Canadian Supreme Court to rule on legalisation!

[Guest niall]

At approximately midnight tonight the Canadian Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of cannabis prohibition. Cannabis could be legal in Canada tomorrow, and we stand a very good chance of a favourable finding due to Health Canada's incompetence at handling medicinal cannabis and violating the Charter of Rights:

 

Newshawk: CMAP ( http://www.mapinc.org/cmap )

Pubdate: Mon, 22 Dec 2003

Source: National Post (Canada)

Webpage:

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpos...b9-bd8704f956c3

Copyright: 2003 Southam Inc.

Contact: letters@nationalpost.com

Website: http://www.nationalpost.com/

Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/286

Author: Janice Tibbetts

 

SUPREME COURT TO RULE ON LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA

 

Charter Challenge

 

OTTAWA - As the Martin government moves to relax marijuana laws, the

Supreme Court of Canada will decide tomorrow whether to legalize pot.

 

The long-awaited rulings in three cases will be the Supreme Court's first

test of the constitutionality of the country's 80-year ban on marijuana

possession.

 

"This is very significant," said Chris Clay, a B.C. Web-page designer who

owned the Great Canadian Hemporium marijuana paraphernalia and seed store

in London, Ont., before police shut it down. "It sounds like the Liberals

are going to decriminalize, and that's a step in the right direction, but

ultimately legalization is the solution we're looking for."

 

Mr. Clay, 32, is one of three litigants who argue that threatening people

with a criminal record and jail time for what they contend is a victimless

crime breaches Charter of Rights' guarantees of life, liberty and security

of the person.

 

The federal Justice Department counters that the Supreme Court should give

Parliament as much leeway as possible in crafting drug policy.

 

"All three appellants seek to elevate a recreational pursuit to a

constitutional right," federal lawyer David Frankel says in a written

submission to the Supreme Court. "There is no free-standing right to get

stoned."

 

A key question in the appeal is whether the government must demonstrate a

serious health risk if it wants to continue to ban marijuana possession.

 

The state has "no right to tell people what they can put in their bodies,"

lawyer John Conroy argued at the Supreme Court hearing last spring. "Where

do you draw the line?" Mr. Conroy said. "Are fatty foods going to be next?

The obesity problem is a lot worse that the drug problem."

 

Mr. Conroy is the lawyer for Victor Caine, who was convicted of possession

for sharing a joint with a friend in his car while parked at a beach near

Vancouver.

 

The third litigant is David Malmo-Levine, who formed the Vancouver-based

Harm Reduction Club for marijuana smokers.

 

The federal government plans to impose fines rather than criminal records

on people caught with small amounts of marijuana. Irwin Cotler, the Justice

Minister, stressed that lawmakers oppose giving pot smokers free rein.

 

"This is how Parliament has spoken on this question and we will wait to see

what the court will say," he said in an interview.

 

Despite its plans, the government has filed a report with the Supreme Court

that connects marijuana use to driving accidents, upper-airway cancer,

psychiatric problems and drug addiction, among other things.

 

"Marijuana is not a benign substance and potentially is more harmful than

presently known," says the Justice Department's submission.

 

However, several judges during the spring hearing challenged the

government's assertion that it can criminalize any behaviour it sees fit,

as long as the decision is a rational one.

__________________________________________________________________________

Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in

receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

---

MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart

[Guest billy bonger]

To toke or not to toke? Decriminalizing marijuana still a contentious issue

Fri Dec 26, 9:41 AM ET

 

BENSON LEE

 

TORONTO (CP) - For a while it looked like we were poised to become Amsterdam West: cafes with patrons openly enjoying joints alongside lattes, activists toking up outside police stations with impunity, and government plans to make marijuana available to the chronically ill.

 

 

Canadian Press Photo

 

 

 

But while that pipedream has apparently gone up in smoke, the ongoing debate over the sweet leaf's place in Canadian society - whether for medicine or for pleasure - promises to grow more heated in the coming year. With the federal government courting decriminalization - still a thorny issue among the ruling Liberals themselves - Canadians have found reason to voice their opinions on the contentious topic.

 

 

An Ipsos-Reid poll of 1,001 Canadians conducted in May suggested that 55 per cent of respondents did not believe smoking marijuana should be a criminal offence.

 

 

Those advocating decriminalization say it doesn't make sense to saddle people with criminal records for being busted for simple possession, such as smoking a joint. They also say it will reduce traffic in an already congested court system.

 

 

Those against decriminalization say marijuana is a so-called "gateway" drug that will cause users to progress to harder drugs such as cocaine and heroin. They also say it will harm relations with the United States, which remains in War on Drugs mode.

 

 

But things have been complicated by the federal government's cautious steps toward providing cannabis to the ill. Proponents say marijuana stimulates the appetite, relieves pain and reduces stress - although the medical community remains divided over such claims.

 

 

The decriminalization movement burst into the forefront this year when an Ontario Superior Court judge ruled in May that possessing less than 30 grams of marijuana was no longer against the law in the province.

 

 

A lawyer had successfully argued that since there was no effective program for sick people to possess medical marijuana without breaking the law, then the law didn't prohibit possession.

 

 

Police organizations in Ontario subsequently said they wouldn't lay charges for simple possession until the laws were clarified.

 

 

The court decision prompted similar rulings around the country and opened the floodgates for recreational users to enjoy a jubilant summer of toking freely - even in certain public cafes.

 

 

B.C. cannabis guru Marc Emery, who publishes Cannabis Culture magazine and sells marijuana seeds online, went on a coast-to-coast Tour de Pot this summer, holding rallies and lighting up outside police stations in Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg, Toronto, Moncton, N.B., Halifax, Charlottetown and St. John's, Nfld., practically daring the cops to arrest him - which they sometimes did.

 

 

The Canadawide case of reefer madness was apparently contagious.

 

 

Former prime minister Jean Chretien, who tried unsuccessfully to fast-track a decriminalization bill before leaving office earlier this month, seemed to amuse the country when he suggested in an October interview that he might puff on pot one day.

 

 

"Perhaps I will try it when it will no longer be criminal," Chretien mused. "I will have my money for my fine and a joint in the other hand."

 

 

Chretien had argued for fines instead of jail sentences for simple possession, while adding that growers and traffickers would still face stiff penalties. Although the bill was expected to pass this fall, Chretien officially ended his last legislative session in mid-November, leaving it in limbo.

 

 

Prime Minister Paul Martin has said he supports decriminalization in principle and that he will reintroduce the legislation in the new year - but likely with amendments to make it tougher.

 

 

Alan Young, a Toronto lawyer, law professor and self-styled cannabis crusader, said he expects the bill to die.

 

 

 

 

 

"If history repeats itself, one could safely conclude that this will not be resurrected," he said, referring to a similar bill in the late 1970s that went nowhere.

 

Young pointed instead to a case currently before the Supreme Court of Canada that may be more significant. It questions the government's authority to criminalize a relatively harmless substance - in this case, marijuana. An Ontario judge had previously ruled in 1997 that cannabis is relatively harmless - a finding that was considered a factual conclusion.

 

The key issue is whether criminal penalties for simple possession violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court is to make its judgment Dec. 23.

 

While Young stopped short of saying the case would set a precedent, he did emphasize its importance.

 

"It has significance because this court for the first time is going to decide whether Parliament has a threshold they must meet before they can enact criminal law," he said.

 

"In theory, without this case, Parliament tomorrow can criminalize the cultivation of roses."

 

Even if the Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality of the current law, Martin's government will likely still move to change it.

 

With the issue of medical use inextricably entwined with that of recreational use, an Ontario court made simple possession illegal again in October while firming up the rules on how medical users could obtain their cannabis supply.

 

"In terms of decriminalization, it was a huge setback," Young said. "In terms of slow movement toward improving the medical program, it was a step forward. But we lost a lot of momentum at the end of this year on decriminalization by having the October court case not consider invalidation of the criminal prohibition as a response."

 

Despite Ottawa's good intentions, efforts to supply medical users have proved inept, as the government-sanctioned marijuana first made available in August has been widely criticized for its inferior quality.

 

Some users demanded refunds, calling the weed "disgusting" and "unsuitable for human consumption." Others said it was too weak to be effective. One man even said it made him vomit. One frustrated user found the quality so poor that he rejected the government shipments and applied for a growing licence instead.

 

Philippe Lucas, director of Canadians for Safe Access, a Victoria-based patients' rights group pressing for a safe, effective supply of marijuana, said independent lab analyses of the government cannabis showed high concentrations of toxic lead and arsenic.

 

"I've tried the government cannabis, and I can attest to its incredibly poor quality," said Lucas, who is allowed to use marijuana to deal with the side-effects of hepatitis C.

 

"Not only is it of poor quality, but it's a potentially dangerous product. When you're talking about giving something to people with critical or chronic illnesses, I find that to be really inexcusable."

 

Health Canada maintains it tested the cannabis extensively before allowing it to be distributed to medical users - but it was never tested on people.

 

Spokeswoman Catherine Saunders said Health Canada isn't planning to make changes to the product despite the complaints of some users. However, she pointed out that clinical trials are underway at Montreal's McGill University to determine the medical benefits of marijuana, and the results may influence future policy.

 

As the medical community continues to debate the pros and cons of cannabis, statistics suggest that recreational pot-smoking is on the rise in Canada - especially among younger people.

 

In a 2001 study by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, 11.2 per cent of Canadian adults surveyed said they used marijuana in the previous 12 months, compared with 8.6 per cent in 1998. Canadians aged 18 to 29 were at the head of the pack, with 26.8 per cent smoking pot compared with 18.3 per cent in 1996.

 

While the trend seems to indicate a growing acceptance of marijuana, Young believes 2004 will be better for medical users than recreational users.

 

"I see next year as the year that we truly advance our understanding of marijuana as medicine," he said.

 

"In terms of recreational use, I have no confidence the government will return to their proposal. I'm not very confident the Supreme Court of Canada will do their dirty work for the government, and I do see a bit of a backlash in the initial months as public officials reassert their authority in this area."

 

That means no more smoking up outside police stations.

 

"One will have to be a bit more discreet and careful in terms of the use of marijuana as a recreational substance," Young advised.