He is currently licensed to grow up to 15 plants for distribution to the patient. Because of the nature of the product, Selenski said he has taken numerous security measures to protect the operation, including cameras, alarms, guard dogs and a tall chain link fence.

“I’m a small jail here,” he said.

Even so, when he tried to have the equipment needed for the grow operation insured for about $3,000, he was told by his primary insurer to dismantle the operation within 30 days or risk losing his insurance on his shop and home as well, he said.

“And that’s on my house, store, everything,” said Selenski. “There’s $120,000 worth of equity in my life that I’ve built up. Just to throw away for 10 plants, it wasn’t worth it.”

That insurance company, Saskatchewan Mutual Insurance Co., did not provide an immediate response Wednesday, with media inquiries being forwarded to head office for reply.

After being refused by that company, Selenski said he took his request to 11 other companies, all of which similarly refused to insure the grow operation.

One of those companies was Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI), he said.

SGI spokesperson Barbara Cross said in general they don’t cover marijuana grow operations at this time, even if it is a licensed operation, because it is considered too high-risk.

“It’s a controlled substance,” she said. “There can be implications for overloads on the electrical system of the building. There can be increased humidity and possibly mold considerations … We don’t tend to insure unusual or high-risk situations as an insurance company. Ours tend to be more ordinary types of coverage situations.”

Cross said there are some insurance companies that do take on unusual or higher-risk situations, though she did not know if licensed marijuana grow operations were among the situations those companies might insure.

Because of the insurance problems, Selenski dismantled his grow operation last week, cutting down and getting rid of the plants.

“I try to keep squeaky clean legally because I don’t want to lose my shop,” he said.

But he added it may mean his customer will be left without much marijuana until Selenski can get to B.C., where he plans to move and set up a new grow operation for the use of the Regina patient.

Currently, people suffering from illnesses such as cancer, AIDS and multiple sclerosis can apply to Health Canada to possess marijuana for medical purposes.

December 8, 2005

source for story http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=ca363274-21bd-4c01-84b5-f44ea52b5df6

Why is it important to stop this? Here is a good reason.

The 1994 RAND study on controlling cocaine provides a powerful argument for increasing U.S. drug treatment programs.It is often cited in the debate on the effectiveness of the “drug war.” This study depicts both past and future trends in cocaine consumption. It also provides the first systematic method of comparing the cost effectiveness of cocaine control programs. The RAND study is a “modeling study”: it analyzes the data of other organizations. The study revolves around the central question of how the government can effectively allocate the drug budget. It presents a model that estimates the relative cost-effectiveness of four cocaine-control programs: “source control,” “interdiction,” “domestic law enforcement,” and “treatment.”

Three of these approaches are clearly “supply control” programs aimed at stopping the influx of drugs into the country, and commonly associated with law enforcement. The “source-control” program refers to the strategy of attacking the drug supply from abroad (primarily Peru, Bolivia, and Colombia). The “interdiction” approach is aimed at stopping drugs at the U.S. border. The “domestic law enforcement” approach is geared towards the arrest and imprisonment of drug buyers and sellers within the United States. These law enforcement approaches were analyzed and compared to the treatment approach, and the question is asked: “How much would the government have to spend on each approach to decrease cocaine consumption in the U.S. by 1%?” The results show that treatment is overwhelmingly the most cost-effective way of reducing cocaine consumption and its resulting social costs. In brief, the RAND study shows that treatment is 7 times more cost effective than domestic law enforcement method, 10 times more effective than interdiction, and 23 times more effective than the “source control” method.

by C. Peter Rydell and Susan S. Everingham
RAND Corporation, 1994

sourced from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/buyers/doitwork.html

Everyone can do their part! Like this heroic man Tim Selenski.