Patient Advocate since 1977.

1 Comment

“It’s California in 1995 All Over Again, Man” – Opportunities and Problems Piling Up in the European Cannabis Market – from Cannabis Business Executive magazine / Philip J. Cenedella IV

“It’s California in 1995 all over again, man.”

That was a comment I overhead during a conversation between an American and a German entrepreneur at the Mary Jane Berlin event held in Berlin in the second week of June, 2017.

Indeed, there may not be a better way to sum up the current state of the state here in Europe’s most populous country. Having been on the frontlines of the grassroots efforts in San Diego last century, it is fun to see how our industry is now growing in Germany and throughout Europe.  And like California back then, or now, the struggle is not always easy.

Here’s another interesting quote of the month:

“European markets are increasingly important to the cannabis sector. Each has a well-funded medical system, residents who seek natural and complementary therapies, and a government-supported mandate to stop the rising tide of opiate addiction related to chronic pain treatment.”

-Benjamin Ward, CEO, Maricann Group, Inc.

As of August, 2017 starts, the medical marijuana patients in Germany are experiencing “sold out” conditions nationwide, and the two exclusive importing countries (Canada and the Netherlands) are anticipating further bottlenecks as their in-country supply needs change. This is a significant problem – but also an opportunity for GMP-certified growers to fill the gap. If, and how, the German government opens up alternative supply to support their medical patients will be the top story in Germany this year.

From the patients perspective, there are two bad things about the current state of affairs: Little to no choice in their required medicine and their insurance companies are now refusing to cover the costs for the medicine as stipulated in the federal law.

Of course, lawyers are now getting involved and insurance companies are starting to be forced into approving valid claims from their policy-paying customers. But it is a silly, slow process to say the least.

The solution the German government is pursuing is to award 10 grow licenses to companies that will then produce 200 lbs. cannabis ​each within the country. The first bud from those plants are not scheduled to be picked until sometime in 2019, which is simply too long for patients to wait.

Some of the companies that have been publicly mentioned as potential winners of a grow license are Spektrum Cannabis, which is the Canopy Growth company formerly known as MedCann; Maricann GmbH, which is the new German subsidiary of its Canadian parent, Bedrocan, that has been a leader in the industry but recently run into a dispute with their Canadian licensee, Bedrocan International; Aurora Cannabis from Canada, which recently acquired the German firm Pedianos adding an EU-wide, medical marijuana distribution capability; and ABCann of Canada, which touts the “Father of THC” Dr. Raphael Mechoulam as a key member of their board of directors.

Homegrow options in Germany are currently not permitted, and existing indoor/outdoor farm operations are not yet able to be registered, licensed and taxed.

The black market continues to win, and patients continue to lose.  Cannabis business executives worldwide need to effectively work with the German government to develop the solutions we all know exist.  Three organizations that are key to this effort are the BfArM (www.bfarm.de )  the DHV (www.hanfverband.de )  and the GTAI ( www.gtai.de )

My personal comment is the government, politicians and regulators here in Germany need to listen to their constituents who support our industry by over 60 percent nationwide, according to a recent poll. The total quantity of flower to be delivered by the 10 licensees is probably less than what my buddy Butch has in his building back in California to handle his patients which live within five miles of the office.

Yes I am joking, Butch usually has less, but the point is – ​it simply is not enough for a population twice the size of California.

With all the talk about Germany, it is also important to remember that it is one of 18 countries within Europe that currently allow for some form of medical marijuana.  Besides Germany, there are provisions for the distribution and use of medical products in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and, the most recent addition, Poland.

This is an interesting list that, again, shows these are historic times here in Europe.

Sadly missing from the list above is the United Kingdom, and that has affected people we know. Our friend Vera Twomey, and her entire family had to leave the U.K. last month just to take care of their young daughter with Dravet’s Syndrome. In the U.K. their daughter suffered from up to 30 grand mal seizures a day while taking a regimen of pharmaceutical drugs.

Think about that for a moment – 30 grand mal ​seizures a day.

Now living as “medical refugees” from their homeland, the Twomey’s and their daughter are now dealing with zero grand mal seizures a day thanks to her medical marijuana.

30 grand mal seizures a day, now zero a day – everyday for the past 3-4 weeks.

The United Kingdom calls medical marijuana illegal. Patients and advocates call that thinking arcane, unjust, and possibly criminal itself. They are now petitioning the Human Rights Commission of the European Union in Brussels for help. I am positive their efforts will be successful – it is just a matter of time.

Vera and her family hope it comes within her daughter’s lifetime. That is all for now. Have a successful rest of the summer, rest up and get ready because I believe that Q-4 of 2017 is going to be a busy one for our industry and your company.

About The Author:

Leave a comment

Police in Berlin arrest Medical Marijuana patient (with prescription) at Berlin Hemp Parade. “What a long strange trip its been”…..continues.

Leider war weder die ein…

  • 24 a road transport law (consequence)
    (2) irregular acts as a vehicle for the use of a motor vehicle by means of a motor vehicle as defined in the annex to this regulation. Such an effect occurs when a substance specified in this annex is detected in the blood. The first sentence does not apply if the substance comes from the intended use of a medicinal product prescribed for a specific case.Unfortunately, neither the police on the hemp parade nor the responsible public prosecutor and judges have been able to read and understand these rather simple paragraphs.

Our very experienced and good truck driver has been forced to pay for blood collection before the start of the parade, because it is prescribed for cannabis by the doctor. After several hours of discussion. Not nice, not correct, and also bad for road safety!



Leave a comment

Banks versus pharmacists – first official extortion in the public drug scene – URUGUAY – by HANF JOURNAL .de



After moving forward in Uruguay in order to keep the own population of black market traders of illegal substances , unexpected hurdles seem to arise in the first country of the re-legalization of cannabis. The pharmacies in Uruguay are scorned by legitimate hemp trade by banks and have to fear their hitherto maintained money accounts. Either the cannabis sale would be discontinued, or abandoned to the formerly valued customer, it says on the side of the money institutions.

The President of the State Banco de la República, Jorge Polgar, said that no relations with pharmacies would have been accepted which would have received a license for the trade in marijuana . This is to prevent the international isolation of the bank which would actually be possible due to cross-border activities of the domestic financial institutions in the USA. According to international regulations, no accounts should be kept which are connected in any way to drug trafficking. Even if the government in Uruguay does not provide criminal prosecution for the public trade in cannabis – even behind the state’s distribution – the banks of the brave country feel their hands bound to international law.
In the absence of a solution to the surprising tangle mill in Uruguay, many of the twenty approved pharmacies would have to end their trade with the coveted and extremely affordable natural substance . A threatened blocking of his own bank account forced the medication-offering businessmen to the reluctant action, explained a lawyer of the pharmacist settlement of Uruguay.

Banks versus pharmacists – first official blackmail attempts in the public drug milieu!




Leave a comment






TORONTO--August 16, 2017--ALGAE DYNAMICS CORP (OTCQB: ADYNF) (the "Company"), a
company focused on the development of unique health products and pharmaceuticals utilizing cannabis
and algae oils, today announced that it has further refined its relationship with 6779264 Manitoba Ltd dba
Bonify (“Bonify”) in a Letter of Intent (“LOI”) dated August 10, 2017. Bonify is a Licensed Producer,
pursuant to the Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations in Canada, with the capability to
grow multiple strains of cannabis in its state-of-the-art 320,000 square foot facility.
The Company previously announced a Memorandum of Understanding with Bonify on May 9, 2017, in
which Bonify agreed to supply raw cannabis plant material for processing into cannabis oil for sale and
for use in research. In the recently completed LOI, the Company and Bonify have outlined the following:
1) The purchase and installation of cannabis oil extraction equipment by the Company in Bonify’s
2) The processing of cannabis material supplied by Bonify and other Licensed Producers in the oil
extraction facility;
3) The supply of cannabis oil and algae omega-3 oils to The University of Waterloo and University of
Western Ontario to support the Sponsored Research Agreements that the Company has in place with
the two universities; and
4) The sharing of direct expenses, and, after adjustment for the market value of cannabis material
supplied by Bonify and third parties, sharing of revenues from the sale of cannabis oil and algaecannabis
oil products.
The term of the agreement is for three years from the commencement of operations and is renewable by
mutual agreement. The Company and Bonify agree to use best efforts to complete formal documentation of
the agreement by September 30, 2017. Upon termination of the agreement, the Company agrees to transfer
title of the equipment to Bonify. The Company has engaged investment bankers to assist with the raising of
necessary capital to purchase and install the extraction equipment.
Given the favorable terms of this agreement, the Company does not anticipate moving forward with its
previously announced joint venture with ARA – Avanti Rx Analytics Inc. in which it was contemplated that
oil extraction would be done utilizing the latter’s facility.
Assuming that all regulatory approvals are in place, initial revenues are expected within six to nine months
following completion of financing,
Paul Ramsay, Chairman and President of Algae Dynamics Corp, stated, “We believe this Letter of Intent
gives us an improved pathway to early revenues as well as a reliable high-quality source of cannabis oil for
the universities to support our important algae-cannabis oil research. We look forward to expeditiously
completing this agreement.”
Jeff Peitsch, President and CEO of Bonify, commented, “Our team is pleased to be working with Algae
Dynamics Corp in support of the Company’s ongoing research and product development work with
universities. We see many benefits to working together with innovative companies such as Algae Dynamics
in this burgeoning cannabis market.”
About Bonify
Bonify is a Canadian-owned Licensed Producer and leading provider of medical cannabis. By maximizing
research findings and strictly adhering to best-in-class practices, quality standards and procedures, Bonify
produces medical cannabis products to help individuals get the most out of life each and every day. With
over 1,000,000 square feet of potential productive capacity at its present site in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada,
when at full scale, Bonify will be capable of growing over 100,000 kgs of cannabis annually.
About Algae Dynamics Corp
ADC is engaged in the development of unique health products and pharmaceuticals that utilize hemp,
cannabis and algae oils. We have engaged two Canadian universities to provide research into the use of
extracts from cannabis oil, which we plan to use to develop products that combine the significant health
benefits of Omega-3s derived from algae oil and extracts from cannabis oil. Our research is focused on the
use of cannabis oil in the context of cancer, and the use of cannabis derivatives for the development of novel
pharmacotherapies for mental health.
For more information, visit http://www.algaedynamics.com
This news release contains "forward-looking statements" as that term is defined in Section 27A of the
Securities Act and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Statements in this press
release which are not purely historical are forward-looking statements and include any statements regarding
beliefs, plans, expectations or intentions regarding the future. Such forward-looking statements include,
among other things, use of proceeds and the development, costs and results of current or future actions and
opportunitiesin the sector. Actual results could differfrom those projected in any forward-looking statements
due to numerous factors. Such factors include, among others, the inherent uncertainties associated with new
projects and development stage companies, our ability to raise the additional funding we will need to
continue to pursue our exploration and development program, and our ability to retain important members
of our management team and attract other qualified personnel. These forward-looking statements are made
as of the date of this news release, and we assume no obligation to update the forward-looking statements, or
to update the reasons why actual results could differ from those projected in the forward-looking statements.
Although we believe that any beliefs, plans, expectations and intentions contained in this press release are
reasonable, there can be no assurance that any such beliefs, plans, expectations or intentions will prove
to be accurate.
Investors should consult all the information set forth herein and should also refer to the risk factors disclosure
outlined in our annual report on Form 10-K for the most recent fiscal year, our quarterly reports on Form
10-Q and other periodic reports filed from time-to-time with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Jack Eversull, President
The Eversull Group, Inc.
Paul Ramsay, President
Algae Dynamics Corp



Leave a comment

FDA ISSUES CALL FOR COMMENT!! International Drug Scheduling; Convention on Psychotropic Substances; Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs; Ocfentanil, Carfentanil, Pregabalin, Tramadol, Cannabidiol, Ketamine, and Eleven Other Substances; Request for Comments

Featured Image -- 866




The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requesting interested persons to submit comments concerning abuse potential, actual abuse, medical usefulness, trafficking, and impact of scheduling changes on availability for medical use of 17 drug substances. These comments will be considered in preparing a response from the United States to the World Health Organization (WHO) regarding the abuse liability and diversion of these drugs. WHO will use this information to consider whether to recommend that certain international restrictions be placed on these drugs. This notice requesting comments is required by the Controlled Substances Act (the CSA).


Submit either electronic or written comments by September 13, 2017.


You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before September 13, 2017. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of September 13, 2017. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

Submit electronic comments in the following way:

  • Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else’s Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
  • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

Written/Paper Submissions

Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

  • Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for Written/Paper Submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
  • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2017-N-4515 for “International Drug Scheduling; Convention on Psychotropic Substances; Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs; Ocfentanil; Furanyl fentanyl (Fu-F); Acryloylfentanyl (Acrylfentanyl); Carfentanil; 4-fluoroisobutyrfentanyl (4-FIBF); Tetrahydrofuranylfentanyl (THF-F); 4-fluoroamphetamine (4-FA); AB-PINACA; AB-CHMINACA; 5F-PB-22; UR-144; 5F-ADB; Etizolam; Pregabalin; Tramadol; Cannabidiol; Ketamine; Request for Comments.” Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

  • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA’s posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

For Further Information Contact

James R. Hunter, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Controlled Substance Staff, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 5150, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3156, email: james.hunter@fda.hhs.gov.

Supplementary Information

I. Background

The United States is a party to the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances (Psychotropic Convention). Article 2 of the Psychotropic Convention provides that if a party to the convention or WHO has information about a substance, which in its opinion may require international control or change in such control, it shall so notify the Secretary-General of the United Nations (the U.N. Secretary-General) and provide the U.N. Secretary-General with information in support of its opinion.

Section 201 of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 811) (Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970) provides that when WHO notifies the United States under Article 2 of the Psychotropic Convention that it has information that may justify adding a drug or other substances to one of the schedules of the Psychotropic Convention, transferring a drug or substance from one schedule to another, or deleting it from the schedules, the Secretary of State must transmit the notice to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary of HHS). The Secretary of HHS must then publish the notice in the Federal Register and provide opportunity for interested persons to submit comments that will be considered by HHS in its preparation of the scientific and medical evaluations of the drug or substance.

II. WHO Notification

The Secretary of HHS received the following notice from WHO (non-relevant text removed):

Ref.: C.L.xx.2017

The World Health Organization (WHO) presents its compliments to Member States and Associate Members and has the pleasure of informing that the Thirty-ninth Expert Committee on Drug Dependence (ECDD) will meet in Geneva from 6 to 10 November 2017 to review a number of substances with potential for dependence, abuse and harm to health, and will make recommendations to the U.N. Secretary-General, on the need for and level of international control of these substances.

At its 126th session in January 2010, the Executive Board approved the publication “Guidance on the WHO review of psychoactive substances for international control” (EB126/2010/REC1, Annex 6) which requires the Secretariat to request relevant information from Ministers of Health in Member States to prepare a report for submission to the ECDD. For this purpose, a questionnaire was designed to gather information on the legitimate use, harmful use, status of national control and potential impact of international control for each substance under evaluation. Member States are invited to collaborate, as in the past, in this process by providing pertinent information as requested in the questionnaire and concerning substances under review.

It would be appreciated if a person from the Ministry of Health could be designated as the focal point responsible for coordinating and answering the questionnaire. (non relevant information from letter not shown, see letter for text not shown here) The designated focal point, and only this person, should access and complete the questionnaires:

1. Ocfentanil

2. Furanyl fentanyl (Fu-F)

3. Acryloylfentanyl (Acrylfentanyl)

4. Carfentanil

5. 4-fluoroisobutyrfentanyl (4-FIBF)

6. Tetrahydrofuranylfentanyl (THF-F)

7. 4-fluoroamphetamine (4-FA)



10. 5F-PB-22

11. UR-144

12. 5F-ADB

13. Etizolam

14. Pregabalin

15. Tramadol

16. Cannabidiol

17. Ketamine

PDF versions of the questionnaire in English, French and Spanish may be downloaded from the link http://www.who.int/medicines/access/controlled-substances/ecdd/en/. Please note that these versions are for reference only and all questionnaires must be answered through the online system. Further clarification regarding the questionnaire may be obtained from the Secretariat by emailing: ecddsecretariat@who.int.

Replies to the questionnaire must reach the Secretariat by 30 September 2017 in order to facilitate analyses and preparation of the report before the planned meeting. Where there is a competent National Authority under the International Drug Control Treaties, it is kindly requested that the questionnaire be completed in collaboration with such body.

The summary information from the questionnaire will be published online as part of the report on the Web site for the Thirty-ninth ECDD linked to the Department of Essential Medicines and Health Products (EMP). The provisional agenda of the Thirty-ninth ECDD and the list of psychoactive substances under review are also published on Thirty-ninth ECDD Web page: http://www.who.int/medicines/access/controlled-substances/ecdd/en/.

Member States are also encouraged to provide any additional relevant information (unpublished or published) that is available on these substances to: ecddsecretariat@who.int. This information will be an invaluable contribution to the ECDD and all submissions will be treated as confidential.

The World Health Organization takes this opportunity to renew to Member States and Associate Members the assurance of its highest consideration.

GENEVA, 7 July 2017

FDA has verified the Web site addresses contained in the WHO notice, as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register, but Web sites are subject to change over time.

III. Substances Under WHO Review

Ocfentanil is a synthetically produced opioid that is structurally related to fentanyl and approximately equipotent in effect. Reported risks associated with use of ocfentanil include development of opioid use disorder, overdose, and fatal overdose. It has no approved medical use in the United States and is not a controlled substance in the United States under the CSA.

Furanyl fentanyl (Fu-F) is a potent clandestinely produced synthetic opioid that is an analog of fentanyl. Evidence suggests that the pattern of abuse of fentanyl analogues, including furanyl fentanyl, parallels that of heroin and prescription opioid analgesics. Fu-F produces the typical opioid effects that include respiratory depression and loss of consciousness. Seizures of Fu-F have been encountered in powder form. Fu-F has been connected to fatal overdoses, in which intravenous routes of administration are documented. It has no approved medical use in the United States. On November 29, 2016, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) issued a final order to temporarily schedule Fu-F and its isomers, esters, ethers, salts and salts of isomers, esters and ethers, into Schedule I pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of the CSA.

Acryloylfentanyl (Acrylfentanyl) belongs to the 4-anilidopiperidine class of synthetic opioids and is similar in structure to fentanyl. Acryloylfentanyl is a clandestinely produced analog of fentanyl and sold illegally as a research chemical on several Web sites. Acryloylfentanyl has also been associated with adverse events typically associated with opioid use such as respiratory depression, anxiety, constipation, tiredness, hallucinations, and withdrawal. The use of acryloylfentanyl has also been linked to the development of opioid use disorder, overdose, and fatal overdose. Acryloylfentanyl has no commercial or medical uses. On July 14, 2017, the DEA issued a temporary order to temporarily schedule acryloylfentanyl, its isomers, esters, ethers, salts and salts of isomers, esters, and ethers, into Schedule I pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of the CSA.

Carfentanil, also known as 4-carbomethoxyfentanyl, is an extremely potent synthetic opioid that is similar in structure to and approximately 100 times more potent than fentanyl as an analgesic. At one time legitimately produced, carfentanil is no longer manufactured, marketed, or used in the United States; it is approved by FDA for use under restricted conditions by veterinarians as a immobilizing agent for certain large animals. Illicitly produced carfentanil is a particularly harmful fentanyl analogue that is also being laced into heroin or sold by itself and trafficked in the United States. It is not approved for human use. Drug seizure data indicate that carfentanil is typically used in small doses to cut heroin and other illicitly abused drugs. The significant risk to public health associated with carfentanil use stems from its respiratory depressive effects with very small amounts. Several fatalities have been reported as the result of carfentanil overdoses. On October 28, 1988, the DEA placed carfentanil in Schedule II of the CSA.

4-fluoroisobutyrfentanyl is a clandestinely produced synthetic opioid that is an analog of fentanyl. It has µ-receptor agonist activity similar to that of fentanyl. This would result in effects associated with opioid agonists such as analgesia, respiratory depression, anxiety, constipation, tiredness, hallucinations, withdrawal, the development of opioid use disorder, overdose, and fatal overdose. The use of 4-fluoroisobutyrfentanyl has been implicated in several cases of overdose and fatal overdoses. 4-fluoroisobutyrfentanyl has not been approved for medical use in the U.S. On May 3, 2017, the DEA issued a temporary order to temporarily schedule 4-fluoroisobutyrfentanyl, its isomers, esters, ethers, salts and salts of isomers, esters and ethers, into Schedule I pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of the CSA.

Tetrahydrofuranylfentanyl (THF-F) is a synthetic opioid that is an analog of fentanyl. It has µ-receptor agonist activity similar to that of fentanyl, resulting in effects associated with opioid agonists such as analgesia, respiratory depression, anxiety, constipation, tiredness, hallucinations, withdrawal, the development of opioid use disorder, overdose, and fatal overdose. THF-F is not approved for medical use or controlled in the United States under the CSA.

4-Fluoroamphetamine (4-FA) is a psychoactive substance of the phenethylamine and substituted amphetamine chemical classes and produces stimulant effects. WHO reports that 4-FA is clandestinely produced, and its use is associated with fatal and non-fatal intoxications. 4-FA was reviewed at the 37th ECDD (2015) and, while not placed under international control due to insufficient data, was kept under surveillance. 4-FA is not approved for medical use in the United States and it is not controlled under the CSA.

AB-PINACA is a clandestinely produced synthetic cannabinoid agonist approximately 1.5 times as potent as delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol. Adverse effects produced by cannabinoid agonists include tachycardia, agitation, hallucination, chest pain, seizure, anxiety, acute psychosis, and death. AB-PINACA has been detected in illicit synthetic cannabinoid substances, and reported in cases of overdose and hospitalizations. It has not been approved for medical use in the United States. On January 27, 2017, the DEA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to permanently control AB-PINACA as a Schedule I substance under the CSA.

AB-CHMINACA is a clandestinely produced synthetic cannabinoid agonist that is approximately 16 times more potent than delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol. Adverse effects produced by cannabinoid agonists include tachycardia, agitation, hallucination, chest pain, seizure, anxiety, acute psychosis, and death. AB-CHMINACA has been detected in illicit synthetic cannabinoid substances and found in cases of overdose and hospitalizations. AB-CHMINACA has not been pre-reviewed or critically reviewed by the WHO. On January 27, 2017, the DEA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to permanently control AB-CHMINACA as a Schedule I substance under the CSA.

5F-PB-22 is a synthetic cannabinoid agonist with similar effects to delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, one of the main psychoactive components of cannabis. Adverse effects produced by cannabinoid agonists include tachycardia, agitation, hallucination, chest pain, seizure, anxiety, acute psychosis, and death. 5F-PB-22 is clandestinely produced. It has been found laced on plant material and marketed as herbal products, and is smoked for its psychoactive effects. According to the WHO, 5F-PB-22 has been associated with fatal intoxications. On September 6, 2016, the DEA issued a final rule to permanently place 5F-PB-22 into Schedule I of the CSA.

UR-144 is a clandestinely produced synthetic cannabinoid agonist. In general, adverse effects produced by cannabinoid agonists include tachycardia, agitation, hallucination, chest pain, seizure, anxiety, and acute psychosis. UR-144 has been detected in herbal smoking blends that are sold as herbal incense. In June 2014, the 36th (2014) ECDD reviewed UR-144 and recommended that it be placed under surveillance. On May 11, 2016, the DEA issued a final rule to permanently schedule UR-144 into Schedule I of the CSA.

5F-ADB is a clandestinely produced synthetic cannabinoid agonist. In general, adverse effects produced by cannabinoid agonists include tachycardia, agitation, hallucination, chest pain, seizure, anxiety, and acute psychosis. 5F-ADB has been identified in overdose and/or cases involving death attributed to their abuse. Adverse health effects reported from incidents involving 5F-ADB and other synthetic cannabinoids have included: Nausea, persistent vomiting, agitation, altered mental status, seizures, convulsions, loss of consciousness, and/or cardio toxicity. On April 10, 2017, the DEA issued a temporary scheduling order to temporarily schedule 5F-ADB, its isomers, esters, ethers, salts and salts of isomers, esters, and ethers into Schedule I pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of the CSA.

Etizolam belongs to a class of substances known as benzodiazepines. Benzodiazepines produce central nervous system depression and are commonly used to treat insomnia, anxiety, and seizure disorders. Etizolam is currently prescribed in some countries to treat generalized anxiety disorder with depressive symptoms, but is not approved for medical use or controlled in the United States under the CSA. WHO reported that non-fatal intoxications that include cases of driving under the influence of drugs have been linked to etizolam. The ECDD at its 37th (2015 meeting reviewed etizolam and recommended that a critical review of etizolam is warranted.

Pregabalin is an anticonvulsant-type drug used to treat pain generated from the nervous system. It is available as an oral capsule and oral solution and approved for medical use in the United States for the management of neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy, post-herpetic neuralgia, and adjunctive therapy for partial onset seizures, fibromyalgia, and neuropathic pain associated with spinal cord injury. Although the mechanism of action of pregabalin is unknown, studies in animals suggest that binding to the nervous system tissues may be involved in its pain-relieving and anti-seizure effects. Pregabalin binds with high affinity to the alpha 2-delta receptor site (a subunit of voltage-gated calcium channels) in the central nervous system. The binding of pregabalin at this site is thought to be responsible for its therapeutic effect on neuropathic pain. Reports indicate that patients are self-administering higher than recommended doses to achieve euphoria, especially patients who have a history of substance abuse, particularly opioids, and psychiatric illness. While effects of excessively high doses are generally non-lethal, gabapentinoids such as pregabalin are increasingly being identified in post-mortem toxicology analyses. Pregabalin is a Schedule V controlled substance in the United States under the CSA.

Tramadol is an opioid analgesic that produces its primary opioid-like action through an active metabolite referred to as the M1 metabolite (O-desmethyltramadol). Tramadol was first approved for marketing in the United States in 1995 and is available as immediate-release, extended-release, and combination products for the treatment of moderate to moderately severe pain. On July 2, 2014, the DEA published a final rule in the Federal Register controlling tramadol as a Schedule IV substance of the CSA effective from August 18, 2014. Tramadol was pre-reviewed by the ECDD at its 28th (1992) and 32nd (2000) meetings, and critically reviewed at the 33rd (2002) meeting and not recommended for international control but placed on surveillance. Tramadol was pre-reviewed again by the ECDD at its 34th (2006) meeting; however, the ECDD concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to justify a critical review. At the 36th (2014) meeting, the ECDD considered updated information on tramadol, but again concluded that there was insufficient evidence to warrant a critical review.

Cannabidiol (CBD) is one of the active cannabinoids identified in cannabis. CBD has been shown to be beneficial in experimental models of several neurological disorders, including those of seizure and epilepsy. In the United States, CBD-containing products are in human clinical testing in three therapeutic areas, but no such products are approved by FDA for marketing for medical purposes in the United States. CBD is a Schedule I controlled substance under the CSA. At the 37th (2015) meeting of the ECDD, the committee requested that the Secretariat prepare relevant documentation to conduct pre-reviews for several substances, including CBD.

Ketamine is classified as a rapid-acting general anesthetic agent used for short diagnostic and surgical procedures that do not require skeletal muscle relaxation. It is marketed in the United States as a solution for injection. Ketamine is controlled in Schedule III of the CSA in the United States. It is not controlled internationally under the Convention on Psychotropic Substances or the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. The ECDD reviewed ketamine at its 34th (2006), 35th (2012), and 36th (2014) meetings. On March 13, 2015, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) decided by consensus to postpone the consideration of a proposal concerning the recommendation to place ketamine in Schedule IV of the Psychotropic Convention. The CND requested additional information from the WHO. The ECDD reviewed updated information at its 37th (2015) meeting and found no reason to recommend a new pre-review or critical review of ketamine that could potentially change its standing 2014 recommendation that ketamine should not be placed under international control.

IV. Opportunity To Submit Domestic Information

As required by section 201(d)(2)(A) of the CSA, FDA, on behalf of HHS, invites interested persons to submit comments regarding the 17 named drug substances. Any comments received will be considered by HHS when it prepares a scientific and medical evaluation of these drug substances. HHS will forward a scientific and medical evaluation of these drug substances to WHO, through the Secretary of State, for WHO’s consideration in deciding whether to recommend international control/decontrol of any of these drug substances. Such control could limit, among other things, the manufacture and distribution (import/export) of these drug substances and could impose certain recordkeeping requirements on them.

Although FDA is, through this notice, requesting comments from interested persons, which will be considered by HHS when it prepares an evaluation of these drug substances, HHS will not now make any recommendations to WHO regarding whether any of these drugs should be subjected to international controls. Instead, HHS will defer such consideration until WHO has made official recommendations to the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, which are expected to be made in early 2018. Any HHS position regarding international control of these drug substances will be preceded by another Federal Register notice soliciting public comments, as required by section 201(d)(2)(B) of the CSA.

V. Electronic Access

Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or https://www.regulations.gov.

Dated: August 9, 2017.
Anna K. Abram,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2017-17119 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am]

Leave a comment

Cannabis And The Elderly: A Neurophysiological And Pharmacological Review

by Gaurav Dubey

The elderly population, a term which is generally agreed to mean any individual age 65 or older, is a uniquely diverse and often complex demographic to treat

The aging baby boomers now include many frail and elderly individuals, as Knickman and Snell put in their 2002 review discussing, among several items, “the potential burden an aging society will place on the care-giving system and public finances” (Knickman & Snell, 2002).

Devastating neurodegenerative illnesses such as Alzheimer’s Disease and Parkinson’s disease, as well illnesses such as cancer and chronic pain are more prevalent in older populations and require a multimodal treatment approach. Such treatment can involve hospice care when patients are diagnosed as “prospectively dying” and are the often given very high doses of narcotics, such as morphine, to help ease this pain (Ber-sala et al., 2013) (Scitovsky, 2005).

However these powerful comfort drugs carry serious side effects that can be incredibly detrimental to one’s quality of life (Meier, 20111). A study by Ber-sala and colleagues, however, is one among several emerging studies that also indicate significant alleviation of symptoms in the elderly upon cannabis consumption (Ber-sala et al., 2013). I have discussed previously works that clearly demonstrate the efficacy of cannabis in the treatment of various disorders such as Alzheimer’s and Chronic Pain, conditions with a high prevalence in the elderly population. To this end, this article will focus on a new 2017 study by Katz and colleagues that demonstrably shows the utility and efficacy of cannabinoids in the elderly while using other related and supporting data (Katz et al., 2017). Providing safe, effective and therapeutic care for our senior citizens and adequate end of life care for hospice patients is the hallmark of a successful healthcare system and compassionate society. As such, further investigation into cannabis and cannabinoids for the elderly population is a vital responsibility for the medical community and it’s healthcare providers.

The elderly population, which is steadily increasing in numbers, is the demographic with the highest prevalence of disease and suffering (Parker et al., 1997). The need for adequate care and allocation of resources to treat this diverse population presenting with an even more diverse palette of pathologies is a critical one. Elderly patients typically consume a large amount of prescription drugs, all with varying risk and side effect profiles (Katz et al., 2017).

“Comfort Drugs” used in hospice care, such as hydrocodone, morphine and fentanyl, while generally effective at treating pain, can cause significant drowsiness and even respiratory depression, leading to death, upon overdose (Chau et al., 2008). Chau’s study also describes how normal physiologic aging can significantly alter the pharmacokinetic mechanisms of such drugs in the elderly population, which requires even greater care by the prescribing physician (Chau et al., 2008). With the mounting clinical evidence regarding the efficacy of cannabis to treat a wide variety of pathologies, including many that significantly affect the senior population, special attention should be given to the potential of adding cannabis to the arsenal of drugs to help treat the elderly.

When used simultaneously with opioids, “cannabinoids have been shown to successfully lead to a greater cumulative relief of pain” leading to patients using fewer opiods and experiencing fewer side effects (ref). Perhaps more fascinating from a neuropharmacological standpoint is the fact that cannabinoids seemed to also “prevent the development of tolerance to and withdrawal from opiates” and is even able to essentially cause a weaker dose, that wasn’t working as efficaciously for pain relief for the patient before, to become effective once again (Lucas, 2012). The reduced side effect and high safety profile both present cannabis as a compelling alternative or adjunct to these drugs as well.

In a new 2017 review analyzing clinical evidence for the utilization of cannabinoids in the elderly by Katz and colleagues, the beneficial effects of cannabis in the elderly is implicated by just some of the major conditions cannabis is known to effectively treat in the elderly: Dementia, Parkinson’s Disease, Alzheimer’s Disease and Cancer (Katz et al., 2017).

pensioner cannabis

Image credit- Mass Roots

Furthermore, in discussing the safety of cannabis, Katz and colleagues state, “Cannabinoids present a relatively safe profile of action in elderly patients. Hence, cannabinoid treatment should be considered more readily when other options fail, even in cases of scarce data” (Katz et al., 2017). In fact, I strongly believe that due to the relative safety of cannabis (no reported overdoses/deaths), it should often be considered a first line treatment if possible, over the use of an opioid analgesic, for instance, which carries significantly greater risks. In a population that is often already overmedicated, the possibility of using cannabis, a compound known to be relatively safer than some of the other drugs used to treat chronic pain and illness, should be seriously considered as a mainstay treatment as more data becomes available (Katz et al., 2017).

Indeed, my article regarding cannabis use reducing the individual consumption of prescription drugs speaks to this point well.

As mentioned above, cannabis has been identified to have beneficial and therapeutic properties for several diseases with high prevalence in the elderly. One such condition that cannabis has been indicated for is Alzheimer’s Disease (AD). Indeed, Volicer et al. demonstrated in a placebo-controlled crossover-designed study that treatment with a THC analogue (Dronabinol) attenuated behavioral disturbance in Alzheimer’s patients (Volicer et al., 1997).

While critics of this study claim the lack of quantitative data make the results difficult to adequately validate, a systematic review by Woodward and authors, reporting on “the largest studied cohort of dementia patients treated with Dronabinol to date”, was able to confirm these findings. They reported that Dronabinol could serve as an efficacious “adjunctive treatment for neuropsychiatric symptoms in dementia” (Woodward et al., 2014).

Furthermore, Katz and colleagues, in reviewing this clinical data, concluded that cannabinoids seem to be a safe and effective treatment for therapy “to manage behavioral disturbances in patients” (Katz et al., 2017). Neurodegenerative disorders such as AD are debilitating and often require a multidimensional approach to treatment. Similar challenges arise when considering Parkinson’s disease, another common neurodegenerative illness prevalent in the elderly.

Parkinson’s Disease (PD) is another illness commonly associated with elderly patients and is primarily characterized by death of dopamine neurons in the substantia nigra. It often presents with symptoms such as: tremor, rigidity, gait abnormality and non-motor related clinical symptomology (Katz et al., 2017).

While the etiology of PD is still largely unknown, emerging research has uncovered that our own endocannabinoid system seems to play a significant role in the mechanism of the illness (Katz et al., 2017). This is pharmacologically fascinating as there is a lack of CB1 receptors (one of two main cannabinoid receptors in the body/brain) in the dopaminergic nigostriatal (this is spelt correctly?) neurons that are being damaged due to this serious illness.

canada cannabis

It’s currently presumed this occurs due to the fact that the endocannabinoid system modulates GABA and glutamate transmission (two other major neurotransmitter systems in the brain not part of the endocannabinoid system) (Katz et al., 2017). The ability of our own intrinsic endocannabinoid system to play a key role in the mechanisms of this disease holds promise for the future treatment of PD with cannabis.

A common feature of both PD and AD along with other neurodegenerative disorders prevalent in the elderly is dementia, a debilitating phenomenon that has shown significant receptivity to the therapeutic applications of cannabis (Walther & Halpern, 2010). In regards to PD, cannabis has been shown to provide “significant amelioration also in rigidity, tremor, bradykinesia, pain and sleeping problems with no significant adverse effect” (Lotan et al., 2014). Furthermore, a small cohort of 22 PD patients treated with cannabis and surveyed 30 minutes after use reported “a significant improvement of 9.9 points in the mean score Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (P<0.0001)” (Katz et al., 2017).

Another common morbidity and co-morbidity among the elderly population is cancer. Chemotherapy is a common mainstay of cancer treatment and is well known to carry seriously averse side effects that are difficult to manage for patients. A recent 2016 review by Dr. Abrams states “Cannabis is useful in combatting anorexia, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, pain, insomnia, and depression” induced by chemotherapy (Abrams et al., 2016).

In a study with 211 patients, of which 131 had a second, follow-up interview, “all cancer or anticancer treatment-related symptoms showed significant improvement (P < 0.001). Aside from memory lessening in patients with prolonged cannabis use, “no significant adverse events” were reported (Ber-sala et al., 2013). Having worked in an oncology ward for 4 summers and in my training as an EMT in Miami-Dade, I’ve personally witnessed the immense suffering of cancer patients. It’s difficult not to want to provide anything and everything to assist them, especially if they are in their final years and moments before the inevitable. Narcotics such as morphine for pain and adderall to combat the drowsiness from the morphine are common balancing acts in regards to hospice care medications.

As stated by Nersesyan & Slavin, “Stimulants such as methylphenidate or caffeine can increase alertness in patients who are experiencing somnolence on a dose of morphine that provides sufficient pain control” (Nersesyan & Slavin, 1998). With cannabis having a significantly lower side effect profile and a lower chance of adverse drug events as mentioned above, it is time to seriously consider easy access of cannabis to elderly patients suffering from these conditions, especially those in hospice care. Perhaps the pharmacokinetic mechanisms of the drug are not completely understood, however, enough compelling data exists, combined with the fact there has never been one singlepurported overdose/fatality from cannabis that serious consideration need be given to this modality of treatment.

cannabis weight loss

The safety profile of cannabis next to some of the other drugs used to treat this patient population isn’t even comparable when considering potential for fatalities (that already occur every day) from opioids alone. For this and so many other reasons, it’s time to make a change.

So why restrict access to cannabis if it is beneficial for elderly and it improves their quality of life? Ber-sala, in his study, states that cannabis induced relief of symptoms in their study may in part be due to its euphoriant properties. He points out that, “from a medical point of view, the general improvement in the level of distress is important as an end-point for palliative studies, and the cause is less important (Ber-sala et al., 2013).

There is no doubt that the use of potent narcotics such as morphine and hydromorphine create powerful and potentially addicting “highs” as well, but their use is often times warranted in this situation. Thus, holding cannabis to a different standard due to this side effect is in fact holding a double standard and disrespecting science and evidence. In fact, if you’re sick and dying of cancer on your deathbed, the idea of “feeling good” is a powerful one I think many people, especially those in the medical profession, can relate with.

Another reference in regards to cannabis in popular culture is the “munchies”, essentially, the appetite-stimulation effects of cannabis use. While the data is scarce on this topic in the elderly, preliminary findings show promise (Katz et al., 2017). A few small studies (<40 people) using Dronabinol as a treatment found small changes in weight gain or increased consumption of food over shorter time intervals (Katz et al., 2017). Furtherore, when considering the “entourage effect” (define that) and the beneficial effects of, for instance, Sativex (a 1:1 THC:CBD ratio, whole plant cannabis formulation) over other synthetic cannabinoid compounds such as Dronabinol and Marinol, it begs the question about whether whole plant cannabis formulations would be even more beneficial to patients over synthetics compounds (Russo, 2008).These results call for further investigation as proper nutrition is vital to this population of patients.

The stigmatization of the “high” of cannabis and the social satire of the “muchies” can often detract from the medical necessities of these effects for cancer patients, many of whom report as truly depending on these characteristics of cannabis to help them through such illnesses (Waissengrin et al., 2015). Overwhelming data shows this population could potentially benefit greatly from cannabis use and only more research and more science can help change public perception.

The elderly population is one that suffers from an increased prevalence of a variety of severe pathologies, not the least of which including neurodegenerative disorders, cancer and chronic pain. A recent 2016 study found that “medical expenses more than double between ages 70 and 90” and that “ the government pays for over 65 per cent of the elderly’s medical expenses” (De Nardi et al., 2016). If the effects of cannabis can be reproduced in bigger trials, FDA approved treatments and therapies that are efficacious and successful can be implemented, healthcare costs and the benefit to society overall could improve. With a healthcare crisis already underway in our country, perhaps a paradigm shift such as this one is a promising one. Maybe the question we should be asking is not “can we afford to do this?” but rather, “can we afford not to?”

[Featured image credit- Endoca]

Gaurav Dubey | August 15, 2017 at 1:14 pm | Tags: Cannabiscannabis elderlyCannabis studyMedical Cannabis studyPensioners | Categories: FeaturedHealth | URL: http://wp.me/p8nEcz-H9
Comment    See all comments

Leave a comment

A breakdown of how Canada’s provinces are consulting the public to shape marijuana rules – by MJBizDaily.com

(Note: This is the second of a two-part series on how Canada’s provinces are reaching out to various stakeholders to help craft marijuana regulations. You can read Part 1 here.)

By Matt Lamers

Canada’s 10 provinces and three territories are in various stages of conducting public consultations that could have a major impact on the regulatory framework that governs recreational marijuana in the country.

Of the 10 provinces, only British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba haven’t decided when, or if, the public will have a say in how the legislation takes shape over the next 12 months.

Here’s how each province is approaching outreach to cannabis businesses, consumers, the general public and other stakeholders as they attempt to develop adult-use regulations. (Note: Most of the consultations are ongoing or upcoming.)


Representatives from the medical marijuana industry, including licensed producers, have taken part in targeted stakeholder roundtables and sector meetings with the Cannabis Secretariat since May.

The meetings will likely take place as necessary throughout the summer and potentially into the fall, the premier said.

The first phase of Alberta’s public engagement consists of an online survey and written submissions, ending July 31.

“Between our public engagement and targeted stakeholders consultations, we are receiving a significant amount of information, all of which will help inform how we make decisions surrounding legalization in Alberta,” Minister of Justice Kathleen Ganley told Marijuana Business Daily.

Alberta will hold another round of consultations and then release a draft framework.

“Our current goal is to develop and refine a draft framework for legalized cannabis in Alberta this fall,” Ganley said.


Saskatchewan is weighing consultations with stakeholders – including cannabis businesses and interested parties – and still considering how to best conduct them.

The province has formed a cross-ministry working group to work on its approach to cannabis legalization.

The working group and its subcommittees will consider the various aspects of the federal legislation, such as the implementation of necessary provincial legislation and regulations, and the creation of an effective model for distribution and taxation, according to a justice ministry spokesperson.

It’s too early to propose a timeline for any provincial legislation, the spokesperson added.


Manitoba’s Liquor and Gaming Authority is conducting a random survey of 1,200 adult Manitobans to get a representative sample of the population.

The authority is part of two provincial working groups – the Interdepartmental Working Group on Legalization of Cannabis Social and Health Issues, chaired by the deputy minister of justice; and the Projection, Commercialization and Distribution Committee, chaired by the minister of Crown Services.

As part of the authority’s survey, cannabis businesses aren’t being invited to submit feedback, nor is the general public, for that matter.

“We don’t know as a regulatory body if we will be tasked yet to regulate cannabis,” said Kristianne Dechant, manager of communications and research for the Liquor and Gaming Authority. “We know that we will need information about Manitobans’ expectations on regulation.”


The province is asking individuals, organizations and businesses to weigh in on key decisions related to cannabis legalization. The poll is effective through July 31.

The Ontario Legalization of Cannabis Secretariat is hosting a series of expert forums and engagement sessions this summer on the potential impact of rec legalization. Licensed producers are among those participating.

“The results of the survey and feedback from our expert roundtable discussions will play an important role in developing our approach to cannabis legalization,” said Andrew Rudyk with the ministry of the attorney general.


Quebec’s consultations are scheduled for Aug. 21-Sept. 21. A forum of national and international experts took place in Montreal June 19-20.

Social Services Minister Lucie Charlebois has said the government will draft legislation this fall.

Details about the consultations weren’t clear by press time.

Newfoundland and Labrador

A summary document could be released this week with the results of Newfoundland and Labrador’s survey of more than 2,000 people on legalization regulations.

The survey was conducted on the province’s EngageNL portal. Separate stakeholder consultations were also conducted, and the responses will be included in the summary document.

The general public was invited to participate, along with consumers and cannabis businesses.

Nova Scotia

Nova Scotia hasn’t decided what shape its public consultations will take, but Finance Minister Karen Casey told CBC News they will likely begin by late summer or early fall.

It wasn’t clear by press time whether the province would include cannabis businesses as part of its outreach.

New Brunswick

Marijuana business leaders are among those whose opinions are being sought by New Brunswick’s Select Committee on Cannabis.

The committee’s tour of consultations includes seven public hearings July 12-28.

In June, the Report of the New Brunswick Working Group on the Legalization of Cannabis highlighted adult-use marijuana as “a significant economic opportunity” under New Brunswick’s Economic Growth Plan.

Additionally, “discussions are ongoing with the federal government and other provinces to coordinate taxation regimes in a way to prevent continued viability of criminal elements in cannabis marketing. New Brunswick intends to follow the national consensus in the near term.”

The province has formed a committee of key stakeholders to explore economic development opportunities and study public safety challenges.

Prince Edward Island

PEI has plans to engage the public over cannabis legislation later this summer, according to a Premier’s Office spokesperson.

Engagement will include an online component.

PEI has held “ongoing meetings with key stakeholders,” the spokesperson said.

British Columbia

The province’s ruling New Democratic Party rose to power last week and hasn’t committed to consulting the public on cannabis legislation.

Questions to the party were not returned by press time.

Up north

The Northwest Territories is accepting public input about cannabis legalization until Sept. 22.

Nunavut plans community consultations on cannabis legalization before September.

Yukon has established a working group of senior government officials, and the government plans public consultations.

Matt Lamers can be reached at mattl@mjbizdaily.com