cannabisnews.com: Lawyer Doubts Ottawa's Pot Talk Lawyer Doubts Ottawa's Pot Talk Posted by CN Staff on December 12, 2002 at 07:28:10 PT By Kirk Makin, Justice Reporter Source: Globe and Mail A federal proposal to decriminalize marijuana is nothing more than a ruse to influence the Supreme Court of Canada as it prepares for a major challenge to marijuana laws, a lawyer in the case says.Lawyer Paul Burstein said Justice Minister Martin Cauchon's ruminations about decriminalization echo a tactic used by his department in the past to derail litigation that threatens marijuana laws. "Call me cynical, but I don't believe him," Mr. Burstein said in an interview. "I don't see these efforts as being anything more than an attempt to influence the litigation."Mr. Burstein said former justice minister Allan Rock waved similar promises about changing medical-marijuana provisions shortly before an important case, Regina vs James Wakeford, a couple of years ago."It turned out to be a complete sham," Mr. Burstein said.Three test cases are being heard together tomorrow. The appellants claim that the possession law is an antiquated measure rooted in moral sanctimony, not genuine concern about public safety.Mr. Burstein pointed out a jarring contradiction between Mr. Cauchon's statements about decriminalization and those contained in a Justice Department brief to the Supreme Court that fiercely defends the laws."All three appellants seek to elevate a recreational pursuit to a constitutional right," the federal brief states."To characterize the smoking of marijuana as going to an individual's fundamental being is to trivialize these concepts. Simply put, there is no free standing right to get 'stoned.' "Mr. Burstein said it is hopelessly naive to believe that the federal government will initiate decriminalization as long as U.S. President George W. Bush is in power.He said that far from being moot in light of Mr. Cauchon's pronouncement, the Supreme Court case looms as all the more important. Changes to marijuana laws will happen only if the Supreme Court calls Mr. Cauchon's bluff, Mr. Burstein said."Even if the law isn't ruled unconstitutional, some strong language from the court would give the government a large hook to hang its hat on," he said. "The biggest hurdle is undoubtedly the U.S. government. If the court says the law is stupid, it would give the government some ammunition to fight our neighbours to the south."The three appellants are as follows:David Malmo-Levine, a Vancouver activist who formed an 1,800-member "Harm Reduction Club" in 1996 to cater to marijuana-fanciers.Christopher Clay, who owned a London, Ont., store called the Great Canadian Hempatorium that sold marijuana implements, seeds and cuttings.Victor Caine, a B.C. man who was arrested while sharing a joint with a friend in his car.Upon conviction, the three men joined an estimated 600,000 Canadians with criminal records for cannabis-related offences under the 79-year-old possession law.Government lawyers say in their brief that Parliament has a perfect right to pass laws in the general good, and that challengers must show it acted in "an irrational or arbitrary manner."The appellants contend that the law is both an unwarranted intrusion into provincial jurisdiction and a violation of the constitutional right to life, liberty and security of the person.The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which has been permitted to make legal arguments in the case, maintains that the health effects of marijuana are minimal, particularly when compared with those of tobacco and alcohol.Other arguments sound a note of Sixties-style individualism. The B.C. Civil Liberties Association, for instance, argues that pursuing personal pleasure is fundamental to the autonomy of the individual.In a passionate submission to the court, Mr. Malmo-Levine states that the dangers of marijuana use are essentially limited to red-eyed smokers forgetting where they have put their car keys.Note: Believes politicians are simply trying to influence call of Supreme Court.Source: Globe and Mail (Canada)Author: Kirk Makin, Justice ReporterPublished: Thursday, December 12, 2002 – Print Edition, Page A8Copyright: 2002 The Globe and Mail CompanyContact: letters globeandmail.caWebsite: http://www.globeandmail.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:The Compassion Clubhttp://www.thecompassionclub.org/Cannabis News Canadian Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/can.htmSupreme Court to Rule on Pot Law http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13994.shtmlSpotlight On Vancouver http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13650.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #3 posted by WolfgangWylde on December 12, 2002 at 10:45:28 PT Home Run!!! This guy (the lawyer) nailed it. The Canadian Gov't has NO INTENTION WHATSOEVER of decriminalizng possession. Bank on it. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on December 12, 2002 at 10:00:24 PT Another Friday the 13th court challenge In addition to the Supreme court case of David Malmo-Levine et. al., there's another Canadian court challenge, this one to the driving under the influence laws: http://www.canada.com/search/story.aspx?ID=d960b53d-80c7-4af0-a508-a60f0ee83e8e [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by freddybigbee on December 12, 2002 at 09:59:03 PT: Bullspit There's a lot of bull flying north of the border, but they appear to be getting down to the real questions about life, liberty, and the security of the person. I love the bumper sticker "Legalize Freedom" because it puts the cannabis question where it should be, as a matter of personal liberty. Freedom is a joke as long as cannabis prohibition continues.The constitution doesn't guarantee the right to get stoned? Does it give govt. blanket powers to prohibit plants that have been used medicinally since as far back as written history reaches? [ Post Comment ] Post Comment