MR. DOHM: Your Honour, recalling the case of Regina v. Caine. Mr. Connolly appears. He is present. He just stepped out a moment ago, just before you came into the room, with (indiscernible). Mr. Conroy’s present and he’s now speaking to Dr. Connolly.

MR. CONROY: Sorry for the delay. There’s a bit of a mix up in terms of the experts and we were going to start off and use the time to qualify Dr. Morgan but Dr. Connolly is here, who you may recall was the witness that we were in the middle of last time, which was some time ago. I should say, I have with me Pamela Smith-Gander on this occasion and so we’re ready to proceed.

MR. CONROY: I’ll also just indicate for the record that I have Dr. Morgan, who’s our next expert, who’s also present in the courtroom.

THE COURT: Do you have any objection to him remaining in the courtroom during this testimony?

MR. DOHM: We’d prefer that he not be present during the cross examination of Dr. Connolly but other than that we have no difficulty, Your Honour.

THE COURT: Is there any reason why you would wish one of your witnesses present—

MR. CONROY: At the moment, I don’t see a problem with that. I just want him here so that he hears all of the evidence given in chief by certainly my expert so that if there’s a question in terms of commenting on it, that he can do so.

THE CLERK: Please state your full name and spell your last name for the record.

A Allen Knox Connolly, C-o-n-n-o-l-l-y.

A Thank you.

Q Dr. Connolly, when we finished off last time, which was some time ago, March of this—of 1996, we were talking about whether marihuana use or the effects of marihuana was much of a problem during the time that you were working in the public health field and primarily in relation to drugs and drug use. You told us that it appears to be a problem from the perspective of a number of people but from the treater perspective, the person that was involved in the treatment level, that you didn’t see it as a problem. Do you recall that?

A Yes. That’s correct. And since my clinical work was significantly, initially, primarily with younger people, that was the population that was experimenting with the drug and where most of the use was and most of the concern expressed by the larger community was. So, I thought I had a fair view of what types of problems those younger people and other poly drug, multiple drug users brought to the various clinic settings that I worked at. As well as you might recall, I had positions of responsibility for programs throughout the province. So, even though I ceased to be primarily involved clinically for a few years, I also was overseeing programs and became aware of what was presenting and most of the portals of concern were drug abuse and drug misuse was being managed.

Q Was there any impact or effect on your ability—or did you find that there was any impact or effect on your ability to talk about the problem and educate the public about the problem or lack of problem, from what whatever you—what your perspective was?

A Well, looking back on my medical career, I’ve continued to—I’ve used generally an educative approach and so have always tried to maintain a fairly responsible, biased view, so that I could be helpful both with individual patients, their families and devote a lot of time to public presentations.

Q During that period which was, as I recall, up to 1981 roughly, you mentioned a number of scientists or people who have done studies in the field that were brought to your attention during that period. One person you mentioned was Kalanski (phonetic). I believe others were Campbell, Nahas (phonetic), Tennant. Do these names sound familiar to you?

A Yes. The—because of the nature of the climate at the time, the type of papers that would get the most currency in the field would be—were—were papers that, for some reason, caught the public imagination, sometimes the media attention but also because of the very real concerns that they expressed.

Q So, after becoming familiar or hearing about these studies, I take it back then you would initially accept them for what they said and you’ve told us that—

A Yes. I—I mean, I had to be—

Q -- since appearing here last time—

A I was a physician first and I had to be concerned about the well-being of the patients and the people that I develop. I had to be very concerned about the position that I might promulgate in educational opportunities and so I would always have to state that these were findings that had not yet been confirmed but we had—and so, in my clinical work, I would be always looking for some soft evidence of those difficulties and I was also advising patients that were—who—the few that I saw that had concerns about their use of that drug. I would use those papers too as an indication of why I should—they should be concerned and I should be concerned and they should maybe do something about their use.

Q Did you ever see anything in your clinical treatment practice to confirm any of the things that you’d read about or heard about in these studies?

A I certainly—in very rare instances, I had to deal with patients that had significant panic—panic attacks. Some of them that were initially attributed to their use of marihuana. That was one that—but some of the others, the evidence for brain damage, I never saw any example of and over the time, I never became aware of anybody that had had significant birth defects as a result of that, for example.

Q Since that time, you’ve endeavoured to try and get familiar with all the more current writings on the subject. Have you seen anything in what you’ve been able to go over so far that, in any way, tends to support or confirm any of these studies that you were familiar with many years ago?

A Well, since we last met, I’ve had the opportunity and the time to read almost everything that is before the court, presented as exhibits in evidence and I just feel more—I feel a little better personally about sitting here and giving evidence based on that review of that evidence because it’s become more refined, some of the work and I think some of the concerns that we had in the early 70’s have been put to rest. There are still—in the literature, it’s not—it’s unequivocal in the most recent Australian commission, which I think is very substantial but if I—if you compare it to what the Ledane Commission, which was done in the early—very early 70’s under the auspices of the Canadian government, a lot of the conclusions are very similar and in spite of thousands of new scientific papers.

Q Would you classify some of those studies that you were familiar with years ago as being misinformation, based on your knowledge today or would you say that they are still valid?

A I wouldn’t want to single out any study but I think collectively, the way that information was put out for the—because of the political climate at the time, the attitude of government has become more rigid in some ways around this issue over time. The law has made some significant changes in the 70’s but basically, there’s been a hiatus and I don’t think the law or the government has kept up to date with the changing scientific evidence and the clinical evidence about the problems associated with marihuana.

Q You now work in a clinical setting with primarily seriously mental ill people, is that right?

A That’s correct. My—I work as a psychiatric physician, exclusively in psychiatric clinics that deal with the chronically mentally ill under the auspices of the Greater Vancouver Mental Health Services. So, I spend my day almost exclusively seeing patients now and dialoguing with patients and their families.

Q And we’ve been told that one of the vulnerable groups in relation to use of marihuana are people with mental illnesses. Do you see that in your practice? Do you see them with marihuana problems?

A Well, the type of people that we see in our clinic would be—one clinic is on Commercial Drive and it has always serviced, if you wish, the lower socioeconomic levels of the Vancouver community and that seems to be over the past—one of the lower economic class, tends to have a higher incidence of the use because there’s more sort of street involvement, more—and so we have to be concerned about that use. We—there’s a whole initiative that’s developed called Dual Diagnosis where you look at both substance abuse in the population as well as their primary psychiatric illnesses and marihuana is used. So, there’s not a lot of research into the amount of use. I think in the population that I see, particularly younger males, significant use of it. They don’t have the money to do it on a very constant basis but I know some patients that almost do it daily.

Q Now, to what extent—or what is the nature or extent of that problem? Are you able to—

A Well, even—

Q -- qualify that in any way for us?

A I guess my—to conclude fairly, even where I’m seeing exclusively psychiatric patients where there’s a significant amount of marihuana use, we’re not dealing very often with somebody who’s destabilized because of that use. Sometimes that’s hard to ascertain but clearly, compared to the amount that’s being used as reported by my patients, the instability even in that vulnerable population is fairly minimal.

Q And you’ve been doing this now since about 1988, I think you said?

A No. Since 1982, actually. So, --

Q ‘82. So, over that whole period of time—

A Yeah. I’ve now had a fairly significant experience with a large psychiatric population.

Q Now, if you go back to your experiences prior to 1982, that whole period that you told us about when you were dealing with the poly drug users at the downtown mental health clinic and medical clinic and at The House and places like that, in that period, can you give us—you told us that, from some people’s perspective, there was a problem but from your perspective as a treater, you didn’t see marihuana use as a problem but can you compare—look back and tell us what you thought the nature or scope of the problem was from a health treater perspective at that time? Was it a significant problem or wasn’t it, from your perspective?

A The biggest problem that I initially saw was the problem within families because of high levels of concern about their young people in the very early 70’s. So, I very quickly, as a general—I was still in general practice and it was in dealing with those concerned families that I became sort of involved, entrapped by the field for the next ten years of my life.

Q All right. So, you had the perspective of the parent or the politician or perhaps others taking the view that it was a significant problem but as I understand you, as the health care worker in the field, could you identify any specific danger, from a health danger, any threatened or actual danger, or injury, to these people at that time, that you were—that you would say was of a serious kind or a serious nature that might effect all the inhabitants of Canada, for example?

A No. I can’t think of having any clinical experience of significance with patients because of their use of the drug but certainly the—there was this continued notion in the larger medical community around—and the larger community that there were dangers that might manifest themselves down the line. But over the last twenty years, I don’t think that we have any real evidence that those concerns have been translated into fact.

Q So, as a health care worker, do you see marihuana or marihuana use today, based on all of your experiences, including your current experiences, as a pressing and substantial risk to the public?

A I think there are certain risks with the use of drug or the high dose use and frequent use of the drug, depending upon the pattern of use. So, in certain patterns of use, there might be—there are certain risks associated with that and I don’t want to minimize those. I think those—some of those risks are continually being elaborated by the medical scientific community and challenged. But I don’t think there’s anything in my medical experience, either in my reading or in my clinical practise, that has given me to change my mind that the major problem with marihuana is the consequences of the criminalization of people that have chosen to experiment with the drug or use the drug. I think that continues to be the major problem, not the minor health effects that some people experience because of certain patterns of use or individual susceptibility because of their unique biochemistry.

Q Now, one other specific area I wanted you to touch on and again, to draw on your experiences from back in the 60’s and 70’s and 80’s, and this is this gateway or stepping stone theory that we hear of, that marihuana leads to other drugs. Can you comment on that for us, in terms of your experiences?

A It’s another indication of the game’s the same but the names have changed. We used to call it in the 60’s, in the literature, the progression hypothesis. The stepping stone theory was another one that is used to describe it and now we have the gateway hypothesis and I was just looking at a provincial study of high schools and they were referring to it in the paper as a gate—marihuana as a gateway drug. So, here you have, in a responsible attempt to look at how to deal with young people and their association with it, there’s already a built in predicated bias. Those of you who read drug literature, you know there’s certain loaded words.

Q So, did the misinformation that you talked about earlier, did that—

A Yes, and this—

Q -- play a role in it?

A Yeah. The progression hypothesis, I thought, was one of the major myths at the time and continues to seem to be, even though they’ve changed the name of the hypothesis now to gateway or stepping stone theory.

Q So, if an individual came in to you, say on 4th Avenue in the old days and was provided with information about marihuana, was that information—would that information be what you thought was the truth, or would that information be what you felt politically you had to provide?

A One of the things that I would look at would—I would look at their personalities, the associations, where they were going to pick up the drug. One of the problems was because of the criminalization was that people that dealt with marihuana sometimes would have hashish or other substance or availability of other substance, i.e., LSD. So, I was very concerned about that and I would certainly get that in my inquiry.

Q You told us that back in those days, you did feel restrained, to some degree, in terms of the information that you could put out. Do you feel any such restraint today in relation to this topic?

A I don’t feel the same restraint today, perhaps because I’m older and also, I don’t feel the same restraint today because I’ve had a chance to review the information that’s before the court. So, I feel much more comfortable with the position that I’m taking.

Q So, based on all of your experiences, how would you categorize the issue today, the nature and scope of it as a health problem? Would you categorize it as a serious health problem or a minor health problem, or how would you categorize it today, based on all of your experience?

A I think in—in the area of public health and I think there’s some evidence before the court from the—significant evidence from the court (sic) in regards to the British Columbia experience, this is—this is a health concern that has very low priority and there’s nothing in my reading or in my clinical experience to dissuade me from that point of view.

Q Based on your knowledge of the facilities, medical and health care facilities available throughout British Columbia, do we have adequate facilities for someone to deal with this type of problem, or do we—is it a matter that you think we need the assistance of the federal government, in terms of the health issue, the health—

MR. DOHM: I have to object to that, Your Honour. It’s an impossible question for the witness to answer. He’s being asked a very complicated question on the division of power. He’s being asked a legal question.

MR. CONROY: I would expect that a doctor working in the Province of British Columbia would have some sense of whether it’s a matter that we have adequate health facilities to deal with in the province or whether they feel they need the assistance of the federal government in one way, shape or form. I can imagine certain types of epidemics in someone in which the medical profession would say yes, we really need the help of Ottawa. I want to know if that’s the case here. I mean, how else are we going to determine where we draw the line between the federal government’s responsibilities and the provincial government’s responsibilities in relation to health if it doesn’t come from the practitioners in the field?

THE COURT: I don’t—I think we might be in trouble if you had to draw the line every single—on every single issue, based on all of the circumstances attending every particular issue as opposed to based on principles as to when the federal and provincial relationships merge or go their separate ways.

MR. CONROY: It seems to me we have to have some evidence on it. We can’t just leave it—

THE COURT: Putting the evidence in front of, is one thing. Asking this particular witness to draw the conclusions from that evidence, in terms of political involvement of various levels of government—

MR. CONROY: No, no. I’m only asking him—here he is, practising as a doctor and he’s told us what he thinks of the nature of the problem and he’s now told us that he thinks we have adequate health care facilities and so on to deal with it in the province. So, the question is—

MR. CONROY: I can maybe leave it at that but the question is, is does he think we need to call on the federal government for—I’m talking about assistance in terms of a health problem. I’m not asking him to tell me what he thinks the politicians think or anything like that but we have this medical—Canada medical assistance plan and we have all of these people in Ottawa who were involved in health and health issues and so I’m wondering if he thinks it’s of such a nature that we have to get them involved in it.

MR. DOHM: Your Honour, with all respect to Dr. Connolly, the question has been answered by the Supreme Court of Canada in Regina v. Hauser (phonetic). The Supreme Court of Canada said unequivocally that the federal government has a role to play in this area. That, in my respectful submission to you, is the end of the issue as far as we are concerned. By we, I mean all of us here.

MR. CONROY: Well, I disagree with my friend on that. The Supreme Court of Canada, subsequent to Hauser, said that if they had an opportunity to reconsider Hauser they would say that this matter is not one involving peace, order and good government but criminal law. And one of the issues that seems to have been decided by the court in its most recent decision in R.J.R. McDonald, a tobacco advertising case, is that if the federal government has a role to play in relation to health, that it’s health and its criminal law aspect or in its peace, order and good government aspect and as I understand that, in terms of peace, order and good government, they have said that they would reconsider Hauser because peace, order and good government would require something like an epidemic or some sort of major type of health problem affecting the dominion as a whole in a serious way. So, I’m trying to see if there’s any evidence to suggest that, for one thing, here.

The also say that, in terms of the criminal law of power, that again it has to be a serious matter affecting public safety or public order or public health in a Canada wide sense for the federal government to get involved. So, I’m trying to determine what the evidence is to warrant the federal government being involved, if there is any because that’s what they’re doing at the moment and that’s the very law that we’re challenging.

So, surely we’re entitled to try and explore what possible evidence is there to warrant the government—the federal government being involved in the first place. We say there isn’t any.

THE COURT: Your question then—I had assumed that your question focused on whether or not the federal government needed to be involved on a practical level, either by providing resources or medical institutions.

THE COURT: Any difficulty with that? In other words, this doctor is a medical professional who deals with this particular field and is familiar with concepts or resources, funds, administration of the health

field—

MR. DOHM: Well, I’m not certain that this doctor has been qualified as a person capable to give evidence of the relationship between the federal government and the provincial government in the ways that monies are transferred from one level of government to another for health care and in various ways the different problems are attacked by different levels of government, including legislation such as that challenged, which consists of a prohibition, legislation promoting education and legislation which deals with treatment and with transfer of monies.

I just submit to Your Honour that you have not before you a witness who could assist on that, were it even an issue in the case.

MR. CONROY: Well, I’m just looking back to see your ruling in terms of qualifications and it’s my recollection, because the witness had given evidence about his involvement back in the early days of being very involved in British Columbia and then being involved with them in Ottawa, in terms of the non medical use of drugs directorate and all the consultations and so on. So, he has quite a wealth of experience in terms of when the federal government thought it had an interest in the matter and was getting involved. Then he had this expertise in terms of approving funding and so on for people who were doing experiments, trying to look into it.

THE COURT: All right. I’m far from satisfied that his expertise in terms—or experience in terms of dealing with funding and where the funds might come, qualify him to give opinion evidence upon the funding relationships between the federal and provincial governments and how those relationships operate. He has given evidence to the effect that this province is adequately looking after any particular problems that may arise, if indeed there are any, and it has the facilities to look after those problems. In my view, the question as to whether he sees any need for the involvement of the federal government, goes beyond his qualifications and is eliciting an opinion which, in my view, lacks any sort of general framework or factual underpinning, at this point in time.

In the absence of any evidence from any witness as to why, on a factual level, federal involvement is necessary, it seems to me you have already the evidence before the court. Your prime point is to establish that this province can look after this—

established -- if that’s your evidence that you’re going to be arguing, that’s already been elicited from this witness.

THE COURT: I’m not going to allow the question that calls upon him to provide an opinion as to whether politically or constitutionally or even practically, the federal government needs to be involved.

MR. CONROY: Well, we did qualify him, I see it’s at page 78 of the March 14th transcript, on policy issues relating to the control and regulation of legal and illicit drugs. I wonder if—and that’s—after that it was health, education, both mental and physical. So, let me maybe put it to you this way, Doctor.

Q Based on your experience with policy issues, what you told us about before in relation to the period at least up to 1982, just maybe to refresh our memories, can you encapsulate for us the experience you had in relation to policy issues back then, in drug use?

A The issues around policy would be the—I was a physician and the clinical director of the Narcotics Addiction Foundation and was in constant dialogue with the people from the federal government about issues of concern. I was also on non medical use of drugs, several committees that looked at both funding

various—the federal government finding mechanisms to fund various programs of an educative and a therapeutic nature in the province. I also was involved in assessing, for the Medical Research Council, an agent of the federal government, certain types of research in this field. I myself wouldn’t have been involved in sitting here today if it hadn’t been for the involvement in the federal government because of their interest in the program that I was volunteering at as a physician.

MR. DOHM: Well, Your Honour, with respect—excuse me, Doctor. That last part about the criminal justice system, going beyond what the doctor sees, is clearly beyond both the question that my learned friend asked and it is beyond what Your Honour has indicated the witness can answer. I’m tempted just to retain my seat and let him carry on in the interest of perhaps being briefer but—

THE COURT: You know, there’s a great deal of material before me which I think, in the end, may be subject to arguments as to whether it—once viewed in the perspective of the entire case and the legal issues. Whether or not its admissible, although it’s actually led before the court, I think that’s just another way of approaching your tendency to perhaps wish to keep your seat and at the end of the day say this type of opinion was well beyond the expertise or not relevant to the issue. I can sit here and try and struggle through each issue as it arises but I have to tell you that I feel I’m operating in a bit of a vacuum, given the wealth of the material that has come in and the vagueness of how the issues are defined, at this point in time.

MR. DOHM: Well, we can—as long as we bear in mind that this is an argument based on an allegation that it’s a principle of fundamental justice, that the federal government cannot legislate in this area unless they can demonstrate harm, as I understand my friend’s argument, then—and with what Your Honour has conveyed to me in this most recent exchange, I will try to be more in my chair and less out of it.

MR. CONROY: The position that we take is not simply that there has to be evidence of harm but that it has to meet the definition of criminal law as defined by the cases and that the legislation has to truly be criminal law and in its pith and substance, as they used to say, so that it’s real criminal law, not just because the federal government thinks—or because the Americans want us to be involved in their war on drugs or because somebody misguidedly thinks that this is a serious problem.

THE COURT: All right. With respect to the witness’ last comments, which I believe the subject—specifically the subject of the objection, I thought they were going to be going in a direction of pointing out what harm might arise from the involvement of individuals in the criminal justice system in this area and I think that is a legitimate question to ask of this witness. If we’re talking about how do we prevent a harm, we should at least canvass the notion of whether or not the solution isn’t doing more harm than the original harm that we’re trying to avoid, or whether it’s doing any harm at all.

So, on a practical level, the impact of being involved in the criminal justice system for this witness’ patients, I think is a legitimate question and I’ll allow him to answer questions in that field.

Q Again, bearing in mind your involvement in policy issues and so on with the federal government in the past and your experience with people who’ve used or consumed marihuana and then have been dealt with by the criminal justice system, is it your view—what is your view in relation to the use of the criminal justice system vis a vis this so-called health problem?

A The consequences for individuals that use the drug, I think the—it’s clear that the heavy sanctions against the use of the drug in the criminal law, (A), are not a deterrence. I think there are some people that are probably deterred from the use because of the view that it’s criminal activity but I think most of the literature, epidemiological literature suggests that young people, in their experimentation with this drug were not restrained by the fact that it was viewed as an illegal activity. In fact, there’s even some suggestion that the—their—they say that as inappropriate and they had a general disdain for other issues of the law, that particular population, because of the—what they saw as inappropriate.

MR. CONROY: Thank you, Doctor. Answer any questions that my friend might have.

THE COURT: Do you wish to take the morning break at this time?

MR. HEWITT: That would be useful. I was going to ask for five minutes but it might be just as convenient to take the break.

THE COURT: Well, it’s probably better to take the entire break.

THE COURT: All right. We’ll stand down for fifteen minutes. If you can return after coffee. Thank you.

Q Doctor, now you said in your evidence in chief that you are now up to speed on the literature since 1988, at least in terms of what we filed in evidence in this case?

A Yes. I would—I would confine that remark exclusively. I think if there’s a lot of other information outside of this, then I’m not so familiar with that.

Q All right. So, you feel, to some extent, like you’ve caught up for the last ten years and caught up on the information that there’s been in the studies in the last ten years?

A Yes. I feel comfortable with that.

Q Are there any significant changes in the literature, as far as you’re concerned?

A I don’t think—I think there are significant changes in the literature. As I mentioned, around the—some of the neurological investigations. There’s been more sophisticated techniques and I think generally, in terms of probes of various neurotransmitters and the functioning of the brain, I think in my understanding in the neuro sciences, there’s been exponential increase in the level of understanding of how the brain works and how chemicals work in the brain.

Q Okay. So, overall there’s an advancement, is that fair?

A Yes. I think very definitely.

Q All right, and to some extent, some of the issues have been narrowed down because some of them are more resolved than they were ten, fifteen years ago?

A Right. And I think in some instances, it’s a little like an onion. You take off one skin of certain levels of—you look at the anatomy and then you look at the cellular morphology and then you look at the biochemistry of the cell and then you look at the molecular levels of the interaction of chemicals deep within, structures within the cell and I think that’s what we’re seeing. Is that they’re probing deeper and deeper with more refined instruments into the understanding.

Q Is it fair to say there’s still substantial uncertainty in terms of identifying all the potential risks of marihuana use?

A Uncertainty, I think, would be putting the emphasis on the wrong syllable. If we had the same level of concern around other drugs that are used as—in treatment and medications that are available to doctors, I’d be a lot happier. I do think the uncertainty has been—the view is a lot clearer. There is a lot less uncertainty as a result of what’s been done in the last ten years.

Q All right, but uncertainty persists to this day, in terms of absolute certainty, obviously?

A Yes. I think—and I think a lot of the uncertainty has to do with certain positions that have been taken by certain individuals in both the scientific and medical and larger governmental education committee and they stay locked into the same points of view and have not been maybe influenced by the clarity and the refinement of the scientific evidence. There are still responsible scientists that say that we need to continue to study certain dimensions of this drug longer before we can make—give—exonerate it. But I think there’s not going to be new information that develops that’s suddenly going to reveal this is a dangerous drug that poses a substantial health problem.

Q In terms of the list of potential affects that have been considered over the years, although some of those have been discounted, some of those still exist as potential problems and some of them haven’t been resolved one way or the other clearly, is that fair?

A Yes. I think that’s true and I think the best evidence before the court of that is when you look at the very responsible findings of one part of the—what is called the Australian Commission. I forget the—Hall. If you look into the Hall side of things, they will have a long discussion at the end and if you—and seemingly giving weight to the same kind of concerns as we had ten and fifteen years ago and then at the end of it they’ll say, well, these are really minimal and then make some generalities about it that seems to shift the emphasis that was in the discussion, in their conclusions.

Q Okay, and the reports that you referred to in your evidence in chief, Kalanski, Campbell, etcetera, those were—those were examples of reports that were erring on the side of conservatism or caution or just placing emphasis on the potential harms rather than taking the emphasis off those?

A I—I would have—I would have to think that the scientists involved were doing that. I think there’s

a—were doing that, were trying their very best to alert the community because of their findings. I think what happened was—is that because you had such polarized attitudes in the community that certain groups and certain people took those studies and gave them credence and currency in the educational information about the drug that was inappropriate.

Q The position you’re currently in, the clinical position you’re in, that you’re dealing essentially with people with psychiatric disorders, is that right?

A That’s correct.

Q And some of those people obviously have particular susceptibilities to, among other things, drug abuse?

A Yes. That’s correct.

Q And (indiscernible) a number of people that you’ve had dealings with in the last ten years have been abusing marihuana, in particular?

A They’ve been using marihuana.

Q Using?

A Some of them have been using, a few of them have been abusing it.

Q And the—changing topic slightly, the policy work in the 70’s and the 80’s that you did, you had—you had opportunity to actually make input to Canadian government officials during that time period?

A That’s correct.

Q And you shared your views with them then?

A Yes. I—when I was—had my opportunity around specific issues. I was not specifically involved in the development of any government policy around the issues of marihuana. I was more, around the issues of marihuana for the federal government, more involved in looking at health promotion issues and treatment issues.

Q Okay. So, there were no—you weren’t consulted in relation to marihuana issues during that time frame with the government?

A Oh, I was—no, quite definitely but not legal issues, is what I’m saying.

Q Okay. Did you have, at the time, the point of view that you have now that the laws were essentially wrong?

A It wasn’t that the—I didn’t feel that the—I didn’t feel, at the time, the law was wrong and I didn’t think much about the law. I was a fairly middle class Canadian citizen that thought that the people that created the law were doing it on the basis of sophisticated information that wasn’t available to me. After I’d been involved in the field and started to read extensively in the field and heard the history, then I saw how some of the problems—there were inconsistencies with the law between what I thought might—in the way it was practised and implemented in the community and the consequences for people who were my patients. When you think that in Vancouver, which had an extensive sort of drug squad, drug undercover history in the 60’s because two thirds of Canada’s heroin addicts were there, that when marihuana first started to appear, the line police would use the choke hold on people that were smoking marihuana. That’s the kind of legacy upon which the—you sort

of—the law and its practitioners—it was just misinformed.

Q And you—what you—you haven’t come up with those views since that time? You held those views during that time, once you got into—

A That’s a view that evolved over the ten years that I was a practitioner and I’ve had—I haven’t changed my view because I haven’t found anything that ever—any information that ever dissuaded me from that point of view.

Q And did—I’m not clear. Did you have the opportunity to share those views with the government during that time period when you were being consulted?

A I would not say in any—in a public sense I had the opportunity where I formally did a presentation either to a commission or did any writing on it. Certainly I had opportunity to talk to people within the Health Protection Branch and the Bureau of Dangerous Drugs about laws and relationship to that. Most of those people were physicians. They were not people that were really responsible for changing the law.

Q Okay. I want to ask you for awhile about—you saw the health effects associated with marihuana. I’m going to try, as best I can, to distinguish that from some of the policy and—policy issues that—

A Certainly.

Q -- you’ve discussed and we’ll come back to those later. You referred to, in chief, the fact that—and this was back in March, this isn’t today, that there were some problematic affects associated with marihuana use. That’s a fair statement, isn’t it?

A Yes. That’s correct.

Q And I think you said also that you still, to this day, educate your patients about abuse of marihuana and try to prevent that kind of abuse?

A That’s right. And once again, the word abuse, in my mind, is my value about certain patterns and types of use and so I would be very definitely discouraging my patients from abusive patterns.

Q And what—

A That are generally determined by—in a medical inquiry about that individual and the vulnerability they might have because of their premorbid personality or because of their particular unique vulnerability to the effects of the drug in certain dosage range and within certain patterns of use.

Q Some of the affects that you—well, the affects that you described in chief seem to focus mostly on things like anxiety attacks, dysphoria, depression, that sort of thing. The things that you were observing in the clinics.

A That currently would be the—what I would be most concerned about. As a person in my previous post, where I was seen as being an expert, in the general sense, around the drug and its implication for the larger community, I would be concerned about other things. I would be concerned about its affects on people under the—who are driving a car. I’d be concerned about people that were using it and the long term consequences for the development of lung problems. I would be concerned about whether they would

develop—people who were pregnant would have—and continued to use, the affects that it would have on the developing child.

Q You’ve said earlier you read the Hall report and the summary of the various effects that it—

A Yes.

Q -- came to? And that’s a fair summary of the literature and the existing known effects of marihuana?

A I think it is an excellent summary.

Q And no reason to dispute its conclusions with respect to health affects?

A I have some questions about their conclusions. For example, some of their conclusions around the affects on the lung but I think in the main, that the—that that report supports my point of view. That this is

not—the use of this drug in the community is not a substantial health problem.

Q Did you read also the 1981 report of the Addiction Research Foundation?

A Not in its entirety. I’ve read the summary that’s before the court.

Q All right. And the A.R.F., as it’s known, is know to you?

A Yes. And the world, yes.

Q That’s a worldwide organization of scientists?

A It’s a Canadian, provincial—provincial organization that has international reputation for its science and its education and so it’s a highly respected organization. It is large enough and strong enough with a history that it can encompass a variety of points of view but most of what comes out of it is responsible science, once again, couched in the—in certain terms because they get their money from government.

Q I want to ask you about some of the health affects that are referred to in the literature. I’m going to try to do it without actually going to the literature. If, at any point, you need to refer to something, certainly ask and we’ll—

A Okay. Sure.

Q -- get it, but I think we’ll try to stay simple. You’ve already referred to some of them but I just want to go over them and get your views on whether these are actually health concerns or affects, all right?

A Yes.

Q First of all, and you referred to this quite recently, problems with respect to the lungs. Is it—is there a potential for marihuana to impair respiratory and pulmonary function?

A I think there’s an over emphasis of some of the problems in the literature. I think responsible literature demonstrates that the—because the smoke of marihuana is almost indistinguishable from cigarette smoke, that a lot of the same problems prevail. I think the separation is that it has to do with the amount and the dose of both the—and the length of time that you’re smoking, the amount of time that you have the particular volume of smoke in your lung. I think there are problems of bronchitis. I think they have demonstrated and they’ve demonstrated since 1972, histopathological changes in cell structures in the lining of the lungs that are consistent with changes that are seen as precursor to the development of cancer in the lung.

Q So, you would—you would certainly suggest that there’s potential for more study and perhaps a need for more study into that?

A Well, I guess what I’d have to say, unless I saw differently and I didn’t see differently, they say that we could have potential but they’re going to be saying that, would be my obser—we’ve had twenty years since some of these very significant findings were found out. I don’t think epidemiological studies have demonstrated that those concerns, in twenty years, have been founded. Maybe—and I would doubt that another twenty years is going to clarify that particular issue.

Q In your evidence in chief you pointed out that after the Ledane Commission, there was a real shortage of funding with respect to marihuana research, do you recall that?

A I can remember—I can remember talking to—when he passed through the province after the Ledane Commission, Miller, Dr. Miller who was responsible for overseeing all of that research, he said there was—there were large buildings filled of half finished research that would never be done now. I think one of the things the commission started was a lot of very responsible research and perhaps a lot of that research has been done elsewhere and in Europe. But in Canada there was certainly suddenly a drop off in the amount of responsible research being done around this drug.

Q And there’s a difficulty too, isn’t there, in Canada and most places in researching this drug because of the fact that it’s illegal?

A That’s always been a major problem and it—to this day it makes it a continuing problem. So, -- and I think that’s why the criminalization of the drug has to be reconsidered so that perhaps it would open up the horizon so that we could start to get, continue to get and develop more sophisticated information.

Q Given the fact that there is that difficulty around the world with the research and also the drop off in research generally, it might not be that surprising that in the last twenty years we haven’t advanced that far on that issue?

A Well, I think the Ledane Commission mentioned in their report on marihuana that they’d considered two thousand six hundred different scientific papers and I’ve heard anecdotally that there’s now about thirteen thousand that are available for consideration. There has been certain types of research that has been supported and continued and this is research that has generally supported the—if you wish, the status quo, the fixed view of this is a problematic drug. I don’t think if you went to funding organizations and said I’ve got this study that’s going to look at this aspect and I think I’m going to prove that we’ve always been wrong about this and, therefore, your policy ill-advised, I don’t think that group would get funding and I think there’s enough reports about that bias in the nature of the support monetarily for research in the States, that I think the same would apply in Canada.

Q Just returning back to the initial question, with respect and we were talking about respiratory problems in—

A Yes.

Q -- the lungs and that sort of thing. Is it not fair to say that the current state of the research—the research couldn’t prove, from its current state?

A I think—I think the—in this regard. It’s my understanding that there’s very substantial research being done on long term studies that have not demonstrated the problems that have been suggested regarding the law in the earlier studies. If—I think other—if that was given credence and reviewed and further studies supported that point of view, then I think we would advance the understanding. But if they—to leave it the way it is now, I think, is inappropriate because I still think people are trying to make responsible statements, they’re still coming to conclusions that this is a big problem and I don’t think it’s a particularly big problem, the effects of marihuana smoking, in isolation from cigarette smoking on the lungs of individuals.

Q Okay. So, --

A Unless they get into high dose and regular and chronic use that’s of such a—which is rare in the community, then they could have significant problems. I think the nature and the type and the pattern of use in the community will never cause a problem in terms of a significant public health problem in regards to the lung.

Q Okay. So, if I understand you correctly, there are certain reports still out there and certain people still out there who are disputing some of the newer points of view in this particular area, --

A Yes.

Q -- and that dispute—

A Yes. There’s no doubt that—

Q -- could stand resolution?

A Yeah. Further clarification for the benefit of all.

Q Okay. Turn to a different effect, that is cognitive impairment both of attention and memory. Is that—that’s something that’s experienced by people using marihuana?

A Yes. Most characteristically seen in people under the acute influence in the intoxicative stage of marihuana. Also seen in the chronic long term users that are in a state of chronic intoxication but this, once again, is an example—you use the word cognitive and then if you look at the literature, well, cognition has to do with a variety of elements, under a variety of influences. And a lot of the literature—somebody just makes a sweeping statement about cognitive effects without being very specific about what they’re referring to and I think that’s the kind of problem we have in the larger education. Is you start to get generalities made that really give it a lot more currency than is warranted.

Q In the—

A But the concern to look at and try and explain and uncover the relationship of this drug to influencing cognition, the concern that it might have a permanent effect, I think on the basis of the literature that’s been resolved. We know that it does affect cognition in certain individuals, under certain conditions.

Q And certain individuals in the long term with certain patterns of use, is that fair?

A That’s correct.

Q Okay.

A And I think that’s a small number of people that use the drug and therefore, I think that goes to the issue before the court.

Q And the short term, it would have—it impacts on most or all users, wouldn’t it?

A Yes, it does. And nonusers too, so that they don’t support practises in the community, or they do support practices in the community, or educational formats in the community that are helpful.

Q Turn to another health area, psychomotor skills. Are psychomotor skills impaired as a result of marihuana use?

A Psychomotor skills are impaired as a result of motor (sic) use but even by saying that, I’m starting to make, once again, a generality where very specific—very specific elements of psychomotor skills are influenced to a certain degree, in certain conditions, based on certain patterns of use. So, all of the same things regarding cognition apply to this. Yes. There is some impairment of psychomotor skills in users of marihuana.

Q Okay. Perhaps you can tell us which skills are impaired?

A Well, the skills that are impaired are for—generally, the literature that demonstrates this and it’s not always confirmed by other literature, is when the task requires attention that, over time, when they are complex skills that require certain hand eye co-ordination that are complex with a changing milieu. That’s the most likely case where you’ll see psychomotor skill impairment.

Q What’s your view specifically with respect to driving a motor vehicle under the influence of marihuana? Would you consider that—

A I’d be very opposed to that. I think I mentioned that last March because I don’t think somebody who’s

under—who’s intoxicated by any substance should be in charge of a ton and a half of metal moving at speed along public streets.

Q And marihuana certainly falls into the category of one of the intoxicants that has the ability to interfere with that ability?

A That’s correct.

Q Did you, in your experience, or in reviewing the literature, come across psychological dependence with respect to marihuana?

A Both clinically, I’ve had—I had a couple of cases where I would have said it would be a psychological dependence and I think—I don’t think there’s any doubt that a small number of individuals who use the drug on a regular basis, in high dose situations, would eventually become psychologically dependent. This is not surprising but to suggest that this has a very high addictive potential or a high potential for psychological dependency, I think, would be misinforming. I think very few people become psychologically dependent upon it. When I was working in the clinics, I would occasionally be aware of and actually see individuals that were psychologically dependent upon the drug and brought that concern to the clinic. That was very rare.

Q Those—that small group of people that suffer from that type of dependence, they—an example of the effects it can have on them is it can interfere with their own personal development, as an example?

A Yes. They—they definitely—even they had come to that conclusion. Yes.

Q That’s why those people would seek treatment?

A They would seek and try and get some support for changing the pattern because it was interfering with their function.

Q Now, this—turn to another area and this is certainly an area you’ve been dealing with, with the

psychiatric—people with psychiatric problems. There is certain literature that suggests that there’s an increased risk of experience psychotic symptoms for people and specifically, schizophrenia, for people who are predisposed to that. Is that something you accept?

A That is something that I accept and I think I mentioned that this morning. The—there—in the terms of the literature that’s before the court, generally in North America it’s been difficult to substantiate the direct effect of it creating a psychosis, a cannabis psychosis. Most of the literature that is heavily weighted in that regard comes from other countries, particularly India and Egypt and that was done in the 70’s.

Q There’s a number of concerns with respect to pregnant women and I think you earlier, in cross examination, made reference to that. I want to ask you about a few distinct ones. First of all, there’s some literature with respect to an increased risk of low birth weight babies. Is that something you’ve had the opportunity to read about or see?

A Yes, and I’d be satisfied that that has a legitimate concern. That applies to women that smoke. So, I think one would—of one’s interested in sorting out this information, is it the effect of the drug or is it the effect of the nature the drug is taken, i.e., the smoking that has that effect. Because we’ve known for quite a few years that women that smoke have low birth weights as well.

Q I think the report you’re referring to is a rather recent one, a ‘95 report that’s in the materials?

A Yeah. That’s right. Fairly recent but I think it’s sophisticated and I think it’s responsible and I think that it’s something that has to be addressed.

Q And it actually is in contrast to some of the previous literature on the same issue, isn’t it?

A That’s right. It—I think there had been a fair level of comfort about that developing and I think this raises a concern again.

Q There’s also literature suggesting that there’s a potential for birth defects as a result of use?

A Yes. This is one that—this is one that’s been around for many years and based on my understanding and—I have an open mind about that. I don’t think they’ve satisfactorily demonstrated that in the scientific literature that’s before the court.

Q Demonstrated that it exists or doesn’t exist?

A That it—that there’s a real concern—there’s a real issue here. There’s a concern but I don’t think the scientific evidence is conclusive.

Q There’s also some literature suggesting the potential for leukaemia in offspring as a result of marihuana use, did you come across that?

A That’s right. That was something I hadn’t heard before. A particular type of leukaemia that can’t be just wished away by people that want to, you know, support the legitimization of marihuana. I think this is another one but a more critical scientific experience with that particular type of problem, I think, needs to be clarified.

Q So, like the person who I referred to before about potentially operating a motor vehicle, I take it your advice to a pregnant woman also would be not to use marihuana?

A I think that’s good—not to use marihuana, not to minimize the use of most substance under drug categories would be responsible medical practise.

Q Turning to another area and you referred to this in your evidence in chief, immune system dysfunction. I took your evidence to be that you—that that’s been disproved? Problems in that area have been disproved?

A I think that’s another example. Based on my review of the literature, most people, particularly with the large population in Vancouver and I was aware that the general rule of thumb in the education by doctors of their patients who had AIDS was that they—if they smoke marihuana, they would make themselves more vulnerable through compromising further immune system. I don’t think that has been substantiated and therefore—and in fact, there is now a body of experience developing, I don’t know how well it’s being researched, where they are actually using marihuana in the treatment of people who have the disease AIDS because whatever you—AIDS is, in all people it’s a wasting syndrome, where they lose their appetite and lose weight. There’s some indication that by smoking marihuana, they can—they can improve their quality of life. They can improve their appetite. They can have less anxiety than they would have without it and this wasting syndrome seems to be ameliorated and there’s no evidence that they are—their disease is being compromised through that use.

Q And just as an—this is an example of one of the concerns that appears in the Hall and Solloway (phonetic) report and—I’ll just go on. The report itself breaks down the health concerns in two areas, probable concerns and possible concerns. Do you recall that part of the report?

A Yeah. The Hall Report.

Q Hall is the Australian report?

A Yes. Yes.

Q And my recollection is that immune system dysfunction, they review the literature and they come to the conclusion that it’s not as much of a concern but still in the group of possible concerns?

A Yes.

Q Some of the literature refers to negative impact marihuana use as on adolescent educational performance. You would agree that that has the potential to have that effect?

A I would doubt that marihuana use alone would have that effect and I think the—most of the discussions in regard to that are pretty responsible. That they suggest that there are generally other correlates that go to that issue, the premorbid personality and other factors. I don’t think just through the use of marihuana—does any literature suggest that conclusion simply through the use of the marihuana, that it affects learning. In fact, there’s some evidence that—there’s some very good evidence and responsible research, as I understand, suggests that people that—adolescents that use marihuana in the way that most of them use it, which is episodically with friends, on occasion, in fact enhances some of their performances and doesn’t detract.

Q Going back to the first part you mentioned about people with predispositions, for those people, the—who suffer reduction of their performance educationally and are predisposed, nonetheless, the marihuana can act as a catalyst with those people in causing that problem?

A Well, I think because it does effect cognitive function, if they want to take their particular attitude and belief system and smoke marihuana when they walk in and sit there and try and do a history class when they’re stoned, they’re not going to learn much. But to suggest that their capacity to learn is significantly compromised by most patterns of use that you see in young people, I think, is to put the emphasis over the board.

Q No, it’s—yeah. What you’re saying is it’s a problem in some senses if you use it in certain ways and not a problem if you use it responsibly?

A Yes, and that’s because I’m trying to be responsible in the weight that is being considered in the court—or giving opinion, as to what weight I think the court should consider in this regard. You keep raising these issues as if they’re substantial health problems. I don’t think they’re substantial health problems. They could be health—they are health concerns. They are health possibilities and I think we need to work with them but I think we give some of these things that you’re mentioning too much weight and as a consequence, you end up with a frightened, concerned community that’s willing to support fairly reactionary authoritarian practises by the government in regard to the drug.

Q Just to be clear, I’m not trying to put any emphasis on any of these concerns. I’m just asking if they exist.

A Yeah. Well, no. I’m not accusing you of doing that. I think your questions are very fair but I’m saying simply by raising the issue in the air, we give it a primacy that maybe it doesn’t deserve.

Q Okay. Now, I want to just go back to something you said in chief back in March and I’m—it’s a theory that you advanced rather than paraphrasing I’m going to read it to you because it was—

A In the scientific sense, I’m sure it was a hypothesis rather than theory.

Q Perhaps. It’s too complex for me. I’m just going to read it to you. You said, "It’s my belief that the only people that have trouble with marihuana are people that have a predisposition to that trouble and the setting and by that I mean the circumstances around which they took the drug. The set, i.e., the psychology of the individual and everything that led up to that moment. The drug is just simply a catalyst and unfortunately, a catalyst to bring out the difficulty. In a lot of instances, it’s my opinion that they would have had that difficulty eventually, whether they had or had not smoked marihuana." Do you recall—

A Yes.

Q And you’ve been saying something quite similar to that again today?

A Yes, and I would—I guess for clarity, generally what I’m referring to is in the terms of psychiatric—within the context of psychiatric changes or psychological problems that might develop. Some of the other ones that are still out in the open for consideration that go to physical matters, have to do with certain individual vulnerabilities as well but I don’t—I think I would—I was referring there primarily to psychological or psychiatric difficulties.

Q Thank you. That’s what I wanted to clarify. And the theory would actually apply to all drugs too, wouldn’t it?

A Yeah. I feel fairly comfortable with the statement—

Q Heroin—

A -- in that regard. I just—

Q Heroin, cocaine?

A I think as you move through the spectrum of drugs, I think the drug itself plays a stronger role in some instances but it would apply generally to most drugs.

Q Now, I’m going to switch from health affects and ask you some questions about the evidence you’ve given on policy and—

A Yes.

Q First of all, I take it from your evidence that you’re of the view that—essentially that the harm reduction type model can be—ought to be pursued—

A Yes.

Q -- in relation to marihuana?

A Yes. Definitely.

Q Education and treatment are the primary ways of dealing with it, right?

A Education and treatment, I think, should be the primary ways of dealing with the problems.

Q And they are used, to some extent, currently?

A Currently. Some of the more impoverished than others.

Q In the course of your dealings with the government and bureaucrats with respect to the policy issues in the 70’s and the 80’s, you had the opportunity to meet with people with a variety of diverse interests in relation to the marihuana issue specifically?

A Yes.

Q And you met—the views that you have certainly met with opposition from a great number of people?

A Not at that time.

Q No. The views that you—sorry. That wasn’t—

A Okay.

Q The views that you have now, that we’re talking about today, with respect to the laws and the government and the position the government’s taken, that’s a view that received—was being advanced by other people then and was opposed by quite a number of people as well?

A Yes.

Q And your view now, the people who are opposed to those types of views, are wrong?

A I think they’re misinformed.

Q And they might say the same about your point of view?

A Yes.

Q Now, in chief today, you said the law and the government, in your view, are not up to date on the current scientific evidence. Do you recall giving that evidence?

A Yes.

Q Can you say what evidence you have about what the government has taken into account in terms of scientific evidence and its current policies?

A I haven’t seen any change, other than the recent attempt with C-7 and discussions around that. So, it’s anecdotal, my information in that regard.

Q Okay, and when you’re saying that, you’re drawing inferences from the government’s policies and assuming that they aren’t up to date with the scientific evidence. You can’t say whether they’ve considered it or not?

A I would hope they’d have considered it but I don’t think the policy reflects that it’s a serious consideration.

Q So, you—in your view, the current scientific evidence hasn’t been given the right emphasis by the policy makers?

A It hasn’t been—with those people that understand the scientific evidence, that have certain points of view, I don’t think have been given full hearing and that they’ve considered that fairly. I can—but that’s an assumption.

Q Again, it’s an assumption. It’s your inference by looking at the policies, --

A Yeah.

Q -- that they can’t possibly be looked at?

A You know, but we’re gonna bring plutonium into Canada, so—

Q In chief you also referred to, at the end, the health impact of the criminal prohibition—the criminal prohibition of marihuana, as it was described to you, had certain health impacts and I just want to clarify what it is—what those impacts are, in your evidence. I have three points and I’ll go through those—

A Okay.

Q -- and you tell me if there’s more to it than that. The first was said in a few different ways, I think, but it’s summed up by the fact that there’s misinformation and distrust as a result of the existence of the prohibition and especially in young people, is that correct?

A I think, yes, it contributes—it’s a contributing factor.

Q And the second health effect you referred to was an increase in paranoia but you said that was a lesser effect?

A Yes. It’s something that needs to be described, yes.

Q And the third was the restrictions on people’s freedom, in terms of travel and passports and that type of thing?

A Yes, and the consequences of being—a criminal conviction and the impact that that has upon them.

Q And is that a fair summary of your position with respect to the health effects of the prohibition laws related to marihuana?

A No. I don’t think—I think—in terms—if you’re talking about health, I think there’s still enough concern that one has to be open about the possibilities that there are health effects and consequences, as we talked about, on individuals that will smoke but I don’t think those health effects warrant the general liability that the criminalization creates for individuals.

Q Okay, and the general liability—

A Are the—

Q -- that you’re referring to, have I summed it up—

A Yeah. Those three, yeah. Primarily.

Q Now, I have to ask you, in chief back in March you may recall referring to someone, we’re not all sure who you’re referring to. You described someone as a narrow-minded fascist. I think you were referring to the head of the Alcohol and Drug Commission?

A Yes.

Q Who was that?

A His name, I believe, was Bert Hoskins.

Q And what was the reason for describing him that way? I take it he’s associated with the heroin treatment program, that was the main reason?

A He was also the individual that invited me to participate in the creation of The House, who invited me to panels in 1970 to talk to parents, who introduced me to parents and he then, around that time while I was still volunteering and we were starting to set up the program, he then was asked to step down from his position as the executive director of the Narcotic Addiction Foundation. I didn’t hear—I would hear about him again occasionally on programs like Jack Webster when the Kalanski and Moore paper was getting a lot of publicity. Then later on, when the Socreds, in 1976 came back into power, he became the—appointed by the Minister of Health as the chairman of the Alcohol and Drug Commission and he dramatically impacted that commission.

Q All right. So, there’s a change in government. As a result of a change in government, he’s appointed and he’s someone with whom you differ substantially in your viewpoints related to treatment of drug problems, is that fair?

A That’s very, very definitely correct. I won’t hold the fact that he’s a bit fascist in his responses against him. He was trained in the Canadian army.

Q One final thing, I think.

Q You’ve made some reference to Dr. Harold Kalant, who I take it you’re familiar with, both personally and through the literature?

A Yes. I—well, personally from the standpoint of being a student in his class and having read a book that he’s co-authored and using it as a guideline in my educational initiatives in the early 70’s. And reviewing his various scientific documents he’s made over the years. I have tremendous respect for Dr. Kalant.

MR. HEWITT: All right. Perhaps if I could just have one moment?

MR. CONROY: I have a brief amount. I don’t know if the doctor’s going to stay for lunch and come back or whether you prefer I just ask them now. Perhaps that’s the easiest.

Q When my friend was asking you about psychiatric disorders and susceptibility to drug abuse and you clarified that, you said some are abusing and some using. How do we differentiate between those two, in your mind, when you answered that question?

A I almost regretted doing it but I thought for clarification, since he’d chosen to use the word "view" several times in his questions. Those of us that were very involved in the education of people and responsible for the education, tried to tease out the difference between misuse and abuse and the Ledane Commission said we don’t want to use either word. We’re going to call it nonmedical use. So, it’s always been a conundrum in the field but it’s clear to people who are educators and drug educators and people in the field, that the word abuse is a value judgment but does not help clarify the issue. So, I think misuse—I’ve tended to use misuse just as a—not to get into this issue of abuse.

Q When you were asked about health concerns or affects and specifically with respect to the lungs and you said there was still a question to be addressed and you talked about some of the damage, pathological changes in the lung tissue since 1972 but no increase in cancer and so on since, do you remember that discussion?

A Yes.

Q When you were answering the questions put by my friend in that area, were you talking about the effects of marihuana, or its smoke, or the THC in the marihuana, or can you clarify it or be specific on it?

A For clarification, it is definitely not the THC that is the problem. It is the carcinogens that are in the smoke—the smoke of marihuana and the smoke of tobacco that would cause those problems. There’s evidence that in the—with marihuana smoke, because of the nature and pattern of use, that the problems you see with regular cigarette smoking might well not develop. The trouble is, you don’t have—it’s very difficult to find that pure population of people that just smoke marihuana alone episodically or in the general use pattern and not extremes at either end of the spectrum of use. It’s hard to find a population that you can make long term predictions about and hopefully, they are—somebody’s following one of those groups now and will get better information about that. But I would suspect it is not going to demonstrate it is much of a problem.

Q Okay, and finally, the book that you referred to by Dr. Kalant that you had—that you said was co-authored by him and that you’d read and used in presumably that period prior to ‘82 --

A Yes.

Q -- with your patients and so on, that was this book, "Drugs, Society and Personal Choice," is that correct?

A That’s correct.

Q And it’s written by Harold Kalant and Oriana Joso (phonetic) Kalant, you understand to be his wife, is that right?

A That’s correct.

Q This—but this is the particular book you were referring—

A That was the particular book I was referencing, yes.

Q So, as I understood, when you were in your practice and people came with drug problems, or parents or others, you would often refer to this book and information in this book to either assure them or provide them with information or whatever?

A Yes. Rather than with individual—I—it certainly went to my attitudes about the drug and the advice I’d give patients but I gave—over those ten or twelve years, gave several hundred public educative forums, speeches, panels and I would be influenced by what was in that drug (sic). In fact, I used it quite specifically time and time again for some of the—in certain types of presentations.

THE COURT: We will stand down for lunch break. I have a judgment to deliver at 1:30, so why don’t we excuse the Caine matter ‘til 1:45.

THE COURT: Mr. Conroy, on the Caine matter, are you able to give me some indication of how the week is going to proceed?

MR. CONROY: Yes. My last witness is going to be Dr. Morgan and I expect he’ll be this afternoon, all of tomorrow, including cross exam which may go into Wednesday. We then have—I understand my friend has Dr. Kalant coming tomorrow night so that he’s available for Wednesday and I expect that we would hear him then the balance of Wednesday and into the Thursday, into Friday, if necessary. My friends’ indication to me at this point is that they aren’t going to have any other witnesses.

THE COURT: Can I make a request of both counsel, which is if there’s going to be written summaries of facts and of arguments, could you provide me with a copy of the disk, the computer disk, as well as a hard copy?

MR. CONROY: I’ve managed to overcome my (indiscernible) tendencies and even I know how to now press a mouse button.

THE COURT: Word Perfect. Windows For Word or Word—I’m confused now.

MR. DOHM: I don’t use Word Perfect but it would be Microsoft Word for Windows.

THE COURT: I have Microsoft Word 5.0 but not in windows, just -- 5.0?

MR. CONROY: If we could know by the end of the day exactly what is best for you, I’m sure that I can have our disk formatted to exactly what works for you because I know our machine will convert to what—somebody else’s. --

THE COURT: All right. I have—I can tell you exactly what I can operate under.

THE COURT: Word Perfect 5.1, Word 5.0 or Word Perfect For Windows and I guess that’s 6.1.

MR. CONROY: Another housekeeping matter just before I call Dr. Morgan. I don’t know if you have the Kalant—or sorry, the Hammond (phonetic) situation sorted out. I have a package here. It’s my understanding Ms. Smith-Gander went through the transcripts to see what we had given you and what we hadn’t and it looks like this package is what you don’t have. You may recall that we gave you the English—what was in English in the transcript but I don’t think we gave you the French yet. My friends—the ruling was that we put everything in front of you, including the French. We’re still working on getting some of the French translated but I wanted to make sure you had the complete transcript.

So, what this is, is the index essentially for the whole sets of volumes and then we believe that what we have excerpted here, which has various page numbers on it, are various arguments, submissions of counsel, things like that, that we hadn’t reproduced before. There is also some evidence that was in French that you don’t have before. So that if we give you this, you should have the full set but without the translation yet in the French part. This first page should show you how it all fits in to what you’ve got.

THE COURT: All right. I will, over the course of the week, go through the materials I’ve got and try to confirm that I’m not missing anything.

MR. CONROY: Yes, Your Honour, and if you could confirm whether or not we gave you the transcript of that Cholette (phonetic) case because we couldn’t find that referred to in the transcript but I thought that I’d handed that up to you. It was the Victoria case.

MR. CONROY: We’ve got extra copies here if you don’t have it.

MR. CONROY: Yeah. Well, this is the transcript, just so that you have that too.

THE COURT: All right. I think my friend said I’ve given them that already. Now, we will have more materials to give you during the week just to round out the full picture. Most of it is just—I promised a copy of the Narcotic Control Act Regulations so you’d have the full statute in front of you and I have made copies also of some of the provincial health legislation and tobacco legislation, federally and provincially, so you see what the legislative scheme is in relation to tobacco and any other bits and pieces. I think that essentially covers it and we will—well, we’ll hand out the rest as we go along. Hopefully, you’ll have it all before the end of the week.

THE CLERK: Please state your full name and spell your last name for the record.

A My name is John Paul Morgan. M-o-r-g-a-n.

MR. CONROY: I’m tendering Dr. Morgan, Your Honour, as a medical doctor, physician and as an expert on the effects of alcohol and psychotropic drugs including, specifically, marihuana on human beings. He is with the Department of Pharmacology at the City University, New York Medical School. So, I’ll go through his curriculum vitae but the areas that we are going to be seeking to elicit an expert opinion are in relation to medical effects and pharmacological effects and the pharmacology of the drug.

Q Dr. Morgan, you’re with the Department of

Pharmacology—

MR. DOHM: -- just let Your Honour know that I will not be objecting to this doctor giving evidence as a medical man and—on the effects of alcohol and psychotropic drugs. So, his qualifications will be admitted, Your Honour.

THE COURT: All right. Based on that admission then, I will qualify Dr. Morgan to give expert opinion evidence as a medical doctor and to give expert opinion evidence on the effects of alcohol and psychotropic drugs on human beings.

MR. CONROY: I have two copies of his curriculum vitae, one that could be marked then as the next exhibit and one for the Court to use. My friends have got a copy of it.

Q All right. So, Dr. Morgan, you’re a medical doctor and you’re with the Department of Pharmacology, City University, New York Medical School in New York City?

A That’s correct.

Q Now, you live in New York city?

A Yes.

Q And you were educated at the University of Cincinnati, Arts and Science, 1962?

A Yes.

Q And University of Cincinnati College of Medicine. You got your medical doctor’s degree in 1965?

A Correct.

Q You then had postdoctoral training first at Upstate—City University, New York, Upstate Medical Centre at Syracuse?

A It’s actually the State University of New York.

Q That’s the State University. That’s the difference between C.U.N.Y. and S.U.N.Y?

A That’s correct.

Q All right. So, State University in New York, Upstate Medical Centre Syracuse as an intern in the Department of Medicine from 1965 to 1966?

A Correct.

Q Then at the same State University in New York, Upstate Medical Centre, an assistant resident with the Department of Medicine from 1966 to 1967?

A Also correct.

Q You were then with John Hopkins Medical Institution, Baltimore, as a physician, fellow, in clinical pharmacology with the Department of Medicine from 1969 to 1970?

A Correct.

Q You were then with the University of Rochester Medical School in Rochester, New York, as a fellow in clinical pharmacology with the Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology and the Department of Medicine from 1970 to 1972?

A Yes.

Q Okay. You’re licensed—a licensed physician for the State of New York?

A Yes.

Q You were in the United States Air Force Medical Corp as captain from 1967 to 1969?

A Yes.

Q And at which you were honourably discharged?

A Correct.

Q You have a number of certifications with the National Board of Medical Examiners, 1965. American Board of Internal Medicine, 1971. California Society for the Treatment of Alcoholism and other Drug Dependencies 1984 and the American Society of Addiction Medicine 1985?

A Correct.

Q You’ve had a postdoctoral fellowship award as the NIDA, which is the National Institute of Drug Abuse—

A National Institute On Drug abuse.

Q On Drug Abuse. The Career Teacher Award, University of Rochester, 1975?

A Correct.

Q And you’ve had a number of faculty appointments which are listed in detail in your curriculum vitae which has now become Exhibit 26?

A Yes.

Q One of the other awards that I understand that you received was something to do with Gerald Ledane, I understand?

A That’s correct. The Drug Policy Foundation, a Washington, D.C. based drug reform think-tank advocacy group, has a set of annual awards for awards in scholarship, awards in community activism, awards in journalism and they have always had an award in legal issues named for Gerald Ledane because of the prominence of the Ledane Commission report in the early 1970’s here in Canada. I am the 1996 recipient of the Gerald Ledane award as the individual who did the most to advance drug reform in the legal area. And of course, there’s much commentary about why a physician would win such an award and it was basically because I have been available as an expert witness in a number of settings and hearings regarding drug policy reform, regarding marihuana issues, regarding sentencing issues in the United States, regarding urine testing issues and their application to individuals in the workplace and the criminal justice setting.

Q Okay. Your primary expertise is as a physician or medical doctor but with also a particular emphasis on pharmacology, is that correct?

A Yeah. I am trained in what’s called, in the western world, clinical pharmacology. A group of physicians who became—interested and trained in the evaluation of drug affect in humans. So, it’s a pharmacology particularly focused on humans and a drug effect being both that of evaluation of therapeutic effect and the evaluation of toxic effects.

Q So, you are able to give expert opinion as a physician with respect to the effects of alcohol and psychotropic drugs on human beings. Does that adequately cover your expertise?

A It does. I would only add that I also have spent a fair amount of time working in basic research and animal studies as many other pharmacologists have. Although I’ve not performed those of late, I have significant experience in performing the kind of work that pharmacologists who are not physicians perform.

Q And as I understand it, you’ve reviewed extensively the literature, scientific research, whether involving animals or human beings, in relation to the effects of marihuana specifically and perhaps other drugs as well?

A That’s correct.

Q And so you can extrapolate or you can comment on the research that’s been done using animal studies, for example, as well as those done with human beings?

A Yes.

MR. CONROY: So, I would ask, in the event that that expands his expertise, I don’t think it does but obviously in talking about the effects on human beings he’s had reference to studies involving animals, so I ask that that at least be covered as well.

THE COURT: All right. I—I’m content to leave the description of his field of expertise as it is, on the understanding that to become an expert in the effects of alcohol and psychotropic drugs on human beings, one would naturally look at a much broader spectrum of scientific research, including research on animals.

Q The rest of your qualifications, Doctor, I won’t go through them. They are set out in your curriculum vitae which is now Exhibit 26 and it includes various society memberships, editorial advisory boards that you sit on and reviews that you conduct for various journals and so on?

A Yes.

Q It also contains extensively books, chapters, proceedings and other articles and so on that you have completed throughout your career?

A Yes.

Q Now, in October of 1995, a monograph was prepared called Exposing Marihuana Myths, A Review of the Scientific Evidence. I understand that was completed by you and a colleague, Lynn Zimmer, associate professor of sociology at Queens College in New York, is that right?

A That’s correct.

Q And essentially, tell us a bit about that monograph and who it came to pass and then we’ll go to the more expansive—

A In the summer of 1995, the National Institute on Drug Abuse held a meeting in Washington, D.C., focused on the harms and problems of marihuana use. This meeting grew out of, in part, the evidence that there is increasing prevalence of use of marihuana by young people in the United States. Although the usual surveys of drug use indicate for the entire population in the United States, prevalence remains at a fairly steady rate over the past few years, that the prevalence in twelve to seventeen year olds is increasing. That’s provoked concern in the United States and so the National Institute on Drug Abuse had held a meeting in the summer of 1995, in which they wished to comment on not only the increasing prevalence but the harms of marihuana.

Q Since preparing the monograph you have expanded on it and have almost completed essentially what will be a book that expands—

A Yeah.

Q -- on this monograph, is that right?

A Again, focusing on the idea that there are certain myths, very widely stated and very widely accepted. We have expanded the monograph, which I think was called Exposing Marihuana Myths, into a text called Marihuana Myths, Marihuana Facts, which will be published in approximately a month and is approximately a 125 page short text on marihuana myths.

Q All right, and you’ve provided me with a copy of that?

A Yes.

Q This document that I’m holding up is a copy of that document, to the extent that it’s—

A Yeah.

Q -- been prepared?

A Yeah. I might mention that it has twenty myths, therefore, has twenty chapters but the copy you hold in your hand has an old myth number one, which has been replaced and you do not have a copy of that. Then myth number nineteen has not yet been completed. So, myth number one and myth nineteen are left out of the copy that you have.

MR. CONROY: Okay. I’d ask that that be the next exhibit, please.

MR. CONROY: All right. Now, I should just mention for the court that the problems we had were page 10, it’s now okay and it’s Marihuana Use During Pregnancy but we have spliced in 10-3 and 4. So, I think the face page and then 3 and 4 you should have as loose pages that have been put in the book and that should give you the complete manuscript. So, if everybody’s got that, then we all have the same thing. All right.

Q I’d like you then, if you have that in front of you, Doctor and if the Court does, to then—let’s go to number two, --

A Okay.

Q -- Marihuana—and the headings, as I understand, for each chapter, set out the—first of all, the myth and then the facts, as you have determined them and then there is a brief chapter that provides further background on each—on this topic, is that right?

A That’s right.

Q So, number two then is "Marihuana Is More Potent Today Than In The Past." The myth set out in the top of the chapter is that, "Marihuana is more potent today than in the past. Adults who used marihuana in the 60’s and 70’s often fail to realize that when today’s youth use marihuana, they are using a much more dangerous drug." Then there appear a number of quotes which are taken from various newspaper accounts, I take it, or

other—

A Sometimes government publications sometimes scientific papers.

Q Are there any that we should be particularly—that should be particularly brought to our attention in this chapter?

A Well, I like number one and number five. Number one says, "Baby boomers with fond memories of long hits around the lava lamp may not be particularly alarmed by news that pot is making a comeback but the culture of cannabis has grown considerably more dangerous since the flower children left Haight Ashbury. Today’s marihuana is twenty times more potent."

Q And what—when you then delved into this topic, what conclusions did you come up with?

A Today’s marihuana, at least by available measures, is essentially the same as the marihuana sold in the United States and Canada in the 1970’s. Basically, there’s only one ongoing source of the measure of marihuana potency and that’s the University—the United States funded project in the University of Mississippi, which came into existence in about 1974 but let me say a word or two and you’ll have to warn me about being too prolix and taking up too much time.

Q And you believe that the amount—the average amount is somewhere between 2 and 3.4 percent?

A Yeah. Maybe 3 to 3.5 percent would be a fairer statement of the range.

Q And as indicated on page 2 of your—of Chapter 2, if the potency is less than 0.5 percent—

A Mm-hm.

Q -- I understand that has almost no psycho-activity?

A In fact, it has—basically has none and individuals given 1 percent material to smoke, often cannot tell it from placebo. Although, under certain experiences, under certain measures, you can find an impact. If you ask an individual who smoked 1 percent marihuana, he will usually not be able to distinguish it from placebo and again, at the level of 0.5 percent which is the acceptable level in commercial hemp grown in Canada—I’m sorry. Grown in France and Czechoslovakia and other places where hemp growth is legal, that’s the cut off, at 0.5 percent, is plant fibre type cannabis, while higher amounts of THC are required for drug type cannabis.

Q Okay. Now, as I understand it and it’s indicated again back on the first page, where you’ve set out the fact in relation to the myth. You say—first of all, you mention the samples and how the samples that did have this increased potency weren’t apparently representative but—and you then go on to say that the data from the 80’s to the present, which you’ve just reviewed, shows no increase in the average content but you then go on to comment if—even if it—they did contain more THC. What would that—what would the significance be if the marihuana today did contain more THC?

A The reason we made that statement is there is not a single paper in the medical literature showing or proving that higher potency THC is of greater hazard to human smokers. Not—there are no publications making a claim and there is an early publication looking at the panic reactions that individuals reported or the adverse psychological reactions and then a measure of the potency and adverse psychological reactions occur with material ranging from .7 to 7.5. So, there was no correlation. So, there’s no proof that individuals smoking higher potency marihuana have more problems.

Q Now, let me see if I just understand that, if I can summarize that. If you gave somebody marihuana with 1 to 2 percent THC, they wouldn’t be able to tell the difference?

A Usually not. That’s correct. That’s what the literature says.

Q If you then go up to a difference of 4 percent, that’s usually where people start to sense a difference?

A They—if they report by a difference but even if they don’t report a difference, their smoking behaviour changes. They may perceive their heart beating more quickly, more quickly. They may perceive more dryness in their mouth. They may perceive harshness. They may also perceive that my consciousness is changing very rapidly. This must be very good marihuana. And even without articulating it, they’ll begin to smoke less.

Q So, they start to titrate or reduce—

A Correct.

Q -- the dose?

A They’ll take in more air with the puff. They’ll take in a smaller puff volume. They’ll puff less off it. They’ll do a number of adjustments so that they take in less marihuana, even if they continue to smoke and particularly in these experiments, when they’re directed to continue to smoke, which is told as a condition of being in this experiment. We want you to finish this joint. They’ll do so but they’ll suck in more air, take smaller puffs, take less frequent puffs. Do a variety of things to diminish their absorption of THC.

Q And in addition to that, just because you’ve increased the dosage say 4 or 5 or even more times, there isn’t an equivalent amount of—

A Yeah.

Q -- increase in the effects on the person, in terms of getting high?

A That’s correct. And let me state that briefly and carefully, I hope.

Q Now, as I understand it, and this is indicated again at the first page, the THC itself does not cause damage to organs and tissues?

A There is essentially no convincing proof that THC is toxic to human tissues. At high dosage, THC has a big effect on mentation and consciousness and memory, which we’ll come to talk about, but there is no evidence, convincing evidence of any sort, that THC damages human tissue, particularly in the usual doses consumed and even in much higher than usual doses consumed.

Q So, when you said a moment ago that one of the major concerns in terms of pathology is the lungs, you were talking there, correct me if I’m wrong, about the smoking process, not the THC?

A That’s correct. The inhalation of combusted vegetable material is dangerous to the human lung. Whether that material be tobacco, whether it be marihuana, whether it be other vegetable materials that people have smoked in the past.

Q And the amount of damage varies, depending upon what?

A Mostly on the dose of smoke. We have, I think, Chapter 7, a discussion on the lung damage and it appears that the damage is related to the amount of smoke. So, even though an individual smoking a single marihuana cigarette, if he smokes it in the way that’s become traditional in the western world with deep inhalation and breath holding, he may deposit for that one cigarette more particulate material and more noxious chemicals than a single tobacco cigarette. Ultimately, the doses smoked by a tobacco smoker is much, much greater. A heavy marihuana smoker, by definition of the United States government, is five cigarettes per day and that’s a—very few marihuana smokers who consume that much. But a heavy smoker of tobacco smokes 40 joints a day or as my father did, sixty and this is an enormous dose of smoke and of noxious stimulants and hydrocarbons and particulate material. This is why tobacco smoking is so hazardous to the lungs.

Q Okay. Also at the end of that page, heading page for Chapter 2, you say, "Adverse psychological reactions from marihuana appear unrelated to potency."

A Earlier I had mentioned—in fact, I’ll talk about it specifically. A study which we refer to by a group of scientists in Los Angeles headed by a man named Ritslan (phonetic). It’s not the best study in the world but, essentially Ritslan, who was affiliated with an analysis laboratory, asked individuals to submit samples of material which had caused unpleasant psychological reactions or adverse psychological reactions, and I’m sure we’ll talk about that before we finish but marihuana sometimes provokes anxiety attacks, even panic attacks in smokers.

Q All right. Is there anything further that you think the court should know about this potency question, in terms of health aspects? Impact on health of the citizens, based on your research?

A I would just emphasize that the claim of increased potency has been stated and restated ad infinitum, if not ad nauseam, by newspaper reporters and government spokesmen and they say see, today’s marihuana is so much more dangerous and not only is today’s marihuana not more potent, if it were, I don’t think there’s sufficient evidence to indicate that it would be more dangerous.

Q Okay, and there’s one reference at page 2.4, "There is no possibility of a fatal overdose from smoking marihuana regardless of the THC content."

A I should have mentioned that early on. When we talk about an increased potency of other important drugs, such as heroin or cocaine, there is a risk, that the organism will be overwhelmed, particularly with heroin. The individual will die of a fatal overdose. There is no such thing as a fatal overdose of marihuana. That is, it has never been reported in the thousands of years of use and never been reported in the last thirty years of careful scientific study. It simply means that the cannabinoid (phonetic) receptor, the area that receives Delta 9 THC in the brain is not associated with regulation of the vital centers of breathing and cardiovascular function.

Q There’s one other point and I think you’ve touched on this but you didn’t use the term that appears at page 2-5 and that is this business of receptor down regulation.

A Yes.

Q Could you just explain what is meant by that?

A I shall, and I believe that Professor Beyerstein also referred to that during this case. I’d be pleased to do so.

Q All right. You’ve talked about the University of Mississippi—

A Yes.

Q -- and just for the record, the group or the name of the project there is the Potency Monitoring Project, is that right?

A That’s correct.

Q And I recall you indicating to me that they also have a bibliographic service?

A That’s correct. The University of Mississippi has been very important in marihuana studies in the United States for well over twenty-five years and is part

of—actually receive funding for a number of projects. We’ve mentioned the Potency Monitoring Project. Another project is a bibliographic service. That is, the University of Mississippi publishes now on an almost annual basis, annotated bibliographies of publications referring to marihuana or cannabis in some form. So that every year or every two years I can buy a bibliography of all of the marihuana papers, usually with a brief abstract attached as part of it. And that project has been underway since even before the monitoring project. I think it probably goes back to ‘69. The first set of papers annotated by the University of Mississippi service occurred in 1969.

Q And I’m told that there’s something like thirteen thousand papers now or something—

A The current database at the University of Mississippi now contains separate publications numbered into the thirteen thousands.

Q Is this, in your experience as a physician and pharmacologist, is this usual or unusual in terms of the study of various substances?

A Well, it’s unusual and it’s imposing. Marihuana is the most studied psychoactive drug in the universe. Nothing has had thirteen thousand separate publications since 1970, with the exception of marihuana.

Q Okay. Let’s go on then to Chapter 3, "Marihuana Related Hospital Emergencies." To start you say, "Marihuana related hospital emergencies are"—the myth is that, "marihuana related hospital emergencies are increasing particularly among youth. This is evidence that marihuana is causing more harm than previously." Again, you cite a number of newspaper accounts and so on. Underneath that is the fuel, I take it, for the myth and then you set out the fact and following the same format, I take it, the chapter itself essentially provides the basis for what’s set out in the fact?

A That’s correct. I actually do not know if a hospital emergency reporting service exists in Canada. In the United States the federal government, again under NIDA, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, funds a project called the Drug Abuse Warning Network. The Drug Abuse Warning Network collects reports from a number of urban hospital emergency rooms and the project is set up to give some idea of which drugs are causing difficulty in hospital emergency rooms in the United States.

Now, we became aware, because of statements such as the first one here, which I think is from Lee Bennett who was—Lee Brown, who was the just retired drug tsar in the United States. He was replaced by General McCaffery. You will note that he says, "Marihuana is not benign. It is not harmless. It’s a very dangerous drug that can cause you to fight for your life in a hospital emergency room." Well, that’s an interesting statement. What he means is that there have been mentions of marihuana in hospital emergency rooms and that the mentions have increased in recent years. Those two things are true.

What we have discovered, by reading the DAWN reports carefully, that marihuana, despite being the most widely used illegal drug in the United States, is not mentioned very frequently in hospital emergency rooms. We noted that where marihuana is—in 1994, fewer than 2 percent of drug related emergency room visits involved the use of marihuana use alone in the United States. One of the important reasons is, is that more than any other drug, marihuana is mentioned in combination with other drugs. Eighty percent of marihuana mentions are associated with other drug mentions, alcohol, cocaine, heroin, etcetera, etcetera. One of the things that’s been happening lately and you will notice that is in quote number two, "In 1993, twice as many teenagers ended up in emergency rooms for marihuana use as for heroin and cocaine combined." Well, that received a lot of press in the United States. I don’t know if it did in Canada. Well, teenagers have always mentioned marihuana more frequently than heroin and cocaine because teenagers almost never take heroin or cocaine, both in Canada and in the United States.

Q I notice on page 3-4 the reference to 1993, youths under age 18 mentioning marihuana at about 8 percent of the drug episodes—

A Yeah.

Q -- but they mention over the counter pain medications in about 47 percent of these drug episodes?

A That’s right. An important category of drugs mentioned when individuals come to the emergency room with drug problems are ibuprofen, aspirin and acetaminophen. Those are the drugs that young people take in adventuresome overdoses. Those are the drugs that young people take when they’re threatening suicide. So, they’re much more often mentioned in hospital emergency rooms by young people than marihuana.

Q Anything further on the hospital emergencies that you’d like to mention?

A I guess I would conclude by saying that hospital mentions—it’s become an important system in the United States, the DAWN report and it showed a kind of continued expansion which makes us think that individuals who are trained as DAWN reporters are probably biased to get more mentions, that keeps them more visible and keeps the DAWN system viable.

Q Okay. Our next chapter is the question of addiction to marihuana and here you set out the myth. "Marihuana is highly addictive. Long term marihuana users experience physical dependence and withdrawal and often need professional drug treatment to break their marihuana habits." Again, you set out a number of quotes that have been used to fuel that myth and then again you’ve set out the facts, based on what your findings are, set out in the rest of the chapter. What can you tell us about that?

A Again, addiction is—I’m fond of a quote from a colleague of mine in which he said addiction is an essentially contested concept. That when people talk about addiction, they’re often talking about personal definitions, strange ideas, what they’ve been taught at their parent’s knee and in the latest newspaper article.

Q But one study you referred to where they fed these men large amounts of marihuana. That’s the Federal Narcotics Hospital in Lexington, Kentucky, in the 60’s that’s referred to in your paper?

A Yeah. Right. We particularly like that study. Dr. Harris Izbel (phonetic), who was director of the Lexington Narcotics Hospital, which was a public health hospital in the United States, mostly individuals sent there were sent there for heroin dependence problems but Dr. Izbel took the opportunity to conduct a number of studies on individuals at the Narcotics Hospital. He reported a study in which he took, I think at least ten men, and tried to keep them stoned during their entire waking existence. They had to smoke at least one marihuana cigarette per hour—I want to make sure

I—

Q Page 4-3, the second paragraph.

A Yeah. The ten men were kept constantly high with at least one marihuana cigarette during every waking hour for thirty days. Upon the abrupt cessation of smoking, no withdrawal signs were seen. Now, the study never received much emphasis because (indiscernible) it’s whatever everybody else believed to be true but it’s only in recent years that we’ve begun to reinterpret and therefore, it’s easy to forget a study which was done in the 1960’s.

I will comment that there was one study done in the 1970’s by Dr. Reece-Jones, who’s name has been mentioned here, both by Dr. Beyerstein—and they’ve been interested in—but Dr. Jones’ opinions have been entered in Brandeis Briefs by both of you.

Dr. Jones did a study in which he gave men very, very large doses of marihuana orally, the equivalent of twenty cigarettes, by mouth, by giving THC by mouth and then stopped it abruptly. I think he did this for thirty some days. These men had complaints. Irritability, restlessness, some difficulty sleeping, some change in appetite, some increased, some decreased. And so Jones reported this as a marihuana withdrawal syndrome and it’s very widely cited by individuals who want to claim that marihuana provokes dependence.

I’ve been intrigued by the fact that the only study that shows marihuana withdrawal in humans is this experimental study by Dr. Jones and the marihuana was given by mouth. As I may say before this is finished, marihuana by mouth is a much different drug than marihuana smoked and so I’m wondering if Dr. Jones’ experiment, which is commonly cited as evidence of marihuana dependence, had to do with giving enormous doses of marihuana by mouth and it’s much different than the smoking of marihuana, even at high doses.

Q You mentioned at the top of page 4-2, the study by Henningfield and Benowicz (phonetic).

A Yeah.

Q As I understand it, they were asked to rank the dependence potential of six psychoactive drugs, --

A Right.

A -- caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, heroin, cocaine and marihuana. They’re both pharmacologists, I understand?

A They’re both very prominent pharmacologists in the United States. Dr. Benowicz is currently head of—the president of the American Society of Clinical Pharmacology in Experimental Therapeutics. Dr. Henningfield works at NIDA, the National Institute on Drug Abuse and is very respected. Both of them are very prominent pharmacologists with an interest in drugs of abuse in the United States. So, Professor Zimmer and I were very pleased to find this interview with them in an article—in a newspaper article about nicotine dependence in which they were asked to rank the psychoactive drugs that are currently imported in the United States for their addiction potential.

Q And those two were ranked as the least addictive of the whole group?

A That’s correct.

Q And that evaluation appears to be accepted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Report to Congress, --

A Yeah.

Q -- as quoted—the 1991 report as quoted by you on page 4-2?

A Right. Even though, in 1995, in the summer of 1995, Donna Shaleighla (phonetic), the current head of Health and Human Services talked about marihuana addiction as being an important thing. So, the government doesn’t even have to be consistent from year to year when it comes to talking about marihuana.

Q Anything else we should know about the dependency issue, addiction and dependency?

A I guess I would like to conclude by saying that there are no psychoactive drugs which some people cannot misuse and I do not want to say it’s impossible for an individual to display addictive behaviours when using marihuana, but it is so unusual that marihuana is not an important drug of addiction.

THE COURT: Yes. We’re going to take an afternoon break for fifteen minutes.

MR. CONROY: Just before we start, Your Honour, I take -- you don’t have any objection to one using the computer in the courtroom, do you?

Q The next chapter, Dr. Morgan, is "Marihuana As Medicine," Chapter 5. The myth is, "Marihuana has no medicinal value. Safer, more effective drugs are available including a synthetic version of THC. Marihuana’s primary active ingredient which is marketed in the U.S. under the name Marinol (phonetic)." Again, a number of quotations form the basis for the myth and then the facts statement based on the survey and investigation done by you. Would you comment on that?

A Yes. I’ll comment briefly that interest in medicinal use of marihuana has grown in North America for a variety of reasons. Perhaps one of the most important ones is the increasing utility of smoked marihuana by people with AIDS, both to treat nausea and vomiting and to increase appetite.

Q That was quite recently, was it?

A Quite recent. Oh, in fact, in 1995 or ‘96 -- ‘95. The bills passed in November of 1990 -- I’m sorry, November of 1996. And so both of those have attracted much attention and in the United States has set up this strong contention between the state government, particularly in California and the federal government which has moved in its usual direction in the United States of prohibition and more control of marihuana. While 56 percent of the voters in California looking at the evidence and propaganda from both sides approved a voter initiative to make marihuana available.

Q So, from the evidence so far though, we do find that it is being used to reduce nausea, is one that you mentioned, reduce vomiting as well and both of those, as a result of cancer chemotherapy primarily?

A Correct.

Q Also, it’s being used to stimulate appetite and promote weight gain and that’s usually in relation to the wasting AIDS patients?

A It also will work as an appetite stimulant in people with the wasting due to cancer. The cachexia due to cancer is very similar to HIV related wasting. It appears to be a metabolic phenomenon in some people and smoked marihuana is reportedly useful for increasing appetite in AIDS patients as well as cancer—I’m sorry, cancer patients as well as AIDS patients.

Q And that it’s also used to reduce intra-ocular pressure for people with glaucoma?

A Yeah. It’s quite clear that the drug reduces intra-ocular pressure and reduces it profoundly in patients with glaucoma. It actually will reduce it in normals as well. There are relatively few case reports that people maintain for a long period of time on marihuana in the treatment of glaucoma, although there’s a celebrated case in the United States. A young man named Robert Randall who sued the federal government successfully to supply him marihuana in 1976 and his periodic eye checkups indicate that marihuana has controlled his intra-ocular pressure elevation quite, quite well and, in fact, he’s resistant to other medication.

Q Randall’s case is well-documented in Dr. Grinspoon’s (phonetic) book, "Marihuana - The Forbidden Medicine," is that—

A That’s correct. And I guess the other point that that would lead me to is that Randall was part of a group of litigants who sued the federal government in a relatively celebrated case to reschedule smoked marihuana to Schedule 2, making it therefore useful and prescribable by physicians in the United States. This case was heard in front of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s own administrative law judge. In 1986, Judge Francis Young, having heard many people, including myself and Randall and Lester Grinspoon and others mentioned in this chapter, basically said they’re right. NORMAL, Randall’s group, the Alliance With Cannabis Therapeutics and other groups looking for marihuana (indiscernible) are clearly right and Judge Young said that marihuana is among the safest therapeutic agents known to mankind and it should immediately be available.

Q I was going to mention that as another use, that there seems to be some evidence to support is this muscle spasticity in patients with neurological disorders, that includes multiple sclerosis—

A Right.

Q -- and things of that kind?

A Particularly multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy and spinal cord injury. A young scientist named Paul Consrow (phonetic), who’s on the faculty of the University of Arizona School of Pharmacy, recently sent a questionnaire to large groups of multiple sclerosis patients. Now, this is not a random study to show that a high proportion of them use it but he had reason to know that many of these people had used it and he wanted to know what they used it for. Most of them told him that it was extremely useful in the spasticity in the spasms related to multiple sclerosis, particularly the pain resulting from their spasticity. There is—there are two papers in the literature indicating that it’s a fairly useful treatment for tremor in some people with multiple sclerosis.

Q There’s anecdotal evidence, as I understand it, involving a number of other—

A Yeah.

Q -- medical or mental conditions, --

A Sure.

Q -- depression and things of that nature. It seems to work for some people and not for others?

A Yeah. Dr. Grinspoon, who’s a psychiatrist, is very intrigued about its utility in depressed patients and has commented on that. He has also talked about the fact that he prescribed Marinol to a few patients with chronic depression and it seems to work. Again, this is not adequately studied but it’s very hard to study it in the climate of illegality and the Schedule 1 status imposed in the United States.

MR. CONROY: We have an extra copy of this book, Your Honour, that’s going to be part of your—

MR. CONROY: -- the defence Brandeis Brief. So, we’ll be getting that to you one of these times.

A I can’t—I can’t resist telling you my favourite line regarding medical marihuana, which Professor Zimmer refuses to let me put in this text, which is the United States government’s actions here can only be compared to the encouragement of the taking of Vitamin C and the illegality of orange juice.

Q Well, eight people, you say in your paper, are receiving marihuana through a federal compassionate use program but you also mention that that program was discontinued in 1992. Now, this is—one of these eight is Robert Randall, I understand?

A That’s correct. This federal program grew out of Randall’s lawsuit against the government in which he demonstrated that smoked marihuana was the only way to lower his intra-ocular pressure. Then after some indecision, the government made it clear that it would supply marihuana to individuals who went through a difficult application process and who had a physician who was willing to follow them and least ostensibly report on their progress, making this a kind of research program.

Q And they receive marihuana cigarettes or joints or whatever, --

A Correct.

Q -- rolled form, not in the Marinol form?

A That’s correct. It’s a very important distinction that the federal government, the farm at Mississippi mails the rolled cigarettes to a pharmacy of the individual’s choosing nearby and then the pharmacist dispenses it to the eight people.

Q Okay, and those eight now continue to receive it and none of the others—

A That’s correct.

Q -- do? Okay. You’re familiar with—you mentioned the resolution in California recently and in Arizona and you mentioned the position of the federal government in opposition to this movement. Are you familiar with—I assume you’re familiar with the American Public Health Association and its resolution in this area?

A Yes, I am.

MR. CONROY: It’s Exhibit 23 in our proceedings, Your Honour.

A What happens is that in a public argument, General McCaffery and others stating the federal government’s position, are prone to say that the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Ophthalmology, have not supported the medical marihuana movement. So, it was important to us and as you had already noted, a few organizations in the United States have strongly supported the medical marihuana movement, including the American Public Health Association, the Federation of American Scientists, the American Lymphoma Association, a small group of physicians who organize themselves as physicians in care of people with AIDS and a few state nursing associations and others, have called for the legalization of marihuana for medicine. The American Public Health Association statement is the strongest and mostly widely—

Q In your paper you indicate the National Association of Prosecutors has taken this position as well?

A Quite a long time ago. They actually filed their statement during the Judge Young, D.E.A. hearing. I think also the National Association of Criminal Defence Lawyers—

Q Criminal defence attorneys.

A -- in the United States have done so.

Q And former U.S. Surgeon General—

A Oh, yes.

Q -- Jocelyn Elders?

A Jocelyn Elders has become very adamant in her support of medical marihuana since she left the federal government. It’s very impressive.

Q Another name that was mentioned in your paper that surprised me, Newt Gingrich, as being supportive of medical marihuana. Is that the same Newt Gingrich that we hear about as the—

A It is, indeed.

Q -- big man in congress?

A In the last session of the House, a liberal Massachusetts legislator named Barney Frank, submitted a Bill to the house for medical marihuana. It was not acted upon but we have noted the noble tradition of people in the House of Representatives supporting state medical marihuana laws and discovered—we knew that Congressman Newt Gingrich then, in 1982 --

Q 1982, I see.

Q 1982, a youthful Georgia legislator, strongly supported it and wrote a letter to the American Medical Association and maybe I’ll take the liberty of quoting what we took out of his letter, in which he says, "The outdated federal prohibition of medical marihuana was corrupting the intent of state laws and depriving thousands of glaucoma and cancer patients of the medical care promised them by their state legislators. According to Gingrich, the hysteria over marihuana’s social abuse and bureaucratic interference by the federal government have prevented a factual and balanced assessment of marihuana’s use as a medicant." Now, a number of people have tried to ask Congressman—speaker Gingrich if he still feels this way and he has pretty much refused comment but I suspect he probably still feels this way. After all, this is an issue of state’s rights regarding the overbearing power of federal government and I assume philosophically, he’s where he was before, despite being identified as a conservative spokesman.

Q I suppose if he was to admit that now he may—it might add to the problems that he’s had in—

A It might. It might.

MR. DOHM: Well, Your Honour, we just had a really good example of why we have certain rules about hearsay evidence.

MR. CONROY: Well, when we have experts, it’s quite common to have hearsay evidence before the courts, in my experience and it’s then a matter for the Court to determine what weight to give to the evidence overall.

Q But the—what you’ve just—

THE COURT: I’m not sure that this fits under that exception.

MR. CONROY: Well, we have to have some humour and entertainment from time to time too about this famous personalities who—

Q Is there anything else about marihuana’s medicine that you’d like to bring to our attention specifically?

A You remember earlier I talked about the fact that oral marihuana was defective in many ways. One of the ways it’s defective is that large doses of Marinol have reportedly caused much psychic distress, particularly in elderly patients and this is not because they’re getting large doses of THC. It’s probably because they’re getting large doses of an activated cannabinoid that our liver makes.

Q I don’t know if you mentioned this point earlier when you talked about the two but, as I understand it, the speed at which—that one gets a reaction is a lot quicker from smoking than it is from the oral ingestion of the Marinol—

A That’s correct.

Q -- and that’s very significant?

A Marinol’s absorption is slow and variable and produces low levels at a much later time than the levels that are achieved in the bloodstream from smoking.

Q There was one other ingredient that I meant to ask you about and that is the cannabidiol (phonetic) or C.B.D. factor. We also hear about THC being the main active ingredient and so on. You mention that at page 2 to do with some of the therapeutic effects. What should we know about that?

A Cannabidiol or C.B.D., which essentially always exists in fresh marihuana, in fact, it is the immediate precursor to Delta 9 THC, has been shown to be an anti-epileptic in a variety of animal studies and there is some reason to suspect it may be an anti-epileptic in some humans. So, people are interested in this cannabinoid, which is present in natural marihuana.

Q When we talk about marihuana as medicine, is this the appropriate area to get into the recent discoveries in terms of the receptors in the brain and so on and how that fits together, or should we deal with that at a later point?

A It’s up to you.

Q In terms of the chapters and the myths and so on?

A Yeah. I actually think we have not focused specifically on the receptor issue and this could, therefore, be a good place to do so.

Q Maybe you could tell us about that because that’s a fairly recent discovery, I understand, since 1991, I believe. So, within the last what, three years, this has been discovered?

A A little bit more. The last five years, probably.

Q The last five years?

A Yeah.

Q Okay.

A It is well-known that many important psychoactive drugs such as opiates, benzodiazapines, the Valium, librium type drugs and others, act in the central nervous system because they bind to specific receptors. The discovery of the opiate receptor is probably a—you know, a signal point is neuro science in our world. That not only is there a cellular constituent that binds morphine, heroin, etcetera, etcetera, but that those constituents exist on the cells at all times and we make something inside our own brain which binds to them and has physiological effect. So, that set the tone for marihuana research.

Q So, we’ve known that we have a receptor in our brains for the opiates?

A Yes.

Q And we’ve known that for some time?

A Yes. Twenty years now.

Q And that opiate is—correct me if I’ve misunderstood, but as I understand it, that receptor is found in the brain stem area primarily?

A Well, importantly, it is so. Yes.

Q The primary receptor?

A Yeah.

Q And that that’s one of the reason why, if you take—well, first of all, the existence of the receptor indicates that we produce a similar substance in our bodies on our own, is that right?

A Correct.

Q And so if we introduce more of it externally, it increases the amount that we would normally have and if you take too much, that’s how you can have the brain stem shutting down and one overdosing, in fact, --

A Right.

Q -- or dying, in fact?

A Yeah. The opiate receptor modulates effects in the brain stem which control the automatic drive to breathe. We’ll continue to breathe even when unconscious or even when sick or even when asleep but a large dose of opiates will diminish the respiratory drive and people die of opiate overdose.

Q And the main receptor sites for cannabis, as I understand it, are in the frontal lobe?

A Well, they’re in the cerebral cortex. Yeah. In the frontal lobes, in the areas having to do with memory and—perhaps having to do with memory and cognition but there are receptors at other places in the brain, particularly in the area having to do with nausea and vomiting, which is in an area at the floor of the brain, closer to the—what we call the mid brain, the (indiscernible) encephalon. And there are cannabinoid receptors in the periphery in association with the spleen and lymphocytes. Not sure why they’re there but they’re there and we’ll probably learn why.

Q So again, the existence or the discovery of the receptor sites indicates that there’s a natural substance produced in our bodies that attaches to these receptor sites. So, when somebody smokes marihuana, they’re adding more to than what they’d normally have and it has the same effects then as what we’d normally, actually produce?

A Well, and of course, even that’s not well understood. Obviously people smoke marihuana because they like it and something in this complex set of effects in the brain is positive to individuals. They wish to do it again. It’s not clear exactly how that relates anandemide and this system we have but it almost surely relates in some way. Anandemide is the chemical that we produce. There appear to be two or three anandemides. They are of a family of chemicals that we’ve known about for a long time called the prostaglandins but the system is not really well understood yet, except its structure has been elaborated.

Q I remember reading somewhere—Her Honour asked us to keep chocolate out of this but I remember reading somewhere that this receptor site for cannabis was the same site as for chocolate. Is there any truth to that?

A This is the dilemma with a little bit of learning being a dangerous thing. There is a very small amount of anandemide in chocolate. It is not clear that the concentration is enough that it has any effect when humans eat chocolate. The pleasure of chocolate may relate to many things but it doesn’t relate to the cannabinoid system.

Q I think the story I read said you needed a few tons of chocolate in order to get the same effect. What about alcohol? Does alcohol have receptors in the brain in the same way?

A It’s interesting that we still don’t have an easy yes or no to that. There are clearly some receptors that alcohol stimulates that are related to cell suppression and those receptors tend to involve the neurotransmitter GABA, gamma amino butyric acid, but at high concentrations, alcohol may act like anesthetic agents, in which it disrupts the entire cell membrane and causes the cell to decrease its function. So, there it’s a membrane effect and not a receptor mediated effect, although in certain concentrations, in certain cells, alcohol does bind to brain cellular receptors, it’s just that it’s not so clear cut that that’s all it does.

Q How about tobacco?

A Well, nicotine has receptors all over the brain. In fact, the beginning of western pharmacology has something to do with understanding the impact of nicotine, which is a very, very—which is a chemical which exerts a lot of effects in humans. It was just our bad break that nicotine is not well absorbed by swallowing so we had to smoke it to get it. Unfortunately, the smoking delivers noxious substances to the lung.

Q So, I think you said earlier the smoke in marihuana is the same as smoke in tobacco?

A Except for the active ingredients, nicotine in tobacco and the cannabinoids in marihuana, the content of those smokes is essentially the same, both in their solid and particulate matters and in the chemicals they contain. There’s slight variations and different assays but they’re basically the same smoke.

Q But are they the same—can you say that they’re the same in terms of health consequences then? I mean, leaving aside for the moment what you’ve already talked about—

A Mm-hm.

Q -- in terms of frequency of use and dosage and so on and the effects on lungs, but what about other aspects of health effects? I mean, both of them have receptors, marihuana and tobacco.

A Mm-hm.

Q You’ve said both of them are smoked, in that way taken into the system and yet, we hear lots of things about tobacco that we don’t hear about—in terms of marihuana in terms of health effects. Are they the same, are they different? What—

A Well, it’s not a simple answer, although I’ll certainly make it—I’ll try to make it short.

Q And just dealing with that, bearing in mind the knowledge or the use that—the evidence we have of use over say the last twenty-five, thirty years, as a physician, I assume, and you correct me if I’m wrong, you see medical costs in the States and the hospitals and so on associated with tobacco consumption in large amounts?

A Yes. In the United States, there is enormous consequences, enormous health consequences in the consumption of tobacco. Not only the production of lung cancer which is rare in individuals who do not smoke, although fortunately, only a small percentage of smokers get lung cancer and then probably as important is the production of crippling pulmonary disease in the form of chronic bronchitis and emphysema. Smoking also makes an adverse contribution to cardiovascular disease, arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease, although the mechanism is not entirely clear, but adult smokers have more cardiovascular disease as well as more lung disease, both of the cancer and the obstructive type.

Q Bearing in mind all the users of marihuana now over this thirty year—let’s just take the last thirty year period. We’ve heard figures in terms of large numbers of consumers at different times. Are we seeing a manifestation of similar problems from the marihuana smokers?

A No. Not at all.

Q And do you know if that’s occurring anywhere that you’ve studied?

A No. In fact, it’s interesting that in our text in the pulmonary section, we refer to a statement by a writer in the 1960’s about the dangers of marihuana, in which she said in the 1980’s, we shall see a marked increase in lung cancer due to the epidemic of smoking marihuana in the 1960’s. Fortunately, she was wrong and probably because of the dosage issue.

Q You mentioned Tashkin.

A Yes.

Q Tashkin, as I understand it, was NIDA, National Institute Drug Abuse funded study in Berkley, was it?

A No. On Los Angeles.

Q Los Angeles?

A And he is still funded. Has been for many, many years.

Q And this is—is this one of the only studies on long term users of marihuana?

A It is, in fact, the only study, unfortunately.

Q The only one in the U.S., or—don’t we have one to do with Jamaicans and—

A Well, the Jamaican study was basically a one time study in which we went to Jamaica and recruited heavy smokers of ganja (phonetic), the Jamaican word for marihuana, which is also a Canadian word. You all hear the word ganja. And compared those to individuals of similar education, age, etcetera, etcetera, who were not smokers of ganja.

Q And they’ve concluded?

A The most important conclusion is that the marihuana only smokers do not show the characteristic decline in lung function associated with emphysema and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. So, marihuana only smokers, even at high rates of consumption, will not develop emphysema and that’s critically important. Critically, critically important.

Q You hear about all these applications for funding and they all seem to be applications to fund investigations to determine whether or not marihuana does harm in some way.

A Yeah.

Q Do you ever get funding—you know, people applying for funding to see if marihuana does some good in some way or some positive health benefits?

A The last attempt I described to you was Donald Abrams to show that marihuana might be useful in AIDS patients and that was according to the director of NIDA. The only protocol they looked at in the last ten years for a medical application of marihuana, but that’s not an adequate answer to your question.

Q You mentioned a moment ago you didn’t want to be in that category of people that were calling for more research. I wonder if you could comment on that. A number of other people who have written or given evidence in relation to this issue have said that there’s sufficient things that they’ve seen in the literature or in the research that they feel there should be more—

A Yeah.

Q -- research. You obviously disagree from the comments you made earlier. Can you—

A Oh, no. I—

Q -- explain that or explain—

A I don’t disagree entirely. I was once funded by NIDA in the mid 1970’s and I would love to be funded again and for all I know, I will some day come up with a protocol, maybe when the political climate changes, so that I could be funded again. But—and of course, there’s always something new to study.

MR. CONROY: Okay. Our next heading is "Marihuana’s (indiscernible) in the Body," but I note the time and it’s going to take longer than that to go through that one. So, tomorrow morning, Your Honour?

THE COURT: All right. Why don’t we take a break for the day. You can return tomorrow morning, 9:30. Thank you.