Abstract
Medical marijuana users represent many people with disabilities in Canada. Recent legislative attempts have allowed people with disabilities to access cannabis as medicine, however the landscape is ever changing. The Cannabis Act was recently introduced, legalizing marijuana for all; however, people with disabilities have not been accounted for when it comes to the issue of access to medicine. Those who rely on cannabis as medicine and those who enjoy it recreationally are now part of the same system, for better or worse. The new medical marijuana regime, under the new Cannabis Act, boasts a “two-stream” process, and it claims that it will be maintaining and improving the old medical regime alongside the new recreational regime. The applicable taxes tell a different story. Medical marijuana has always been subject to sales tax despite being effectively prescribed by doctors to manage and treat many disabilities and illnesses. Now, with the enactment of the Cannabis Act, medical marijuana is subject to an excise tax too—colloquially known as the “sin tax.” Recreational and medical marijuana are subject to the same taxation scheme, making any notion of a “two-stream” process nonsensical and blatantly unfair. The purpose of this article is to provide insight into the varying faults concerning the medical marijuana regime in Canada, with specific emphasis on the issue of taxation. In the simplest terms, taxing medical marijuana is taxing medicine and effectively taxing people with disabilities. Broken down into five parts, this article discusses the underlying reasons for the taxes surrounding medical marijuana, provides a case study of the most important tax case for medical marijuana users, scrutinizes the lack of recognition of medical marijuana as a proper prescription, outlines the ways to improve legislation, and, finally, explores a potential Charter challenge that can be effectively brought against this taxation.
Publisher
University of Toronto Press Inc. (UTPress)
Reference60 articles.
1. Barriers to access for Canadians who use cannabis for therapeutic purposes
2. Bennet, J. S. 1974. “Le Dain Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs Tables Fourth and Final Report.” Canadian Medical Association Journal 110 (1): 105–8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1947221/?page=1.
3. Boudreau, Michael. 2018. “Hippies, Yippies, the Counterculture, and the Gastown Riot in Vancouver, 1968–71.” BC Studies 197: 39–65. http://search.proquest.com/docview/2042185054/.
4. Cairns, Elizabeth A., and Melanie E. M. Kelly. 2017. “Why Support a Separate Medical Access Framework for Cannabis?” Canadian Medical Association Journal 189 (28): E927–28 https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.170427.
5. Canada. 1923. Opium and Narcotic Drug Act. SC 1923, c. 22, as repealed by the Narcotic Control Act, RSC 1985, c. N-1, which was also repealed by the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, SC 1996, c. 19.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献