Medical cannabis should not be taxed

Cost is already a problem for many, Jenna Valleriani writes.

When the federal government released its 2018 budget, it came as a surprise to many that it was planning to not just tax recreational cannabis, but add a new excise tax on medical cannabis as well.

Excise tax is usually reserved for products deemed to have a high social cost, such as tobacco or alcohol. However, a budget branded with the motto, “giving every Canadian a real and fair chance at success,” has seemed to overlook Canadian families already struggling with affordability and access to medical cannabis.

As it currently stands, medical cannabis is rarely covered by insurers, although this is changing. We hear time and time again that affordability is an ongoing barrier to accessing cannabis for medical purposes. There are some attempts to bridge that gap, such as “compassionate pricing” programs offered by licensed producers, but it still isn’t enough. This approach makes medical cannabis less accessible, less affordable and more of a burden for those trying to fit medical cannabis into their growing monthly costs.

Medical cannabis is already subject to sales tax, which, if treated like other prescribed medication, it wouldn’t be. Equally problematic is the decision to exclude low-THC and CBD (the chemicals in cannabis) products from the excise tax. It seems to suggest there’s something more medically legitimate about the use of low THC or CBD products.

These assumptions are disconnected from the experiences of many patients, even children, who use products with a range of THC or CBD profiles. Being a medical cannabis patient, young or old, means trying a variety of products — expensive products — out of pocket.

The government has attempted to frame the low THC exemption as saving (some) patients money, but the reality is they’re simply not applying further excise taxes on a product that should not be taxed at all to begin with.

Why must we burden sick patients ... further with an additional tax?

Also consider the burden of the process of finding what works: what do patients do when they’ve purchased an oil or strain of cannabis which doesn’t work for them?

The short answer is nothing (despite costing approximately $60 to $90 for a bottle of oil, and many producers have a five-gram minimum for purchases), because most producers do not offer a mechanism for returning used products. In an already complex and imperfect system, why must we burden sick patients and their families further with an additional tax?

The reality, of course, is wrapped up in ideas of stigma and distrust of cannabis’ potential as a medicine, likely tied to its “recreational” use. Exempting particular products punishes patients for using what works for them — despite that at face value, cannabis comes with a relatively low-risk profile, and it reportedly helps many patients achieve a better quality of life. We should support responsible access to medical cannabis, rather than exacerbate issues around access, affordability and coverage.

Further, there’s a lot of big talk around this measure being used as a way to ensure Canadians aren’t “abusing” the medical cannabis system to save on excise tax. The insinuation is that medical cannabis patients are first and foremost guilty, that they’ll try to “scam the system,” and is again, a complete disconnect from lived experiences.

Is it really a concern that individuals will go through the hassle of conjuring up a fake diagnosis, visiting a doctor, often trying a few alternatives first, getting a medical document, renewing that document every 12 months, and more, just to save on tax? I sincerely doubt it, and there is very little evidence the program is abused. While it happens, there is no rational reason to punish more than 200,000 patients for those few.

There is no logical reason to impose an excise tax on medical cannabis. In fact, removing existing sales tax altogether would be consistent with how we treat most prescription medicines. Why should cannabis, if authorized by a health-care provider for medical purposes, be any different?

Jenna Valleriani is a post-doctoral fellow in Vancouver, and a strategic adviser for Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy. Her past research looks at illegal and legal cannabis markets in Canada.