Cannabis Use in Canada: Legislation and the Future

Cannabis Use in Canada jurisprudence and the FutureCrime refers to behaviors that be a violation of codified police. However, the acquire definition of crime is complex and ever-changing, as it depends on social, political and sparing factors. For example, what may be considered a crime one day, may be seen as intelligent the next (Law Commission, 2004). This concept is exemplified by the evolution of laws regarding the stubbornness of ganja that has occurred end-to-end the years in Canada. Ever since halter and its derivatives involve been introduced in Canada years ago, brass suppression of it has been the subject of an ongoing upset of whether it should be legitimateized or non. Proponents of hangmans rope aim plead that at that place be numerous aesculapian benefits and that the medicine is no to a greater extent constipationful than baccy or intoxicant (CAMH, 2014). Therefore, prohibiting marihuana intrudes on an individuals fundamental freedoms. On the separate hand, opponents argue that pukenabis is too dangerous its legalization would extend the chances of the dose f solelying into the hands of children and that marihuana using up oft progresses to the rehearse of more(prenominal) dangerous medicates like heroin and cocaine (Evans, 2013). This paper analyzes the current border on to self-possession of hangmans halter in Canada, paying close attention to applicable laws and legal cases. This paper will upgrade argue that from a re naturalal of approaches to deal with halter, legalization is the most lend oneselfful and military groupive method.BackgroundCannabis, gener on the wholey derived from the female represent, Cannabis sativa, is believed to let evolved on the steppes of interchange Asia. The history of marihuana design goes back as far as 12,000 years, which places the plant among humanityitys oldest gracious crops (CAMH, 2014). The head start record of the drugs medicinal call dates to 40 00 B.C. where it was dod as an anaesthetic(a) during surgery. From the 17th to the mid 20th century, standardized marihuana imbed their modal value into British and US pharmacopoeias and was widely practice sessiond in Hesperian medicine, often considered a ho put onhold drug used for treating various kinds of ailment ranging from headaches and toothaches to catamenial cramps (MacQueen, 2013). Cannabis make uptually fell out of use in western medicine, and was banned in most countries as part of national and foreign drug control legislation that was originally designed to control business in opiates notwithstanding was ex leaned to include a broad epitome of other psychedelic agents. However, in the 1970s, halter use rose dramatically and became a part of the youthfulness culture imputable to its mood and experience altering properties, which made it a recreational drug of choice for more individuals (Blaszczak-Boxe, 2014).Throughout its long history, parts of the ha ngmans halter plant meet been smoked, chewed, eaten, and even brewed for its personalised effects on the human biochemistry. Marijuana- also called weed, pot, grass, reefer, and a vast procedure of other slang foothold- comes primarily from the f let outer part of the marihuana plant and is one of the most abused drugs in the world (Evans, 2013). There atomic number 18 hundreds of compounds in ganja, simply the chemical responsible for the drugs psychoactive effects is tetrahydrocannbinol, or THC. Marijuana affects devil main parts of the human body, the central sick system and the cardiovascular system (CAMH, 2014). The central nervous system, which mainly controls thoughts and registers sensations throughout the body, can be impacted through varying doses of ganja. For example, a low dose of marijuana results in a sense of nearly cosmos and drowsiness/relaxation (Ponto et al., 2004). As the dose augments, other effects tend to come in, usually altered sense of time an d sensory awareness. At much toweringer to extreme doses, paranoia, hallucinations, panic attacks and delusions have been taradiddleed to occur. The cardiovascular system can be affected by cannabis use through change magnitude heart rate and dilation of eye decline vessels. There can also be difficulties in body apparent motion and coordination as the dosage of cannabis increases (Ponto et al., 2004).As with some other psychoactive drugs, the use of cannabis is not benign. query has found two benefits and harms associated with cannabis use. Cannabis has therapeutic qualities and m both people demand it for its psychoactive effects (Room et al., 2010). A number of the potentially useful effects have been well studied and confirmed scientifically in both experimental animals and human volunteers and patients. angiotensin-converting enzyme of these is the moderately good analgesic action, principally against chronic musculoskeletal and neuropathic pain (Evans, 2013). Furthermo re, altogether about ten percent of individuals who consume the drug become dependant, a rate that is extremely low in parity to other outlawed and legal drugs. In fact, tobacco, a drug that is considered legal in Canada, has a dependency rate of 32% (Health Canada, 2015).The potential for harm exists, curiously for people who consume it frequently or begin exploitation in adolescence. These harms include impairment of learning, memory, alertness, reaction speed and judgment (Babor et al., 2010). Those who are dependent on cannabis have been documented to face both cardiovascular and respiratory issues such as chronic bronchitis. In addition, seek suggests that high levels of cannabis use can be linked to lung and prostate gland cancer (Room et al., 2010). Despite the negative effects of high levels of cannabis use, it is life-and-death to acknowledge the fact that most individuals do not become dependent on the drug. Rather, most will experiment with cannabis use whole a f ew times in their life (Room et al., 2010).Canada has one of the highest guess of cannabis use in the world. Despite the existence of serious shepherds crook penalties for possessing, producing, and selling cannabis, the 2013 Canadian Tobacco, inebriant and medicates Survey found that 40% of Canadians have used cannabis in their lifetime and about 10% report having used it in the medieval year (Health Canada, 2015). Additionally, the survey indicates that Canadian youth aged 15 to 19 are more likely to consume cannabis than adult Canadians. In fact, Canadian adolescents have among the highest rates of cannabis use compared to their peers in other developed countries (UNICEF Office of Research, 2013). According to the 2012 Canadian Community Health survey, 22.4% of youth aged 15 to19 reported past-year use of cannabis and in jibe, youth use cannabis at a rate 2.5 times higher than adults aged 25 and older (Statistics Canada, 2015). In view of these statistics, it is unsurp asc ension that cannabis is widely available throughout Canada and that a well-established cannabis market exists in Canada.Laws surrounding the possession of Cannabis in CanadaIn Canada, cannabis use became illegal in 1923 afterward the exertion to Prohibit the Improper Use of Opium and other doses added cannabis to the list of adulterous substances. Cannabis then became an illegal substance under the kindred menage of harder drugs such as cocaine and heroin, despite lose of scientific or distressing correlations to suggest such categorization (CAMH, 2014). An increase in illicit drug use in the 1960s and 1970s was met by greatly increased criminalization and the associated individual and social be. The strain on the courts, and the rising numbers of otherwise law-abiding youth cosmos sentenced for recreational use of cannabis created pressures for the liberalization of Canadas drug laws. As a result, the Commission of interrogation in the Non-Medical Use of Drugs in 1972 (c omm whole referred to as the Le Dain Commission) was formed to dish out the festering concern about drug use and appropriate responses. The Le Dain Commission concluded that drug rampart, specifically cannabis use, results in high costs tho relatively little benefit. The Le Dain Commission proposed that all criminal penalties associated with cannabis be removed, along with the development of slight exacting and costly alternates to punitive punishments, but was immediately rejected by the government at the time (Broughton, 2014).By the mid-1980s there was growing acknowledgement of the limitations of law employment in lessen the demand for drugs as the Canadian police forces were pursue more cannabis arrests than ever before (Hatha instruction and Erickson 2003). As a result, in 1987, the Canadian federal government announced a harm decrement model approach to drug use to address substance use with both supply and demand reduction strategies. This model views drug use, accompanimently cannabis use, as an undeniable fact in society and seeks to mow the harms caused by it rather than advocating abstinence (Hathaway and Erickson 2003). Despite this model, Canadas approach to cannabis was salve largely a model of criminal prohibition. For example, Dian Riley of the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy argues that this model is an ineffective and inappropriate drug policy that causes more harm than the drug itself (Broughton, 2014, p.4). In fact, since the first three years after the implementation of the program, the proportion of drug offenders in Canadas prison rose from 9 percent to 14 percent (Hathaway and Erickson 2003).The Controlled Drugs and sum of moneys ActIn 1997, there was the substructure of a new drug law that was meant to address some of the problems of past law and to adapt some of the positive experiences of other countries around the globe. The new law, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (1996), is Canadas federal drug control s tatute and establishes eight Schedules of controlled substances and two Classes of precursors. This act outlines penalties for possession, trafficking and production of the substances established as illegal, including cannabis (MacQueen, 2013). Under this act, cannabis and its derivatives are considered as schedule II drugs and possession of it is illegal (Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, 1996). However, due to R. v. Parker (2001), the Supreme hail of Canada declared that section 4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which deals with the prohibition against possession of marijuana, was too broad insofar as it failed to create an exception for medical exam marijuana use. As such, in 2001 Health Canada issued a set of regulations braggart(a) individuals access to marijuana for medical purposes. The Medical Marihuana Access Regulations (2001), which went into effect in 2002, outlined two categories of individuals who may legitimately access marijuana prescribed by their doctor. These two categories mainly deal with individuals suffering from blunt pain as a result of medical conditions. Individuals who have a medical condition described in category 1 or who are approved under category 2 can legally obtain medicinal marijuana distributed by the company CannaMed or can grow their own for personal consumption (Broughton, 2014). Thus, it is possible to have legal access to marijuana for medical purposes in Canada composition recreational use of marijuana is even-tempered a criminal act.Despite the tough penalties in place, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (1996)has been criticized for criminalizing drug users and its failure to discredit drug accessibility while at the same time the financial and human costs of criminating cannabis continue to rise. Additionally, analyses of current policy practices lay down a failure to get to the set out goals of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (1996)in reducing the consumption of cannabis (Bro ughton, 2014). alternatively, criminalization has created further social issues. For example, an increase in arrests under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (1996) has not led to a decrease in the use of marijuana, with around 60,000 Canadian arrested for simple possession every year. On the contrary, the number of distributors and consumers has only increased in recent years (Room et al., 2010, p.60). The experiences within Canadian courts also demonstrate the inefficiency of the current approach to cannabis. For example, the case of R. v. Malmo-Levine (2003) deals with the possession of marijuana. Malmo-Levine was charged with possession and trafficking of marijuana. He argued that the criminalization and punishment of possession of marijuana goes against his safes as express in section 7 in the Canadian accept of Rights and Freedoms. Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms declares that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person a nd the right not to be deprived thereof except in ossification with the principles of fundamental judge (Canadian Charter, 1982, s 7). Malmo-Lavine argued that, by attaching a criminal punishment of imprisonment for simple possession of marijuana the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (1996)deprived him of liberty in a manner that is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental legal expert. Malmo-Lavine suggested that it is a principle of fundamental justice that the criminal law can only prohibit activities that cause some sort of harm, and the possession of marijuana does not constitute as harm to others(R. v. Malmo-Levine, 2003). Justice Arbour, in the dissenting discernment, declared that the criminalization of cannabis punishes those who pose little risk to society and limits their Charter rights. Nevertheless, the major(ip)ity of the Supreme Court of Canada did not agree with Justice Arbours joust and instead ruled that the law against the recreational use of ma rijuana did not violate the Charter in any of the ways suggested by Malmo-Lavine (R. v. Malmo-Levine, 2003).The cases of Readhead (2008) and Evers (2011), further exemplifies how the approaches outlined in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (1996) leads to unnecessary arrests and unfair targeting of individuals. In R. v. Readhead (2008), the charge was charged with the possession of marijuana and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two and one half years. Readhead argued that the sentencing judge erred in his decision and asked for a fairer sentence. The British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that the sentence prescribed by the sentencing judge is within the proper backdrop of his judgment, but still humiliated the sentence to two years less a day. As pointed out by the British Columbia Court of Appeal, Readheads past experience with the law, in which he has three previous charges for trafficking marijuana, d id not deter or rehabilitate him in any way( R. v. Readhead, 2008). In R. v. Evers (2011), the impeach was charged with the offences of unlawfully producing a controlled substance and possessing this substance for the purposes of trafficking. However, despite Everss lack of remorse for producing marijuana and her explicitly stating that she intended to continue her grow operation, the ravel judge did not impose any jail time. The trial judge stated that there was no point in imprisoning Evers as doing so would only make her a martyr for the legalization of marijuana (R. v. Evers, 2011). some(prenominal) of these cases show the ineffectiveness of the current law in deterring individuals from possessing and using cannabis. The prohibition of cannabis and criminalization of its users does not deter people from consuming it. The give up on this point is clear tougher penalties do not lead to swallow rates of cannabis use (Chandra, 2014). Perhaps it is time that there should be an examination of the actual effects of cannabis on Canadians rather than blindly prohibiting the possession of cannabis.Alternatives to Cannabis ProhibitionAs discussed above, all available indicate indicates that the criminalization of cannabis use is ineffective, costly, and constitutes poor public policy. Globally, there is growing debate about the efficacy of criminalizing drugs such as cannabis, in particular that the health, social, economic and criminal harms of this approach outweighs any intended benefits (Chandra, 2014). As such, there are three main alternatives to full cannabis prohibition decriminalization, partial tone prohibition and legalization. Models of cannabis decriminalization vary greatly, but generally involve removing possession of small amounts of cannabis from the sphere of criminal law. Essentially, prohibition remains, but instead of incarceration the use of cannabis becomes civil violations punishable by fines (Babor et al., 2010). Removing criminal pen alties for cannabis possession should result in a reduction in both the number of individuals involved in the criminal justice system and the cost of enforcement, thus reducing the burden to individuals and to the legal system. Moreover, essay suggests that a decriminalization approach can stamp down some of the wayward social impacts of criminalization (CAMH, 2014). An example of a country that follows a decriminalization model is Portugal. Since the implementation of this system, Portugal has seen declines in substance misuse and in drugrelated harm, a reduced burden on the criminal justice system, and a reduction in the use of illicit drugs by adolescents (Room et al., 2010). eyepatch it is not possible to conclusively attribute these trends in Portugal to a case in decriminalization, these findings present strong support that at the very least, decriminalizing cannabis does not result in major problems.Partial prohibition regimes of cannabis possession are brought about by two distinct approaches, that is to say either de facto legalization or de jure legalization. Within the model of de facto legislation, cannabis use is formally prohibited by criminal law, yet applicable laws are not enforced and thus not sanctioned by any punitive interventions (Babor et al., 2010). Netherlands famously takes a de facto legalization approach to cannabis. Although the drug is still deemed illegal, personal use of cannabis is tolerated and is made available through dispensaries called coffee tree tree shops. Cannabis use or sale outside of the thwartd spaces of these coffee shops is followed by police warnings or fines (Babor et al., 2010). In other words, personal cannabis use and supply to the end consumer in the Netherlands is regulated similarly to alcohol or tobacco use in many jurisdictions. One of the major benefits cited for the legally tolerated dispensaries is that it helps consumers from being exposed to illegal markets where there may be availability of harder drugs (Room et al., 2010). Evidence demonstrates that the Netherlands has a lower rate of cannabis use than in the United States which suggests that partial legalization of cannabis will not necessarily lead to an increase in use.Within the model of de jure legalization, personal use quantities are allowed to be carried and consumed by citizens. Punishments of cannabis use are either explicitly written into the drug statute or the arena of the law does not include cannabis possession (Chandra, 2014). These reforms have so far predominantly been aimed at selected places (e.g. the home) or at specific populations (e.g. medical marijuana users) (Babor et al., 2010). An example of a country that follows a de jure model of legalization is Spain. In Spain, possession or use of cannabis is prohibited by the law, yet there is no punishment or enforcement when involving small amounts. In 2002, Cannabis Social Clubs appeared in the country. These are non-commercial organizations of users who get together to school and distribute enough cannabis to meet their personal needs without having to turn to the black market (Alonso, 2011, p. 2). Since, 2002 it is estimated that Cannabis Social Clubs have enabled several guanine people to stop financing the black market and to know the spirit and origin of what they are consuming, whilst creating jobs and tax revenue (Alonso, 2011).A third alternative that has been widely supported is legalization of cannabis with health-focused regulation. Legalization removes the social harms and costs associated with prohibition. In effect, legalization endorses marijuana as socially acceptable. It pop offs criminal penalties, reducing prices, increasing availability, and de-stigmatizing use (Broughton, 2014). Moreover, it is estimated that removing criminal and civil penalties for possession of cannabis would eliminate more than $ 1 billion dollars that is spent annually in Canada to enforce these ineffective laws (Evans, 2013) . Advocates of legalization of cannabis point out that cannabis is no more harmful than alcohol or tobacco and should therefore be regulated in a similar fashion. In the same way that alcohol prohibition in Canada was an abject failure which promoted crime and in reality fluffed the federal governments control over the importation and production of the substance, cannabis can also be seen as leading down the same path (CAMH, 2014). Moreover, advocates in favor of cannabis legalization claim that cannabis use is not an act of criminal nature and thus the federal government does not have the authority to ban it. They further argue that cannabis is neither harmful nor immoral and thus only the duty has the power to regulate the use, distribution, and sale of marijuana (CAMH, 2014). This argument would equate marijuana with alcohol, which is also regulated independently by the governments of each province. Like all drugs, cannabis use has negative outcomes (Evans, 2013). However, the evidence shows that this does not justify the prohibition of the drug. For example, legal substances such as alcohol and tobacco can be far more dangerous and addicting than cannabis can ever be capable of, but these substances are still considered legal in Canada. Instead of focusing on the evidence, the mere prohibition of cannabis use only leads to further harm for users.Some opponents of legalization fear that it would send the disparage message about the risks of cannabis. But current rates of cannabis use in Canada already suggest that youth are not acquiring the right message (MacQueen, 2013). For instance, despite prohibition, 23% of Ontarios high school students and 40% of young adults use cannabis. A 2013 UNICEF study of 29 Wealthy nations found that Canadian youth rank first in cannabis use, but third from last in tobacco use -even though cannabis is illegal while tobacco is legal (MacQueen, 2013). Moreover, an examination of public opinion polls over the last few decad es shows a steady increase in the proportion of Canadians who support the legalization of marijuana, rising from only 19 percent in 1977 to 57 percent in 2012 (Grenier, 2013). Lorne Bozinoff of Forum Research Inc says that given these statistics, the public no longer favors devoting time and resources required to modify marijuana use and possession, instead favoring a countenance and tax scheme (Grenier, 2013, p.4).It is also important to promissory note that legalization alone does not reduce the health risk and harms of cannabis. Instead legalization presents the government with the opportunity to regulate cannabis to mitigate those risks something that cannot be effectively done under decriminalization or prohibition (CAMH, 2014). Legalization under a health-focused model is establish on the fundamental principles of harm reduction. trauma reduction is a virtual(a) approach to reducing individual and social harms associated with drug use. This approach accepts that author itative interventions focused on diminishing the harmfulness of a substance, even if they increase the extent of substance use, may be able to reduce the total adverse consequences on the individual, as well as society (Pates Riley, 2012). In regards to cannabis use, harm reduction approaches acknowledge that there are no known effective solutions for completely eliminating drug-use or drug-related problems in the public. Therefore, the main distinction of harm reduction is that it focuses on the reduction of harm as its master(a) goal, rather than reduction of drug use per se (CAMH, 2014). It is important to note that harm reduction principles are not meant to promote drug use, but instead recognizes the reality of drug use and measures success in terms of quality of life improvements for the individual (Broughton, 2014). For example, legalization of cannabis would attempt to reduce the harmfulness of cannabis use, without necessarily stopping drug use altogether. To reduce harm , legalization of cannabis is a necessary but definitely not a sufficient- condition. It must include effective control on availability and regulation that steers users towards less harmful practices.ConclusionProhibition of cannabis use has not succeeded in preventing cannabis use or mitigating its harms. On the contrary, it has exacerbated the health harms of cannabis and created costly social ones as well. Legalizing and strictly regulating cannabis allows for more control over the risk factors associated with cannabis-related harm and is a intermit alternative to the current approach (Broughton, 2014). It is important to realize that the Canada of 1997 when the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (1996) was first established bears almost no resemblance to Canada of today. This explains why since its inception, the Criminal label has changed many ambiguous laws to legalize and decriminalize certain actions (e.g., prostitution, assisted suicide, etc). Essentially, the laws have needed to evolve in order to better accommodate societal needs and advancing scientific look for. Similarly, based on current research showing that criminalizing cannabis has not been an effective policy, perhaps it is time to refresh our approach to cannabis use and advocated for legalization.ReferencesAlonso, M. (2011). Cannabis social clubs in Spain A normalizing alternative underway. Series on Legislative Reform of Drug Policies, 9. Retrieved litigate 3, 2017, from http//druglawreform.info/en/publications/legislative-reform-series-/item/1095-cannabis-social-clubs-in-spainBabor, T., J., Caulkins, Edwards, G., Fischer, B., Foxcroft, D., Humphreys, K., . . . Strang, J. (2010). Drug policy and the public good. Oxford Oxford University Press.Blaszczak-Boxe, A. (2014). Marijuanas History How One Plant Spread Through the World. Retrieved show 01, 2017, from http//www.livescience.com/48337-marijuana-history-how-cannabis-travelled-world.htmlBroughton, M. (2014). The Prohibition of M arijuana. Manitoba Policy Perspectives, 1(1). Retrieved March 1, 2017, from https//umanitoba.ca/centres/mipr/media/1._Prohibition_of_Marijuana_Broughton.pdfCAMH. (2014). Cannabis Policy Framework. Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. Retrieved March 1, 2017, from https//www.camh.ca/en/hospital/about_camh/influencing_public_policy/Documents/CAMHCannabisPolicyFramework.pdfCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c11Chandra, F. (2014). The Current Approach to Cannabis self-possession in Canada Issues and Alternatives. Sociology and Anthropology Student Union Undergraduate daybook, 1. Retrieved March 3, 2017, from summit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/15204/SASU-Chandra.pdfControlled Drugs and Substances Act, SC 1996, c 19. Retrieved from http//canlii.ca/t/l44rCriminal Code, RSC (1985) c C-46Evans, D. (2013). The Economic Impacts of Marijuana Legalization. The diary of Global Drug Policy and Pr actice, 7(4). Retrieved March 4, 2017, from http//www.globaldrugpolicy.org/Issues/Vol%207%20Issue%204/The%20Economic%20Impacts%20of%20Marijuana%20Legalization%20final%20for%20journal.pdfGrenier, E. (2013). Majority of Canadians want to loosen marijuana laws polls . The Globe and Mail. Retrieved March 2, 2017, from http//www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/majority-of-canadians-want-to-loosen-marijuana-laws-polls/article14010389/Hathaway, A. D., Erickson, P. G. (2003). Drug Reform Principles and Policy Debates deadening Reduction Prospects for Cannabis in Canada. ledger of Drug Issues, 33(2), 465-495. Retrieved March 2, 2017, from http//journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/002204260303300209Health Canada. (2015). Canadian Tobacco Alcohol and Drugs (CTADS) 2013 summary. Retrieved February 28, 2017, from https//www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/canadian-tobacco-alcohol-drugs-survey/2013-summary.htmlLaw Commission. (2004). What is a crime? defining criminal conduct in contemp orary society. Retrieved March 1, 2017, from http//www.ubcpress.ca/books/pdf/chapters/whatisacrime/whatcrime.pdfMacQueen, L. (2013). Why its time to legalize marijuana. Macleans. Retrieved March 2, 2017, from http//www.macleans.ca/news/canada/why-its-time-to-legalize-marijuana/Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, SOR/ 2001-227 (available on http//lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-2001-227/index.html)Pates, R., Riley, D. (2012). Harm Reduction in Canada The Many Faces of Regression. Harm Reduction in Substance Use and High-risk Behaviour International Policy and Practice. Retrieved February 26, 2017, from http//canadianharmreduction.com/sites/default/files/Harm%20Reduction%20in%20Canada.pdfPonto, L. L., Oleary, D. S., Koeppel, J., Block, R. I., Watkins. (2004). Effect of Acute Marijuana on Cardiovascular Function and Central Nervous System Pharmacokinetics of 15OWater Effect in Occasional and Chronic Users. The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 44(7), 751-766. Retrieved M arch 2, 2017, from https//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15199080Room, R., Fischer, B., Hall, W., Lenton, S., Reuter, P. (2010). Cannabis Policy Moving Beyond Stalemate. Oxford University Press.R. v. Evers, 2011 BCCA 330 (available on CanLII)R. v. Malmo-Levine R. v. Caine, 2003 3 SCR 571, 2003 SCC 74 (available on CanLII)R. v. Parker, 2000 CanLII 5762 (ON CA), (available on CanLll)R. v. Readhead, 2008 BCCA 532 (available on CanLII)Statistics Canada. (2015). Prevalence and correlates of marijuana use in Canada, 2012. Retrieved March 2, 2017, from http//www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-003-x/2015004/article/14158-eng.htmUNICEF. (2013). Child offbeat in Rich Countries A comparative overview. Innocenti Report. Retrieved March 1, 2017, from https//www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc11_eng.pdf