|
Pot Legalized in Canada and Alaska
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DaveSaenz |
This is a great victory for the world:
http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/2958.html
(No I don't smoke it, but I'm still happy).:toothless :eyes:
Marijuana legal in Ontario
by Dana Larsen and Reverend Damuzi (24 May, 2003) Appeal Court judge rules that Canada's pot-possession laws are void.
Now legal in Ontario
Marijuana advocates across Canada are celebrating a May 16 Ontario court decision, which effectively legalized possession in Canada's largest province.
On Friday, May 16, Ontario Superior Court Justice Steven Rogin upheld the lower court ruling of Justice Philips, concerning a case of pot possession in Ontario.
Justice Rogin agreed that the federal government had failed in its obligation to change the law to allow for medical use of marijuana, and so the entire law was void.
This decision is binding on Ontario's lower courts, which means that no-one can be convicted of pot possession in Ontario. This effectively means that marijuana is now legal in Canada's largest province.
It is expected that other Appeal courts across Canada will also ratify the decision. Related cases are making their way through the courts in at least four other provinces.
The federal government has appealed the case to Ontario's Court of Appeal.
The "decrim" legislation being contemplated by Canada's Liberal government will presumably be aimed at filling this void in Canada's pot laws.
Marijuana advocates are encouraging pot smokers in Ontario to enjoy their new-found freedom. "The people of Ontario should be celebrating this monumental victory!" said Marc Emery of the BC Marijuana party. "Anywhere you can smoke tobacco, they should be smoking marijuana."
Will focus on real crimes now?
History of the decision
It began in January in Windsor, Ontario, when lawyer Brian McAllister convinced Provincial Court Judge Phillips that Canada's cannabis laws no longer exist, and that his 16-year-old client should go free on charges of possession. In his ruling, Justice Philips agreed, adding that if a cultivation or trafficking case had been before him, he would have thrown out those charges as well (CC#42, Canadian judges toss pot prohibition).
McAllister's novel legal argument was based on a July 2000 court ruling relating to Canadian med-pot user Terry Parker (CC#28, Canada's med-pot push). In the Parker ruling, Ontario's Supreme Court said that Canada's marijuana laws were unconstitutional because they didn't adequately address the needs of sick people who required pot. The court gave the government one year to change the law and provide medical access to marijuana, or the whole law against pot would be struck down.
One year later, the government had created new medical marijuana regulations, but didn't change the actual law. The difference, argued McAllister, is that regulations can be altered at the whim of Canada's top ministers, but laws require debate and a vote by parliament. The judge agreed, declared that the government had failed in its court-ordered legal obligations, and that therefore Canada's pot law was null and void.
Now that the Ontario Superior Court has upheld the decision, it is binding on all lower courts in Ontario. Although Ontario's higher courts could reverse the decision, right now there is no law against pot possession in Ontario.
Overgrowing the government
Spreading freedom
The earlier decision from Ontario lower Provincial Court had already been reinforced by decisions in PEI and Nova Scotia. In PEI, the judge explained his reasoning as follows:
"All persons in the Province of Ontario, all 12 million of them, have acquired an immunity from prosecution for marijuana possession, which may be anything from short term to permanent. If this prosecution [in PEI] is permitted to continue, in effect it would be tantamount to a ruling that more than one third of the population of Canada is immune from prosecution while the residents of Prince Edward Island are not."
These court decisions also reveal the true purpose behind the Liberals' impending new pot "decrim" legislation. Their new law would overrule these court decisions, and so the government is expected to pass their new bill as quickly as possible, to fill in the legal void.
A more far-reaching Supreme Court challenge to Canada's marijuana laws was heard on May 6, and a decision is expected in the winter. |
|
|
| DaveSaenz |
There are still some roadblocks however.
http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/2955.html
Canada's Supreme Court hears marijuana challenge
by Dana Larsen (16 May, 2003) Lawyers and activist ask judges to end pot prohibition.
Canada`s Supreme Court building
On May 6, Canada's Supreme Court heard a comprehensive three-part challenge to the constitutionality of Canada's marijuana laws.
The three cases involve defendants Randy Caine, Chris Clay and David Malmo-Levine, and cover the whole spectrum of cannabis law -possession, cultivation and trafficking. Randy Caine was was arrested in White Rock, BC for possession of a half-gram of pot in 1993 (CC#01, Voyages). Chris Clay owned a store in London, Ontario and was arrested in 1995 for selling clones over the counter (CC#09, Trial of the century). David Malmo-Levine was charged with trafficking in 1997 for selling pot from his "Harm Reduction Club" (CC#09, Heaven with an eagle feather).
David Malmo-Levine represented himself, a rarity in Supreme Court hearings. Chris Clay was represented by lawyers Alan Young and Paul Burstain, while Randy Caine was represented by lawyer John Conroy. Also speaking on behalf of changes to Canada's marijuana laws were the BC Civil Liberites Association and the Canadian Civil Liberites Association.
The cases have been slowly working their way through Canada's legal system, and the Supreme Court hearing is their last hope for a judicial solution to pot prohibition.
The nine justices of the Supreme Court peppered the lawyers with questions during their presentations, but they allowed Malmo-Levine to make his entire speech uninterrupted.
David Malmo-Levine displays Potshot magazine
Prohibition vs harm reduction
The main point of the legal debate was the concept of "harm" and the disparity between the minimal harm caused by the sale and use of marijuana as compared to the severe penalties given for those offences. Lower courts had ruled that the harm caused by the use of cannabis was minimal, but still more than trivial, and so the government could arbitrarily criminalize it for that reason.
David Malmo-Levine told the court that he wanted to shift the debate, to focus not on whatever specific amount of harm is caused by cannabis use, but rather on how best to reduce or eliminate those potential harms. Malmo-Levine argued that when done properly, any potential harms involved in the use and sale of cannabis products can be successfully mitigated or lowered to negligible levels.
As an example of a responsible dealer, Malmo-Levine described his Harm Reduction Club. Malmo-Levine's club sold marijuana only to members who first read a "Safer, Smarter Smoking Guide" and also promised not to operate heavy machinery while impaired. The Club also sold only organically grown cannabis, so as to eliminate the harms caused by pesticides and over-fertilization.
The court seemed receptive to the arguments presented them, but it is impossible to predict what their ultimate decision will be. There is typically a six to eight month waiting period for such a decision, so there will hopefully be a ruling issued by the court before the end of the year.
Terry Parker, Canada`s first legal med-pot user
Decisions and delays
The possible responses from the court range from them rejecting all calls for reform, to their permanently striking down all of Canada's pot laws.
What seems most likely to many observers is that the court will agree that the laws against cannabis as they now stand violate Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms in some specific ways. They will likely give the government a time limit, possibly one year, to write a new marijuana law which fits into their guidelines. These might range from simple age limits or a maximum number of plants that can be grown without a license, or some other range of acceptable limits.
If this is the scenario that emerges, then we can expect the government to act as they have in regards to similar court decisions regarding medical marijuana. A 2000 court decision demanded that the government change the law to allow for medical access to marijuana, and gave them a one year time limit, or else the law against cannabis would be deemed invalid (CC#28, Canada's med-pot push). The government waited 11 months, and then created a new set of regulations which allowed for an "exemption" process whereby those with a medical need for marijuana could get a legal exmeption to personally grow and use the herb (CC#35, Official interference).
John Conroy defendes Randy Caine
Judges in Ontario, PEI and Nova Scotia have recently ruled that since the government did not actually write a new law, but merely created new regulations, they failed to meet their obligations under the earlier court order. Therefore these judges have ruled that Canada has no marijuana law at all! All of these decisions have come from the lower courts and so are being appeaed by the federal government. If the appeal courts agree with the lower courts, then the government will have to quickly pass new legislation or else Canada will truly be the world's first modern nation to have no laws against marijuana on the books.
Meanwhile, federal politicians have recently been promising to "decriminalize" the personal possession of pot. Indeed, it was promises of having a decrim bill passed by April that delayed the Supreme Court from having their hearing on cannabis in December, 2002, when it was originally scheduled.
Canada's governing Liberal Party has been promising to soften up the pot laws for over 30 years, yet the law has remained essentially unchanged until now. The only significant changes have involved expanded police powers, reduced access to jury trials and increased seizure of property.
At a $500 a plate fundraiser on April 29, Chretien told the crowd that his government intended on passing a decriminalization bill before Parliament breaks for the summer. When his supporters gave him thunderous applause and even joyful whoops, Chretien told them "Don't start to smoke yet!" He warned the celebrants in the audience that "We're not legalizing it, we're decriminalizing. So you will have another ticket, for losing your senses, or something like that."
Yet Chretien's promises have also been slowly back-tracked. He has more recently stated that he will only have "agreement in principle" on a new law before the summer break, and that perhaps the law would only be passed in the fall or winter.
Paul Martin: likely to continue prohibition
Decrim deceit
The "decriminalization" which is being continually promised by the Liberal government is a far cry from the end of all criminal sanction sought by activists. The range of debate in Canada's Parliament is about how many grams should be considered "personal," and what an appropriate fine should be. It is expected that if a decriminalization bill is eventually passed, it will include fines in the range of $200 to $1000. Also, the government has promised to "crack down" on growers and traffickers at the same time as they decriminalize pot possession.
Canada's next Prime Minister is almost certainly going to be Paul Martin, who will likely become leader of the federal Liberal Party in February 2004. On May 8, Martin said he supported Chretien's decriminalization plan, but also supported more law enforcement and stiffer penalties for drug offences in general. "I think the penalties ought to be very severe and I think the government ought to crack down as much as possible. I think the government ought to crack down, period."
So despite the rhetoric and repeated promises, it seems highly unlikely that the Liberal government will make any changes to Canada's pot laws until late this year at the soonest. Further, any new pot laws will likely include substantial fines for pot possession and increased penalties for all other drug offences. This is hardly the kind of reform which Canadian pot advocates have been pushing for.
This could set the scene for a showdown between Canada's Supreme Court and Parliament. If the Liberals pass a new law in the fall it will be only because they are trying to avert a Supreme Court decision which could be much more far-reaching in its consequences. |
|
|
| DaveSaenz |
WoW Alaska too!!!
| quote: | Newsbrief: Marijuana Legal in Alaska, But Attorney General Orders Cops to Confiscate It, Work with Feds to Build Cases 9/19/03
Alaska Attorney General Gregg Renkes is slowly coming to grips with reality. Befuddled by last month's Alaska Appeals Court ruling legalizing the possession of up to four ounces of pot in the home (http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/301/alaska.shtml), Renkes at first blustered mightily that marijuana remained illegal. But in a memo to prosecutors and the Alaska State Troopers this week, Renkes instructed them not to arrest or cite people in possession of small amounts in their homes.
But police and state troopers should still seize the pot and investigate to see if federal marijuana trafficking cases can be developed, Renkes said in the memo. "This includes seizing and treating as evidence all marijuana found, even if under four ounces in the home, and writing reports documenting the investigation," Renkes wrote.
Renkes has announced that he will appeal the legalization ruling, but now concedes that legalization is the law of the land, at least for now. "We have to respect the language of the appeals court decision," Renkes told the Anchorage Daily News Wednesday.
Renkes did not explain which novel legal theory would allow police enforcing Alaska laws to steal the legal property of Alaska residents. Alaska police officials are pooh-poohing the importance of the ruling. They don't make marijuana arrests a high priority, they said. |
The problem with the US is the federal government, and not the local governments. Many local or state government police agencies support decriminalization. If we can get some more freedom loving people in power in Washington we can hopefully follow Canada. |
|
|
| DJ Freestyle |
| I wish I could move to Canada. Hopefully we'll get that here in the States. My main focus is getting someone decent to replace idiot Bush. |
|
|
| DaveSaenz |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ-Fuq
That was ages ago |
The Canada articles are a few months old, but the Alaska one is new.
I'm more concerned about people with AIDS and cancer being able to get it if they want to ease their suffering, and then legalization for recreational purposes is a secondary concern. However I think with the stigma that comes along with that which is illegal there will be doctors and patients who could benefit from this form of therapy, but will not do so because of it's illegality. |
|
|
| Dj_ExOn |
| Im ing moving to Canada! :eyes: |
|
|
| Shade on Grey |
New Kanadian flag :D :D :D |
|
|
| NiteKiD |
yes it is sweet
i think it is decriminalized in Vancouver as well
i got stopped couple weeks ago there by a cop, had a couple g's in the car but he just made me dump it out
i didnt want to lose the weed but didnt want to argue, because it used to be the amount i had would be considered trafficking, so im not sure whether i got a break or whether i got shafted
| quote: | Originally posted by Shade on Grey
|
"We stand on guard for thee" :tongue2 |
|
|
| DJ RozzeR |
| smoke smoke weed everyday !!! |
|
|
| djSlain |
i'm completely against drugs. got it? good.
could this backfire? i mean, everyone in canada is gonna start smoking weed and , well, who is going to be the ones responsible for the future government of canada? |
|
|
| BTG |
| quote: | Originally posted by djSlain
i'm completely against drugs. got it? good.
could this backfire? i mean, everyone in canada is gonna start smoking weed and , well, who is going to be the ones responsible for the future government of canada? |
You're being stupid.
This is making me happy.
Yesyesyesyeseyeysyesyeysyses. |
|
|
|
|
