cannabisnews.com: Ottawa May Ease Laws on Marijuana Possession 





Ottawa May Ease Laws on Marijuana Possession 
Posted by CN Staff on July 16, 2002 at 07:00:54 PT
By Tonda MacCharles, Ottawa Bureau
Source: Toronto Star 
Canada may follow Britain's lead in decriminalizing marijuana use by making simple possession of small amounts of pot a ticketing offence, Justice Minister Martin Cauchon said yesterday."We're not talking about making it legal. We're talking about the possibility of moving ahead with what we call the decriminalization of that," said Cauchon. "It would still be illegal. It wouldn't be criminal, of course; but it would still be illegal. 
The law would be easier to apply. You would get a contravention ticket and you would have to pay something. I guess we would be maybe more effective, more efficient in proceeding that way," he said in response to reporters' questions after a cabinet committee meeting here.In one of the strongest statements by a minister of this government, Cauchon expressed doubts about the effectiveness of the current laws.He noted the law makes drug possession a crime, and results in a criminal record — sometimes jail — for convicted persons. Criminal records can often lead to a person being barred from professional certification, or from travel to the U.S."Very often the legislation will simply not be applied" depending on where you live across Canada, said Cauchon.Last week, Britain relaxed its laws on cannabis use, making it a non-arrestable offence, meaning pot-smokers may be merely issued a police warning. But the government said it would re-focus enforcement efforts on harder drugs and trafficking.Before introducing any new legislation, Cauchon said he wants to hear from the two committees, a Senate committee and a Commons committee, now looking at the status of Canada's cannabis laws.Any change would require a lengthy period of public consultation beforehand, he added.But already Pierre-Claude Nolin, chair of the Senate committee, has criticized the idea of fines as an impractical idea, which puts an unfair burden on the poor and young people who are often the subject of charges.Cauchon said yesterday there are many legislative models to look at other than Britain's, but did not go into detail. "If you look at the system that we have in place, keeping it criminal, it seems that it's not very efficient," said Cauchon. `I guess the Canadian population is behind us when we're talking about keeping it illegal. That's the aim and goal.' Martin Cauchon, Justice Minister."So maybe we can find a way to keep it illegal and be more constructive, more efficient, more effective as well. And find a way with programs to help those people that are using such a substance."He said any legislative changes would not mean abandoning the fight against drug trafficking, adding distribution networks are "highly criminal, as we all know.""We want to keep fighting that, keep making sure that we will protect our society from those organized crime groups," he said.Cauchon said he has not yet presented any proposal to cabinet, but has had informal talks with people on the law enforcement side and those who work with young offenders. "I guess the Canadian population is behind us when we're talking about keeping it illegal. That's the aim and goal. The aim and goal as well is making sure that we will be more efficient, more effective."Several of Cauchon's cabinet colleagues seemed open to the proposal, but Solicitor-General Lawrence MacAulay, responsible for law enforcement in the country, was doubtful."Drugs are a very serious problem in this country and what we have to do is do what's right and make sure we have the proper rules and laws in place." Fisheries Minister Robert Thibault, who is responsible for the Coast Guard, which patrols East and West Coast waters for illicit drug shipments, said: "I think it's the way of the world and what's been happening."He said he could see the pros and cons, but "you don't want to in any way encourage drug use."B.C. MP and lawyer Stephen Owen (Vancouver-Quadra), a junior economic development minister, said polling data shows that when Canadians are informed of the facts on the ineffectiveness of cannabis laws and the high costs of drug enforcement, greater numbers support decriminalization. "One, it's not working; two, it's perhaps illogical; three, it's costing a whole lot of money that might better be focused on law enforcement, on possession and use of more serious drugs — and on trafficking of all drugs, including marijuana," Owen said.Owen said the illegal status of marijuana encourages large-scale marijuana growing operations in the Vancouver area because it means operators — who are usually organized crime gangs — stand to make a larger profit.Note: Offenders could face a ticket and fine, minister says. With files from Allan Thompson.Source: Toronto Star (CN ON)Author: Tonda MacCharles, Ottawa BureauPublished: July 16, 2002Copyright: 2002 The Toronto StarWebsite: http://www.thestar.com/Contact: lettertoed thestar.com Related Articles & Web Site:Canadian Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/can.htmCanada Considers Easing Marijuana Laws http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13424.shtmlMarijuana Party Denounces Cauchon's Idea http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13403.shtmlCauchon Might Relax Canada's Marijuana Laws http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13397.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #10 posted by paul peterson on July 16, 2002 at 16:34:40 PT:
REGULATION? TAXATION? ARE WE THAT CLOSE?
I can't believe how dumn the US government is. Here, in California, that is, there are a bunch of people just trying to move us right into the lap of organized commerce in cannabis (and those drug companies could have just come right on in and set up a table and folding chair), but NO, instead they have to pop a blood vessel taking people to jail. What will happen? People will be forced to start their own microgrow operations ie: 1-3 plants or something. Here's how it works: I call it the " Need, seed, feed, weed indeed!" Since the feds need this "commerce clause" effect on interstate commerce thingy to justify (under that constitution thingy) their "jursidiction", if a valid medical user can argue there is "no commerce" at all, meaning no weed in, no weed out, there must not be any "interstate commerce" right?(By the way, that happens to be the way Epis should be able to argue his way out of this thing- because he kept really good records, he can prove 1) controlled commerce, without any "theoretical" slippage over the border (kind of like those ghost images on the TV screen we used to like to oogle at), in other words the feds can't argue that he "might have sold some bud over the border", 2) by law, all MM patients must be valid in-staters (no intent to sell over the border, 3) actual proof of no over the border sales & 4) no criminal intent to sell over the border. In other words, in a perfect US world, with constitutional freedoms and such, get outa jail free card! And remember just what circuit does he still live in? 9th Circuit, our best home town buddies, about a week away from a decision (just guessing, of course) that those nasty, nasty DEA boys can't threaten those good doctors that merely talk about pot to their patients! (Remember, the Oregon people got John Ashcroft to run home crying when he wanted to stop them from letting people die with dignity-"government can't violate a physician-patient relationship", etc.). That case will have "precedental value" when the 9th Circuit rules on the DEA threat to doctors in California!The 9th Circuit, of course, still reads newspapers, and you bet they have seen the British and Canadian press by now, which gives them just a little bit more confidence that George & John & Asa won't be riding into town with firecrackers ablazing any time soon. (Here is one place that "trends" are very important, and thank you for letting this trend get started the right direction for once!).So the 9th Circuit can still do the right thing about the "Commerce Clause". How did it start to go the wrong way? Well, in US v. Tisor, 96 F. 3d 370 (9th Circuit, 1996), some guys got popped selling METHAMPHETAMINE, and they had a bunch of phone taps, clearly a willy-nilly operation that sold to just everybody they could, which made it easy for the court to "presume" that there was "effect" on interstate commerce from intrastate operations (remember, that using the phone to commit a crime grants the feds jurisdiction over the "phone fraud" involved (like mail fraud, etc, right?). You could even coin the term "fax fraud" if you like-don't go there though!OK, so Epis goes and argues by definition, his operation is purely local, etc.  I would be like a club only letting people in that have an INSTATE ID (to avoid forfeiture of the club under that RAVE bill coming into town, right?). Oops, I got ahead of myself again.So back to the ranch-We have a catch 22 going on here. 1) the only way we get to legalization is through medical marijuana, which takes studies & controlled research, which takes "consistency" which means bulk sales, which means drug companies having to make a powdered/pellet or something. 2) since the feds are lost in McCarthyzone, that aint gonna happen, so we'll just have to wait a few more years, until more NY city mayors come forward and all. So take two joints and call me in the morning on this one, OK?
http://illinois-mmi.org
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by John Tyler on July 16, 2002 at 14:16:28 PT
When it's legal...
People could grow their own, or get it from friends. No cop expense but no tax revenue either. The tax revenue comes into play when it is sold commercially. Like when BC bud would be sold in "coffee shops". The tax man adds a tax on to every ounce that is sold. Or if you buy a bag of weed at the 7-11 store, or the liquor store or where ever tobacco and alcohol are sold. Then you get the processor, who buys from the farmer, and bags the produce or rolls it into 20 class joints made from the finest quality cannabis, etc. Once the green light comes on, the tobacco companies will be in this business for sure. They have a head start in production and distribution.   
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by FoM on July 16, 2002 at 13:42:47 PT
BGreen
That's a good answer. I wonder how much they will save? Someone should calculate it. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by BGreen on July 16, 2002 at 13:37:13 PT
We have to show how much they'll save
just by leaving us alone. It's expensive chasing good, non-violent, cannabis smoking musicians, so if they'll leave me alone they'll have a huge surplus of funds.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by FoM on July 16, 2002 at 12:48:46 PT
BGreen
I agree with you but I don't know how they would ever agree to allow growing unless they make at least tax money from it. You see what I mean?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by BGreen on July 16, 2002 at 12:22:10 PT
I don't need to be regulated
Legalize completely, period, end of sentence, no argument needed.There doesn't need to be a huge gov't bureaucracy, just LEAVE US ALONE!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by FoM on July 16, 2002 at 11:55:12 PT
Question
Let's say we could decide how to make the laws on Cannabis use and growing fair. How would it be done? I never thought we'd get this far but I also thought we would at the same time so how can it be done? Anyone?What I mean is how can the canadian government profit from it? As much as I don't like saying that it is important because money is the only thing that makes them understand.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by R-Earing on July 16, 2002 at 11:37:29 PT:
darn straight!
I'm also glad he's not education minister!All credible polls show about 80-90% support unrestricted medical use.They also show 50-70% support for full legalization.We have not been polled recently about "decrim".This is THE trial balloon,before the senate and commons reports are tabled this fall.This minister was ordred to "float" the idea to gauge criticism before the gov't gets down to pondering the reports.OPED's seem to suggest no one is TOO upset(to the point of hurting the Liberal partys' election chances),so the decrim idea will probably be adopted.If it isn't, the gov't will let the courts take the heat by allowing a constitutional argument to succeed.They can tell the US drug Czar that "those crazy judges" allowed pot,not the "credible" politicians.BTW:I think he is Quebecois.The pronunciation, although close, is slightly different to the french ear.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by JHarshaw on July 16, 2002 at 10:09:35 PT
De-crim
De-criminalization of Cannabis...
Here in Canada...
Who'd uh thunk it?It eventually will become a war on the poor since they will be the ones who cannot afford to pay the fines.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by cltrldmg on July 16, 2002 at 07:44:20 PT
Piggy Justice
" "If you look at the system that we have in place, keeping it criminal, it seems that it's not very efficient," said Cauchon. "LOL, efficient at doing what? Actually if he was interested in stopping people from using, decriminalising is exactly the wrong thing to do. Nice to know how much he cares about issues like personal freedom and the right to be ease chronic pain."He said any legislative changes would not mean abandoning the fight against drug trafficking, adding distribution networks are "highly criminal, as we all know." "I'm not sure I get this. Are they saying the only reason they give for not legalising marijuana is that marijuana is against the law? And what is this guy's job again... justice minister? At least he's not the minister of education, I guess." "I guess the Canadian population is behind us when we're talking about keeping it illegal. That's the aim and goal. The aim and goal as well is making sure that we will be more efficient, more effective." "Is that actually true, I wonder.. I don't know what the polls are for Canada, but I think there's a significant proportion for legalisation. But if he's so sure of himself he should call for a referundum, if he's right it would give his prohibitionist policies a big boost of legitimacy.Where is this guy from in Canada? It would be funny if he was from Quebec, his name in french is pronounced the same as 'pig'.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment