Cannabis Bill
Bill to Amend—Third Reading—Debate Continued
June 6, 2018
The Honorable Senator Judith G. Seidman:
During debate of our colleague Senator Wells’ amendment to prohibit smoking in a home where children under 18 are present, it is important to remind ourselves of some of the concerns with respect to smoking that we have heard during our study of Bill C-45.
But before going any further, let’s take a look at the data. According to the government’s own Canadian Cannabis Survey, smoking cannabis is the most prevalent form of consumption recreationally, at 94 per cent.
The survey also asked respondents about cannabis consumption methods in the home over the past 12 months. Overall, one quarter of respondents reported someone smoking cannabis inside the home. But among respondents who had used cannabis in the past 12 months, 74 per cent responded that someone smoked cannabis inside their home.
Despite the proliferation of other methods of consumption such as vaping or oils, Canadians are burning dried cannabis and inhaling it in record numbers. And among Canadians who do smoke cannabis, three quarters of them smoke it in their homes. With numbers like these, it’s clear that we already have a problem with Canadians smoking marijuana in homes where children are present, which is likely only to worsen once cannabis becomes legal and adult use increases.
Children tend to copy what they observe and are influenced by the normality of any type of smoking around them. Our experience with tobacco and alcohol suggests that normalization leads to increases in rates of use. Furthermore, experts like the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Medical Association and others have told us that the normalization of cannabis has the risk of renormalizing all forms of smoking, including tobacco, which would be a step backwards for public health. For that reason alone, we would do well to consider the consequences of permitting cannabis smoking in the home where children are present.
But beyond the broader consequences for an uptake in cannabis use among young people, we must consider the immediate effects on the health of a child who is exposed to cannabis smoke in their home. New research from the University of California, San Francisco is getting closer to telling us exactly what happens to our bodies when they are exposed to second-hand cannabis smoke. In the lab, researchers put a joint in a Plexiglas box, lit it, and allowed the chamber to fill with smoke, which was then vented out to simulate being around someone who is smoking. Then an anaesthetized rat was exposed to the smoke for one minute.
The researchers found that just one minute of exposure to cannabis smoke made it harder for the rats’ arteries to expand and allow a healthy flow of blood, and it took the arteries 90 minutes to recover as opposed to just 30 minutes after being exposed to tobacco smoke. Moreover, fine particles, carbon monoxide and other by-products of combustion that are known to cause heart disease and respiratory illness such as emphysema and COPD are present in cannabis smoke and pose a health risk with exposure.
Research on this subject is in its early stages, but it suggests that cannabis smoke is just as dangerous as the smoke from tobacco. If parents use cannabis in the home, not only are they modelling behaviour that could suggest to their children that it is safe, but they are exposing their children to second-hand smoke.
We would do well to remember that smoke is smoke, and all smoke is harmful to health. Second-hand cannabis smoke contains many of the same toxic chemicals as tobacco smoke that are known to cause cancer and heart and respiratory diseases. Expert witnesses who appeared before the Social Affairs Committee were clear in their testimony that second-hand smoke is unquestionably harmful.
Professor David Hammond from the University of Waterloo told us:
Pound for pound . . . cannabis smoke is just as toxic as tobacco smoke.
Professor George Sam Wang from the University of Colorado reported that children are being admitted to emergency rooms with detectable amounts of cannabis in their bloodstream who are at increased risk for respiratory-sensitive conditions such as asthma, respiratory illnesses and ear infections — similar to cigarette smoke.
Pippa Beck of the Non-Smokers’ Rights Association told our committee:
There is little public understanding of the fact that smoke is smoke and the fact that the harm comes from inhaling it, whether it’s tobacco or cannabis . . . .
Colleagues, that’s why the discussion we are having today about Senator Wells’s amendment is so important. Canadians are not educated about the harms of cannabis smoke and wrongfully perceive it to be less harmful than tobacco. Without clear action on the part of the government, this mythology will persist.
That’s why it’s so troubling that messages about the harms of second-hand smoke have been absent from the government’s minimal public education efforts. Moreover, Health Canada’s proposed warning labels on cannabis packaging do not address the specific harms of second-hand marijuana smoke as they do now on cigarette packs.
The Non-Smokers’ Rights Association told the Social Affairs Committee that they were shocked that they have not seen anything from the government to educate people that exposure to any kind of smoke is harmful to the heart and lungs. It’s clear that educating Canadians about the harms of second-hand cannabis smoke has not been a priority for the government.
As my colleagues have pointed out, in addition to respiratory and cardiovascular harm, there is emerging evidence of a direct relationship between second-hand smoke and psychoactive effects. A systematic review published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal suggested that exposure to second-hand marijuana smoke leads to cannabinoid metabolite in bodily fluids and that people experience psychoactive effects after such exposure. More research is needed in this area, but these are unquestionably serious risks beyond the well-accepted toxic effects of second-hand smoke.
Honourable senators, we must do everything in our power to make it clear that just because something is legal doesn’t mean that it’s safe. After all, the government claims that this legislation is all about harm reduction. In the absence of effective public education to improve Canadians’ understanding of these risks, Senator Wells’s amendment sends a strong message about the dangers of second-hand cannabis smoke for young children, and that is why I will be supporting it. Thank you.