By: Neda Pirouzmand
The university has banned the consumption of cannabis on campus, but the McMaster Centre for Continuing Education, Peter Boris Centre for Addictions Research and Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Medical Cannabis Research have combined efforts to pilot a new “Science of Cannabis” program.
Science of cannabis is going to be a three-course program that will meet the needs of health and community professionals, educators, civil servants and individuals with personal interest.
The first course of the program, Fundamentals of Cannabis Science, begins on May 13 and will run until July 21.
Lorraine Carter, director of the CCE, emphasized the evidence-based nature and relevance of the program.
“The fundamentals course is an important introduction to the general history and science of cannabis, and sets the stage for subsequent courses focused on therapeutic interventions and the risks associated with cannabis use,” said Carter. “In all, grounded in contemporary evidence and delivered by McMaster’s leading experts in cannabis research, the program is an exceptional learning opportunity.”
Michael Amlung, assistant professor in the department of psychiatry and behavioural neurosciences at Mcmaster, will be teaching the “Fundamentals of Cannabis Science” course.
As a faculty scientist, his research focuses on cannabis misuse.
Carter saw a perfect opportunity to partner with James MacKillop, director of the PBCAR and co-director of the DeGroote Centre for Medical Cannabis Research, in the creation of the program.
“The CCE is always looking for program ideas that are timely and relevant to adult, undergraduate and graduate students,” said Carter. “With the legalization of cannabis this past October and awareness of the exceptional research in cannabis happening here at McMaster University, the chance to partner with Dr. McKillop’s research team was a natural partnership.”
The CCE offers flexible workshops and courses for students to build upon past skills, obtain a professional designation or pursue new learning opportunities.
These include crisis and mental health training, data analytics and web design.
According to Carter, despite its smoking ban, McMaster should consider pursuing programs similar to science of cannabis in its future.
“More and more students are looking for programs in specific topics and skills areas. Programs that are shorter than a degree such as a three-course certificate and that are offered online are especially appealing,” he said.
Carter explains that online courses garner over 80 per cent of enrollment in the realm of continuing education.
“The accessibility and flexibility of online courses is something that today’s learners value a great deal,” said Carter.
McMaster is following closely behind the heels of the University of Ottawa and Ryerson University in the timely introduction of cannabis-focused education.
Ryerson University launched a cannabis course called “The Business of Cannabis” last year and the University of Ottawa was the first Canadian law school to offer cannabis law courses for the 2018-2019 academic year.
Class sizes for the “Fundamentals of Cannabis Science” are limited and the second course of the program has yet to be revealed.
Depending on its success, the science of cannabis program may add more courses and update content as cannabis news and research develops.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
In a few weeks, the question of whether Hamilton should host private cannabis stores goes before the city’s planning committee.
Within the year before marijuana was legalized, the number of marijuana dispensaries operating in Hamilton had nearly tripled. With nearly 80 dispensaries popping up around the city, Hamilton had the most dispensaries per capita across Ontario, a testament to how huge the weed market really is in our city.
Right now, the only legal way to buy recreational cannabis is through the Ontario Cannabis Store’s website. Come April 2019, the province will roll out a tightly regulated, private retail model which will see the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario granting licenses to private retailers.
Until then, effectively speaking, cannabis dispensaries in Hamilton are illegal and unregulated. But what will happen to the remaining 21 dispensaries that the city has left?
In a presentation in January 2018 by Supt. Ryan Diodati, head of Hamilton’s police’s investigative services, Supt. Diodati noted that nearly 130 hours of staffing time had been invested in one investigation that had taken place in December 2017.
In many cases like this, that same dispensary could reopen the next day, ultimately demonstrating that overall, raids and closures resolve to be ineffective ways to shut down the climbing number of dispensaries across the city.
Municipal governments have until January to opt out of private cannabis stores within their jurisdictions, and there has been lots of talk within city council as to what will happen in April 2019.
Many councillors have put forward their concerns about the fate of dispensaries in the city. Namely Ward 4 Councillor Sam Merulla, who put forward a motion surrounding the fact that a lack of sustainable revenue sharing from the province in relation to the retail sale of cannabis to municipalities will amplify the regressive downloading crisis in Hamilton.
Considering the effect of nearly 130 hours of police staffing time that goes into one investigation and considering just how obsolete this work really is in shutting dispensaries down, where do we go from here?
Is there a reasonable point in shutting down the remaining dispensaries in Hamilton if they have the resources to open up again within hours? Is there a point to reallocating resources from our police department towards something that has proven to be ineffective?
As of April 2019, storefront dispensaries will have to be licensed by the province, but there will be no cap on the number of outlets within the city. Instead of wasting resources, energy and money on eliminating existing dispensaries within Hamilton, providing these businesses with a license would mean a more accessible and regulated approach to legalization.
The city’s planning committee will decide whether they want to host private cannabis stores on Dec. 11.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By Drew Simpson
As of Oct. 17, Canadians 19 or older, including the majority of McMaster students, will be able to legally possess up to 30 grams of cannabis and purchase weed from the Ontario Cannabis Store and regulated retailers. However, despite the update in federal legislation, McMaster is staying firmly committed to its smoking ban.
As defined by McMaster’s “Tobacco & Smoke-Free University Policy,” smoking includes “inhaling, exhaling, burning, or carrying any cigar, cigarette pipe or any other lighted or heated tobacco or plant product… including hookahs and cannabis whether natural or synthetic, in any manner or in any form.”
When it comes to students’ ability to smoke in their off-campus houses, landlords have the authority to permit or disallow cannabis. However, landlords cannot limit any other forms of cannabis consumption.
Students living in residence at the university have to sign the Residence Act. Surprisingly, the 2018-2019 Residence Act outlines restrictions on alcohol consumption and possession in residences, but does not mention cannabis at all. Despite this, Sean Van Koughnett, the dean of students at McMaster, has referred to those same alcohol consumption rules as a framework for regulating cannabis within residences.
Specifically, Van Koughnett says that students will be allowed to possess cannabis in residences and on campus as long as what they carry adheres to specific amounts specified in legislation. The specific amount stipulated in the cannabis act is up to 30 grams. It appears that the rules for cannabis consumption in residence will follow those for alcohol consumption.
Regarding edible possession, universities like the University of Toronto limit edible and oil consumption to the privacy of one’s residence room. However, Andrea Farquhar, assistant vice-president of McMaster communication and public affairs, speaks of potentially only allowing manufacturer labelled edibles and oils, with the goal being to limit mixing.
According to Farquhar, if cannabis is consumed straight from the container it was sold in, it must be labelled by the manufacturer. Consuming cannabis oil from any unlabelled container is not permitted. For instance, one cannot leave unlabelled edibles in a residence refrigerator.
Farquhar understands how difficult it is to enforce rules like this, but still aims to make the expectation known.
Edibles will not be sold by regulated stores until July 2019, however, giving McMaster and other universities much more time to clarify their rules regarding edible cannabis.
Moreover, the Cannabis Act allows possession but limits the transportation of cannabis. In particular, cannabis cannot be readily available to any person within a vehicle. This section fits neatly into McMaster’s rules as the university’s policy also bans smoking, including cannabis, within vehicles on McMaster property.
A concern that the university’s policy fails to address is growing cannabis. Nevertheless, it is clear that Canadian universities are largely seeking to prevent students from growing cannabis in residences. Odour is the most popular argument backing this decision.
Currently, McMaster’s smoke-free policy also does not address research-related smoking. While the Cannabis Act allows research as an exception to smoke-free policies, McMaster has never addressed research as an exception to its rules.
After Oct. 17, as long as students are over 19, purchase cannabis from regulated stores and consume it privately, they are within the law. However, key questions remain unanswered and some McMaster rules may need fresh examination amid legalization.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By: Alex Bak
Some seem adamantly opposed to the legalization of weed and its association with an academic community, others feel that we should take a more open-minded perspective. The most interesting feedback were the students who conveyed a stance against excluding weed from the McMaster smoking ban. Given that Canada has made room for marijuana by legalizing it federally in Canada, making room for the substance on campus should also be considered.
When interviewed, a McMaster student said, “I think that the legalization of marijuana and its presumed effects on campus won’t affect me. It’s like smoking: majority of my friends do it, doesn’t mean that I will.
It definitely will intensify the pressure to start smoking [marijuana] but I’ve gone 19 years already. I doubt a bill that’s simply following the footsteps of what’s already been going on will break my streak.”
Being aware of all the different layers at play to pass this legislation, in addition to understanding the smoking ban policy on campus, being mindful is a key component of understanding the bigger picture... and not just in blazing sense.
The McMaster smoking ban will prohibit all forms of smoking on campus encompassing both tobacco and marijuana. The goal is that this will be carefully regulated on campus in a “phased” manner. Though McMaster hopes to remove smoke from campus and promote a healthy smoke free environment for McMaster students, the chance that current smokers with adhere to this is likely to be slim.
The Breathe Easy campaign is set to improve overall health for Mac students by eliminating secondhand smoke for those who do not want to be subject to its effects. This is essential because, though some may not know this, cigarettes and smoke is actually something that students can be allergic to. I can personally vouch for this, as I have a friend who actually is allergic to smoke, and struggles to breathe when exposed to its effects by other students. In retrospect, if nut allergies can be respected, so can smoke-related allergies.
A major point in the arsenal for fellow students who are against the ban in the context of marijuana is the fact that medical marijuana users will be marginally affected. In light of recent weed protests organized by Christopher Lawson, a local activist prominent in the community promoting medical marijuana showed why weed does not have a place on campus by inviting students to smoke a joint.
One key facet that they have yet to explore relates to the pharmaceutical industry. Once the substance is legalized, pharmaceutical companies will undoubtedly race to find new, more efficient and medically applicable ways to intake the drug in order to take advantage of this, as history proves, formerly illegal multibillion-dollar industry.
In regards to the legalization affecting employees or students, it is already against the Code of Conduct to come inebriated or under the influence to work; the legalization, pertaining to the academia of the university, will not deface the McMaster prestige. If anything, it may bolster its standing as a research-intensive university as part of the U15 group due to the increased flexibility for research for the clinical and biological affects of the substance, proving that this ban will only improve McMaster’s reputation on a global and a national scale.
The McMaster student body is not wrong to follow mainstream opinions. It is natural to be swayed by the stances of the representative bodies of the community. Cigarettes and the legalization of tobacco in Canada was a prime example of this. And yet, here we are, trying to get rid of all smoke on campus.
However, due to the lack of transparency of the chips on the table for both the smoking ban and legalization policies, we can only resort to form rudimentary viewpoints.
The McMaster Students Union in coordination with Hamilton Public Health and McMaster’s own interest groups aim to increase the transparency in this controversial issue so that we can all have a more informed and developed stance. Shrouded in technical jargon, a clear message remains. Marijuana has no place at McMaster and we can only trust that this is for the best.
By: Catarina Gonzalez
In light of a protest promoting medical marijuana on campus, we should reconsider our attitudes and understanding towards weed. The Breathe Easy campaign, on a provincial and national spectrum, seems to have a positive impression on certain audiences. However, on others such as myself, the campaign is not a positive one.
Marijuana has long held a stigma comparable to smoking cigarettes but far more dramatic. But Christopher Lawson, the local activist who was responsible for the 4:20 protest on Oct. 6, was onto something.
For McMaster University and for Canadians as a whole, the debate on the effects of weed is both ongoing and divisive. Thanks to Justin Trudeau, however, there seems to be a greater Canadian open-mindedness towards weed. With the legalization of marijuana, the stigma against recreational use has decreased. Some Canadians are beginning to understand the positive affects of marijuana and its recreational benefits.
Marijuana was accepted in Canada by Trudeau based on popular demand and opinion. According to an Ontario-based public opinion forum that was taken, prior to the legalization, among 1,003 Ontario voters, 56 per cent approve of legalized marijuana. Given these numbers, it should not be difficult to compare this ratio to the number of people on campus who would also advocate for marijuana use on campus.
At the Student Representative Assembly meeting on Sept. 24, the SRA cautioned the university about the smoking ban and asked them to consider the marginalized groups who may be affected by addition and substance abuse on campus. The SRA advocated against the smoking ban in order to emphasize the importance of being considerate of student safety, accessibility and the possible responses that some students may have to the implementation process.
McMaster claims that “by designating the campus tobacco and smoke-free the university is creating an environment promoting health and wellness,” neglecting to recognize that the ban is shunning out those who may currently be struggling with withdrawal effects.
In addition, the university believes that, “For the first months, anyone found in contravention of the policy will be asked to refrain from smoking or using tobacco and will be referred to a cessation program or given access to supports and resources.” The implementation of these goals is way too optimistic and a little too secluding.
With the smoking ban, McMaster may look like it is moving forward in university progression, but for a number of its students, it is doing the exact opposite of that. Since Canada is moving forward with an open mind to the diversity of leisure and stress-relieving methods, McMaster should consider doing the same. McMaster should try to address the overwhelming current demand for all recreational use of marijuana to be legalized, as cigarettes are. This does not mean the university should actively promote the substance, but it should at least include those who are for the use of marijuana in their decision-making process.
Yes, there are stereotypes and generalizations made against those who use marijuana recreationally, and no, they are not positive images of those people. But just like any other group that is associated with stereotypes and generalizations, we have our own reasons, and we should be allowed to have our own voices as well. The smoking ban should not be able to diminish my autonomy, nor should it be able to choose how I affect my health for me. Like all life decisions, I am only affecting myself and I am responsible for my own actions.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
It may be hard to imagine, but there is a marijuana dispensary just a few minutes away from campus.
Nestled in Westdale Village lies a store with a casual spa-like façade. This is Pacifico, and while the words “Mind, Body and Soul” printed on the storefront resonates with a leisure experience, the shop deals almost exclusively in medical marijuana.
Pacifico is positioned conveniently in a high-density of McMaster student residences. Considering the culture of pot dispensaries and the legal issues commonly associated with them, Pacifico attempts to present itself in a strictly clinical fashion, pushing itself away from the illegal, recreational facet of marijuana.
The backstory behind the medicinal marijuana dispensary began with the owner, Tamara Hirsh. After contracting a food illness from eating fish contaminated by the ciguatera neurotoxin, she was afflicted with complete nerve pain. Conventional painkillers were not doing the trick, and it was only until she tried cannabis that her pain was alleviated. Pacifico was founded under a core belief in alternative medicine, particularly helping people looking to choose cannabis as a remedy.
As Hirsh explained in a piece from the Hamilton Spectator, Pacifico operates under tight security surveillance. The outside lobby area is kept clean with an ambience resembling that of a clinic. The marijuana itself is kept locked in an inner room that is stored in a heavy-duty safe when the store is closed.
Considering the culture of pot dispensaries and the legal issues commonly associated with them, Pacifico attempts to present itself in a strictly clinical fashion, pushing itself away from the illegal, recreational facet of marijuana.
Pacifico takes pride in a business model that is stricter than other dispensaries. In order to qualify as a client, patients require a doctor’s note or prescription and must answer an eight-page intake form.
“We require a documented condition, something written by a doctor diagnosing you with insomnia or anxiety,” said Alexis Titian, an educator at Pacifico.
While this documentation is sufficient enough under Pacifico’s terms to sell marijuana to a client, it still remains illegal for the individual.
The store recommends that clients get the legal marijuana license as well.
“We are connected with a clinic called Body Stream and with a doctor referral, they will take you through the process and you will get your legal medicinal marijuana license,” Titian said.
Marijuana exists in a legal grey area. While currently illegal, the CBC has reported that the Liberal government will present legislation next month to legalize marijuana in Canada by July 1, 2018. In early March, police conducted raids on a series of dispensaries owned by Marc and Jodie Emery, also known as the “Prince and Princess of Pot.” One of the Cannabis Culture stores that was raided was located in downtown Hamilton.
According to the report, provinces will have the right to limit how marijuana is distributed and sold as well as the right to set price. For businesses such as Pacifico, the future of their business is in limbo as governments decide how to regulate the industry.
Cody Grioat
The Sputnik
BRANTFORD (CUP) — I’m not going to take the time to bounce around the topic. I think it’s about time marijuana was legalized in Canada. To be quite honest, I don’t see why it isn’t yet. I’ve never personally smoked (or otherwise ingested) marijuana, but I’m still firm in my belief that it should be decriminalized and legalized. Nice and simply, here’s why I think we’re past due on a revised weed bill.
We’re in debt. Big time, as a country. According to a wonderful website called Debt Clock that helps figure out a rough image of a country’s federal debt, we’re at about $17,500 in the red, per person. Keep in mind we have 34 million people in Canada. We may not be as bad as other countries, but do the math; we’re in the hole. Now, I’m not saying that national legalization of weed will solve our financial problems, but at the same time it would do a lot to aid in it. In Ontario, according to a smoker’s rights advocacy group, Ontario cigarette prices (for a carton of 200) was around $30.35 in 2003. In my opinion, that’s generic viagra online crazy enough. Then you figure out that a whopping $20.66 of that price is the multiple taxes from the provincial or federal government.
Now you see how we could use legalized weed to our advantage. The taxes alone on legalized weed could easily be a multimillion dollar industry, if sold the same way we’ve been distributing alcohol and cigarettes for decades. In my eyes, it’s an amazing business move. There’s a whole other argument related to money saving in the sense of not needing police to “waste money” enforcing it anymore, but I’d argue that point in a separate article.
Marijuana is not lethal, meaning, you will not die as a direct result of smoking or otherwise ingesting weed. I’d say it becomes a pretty reliable fact when the Government of Canada “Healthy Canadians” website clearly states the non-lethality of it, right under the many short-term effects (among them, spontaneous laughter, how scary) and above the list of long-term effects. I noticed something on the page dedicated to tobacco that quite frankly pissed me off: the effects of tobacco aren’t listed, that is, not unless you scroll down to the bottom of the page and find a separate link directing you there. Once you read and compare, you see that tobacco effects are in fact much worse, in a shorter amount of time, too. Don’t get me wrong, marijuana can be bad. It can lead to (as our government website tells us); impaired short-term memory, psychosis, mild paranoia, anxiety or panic in the short-term.
In the long-term, you could experience enhanced chances of schizophrenia, breathing problems, or cognitive impairment. Now, on that hidden tobacco page? Smokers can experience problems with their heart and blood vessels, certain types of cancers, lung and respiratory problems, menstrual problems, fertility problems, premature delivery, having a low birth weight baby, erectile dysfunction and premature death. I don’t smoke tobacco either, but if I had to choose between a cigarette and a joint, based on what my own government is telling me? I know what I’d be grabbing.
Time for a fun fact. When same-gendered marriage became legal in Canada, straight people were not forced to marry someone of the same gender. After abortion became legal in Canada, our nation still had numerous women giving live birth. Odd, isn’t it? Tobacco is legal, but I’ve never smoked in my life. Alcohol is legal, and guess what, people drink. But some don’t. The thing that ties all of these together? Possibly controversial laws, that you don’t have to take part in if you don’t want to (or, in the case of same-gendered married, it may simply not be something that effects you on a personal level). Just like if weed was legal, you wouldn’t have to smoke it if you didn’t want to, as with alcohol or tobacco; if weed was legal, you would have to follow laws related to it, just as with alcohol or tobacco. Of course, it probably wouldn’t be a perfect system. Many would abuse it, we’d probably still have illegal dealers, and underage users. Laws should be enforced stating that only certain businesses could sell it and to individuals of certain age groups. If using, there should be limits on what you could be doing afterwards (and for a certain time afterwards), enforced as with drinking and driving, and in overly public places with children.
I don’t use it now, and if (when) it’s eventually legal, I still won’t. It’s just something that doesn’t personally appeal to me. But from the eyes of someone who doesn’t use marijuana, I still think it’s well past the time to decriminalize and legalize.
