If you had to guess, how many people in the United States do you think live with fibromyalgia? According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), roughly four million American adults (2% of the country’s population) struggle with this chronic medical condition. But what is the research about fibromyalgia and cannabis? Overall, there is some evidence supporting short-term pain reduction in people with fibromyalgia treated with cannabinoid therapeutics. Although current evidence is limited, medical cannabis appears to be a safe alternative for treatment.

Fibromyalgia consists of widespread, severe, and often overwhelming musculoskeletal pain. Regardless of the traditional fibromyalgia treatment methods that currently exist, to help combat the pain and other uncomfortable symptoms associated with this condition, cannabis as an alternative medicine is gaining traction and usage.

Fibromyalgia: A Day In the Life

Fibromyalgia is one of the most common chronic pain syndromes, and it consists of intense musculoskeletal pain and other accompanying symptoms. Unfortunately, fibromyalgia does more than just cause pain. This chronic condition can result in sleep issues or sleep disorders, fatigue and lethargy, and even emotional or mental distress. It doesn’t stop here though. A few other common fibromyalgia symptoms include headaches and migraines, depression and anxiety, memory and concentration issues, and overall body stiffness.

Fibromyalgia takes it a step further though by often wreaking havoc on an individual’s quality of life and overall well-being. However, there’s a light at the end of the tunnel for fibromyalgia patients, and this is the availability and usage of cannabinoids, especially following the  noteworthy discovery of cannabis’s analgesic properties.

Even though pharmaceutical drugs and over-the-counter (OTC) pain-relievers are typically used to help manage fibromyalgia, due to emerging medical evidence, cannabinoids like CBD and THC are being considered more now than ever before.

The Evolving Relationship Between Fibromyalgia and Cannabis

Thus far, it has been made clear that cannabinoids can act as analgesics, and recent research findings support cannabinoids as a fibromyalgia pain-reliever. For example, one 2020 randomized controlled trial was conducted to understand how THC-rich whole cannabis plant oil can help fibromyalgia patients in regards to treating their symptoms and improving their quality of life.

RELATED: Study: Medical Marijuana Improves Quality Of Life In Fibromyalgia Patients

It was concluded that phytocannabinoids can serve as an affordable yet well-tolerated therapy for fibromyalgia symptom relief and quality of life improvements. For those who don’t already know, cannabis flower contains more than 100 phytocannabinoids, and two of the most well-known and sought after ones are referred to as THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) and CBD (cannabidiol).

The trial’s researchers went further to suggest that this cannabinoid therapy method could become an herbal/holistic choice of medicine for the treatment of fibromyalgia in Brazil’s public healthcare system.

The Significance of the Endocannabinoid System

Regardless of the latest findings, longer and larger studies should be conducted to understand more about phytocannabinoids and fibromyalgia. Another area that should be further studied and analyzed is the body’s endocannabinoid system (ECS) and endocannabinoid system deregulations and deficiencies. 

RELATED: Acute And Chronic Pain Affects Millions — How Can Cannabis Help?

Researchers from the same 2020 controlled trial stated the following about the ECS and medical conditions such as fibromyalgia: “Some studies suggest that pathological conditions in pain modulation such as fibromyalgia, migraine, and irritable bowel syndrome, among others, may be, at least in part, related to the deregulation of the endocannabinoid system.”

The last 2.5 years have been tough for the recreational marijuana industry.  Flower prices have plummeted, New York had a fiasco of a recreational rollout, and some major companies have been on the edge of collapse. But things are changing. The slow moving Biden administration has finally agreed to talk about rescheduling and SAFE Banking again goes before a Congress in turmoil. Is the cannabis industry growing up and starting to act and perform like other mainstream industries?

Despite the trouble, consumer use it up with the long term base of customers growing. While 90% believe it should be legal in some form, about 46% of adults have used marijuana at least once.  The under 40 set sees it almost like beer, sodas and fast food, just a life option.  One key positive for this information is they are more likely to try new products unlike the 65+ who are much less likely to try new things.

RELATED: California or New York, Which Has The Biggest Marijuana Mess

Signs of the industry emerging from its growing pains are clear.  The industry is adjusting reality.  As a $22+ billion industry in 2022, it wants to act like a $250+ billion industry. But market forces are right-sizing in a variety of ways.  There were over 750 conferences/trade shows/ investor conferences in 2018, now there are roughly 200.  Indoor grow companies, the most expensive way to produce, are having to adjust pricing.  Some are threatened with closing because of their assumption of always high premiums.  Commodity fluctuating pricing used in everything from oil to butter has come to weed.  But consumers are still buying in droves, even Montana boosted high sales.

“In most industries, at first everyone wants in and thinks they can make a quick fortune immediately. When that happens people are misguided by false information and the wrong people from other shady pasts thinking they know it all. The cannabis industry is no different and it will act like other successful ones. We needed this readjustment, most of the bad players are out, the misinformed are on the sidelines and the ones who put the time and proper energy into the space are still around and will thrive.” says Andrew Laub, managing partner of Keneh Ventures.

Big names have also struggled recently.  Medmen, King’s Garden, The Parent Company, and others all closed or are a faction of where they were. The early days with promises of easy money, private jets, crazy parties, and hot eye candy swarming around have passed and now it is spread sheets, hard work and focus. Canopy Grow has moved operations from Canada to the US and is applying all the learnings from a highly successful alcohol company to a major player in marijuana.

The industry has also slowly moved to listening to consumers.  Marley brands have fallen away to Wana Brand’s products which appeal to a younger, diverse audience. As the future looks to legalization, product companies are increasingly looking at what will do well on the shelves of Walmart and Target and not something to snicker about with bro friends.

RELATED: 

“The industry is evolving at a quicker pace today due to the assumed changes to cannabis scheduling with the Controlled Substance Act and possible SAFE Banking Act passing in Congress in some form of tandem news. This is causing mainstream investing to get excited again about cannabis, but mainstream does their due diligence and only wants to invest their money in competent and honest people.” shares Curt Dalton, founder of Cannabis.net.

While the industry still has work, large investors see the future where there are fewer products with large distribution, indoor grow and cheap base prices, and a giant consumer base who will look to familiar places to purchase products.

A British Columbia (B.C.) court dismissed a lawsuit from owners of licensed cannabis retail shops. Last year, this group of cannabis retailers sued the province for not enforcing cannabis regulations.

While licensed cannabis retailers jump through bureaucratic hoops and pay excessive taxes on the faulty premise that this contributes to “public health and safety,” the B.C. Bud market of “illicit” retailers doesn’t face these same hurdles.

Particularly on Indigenous Reserves, where the plaintiffs claim damages of at least $40 million in lost revenue.

Justice Basran considered whether the province owed the plaintiffs a private law duty of care in this context. The plaintiffs claimed the province committed torts of negligence and negligent misrepresentation.

But what does this mean? And was Justice Basran’s dismissal of the lawsuit justified? 

Details of the Plaintiff’s (Cannabis Retail) Argument

While the cannabis retailers suing the province wished to remain anonymous, CLN uncovered who they were. Their position is understandable. The government sold them a bill of goods.

When Canada legalized cannabis, the province of B.C. effectively said, “play by the rules and you’ll profit.” The reality has been anything but.

Obviously, licensed cannabis retailers are at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis the unlicensed cannabis shops. 

So why did Justice Basran dismiss the lawsuit? 

First, let’s look at what the plaintiffs claimed in their suit. What do “torts of negligence” and “negligent misrepresentation” refer to in this context?

Tort Law

Negligence is a fundamental concept in tort law. It means a failure to exercise a degree of care reasonable people would exercise in similar circumstances.

To establish a claim of negligence, the plaintiff (in this case, a group of licensed cannabis retailers) needed to prove the following:

• That the province of B.C. owed a duty of care to the licensed cannabis retailers. 
• That the province breached that duty by failing to meet the standard of care expected under the circumstances (i.e. The province’s cannabis enforcement authority should have been raiding unlicensed shops more than they were)
• That the province’s breach of duty directly caused harm or damages (i.e. Causation) to the licensed cannabis retailers
• And that these actual harms (or losses) result from the province’s breach of duty.

The plaintiffs alleged that B.C. failed to enforce cannabis regulations (specifically, the Cannabis Control and Licensing Act) on Indigenous Reserves. They claimed this negligence resulted in damages of at least $40 million.

Negligent misrepresentation is a specific type of negligence claim that arises when one party provides false or misleading information to another party, and the party receiving the information relies on it (to their detriment).

To establish negligent misrepresentation, the licensed cannabis retailers had to prove the following:

• That the province made a false statement, whether intentionally or not
• That the plaintiffs relied on this false statement
• The plaintiffs suffered financial (or other) losses from relying on this false statement.

In this case, the plaintiffs said that B.C. promised them a viable, legal, above-the-board retail cannabis industry. One way of ensuring this would be to take enforcement action against unlicensed retailers, whether on Indigenous Reserves or not.

Did the B.C. Government Owe a Duty of Care to the Cannabis Retailers?

Justice Basran considered whether the province owed the plaintiffs a private law duty of care. The B.C. government argued that it did not owe such a duty because the parties had no direct relationship.

But what does this mean?

In tort law, a “duty of care” is a legal obligation imposed on an individual (or group, entity, etc.) to exercise reasonable care and caution to prevent harm to others affected by their actions and omissions.

Of course, not all actions or omissions give rise to a duty of care. That’s where proximity comes in, which refers to the direct relationship between the parties. In this case, whether a direct connection between the province’s cannabis regulators and the cannabis retailers justifies imposing a legal duty.

Justice Basran had to determine whether the province of B.C. owed a “private law duty of care” to the cannabis retailers. Of course, B.C. argued that it did not. They argued that their duty was the “public interest,” not the economic interests of specific businesses.

Justice Basran agreed that no duty of care existed due to lack of proximity. 

How Did the Court Come to this Decision?

Justice Basran dismissed the B.C. cannabis retail lawsuit based on the “plain and obvious” legal standard used when deciding to strike pleadings. 

The court considered the Anns/Cooper test to determine whether a duty of care existed. This involves two stages. First, whether the harm alleged was reasonably foreseeable. And second, whether there is a close relationship between the parties (proximity).

Justice Basran found no prima facie duty of care between the province and the licensed cannabis retailers. The court argued that B.C.’s cannabis regulations do not establish a legislative intention to create such a duty.

The court also ruled that the claims made by the province (i.e. Get licensed and profit) did not create a sufficient relationship to impose a duty of care.

Suppose the court had recognized that such a duty exists. Justice Basran was concerned such a decision could result in more of these types of lawsuits where the province (and its regulators) are held liable for the economic losses of numerous businesses due to their incompetence.

Justice Basran weighed the potential negative consequences of such a decision and decided it wouldn’t be in the best interests of the legal system, taxpayers, or society as a whole to impose such a duty.

B.C. Court Dismisses Cannabis Retail Lawsuit

A B.C. court has dismissed the cannabis retail lawsuit. The decisions sound as if what’s convenient for the government overrules what’s just and fair.

Was Justice Basran’s dismissal of the lawsuit justified? Judges are, after all, only human. And there is an appeals court. So, there may be more to the case in the future.

In the meantime, to argue that judges in Canada have far too much power, that they are, in effect, legislating from the margins is considered a “far-right” viewpoint. 

But there is nothing “far-right” or even “far-left” about upholding the values that underpin our rule of law. 

Suppose governments can evade the consequences of their actions because of the potential cost to taxpayers or the legal system. In that case, there is no rule of law.

It’s rule by fiat masquerading as a rule of law.