Cannabis Digest       Eighteenth Edition, Summer 2008 

KILL BILL C-26

By Ted Smith

The federal Conservative government introduced legislation last year with mandatory minimum jail sentences of at least six months for anyone convicted of growing as little as 1 plant for sale.  A study done by the Department of Justice has concluded that mandatory minimums for drug offences are not effective.  MANDATORY MINIMUM PENALTIES: Their Effects on Crime, Sentencing Disparities, and Justice System Expenditures, 2002, says “MMP do not appear to influence drug consumption or drug-related crime in any measurable way.  A variety of research methods conclude that treatment-based approaches are more cost effective than lengthy prison terms. 

MMP are blunt instruments that fail to distinguish between low and high-level, as well as hardcore versus transient drug dealers.”  According to Liberal MP for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca Dr. Keith Martin, “This (Bill C-26) is a very destructive piece of legislation, it’s going to criminalize ordinary folk and ruin lives at the expense of the taxpayer.”  Denise Savoie, NDP MP for Victoria, agrees adding, “Clearly we all want the bad guys- the organized criminals, the violent criminals- put away, so that’s not in question.  What I’m questioning is this American-style war on drugs that has shown itself to be a failure.”  We need to help these politicians stop Bill C-26!  In April, 2008, the House of Commons passed Bill C-26 through second reading. 

Though the NDP did not support the legislation, enough members of the Liberal and Bloc Quebecois voted in favour of Bill C-26 that it was not stopped.  Perhaps most members of parliament are afraid of going to an election over this issue or they support mandatory minimum jail sentences for cannabis growers.  For a list of MPs who voted for of Bill C-26 check out the forums on cannabisculture.com.   Bill C-26 is now before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (JUST) for a final review.  It is at this stage that Bill C-26 can be defeated.  If enough pressure is placed upon JUST to study the impact of mandatory minimum jail sentences upon drug offences, then Bill C-26 could be essentially suspended until that research is completed.  

Please write letters to JUST requesting that all potential impacts of Bill C-26 are studied before it is sent back to the House of Commons.

Miriam Burke   Erica Pereira
Clerk of the Committee:  Committee Clerk:
Room 6-21   Sixth Floor
131 Queen Street   131 Queen Street
House of Commons  House of Commons
Ottawa, ON   Ottawa, ON
K1A 0A6 Canada   K1A 0A6 Canada
Tel: (613) 996-1553   Tel: (613) 943-9981
Fax: (613) 996-1962  Fax: (613) 996-1962
E-mail: JUST@parl.gc.ca           E-mail:JUST@parl.gc.ca

Dear Miriam Burke, Clerk of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights,

 It is my understanding that Bill C-26 is before the JUST.  I believe that the effects of these mandatory minimum sentences should be fully studied by the government before these laws are passed.  There needs to be conclusive proof that Bill C-26 will have the intended effects before the government can pass these laws.

 Having been an advocate for drug policy reform for over 12 years, it may be that my perspective and experience would be welcomed by the JUST.  While operating the Cannabis Buyers Clubs of Canada, the oldest medical cannabis provider in the country, I have been in contact with literally hundreds of people growing cannabis for sale, who could be potentially directly threatened by Bill C-26 but who cannot publicly defend their work.  It would be my intention to represent the growers in the cannabis community in the JUST hearings to explain the potential impacts this law could have upon them.

You will find some supporting documentation with this letter, though much more information about myself, the International Hempology 101 Society or the Cannabis Buyers Clubs of Canada is available on-line at hempology.ca and cbc-canada.ca.  If you have any questions, please call me at 250-381-4220. Thank you for your time.

HEALTH CANADA OPENS DOOR

Dear Mr. Smith

 Thank you for your letter dated December 4, 2007 sent to Honourable Tony Clement, regarding the research program and your request for an exemption under section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) and the attachments as Health Canada did not receive your letter dated Jan 3, 2007.  I have been asked to respond to you directly and apologize for the delay.

 Health Canada appreciates stakeholders’ views and input and notes your comments regarding the need for a community based advisory committee to oversee the program.  I would assure you that Health Canada considers, on an ongoing basis, comments received with the aim of improving the program’s efficiency.  Furthermore, when required, committees may be established.  As noted in your letter, in the case of marijuana for medical access program, a committee was established some years ago for specific discussions around amendments of the regulations.  It has since been discontinued as its’ mandate was fulfilled.

I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the previous letter sent to you regarding the issue of marijuana resin and provide information to you.  Activities such as producing marijuana resin or tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) by extraction, with chemicals or other substances, are outside the scope of the Medical Marijuana Access Regulations (MMAR).  Unless authorized under the regulations to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA), these activities are illegal.  According to subsection 7(1) except as authorized under the regulations, no person shall produce a substance included in Schedule I, II, III, or IV of the CDSA.  Cannabis resin is included in subsection 17(1) of the Schedule to the Narcotic Control Regulations (NCR).

 When an Authorization to Possess or a Licence to Produce dried marijuana for medical purposes is granted, each authorized person routinely receives a fact sheet that explains what an authorization to possess dried marijuana will allow them to do as well as the requirements of the regulations and other general information including the mention that this authorization or licence does not apply to any derivatives of marijuana such as marijuana resin, hash oil, etc.

 The Government of Canada believes that clinical research regarding the use of marijuana for therapeutic purposes and the development of marijuana based products is best undertaken and funded by the pharmaceutical industry; however, there are mechanisms available to those who want to participate in research under certain conditions.

 Also, I would like to point out that clinical trials for drugs are regulated by the Food and Drugs Regulations and managed by the Therapeutic Products Directorate of Health Canada.  For more information on the requirements and how to apply to conduct clinical research, you can consult the following link:

http:www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/propharma/applic-demande/guide-ld/clini/cta_intro_e.html

 With regards to your request for an exemption under section 56 of the CDSA, to conduct research, more information would be required to clarify the nature of your request.  You may be interested to know that avenues, other that a section 56 exemption, may be available to you.  Section 67 of the NCR provides the Minister of Health with discretionary powers to issue a licence to any person who, in the opinion of the Minister, is qualified thereof, to cultivate, gather or produce marijuana for scientific purposes on such terms and conditions as the Minister deems necessary.  For more information on the application process, please consult the “Interim Guidance Document- Cultivation of Cannabis for Scientific Purposes” available at the following link:

http://hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/pubs/precurs/cannabis_scientific/index_e.html

 Moreover, an exemption under section 56 of the CDSA is not a mechanism to circumvent other available avenues for access.  By its very nature, the exemption under section 56 of the CDSA, may be granted only in exceptional circumstances when, for example, all other avenues are not possible.  As previously mentioned, other mechanisms may be available to meet your needs for distribution of marijuana in a clinical trial.

 I also want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the research reference submitted for our consideration and would like to point out that Health Canada monitors peer reviewed journals for new clinical data on the risks and benefits of marijuana for medical purposes so it stays current as the science of marijuana evolves.

 Please note that legal access to marijuana for medical purposes can only be obtained through Health Canada under the authority of the Medical Marijuana Access Regulations (MMAR).  Once approved under the MMAR, individuals have three legal options for obtaining a supply of dried marijuana: they can apply under the MMAR to access Health Canada’s supply of dried marijuana; they can apply for a personal use production licence, or designate someone to cultivate on their behalf with a designated-person production licence.  Therefore, compassion clubs are unregulated and have always operated outside Canadians laws.  These clubs have no legal authority to provide access or to produce and distribute marijuana.

 If you have any questions regarding this letter or the Regulation, please visit the Health Canada website at www.healthcanada.gc.ca/mma or you can contact the Marijuana Medical Access Division toll-free at 1-866-337-7705.

Yours sincerely,

Ronald Denault
Manager, Marijuana Medical Access Division
Drug Strategy and Controlled Substances Programme

CANNABIS RESEARCH FOUNDATION PROJECT MANAGER TO BE HIRED ON NOV 15

by Ted Smith

The International Hempology 101 Society and Cannabis Buyers Clubs of Canada are working together to form at research foundation to study the medical benefits of cannabis compared to prescription drugs.  This project will be officially kicked off on Nov 15, International Medical Marijuana Day, the final acceptance date for applications to get the job of creating the research foundation. 

We have been forming the basis of a research project at the CBC of C since 2004.  We realized through our court cases that we could not reply upon drug companies or the government to conduct research that would prove that medicine made from the whole plant can provide consistent relief from symptoms associated with many medical problems.  In fact, drug companies do not conduct clinical trials for plants and are only interested in creating synthetic variations of naturally occurring substances or creating new chemicals in the laboratory. 

On the other hand, Health Canada was only actively involved in less than five medical cannabis research projects before funding for the program was axed by the Conservative government almost 2 years ago.  The courts, doctors, patients, Health Canada and the public continue to suggest that more research on the medical effects of cannabis need to be completed, but very little is actually being done in this country.  The Medical Marijuana Access Division (MMAD) is not even supplying a simple survey to people who get licenses to grow and/or possess cannabis to record basic statistics regarding their uses of the herb and possible negative side-effects.  As you can read in the letter sent to us from the current head of MMAD that is printed in this issue, the government is prepared to let the private sector have control over what cannabis products are tested and prepared for market. 

Therefore, we have decided to form a research foundation and a pharmaceutical company to conduct the type of research that we feel is necessary to maximize the potential medical benefits of the cannabis plant.  To begin creating these institutions we will be hiring the first employee of the International Hempology 101 Society after Nov 15, the last day resumes will be accepted for the position.  The initial funds for this person’s wages will come from fundraisers, donations and the CBC of C.  There will be several areas that this person will be required to focus their time upon.  We will renew our attempts to encourage our members and others to complete our current research questionnaire.  There will be an effort to build relationships with others in the research community. 

An advisory committee will be formed within one year to help guide the project and build a team of experienced professionals from various fields to ensure that everything proceeds properly.  Finally, the groundwork will be laid by this person to incorporate both a research foundation and a pharmaceutical company that will legally create and distribute the various skin and edible products of the CBC of C.  There will be no attempt to conduct studies intended to make a specific strain of cannabis an approved drug for a variety of reasons.  The idea that certain strains are the best for specific conditions or symptoms is valid, but patients are best served when they can use a variety of strains.  People develop a slight tolerance to individual strains of cannabis, especially those who have constant pain.  As well, using several varieties together often helps achieve relief of symptoms better than a single strain. 

There are certainly a number of other problems with putting cannabis strains through the drug approval process.  Instead we will put our attention towards the legal creation of the skin and edible products while continuing to prove that the combination of smoking, eating and topically applying  cannabis is better than using most prescription drugs.   Given the complexity of the situation, it is difficult to plan exactly how this research foundation and pharmaceutical company will grow, though we hope that within 5 years both institutions will be formed.  It is likely that the research foundation will be the first to legally incorporate because the scope of that organization will reach beyond the use of the food and skin products.  The pharmaceutical company will focus strictly upon developing the edible and topical products that the CBC of C has been using for years.  In order to raise funds for this project we intend upon being as transparent as possible by not withholding any information or procedures about the creation of these products from the public. 

It is our intention to share the standard operating procedures we use to make these products, as we have been doing so far, in the hope that the medical utility of this plant is maximized.  We believe that anyone with a few skills and basic equipment could make high quality cannabis medicines.  The person hired to create this project will require many skills to juggle these directives, but we hope to generate enough money through fundraisers, donations and sponsors to form a team of researchers.  Wages for the position will be the same as the CBC of C staff, $12/hr, Mon-Fri, 10am to 6pm. 

To be transparent, we will be using a local book-keeper to help pay these wages directly from the bank accounts of the International Hempology 101 Society.

Doctors No Longer In Charge of our Medication- Part 2

by Veronica Horn

An essay by Patients Out of Time presents both sides of the issues and controversies over the legalization of marijuana.

DEA: Does marijuana pose health risks to users?

ANSWER: Marijuana is an addictive drug with significant health consequences to its users and others. Many harmful short-term and long-term problems have been documented with its use:

POT: The Institute of Medicine's Report discussed concerns of dependence and withdrawal: "A second concern associated with chronic marijuana use is dependence on the psychoactive effects of THC. Although few marijuana users develop dependence, some do. Risk factors for marijuana dependence are similar to those for other forms of substance abuse" (p. 6). Its conclusion: "A distinctive marijuana withdrawal syndrome has been identified, but it is mild and short-lived. The syndrome includes restlessness, irritability, mild agitation, insomnia, sleep EEG disturbance, nausea, and cramping" (p.6). In other words, it's not highly addictive.

DEA: Does marijuana have any medical value?

ANSWER: Any determination of a drug's valid medical use must be based on the best available science undertaken by medical professionals. The Institute of Medicine conducted a comprehensive study in 1999 to assess the potential health benefits of marijuana and its constituent cannabinoids. The study concluded that smoking marijuana is not recommended for the treatment of any disease condition. In addition, there are more effective medications currently available. For those reasons, the Institute of Medicine concluded that there is little future in smoked marijuana as a medically approved medication.

POT: There they go again. Under "Physiological Risks" the IOM authors concluded, "When interpreting studies purporting to show the harmful effects of marijuana, it is important to keep in mind that the majority of those studies are based on smoked marijuana, and cannabinoid effects can not be separated from the effects of inhaling smoke of burning plant material and contaminants". They recommended, "Studies to define the individual health risks of smoking marijuana should be conducted, particularly among populations in which marijuana use is prevalent." The IOM report noted, "Clinical trials of marijuana use for medical purposes should be conducted under the following limited circumstances: trials should involve only short term marijuana use (less than 6 months); be conducted in patients for which there is a reasonable expectation of efficacy; be approved by institutional review boards; and collect data about efficacy." The report continues: “The goal of the clinical trials of smoked marijuana would not be to develop marijuana as a licensed drug, but rather as a first step towards the possible development of non-smoked rapid onset cannabinoid delivery systems." They felt this
might take a while so, "In the meantime, there are patients with debilitating symptoms for whom smoked marijuana might provide relief." Please note the earlier mentions of other delivery systems such as that patented by GW Pharmaceuticals in 2001, just two years after the IOM report. Please note as well that the DEA seems to have an agenda that does not rely on truth or science.

ANSWER: The American Medical Association recommends that marijuana remain a Schedule I controlled substance.

POT: The American Medical Association (AMA) recommended that cannabis use carry no criminal penalty in 1977 and has never changed their position. They hold the present position that cannabis therapeutic use needs additional study. The oldest and largest professional health care organization in the US, the American Public Health Association (APHA), a group of over one million one hundred thousand health care professionals in 1995 recommended the immediate transfer of cannabis to health care control from law enforcement essentially echoing the AMA call of 1977. Dozens of other professional health care groups all over the world have joined with the APHA.
In summary we conclude that the DEA conclusions are politically motivated and scientifically unsupportable. We conclude that placing a law enforcement agency in charge of public health decisions is a direct threat to the public health of the nation and in particular those that require the option of using cannabis therapeutically under medical supervision. We conclude that the DEA agenda and lack of forthright communication in their web page makes them an unreliable source of information concerning therapeutic cannabis. (End Quote)

Reference: ACP: Supporting Research into the Therapeutic Role of Marijuana
(http://www.acponline.org/advocacy/where_we_stand/other_issues/medmarijuana.pdf)
and Patients Out of Time (http://www.medicalcannabis.com/rebuttal.htm).

BRUSHED OFF AGAIN BY BCCCS

by Ted Smith

The following is an email sent to me in response to my recent attempts to communicate with the current staff at the BCCCS.  There has been a series of letters back and forth between the clubs that can be found in CD #10 and #13 with more details in the forums on hempology.ca.  We will be responding to this letter in the next issue.

Hi Ted
We are confident that Hilary and Rielle would have spoken with integrity and fairness when representing this organisation and the best interests of our members and staff. Given that we run on consensus, there is little they would have put forth that wouldn't have been reviwed and consensed to by the entire staff.

We are not aware of a history of insulting or ignoring your work, nor are we interested in perpetuating any animosity that might have existed between yourself and any staff here. I personally am open to reviewing and giving feedback on whatever timely materials you choose to share with me when the busy work that I do at the BC Compassion Club allows me the time. I am not however, going to pick up and engage in any past disagreements.

We wish you the best of luck in continuing the good work that you do and I look forward to being in communication with you on any topics that are current and relevent to the needs of the medical cannabis community.

Take Care,
Sincerely,
Nicole Marcia
BC Compassion Club Society

Updates, Warnings and Suggestions

by Gayle Quin

A reminder that the Club has new hours!  Mon-Sat: 10am-7pm, Sundays, Christmas Day and New Years Day: 11am-6pm. The International Hempology 101 Society will be celebrating its 13th Anniversary on Sept. 3. We meet at Centennial Square, 7pm, and march to the Legislative Buildings for a photo shoot. Come get your picture taken with our new mascot, Herb. Don’t forget this September 10th will be the start of the 3rd year of Hempology 101’s free lecture series at the University of Victoria. The room # will be posted in early September. Keep updated by checking out hempology.ca or asking at the club.

Ted has started a new tradition for his birthday this year – a picnic starting at 4:20 on Mt. Tolmie, June 22.  Hope to see you there next year!  We changed the location for the Cannabis Day 4:20 from Beacon Hill Park to the Victoria Courthouse. It was very well attended, and to everyone’s great surprise, Herb the Hempster, made a grand first guest appearance.  Thanx to the Victoria police for not hassling us too much Also, if you are interested in volunteering or helping stop Bill C26, please come to the board meetings. They are open to all members and are posted on the chalk board behind my desk.

Next meeting is Aug 19.  If you can’t make it out, please take the time to write letters.  Reach for the Pot has ended for another year with Peanut’s Crew taking the trophy bongs this year.  Congratulations to captain Anthony and crew Tim, Sylvia and Ryan “High in BC” Bushby!  We hope you had as much fun playing as we had watching!  The CBC of C website keeps getting better.

Check out the new forums at cbc-canada.ca, as we have changed from cbc-canada.com. Likewise hempology is now at hempology.ca, not hempology.com. Thanks for all your patience through the transition to the new web addresses, and a thanks to those who have been slaving to make them so great.  We have been designing new logos for both the CBC of C and Hempology 101. We will be making buttons and new t-shirts. Thanks to everyone who bought a CBC of C t-shirt! They are a one-time printing, with only a few left.  I would like to put out the first call to artists interested in donating to the Club’s 6th Annual Silent Art Auction on Nov 15. This year we will be putting the proceeds to starting our research foundation and pharmaceutical company. For more information please read Ted’s article about the Cannabis Research Foundation.ot We are in for truly exciting times ahead! Thanks for everyone’s support in our efforts to renovate the law.

VICS RULING EXPECTED SOON

by Ted Smith

The trial of Mathew Beren, lead cultivator of the Vancouver Island Compassion Club, should receive a favourable decision this fall when B.C. Supreme Court Justice Koenigsberg is expected to finally make a ruling.  After being arrested in May 2004, Beren and the VICS have argued every possible point and every opportunity, resulting in a trial lasting over 50 days and costing the VICS over $200,000 in legal fees.  Even though VICS founder Phil Lucas has gone on record many times as being the only compassion club in Victoria, I have made an extra effort to watch these proceedings. 

In fact, I have actually been in court during the trial proper more than any lawyer or witness, the defendant, or even the judge, as the original judge passed away last fall in the middle of the trial.  We have reported on this trial in Cannabis Digest #3, 10, 14, 15, 16, and 17.  In order to witness the last 4 witnesses I have traveled to Vancouver where the remainder of the trial is being held.  These last 4 people the judge heard from may have presented the strongest evidence yet that that MMAR has been unconstitutional from the very beginning.  The last witness for the defense was Senator Pierre Claude-Nolin.  He was chair on the 2002 Senate Committee that recommended legalizing cannabis after extensive research and consultation was completed with various interested parties, including myself. 

While he was able to generally discuss problems with the MMAR, because his report was completed almost 2 years before the VICS grow-op was raided it was difficult for him to comment of some areas.  However, in many areas Senator Claude-Nolin provided some excellent arguments for an individuals right to use cannabis as medicine.  He said it was unfair for Health Canada to create a system where doctors were the only possible legal authority to provide access to cannabis because they were lacking the science to ensure that it is safe and effective.  The judge agreed that doctors should not be the “gatekeepers” of the MMAR because cannabis was not an approved drug and they had no idea how much of the herb an individual may need.  She said that the MMAR should require doctors to confirm diagnosis of a serious medical problem and that the patient should determine dose. 

The irony is that we have been arguing this very point with the VICS and government for years but this issue is not a major part of the constitutional trial.  The VICS requires individuals to have a doctor recommend the use of cannabis, as does Health Canada.  By using this mandate, VICS protects the doctor as gatekeeper to access, a position physicians are uncomfortable with because cannabis is not an approved drug.  Lawyer Kirk Tousaw has argued for the defense that Health Canada has interfered with people’s right to use large amounts of cannabis and that patients should be able to determine how much they use.  However, the judge seems willing to grant people the right to use this medicine without their doctor’s approval based upon their right to treatment. 

The crown’s first witness was Dr. Richard Viau, former head of Data Analytical Services at Health Canada. He was in charge of the contract to Prairie Plant Systems and informed the court a great deal about the drug regulatory process.  Dr Viau defended Health Canada by explaining the difficulties they had trying to make a consistent cannabis product without breaking protocol.  He said that after patient’s complaints that the cannabis was too dry, PPS increased the moisture content of their product from 10% to 14%.  Others complained that the cannabis was ground-up too fine, causing it to spill out of the end of a joint, so PPS increased the particle grind size from 5mm to 10mm. 

While his testimony showed serious flaws in Health Canada’s approach to the medical cannabis issue, it was clear that those making the decisions about the direction of the programs were not those responsible for implementing the MMAR.  The next crown witness, former director of the Medical Marijuana Access Division, Valerie Lasher, provided the defense with some important information.  She said that Health Canada had determined that there were only two possible options in regards to medical cannabis. 

The first option suggested that science might prove cannabis is not effective, safe or reliable and should not be included in the legal medicine cabinet.  The second alternative had cannabis becoming an approved drug to be produced and distributed by pharmaceutical companies like other medicines.  The final witness in the trial provided the final nail in the defense’s argument.  Dr. Harold Kalant has testified for the government in various drug cases for decades as one of Health Canada’s premier researchers. 

None of his lab experience is related to the medicinal uses of the herb, and it has been years since he has done any research himself on the effects of the plant.  Dr. Kalant is very skeptical of the medical benefits of the herb, but he was willing to admit that it helped with nausea and pain with potential to help many other conditions pending more research.  He was so sure of the medical benefits of cannabis that he clearly stated that Health Canada’s first option with the MMAR was not a possibility because there was undeniable scientific evidence that it is safe, effective and reliable, though he would obviously prefer it was not smoked. 

Dr. Kalant then went on to say that no plant has ever been approved as a drug and that it is impossible to imagine that a drug company will go through the expense to see that happen.  Drug companies make money by extracting chemicals, synthetically recreating organic compounds or forming new chemicals altogether.  The drug approval process is simply not made for plants and therefore Health Canada’s second option for the MMAR is not possible, either. 

Final arguments in the trial will be made the week of Aug 5-8th, in Vancouver, with the decision expected in early September.  The crown has already suggested it will appeal the decision, giving Health Canada time to make changes.

Health Concerns

 by Skip

Today’s topic is: Are humans herbivore or carnivore and what are the implications regarding health, life expectancy, and environmental impact? 

Some things to consider, (anatomical and physiological) regarding the difference between humans and known carnivores: carnivores have long, sharp pointedc teeth for tearing flesh, mouths that open wide to capture and hold prey.  Jaws that move up and down, gastric PH around 1 to 2 ( highly acidic) and relatively short intestines, approximately 3 times the animals length.  Carnivores stomachs represent 60-70% of the total capacity of the digestive system- they eat less often and typically gorge themselves, resting while the large volume digests.  Humans have molars for crushing and grinding; jaws that move side to side for eating vegetation.

 Human mouths have a relatively small opening, intestinal tracts 10 to 12 times the length of our trunks, a PH of approximately 5-6 (more more alkaline) and urine that is much more alkaline than carnivores.  In herbivorous animals the large intestine functions on a highly specialized organ and when functioning properly (with proper flora , in sufficient amounts) is involved in water and electrolyte absorbtion vitamen production (esp. B’s) and absorption and some fermentation of fiberous plant materials. 

The stomach volume of the herbivore represents approximately 21-27% of total volume of the gastrointestinal tract (G.I. tract).  Humans have evolved primarily as herbivores, the entire alimentary canal from mouth to anus clearly indictes the biological preference for herbs, nuts, seeds and fruit.  Grains and legumes are a different topic.  We ofter hear people talking about “getting enough protein”.  Protein is composed of amino acids.  Amino acids are said to be the building blocks of protein. 

We get amino acids from every food source.  What humans require for good sound nutrition is a richly coloured, fresh, mostly raw or lightly cooked, varied diet.  We may in times of weakness or debilitation take some organic, respectably killed meat in the form of soup, broth or condiment.  Life is reciprocal.  If we consume, mistreat or abuse plants, animals, air or water, we become that. A few bits of information concerning environmental impacts of meat production for human consumption.  This is based on the United Nations Food And Agriculture Organization (UNFAO). Estimated 18% of global greenhouse gases are due to livestock production. 

Not just methane and manure gases, but land uses, especially deforestation and destruction of peyote fields to expand production.  Livestock now uses 30% of the earth’s entire land surface.  In Latin America 70% of former forest in the Amozon have been converted to grazing.  Almost every environmental castrophe confronting the planet is attributable to lifestock production/global forest destruction/spreading deserts/lose of fresh water/soil erosion etc. 

Between 1950 and 1994 global meat production increased nearly fourfold, rising much faster than the human population.  During this time production rates jumped from 18 to 35.4 kilograms per person.  In Canada, farm animal outwieght people 4.3 to 1. In the USA farm animal outweight people 4 to 1, in Mexico 3.4 to 1, in China 1.1 to 1 and in India 0.65 to 1.  The most noteworthy statistic is perhaps that a meat based diet requires 7 times more land than a plant based diet.  Considering the displacement of indigous species of plant plants and animals the consequences are huge.  We need biodiversity for health, we need respect for life, for health and we need to work together to enjoy ourselves, to share food, space, thoughts and develop a multi-generational, ethical, caring world.  Its vastly different and intimately healthier than the fragmented, compartmentalized, competitive engineered social maechanisms we now employ. 

Respect animals, remember their lives are just as important to them as ours are to us.  Be who your dog thinks you are.
Remember: Nature cures- side effects are future business.

Skip Lafluer, owner of Simple Remedies
(See all of Skip’s previous articles on hempology.ca)





Thanks to all our contributors: Ted Smith, Gayle Quin, Veronica Horn and Skip LeFleur 

 

Mandate

Annual Subscriptions to printed version of Cannabis Digest: $10.00 cdn

Cannabis Buyers' Clubs of Canada
www.cbc-canada.ca
Victoria, BC, Canada