Keele University in

Staffordshire, UK, the incidence (the number of new diagnosed

cases) of schizophrenia in the years 1996 to 2005 does not support

the hypothesis that cannabis use increases the risk for the

development of schizophrenia or psychosis. For this study an

analysis of data from 183 practices in England, Wales, Scotland

and Northern Ireland was conducted. The study cohort comprised

almost 600,000 patients each year, representing approximately 2.3

per cent of the UK population aged 16 to 44. Between 1996 and

2005 the incidence of schizophrenia and psychoses were either

stable or declining.

A recently published study found that cannabis use increased

fourfold between 1972 and 2002 and 18-fold among people under

18 years of age. If the risk of schizophrenia is elevated 1.8-fold

among light users and 3.1-fold among heavy users as suggested

by another study, and assuming an elevated risk for 20 years, an

increase in schizophrenia incidence of 29 per cent would have

been expected between 1996 and 2005. Researches concluded

that “the causal models linking cannabis with

schizophrenia/psychoses are not supported by this study” and that

“the underlying causes of schizophrenia/psychoses remained

stable/declined over the study period.”

(Source: Frisher M, Crome I, Martino O, Croft P. Assessing the

impact of cannabis use on trends in diagnosed schizophrenia in the

United Kingdom from 1996 to 2005. Schizophr Res. 2009 Jun 26.)

CANNABIS BAKER’S CHARGES DISAPPEARING

Jan 15, 2010

Victoria, B.C.: The Cannabis Buyers’ Club of Canada had its baking location raided Dec 3, 2009 after complaints from neighbours brought police to the apartment.

One person, Owen Smith, was arrested, though now it seems there will never be a trial. While the crown could still decide to proceed with charges, nothing was filed in court yesterday when Owen was required to report.

The Cannabis Buyers’ Clubs of Canada has been supplying medical cannabis to people with permanent physical disabilities or diseases for 14 years.

The club offers 29 different edible and topical preparations to about 3,000 sick people.

Today we are teaching people how to make these medicines by our new online cookbook. We are also releasing a new version of our research survey comparing cannabis products to prescription drugs.

Contact Person:
Ted Smith
(250) 381-4220

hempo101@gmail.com
www.hempology.ca

 NOTE FROM THE EDITOR  by Ted Smith
These are exciting times for us.  The gradual expansion of Cannabis Digest will help the International Hempology 101 Society inform the public, build connections and nurture the cannabis culture.  With our debt disappearing and the group growing a number of possibilities are presenting themselves that have seemed far off dreams.  As it stands, we are already one of the most active groups fighting for the legalization of cannabis in Canada.  If the research foundation and drug company are successful, then we will become world leaders in the struggle to revive this plant.  Of course, if I ever finish my textbook for Hempology 101, then a number of other opportunities will be quickly presenting themselves.  With each year that passes Hempology 101 has become entrenched in the University of Victoria, spreading seeds for future developments as well.  As for the Cannabis Digest, we hope to attract more advertisers so we can expand to 16 pages within the year.  If you see me staring lost  into space , I am stunned at my success.

Donations Gratefully Accepted
Annual Subscription to printed version $10

Contact CANNABIS DIGEST at: (250) 381-4220 or hemp101@shaw.ca

Cannabis Digest is a quarterly publication of the International Hempology 101 Society, which provides current legal, medical, and political updates concerning the medicinal use, growth and supply of cannabis. The Cannabis Buyers’ Clubs of Canada helps people with permanent physical disabilities and diseases. The Cannabis Digest is available online and in newsprint.

Thanks to all our contributors: Ted Smith, Gayle Quin Gordon Campsall, John Christianson

On the other hand, the new candidate for the federal Liberal party in the Victoria riding is David Mulroney. the owner of Mulroney and Co., the law firm which represented the crown in die court case against the club. He ran for the Liberals in the last election in the Saanich-Gulf Islands riding and lost to Gary Lumi of the Conservatives. He was one of the few politicians who wrote back to us after we sent out letters to politicians all across the country (see digest #5 and #6). In his letter he seems to suggest that because he is making money upholding the laws it would be inappropriate to question the law at the same time.

John Thomas Cook. 40. of 750 Old Sambro Rd., came to Truro prepared to argue that charges of possession of marijuana and possession for the purposes of trafficking would not hold up in court because of legal precedents in other provinces. Cook has the Halifax chapter of the Cannabis Buyers Clubs of Canada and supplies medicinal marijuana to about 50 clients. After several months of researching court cases to defend himself under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, he found out last Friday that the Crown was not proceeding.

“I was ripping for about two hours,” he said. “I was quite upset because we were working on this for two months.”

Cook, and Stephen Edward Chute, 40, of Springfield. don’t contest they shipped the drugs from Springfield to Halifax County. The were
arrested after a package was seized at an Acadian Lines bus terminal on Jan. 27.

The marijuana is still being held by the Colchester RCMP but Cook plans to apply to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia to get it back. Federal Crown attorney Cameron MacKimion would not comment why the charges were stayed. But Cook thinks that putting the charges on ice is the best option for the Crown in a case they
couldn’t win.

“My speculation is it would be too messy…a hornet’s nest.” he said.

Legal precedents in other provinces have knocked down marijuana possession and cultivation charges in cases of medicinal use. he said, and the laws no longer apply elsewhere in Canada because the Charter guarantees equal rights across the country.
Cook has been smoking marijuana for 20 years following a couple of workplace injuries. Chute, who did not appear in court yesterday was also injured in the workplace and suffers from environmental illness. He has used marijuana to relieve his symptoms for more than 12 years.

Charges against Cook for failing to appear for fingerprinting were also stayed.

In Canada, marihuana under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA). This legislation allows Canada to fulfill its international commitments under three Conventions of the United Nations: the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs: the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances: and the 1988 Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. Under these conventions Canada is required to criminalize certain activities with respect to particular drugs, including marihuana. Marihuana is not approved as a therapeutic drug in any country in the world. It cannot be approved in Canada without adequate scientific evidence of benefits mid a favourable risk/benefit profile for the therapeutic indication(s) for which it is proposed. At present, while pointing to some potential benefits, current scientific evidence does not establish the safety mid efficacy of cannabis to the extent required by the Food and Drug Regulations for marketed drugs in Canada. Thai is why our policy on medical marihuana has two components. The first component in the MMAR. which allow people with authorizations to possess and cultivate marihuana for medical purposes, and the second component is research. Conducting research will allow us to better understand whether, and for which medical conditions, marihuana may be effective medicine, and the risks associated with its use in such conditions. The MMAR were developed following the Canadian regulator, process which affords an opportunity for the public to provide comments regarding the regulations mid any proposed changes. The most recent amendments to the MMAR came into force on June 7. 2005 and were published in the Canada Gazette. Part 11 on June 29. 2005. These amendments to the MMAR mid the Regulator)’ Impact – Analysis Statement are available on the Canada Gazette Web site at:

The MMAR currently authorize the possession of dried marihuana only, as the evidence in support of its use for medical purposes only comes from the use of the dried plant material. There is very little, if any, anecdotal evidence regarding the use of cannabis resin for medical purposes. Compared to dried marihuana, cannabis resin may also pose greater risks to the patient due to the difficulty in dosing resulting from the increased concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and greater variability in the THC content.

In closing. / understand that these may not be the answers you are looking for. However, the MMAR were designed to regulate the use of marihuana for medical purposes, mid we will continue to follow these guidelines, as well as continue our research efforts. Again, thank you for writing. Yours truly, Susan Fletcher, Assistant Deputy Minister Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch.

Anyone interested in writing a response to this letter, especially since the charges have now been dropped, should let us know. We would appreciate copies of any letters sent to Health, Canada in regards to this issue or any other regarding medical use of cannabis.-editor

However, Marc has not done himself any good by stating in the past that police officers and the Minister of Justice himself are Nazis or no better than Nazi collaborators. Though Emery has somewhat retracted these statements, the damage has been done, and because he and liis group have a habit of name calling and insults, many bridges are burned. In the past Marc gave the club $2,000 when the police raids were occurring, though we always considered it a loan and even repaid $100 at a Cannabis Convention he came to in 2002. So when he was trying to bail himself out we decided to repay another $1,000, though when I got there he had just been set free on bail so 1 was able to give the check to him personally. Upon their request we wrote the check directly to his lawyer, John Conroy. Legal bills for Marc and company could easily be over $100,000 depending upon how long the process takes.

We need artists to donate art for the auction, please. Due to a lack of space mid rich people, we will only take 2 pieces of work from any one person. Anyone willing to help should please contact me at the club. The last two years we have raised over $1,000 mid hope for about die same again this time. This year the money will be used to cover expenses from die club’s trial of last January when 1 was convicted of selling cannabis resin at the club mid the approximately $1,000 it cost for the transcripts from that trial, which we needed for the appeal. In the future, if we have no other trial to deal with, we plan upon using money from the art auction for helping to defend various growers caught supplying clubs or any other appropriate medical cases that we choose. We hope other clubs start annual art auctions to raise money so we can fight the government in court as much as possible. The City of Victoria will be asked to officially proclaim Nov 15 as International Medical Marijuana Day for the 4th year in a row. While only symbolic in nature, this declaration does prove that the general population is very supportive of the medical need of cannabis. We hope that our friends with the Seattle Green Cross will convince their city council to pass a similar resolution which will make the event truly international in scope, as it was 10 years ago when we started.

The decision was a major victory for the White House and a setback to the legalized marijuana movement in the U.S.,which had succeeded in convincing 10 slates to allow the drug to be used by patients suffering from chronic or severe pain. “Today’s decision marks the end of medical marijuana as a political issue.” said John Wallers, the White House’s director of national drug control policy.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court found federal laws prohibiting any form of marijuana use supercede legislation in states that permit prescription of the drug for ‘”compassionate” purposes. “If there is any conflict between federal and stale law, federal law shall prevail.” Justice Anthony Stevens wrote in the majority opinion. The court’s ruling came after two California women — Diane Monson and Angel Raich — filed a lawsuit after federal agents raided their homes and seized home-grown marijuana they were prescribed to treat a variety of illnesses. 

Raich says she suffers from an inoperable brain tumor, life- threatening wasting syndrome and seizures. Monson suffers severe back pain. “Tin going to have to prepare to be arrested.” Monson said following the decision.

The Supreme Court recognized “strong arguments that [Monson and Raich] will suffer irreparable harm” by the decision, but said it was bound by clarity in the law.

It relied on an obscure 1942 court decision that upheld Congress’s commerce power to ban wheat grown for home consumption. “Production of the commodity meant for consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand for the national market for that commodity.” Stevens wrote. Any failure by the federal government to regulate bans on the possession of marijuana “would leave a gaping hole” in the .Controlled Substance Act he added.

The case underscores the growing gap in marijuana laws between Canada and the United States.

The Bush administration has taken a no-tolerance attitude toward the drug and is pressing U.S. high schools to begin random testing for the drug in students.

The federal government in Canada has allowed the use of marijuana for medical purposes since 200). Canadians suffering from terminal diseases and specific symptoms of illnesses like AIDS, multiple sclerosis, cancer, arthritis and epilepsy are eligible to use the drug. The Liberal government is also moving to decriminalize the possession and use of small amounts of marijuana. The U.S. decision is the second consecutive blow to activists seeking to liberalize American marijuana laws.

The Supreme Court ruled in 200] that federal agents had the right to close California climes that provided marijuana to patients. Pro- medical marijuana groups said the court’s decision could have a chilling effect on stales, like Connecticut, that are considering passing laws permitting marijuana use.

But Dan Abrahamson, director of legal affairs for the New York- based Drug Policy Alliance said states “still have the right to pass legislation that protects the rights of patients to use tins life-saving medicine.”

The federal government can choose not to prosecute cases or “it can waste taxpayer dollars by going after sick and dying patients.” Abrahamson said.

It’s estimated the Supreme Court’s decision could affect as many as 100.000 patients in the 10 slates where marijuana is allowed for medical purposes.

Many of those patients have been issued state documents identifying them as eligible to smoke marijuana. The special IDs were created so the patients wouldn’t be arrested if police discovered marijuana in their possession. The Drug Policy Alliance expressed concern about whether the information might be obtained by federal agents mid used to track down medical marijuana users. But the Supreme Court decision said states mid local police aren’t required to assist federal agents in investigating or prosecuting users.