cannabisnews.com: Quebec Judge Throws Out Pot Case Quebec Judge Throws Out Pot Case Posted by CN Staff on December 19, 2002 at 10:58:45 PT By Darren Yourk, Globe and Mail Update Source: Globe and Mail A Quebec judge ended a drug trafficking trial Thursday, dropping all charges against two activists who dispensed the drug for medical use at a Montreal Compassion Club. Marc-Boris Saint-Maurice, head of the Compassion Club, and Alexandre Neron were accused of possession of marijuana and trafficking the drug.Quebec Court Judge Gilles Cadieux, who had postponed making a decision on the case a number of times, said the absence of a legal source of marijuana takes away the right to life and liberty. "We're happy and relieved," Mr. Saint-Maurice told CBC Newsworld. "After three years in court and many battles, we've been vindicated. It's more of a moral victory than a legal victory at the moment."Judge Cadieux did not rule on the constitutionality of marijuana laws."The only unfortunate thing is this ruling does nothing to help medical marijuana users get the product," Mr. Saint-Maurice said. "There's nowhere for where they can buy marijuana legally. This did nothing to legalize sales."The two men were arrested in the fall of 2000 after police raided the club and seized 66 grams of marijuana.The Crown did not say if it will appeal the decision.Justice Minister Martin Cauchon has said he will introduce legislation to decriminalize marijuana in the new year.On Dec. 13, the Supreme Court of Canada said it had no choice but to postpone a landmark case in light of the federal government's decision to introduce legislation to decriminalize marijuana.Canada sought to adjourn a hearing on claims by convicted pot smokers that the federal marijuana laws are unconstitutional because the drug is harmless. The lawyers for the defendants and the Crown wanted to go ahead with the hearing, but Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin said that wouldn't make sense."A central question is the Minister of Justice has announced his intention to introduce legislation in the Parliament that will decriminalize, in some ways, possession of marijuana," she said.The appeal, which has become a flagship case for marijuana users across Canada who want pot legalized, will be heard sometime during the Supreme Court's spring session, which starts in April.With report from Kim Lunman. Source: Globe and Mail (Canada)Author: Darren Yourk, Globe and Mail UpdatePublished: Thursday, December 19, 2002Copyright: 2002 The Globe and Mail CompanyContact: letters globeandmail.caWebsite: http://www.globeandmail.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Montreal Compassion Clubhttp://www.blocpot.qc.ca/ccm/english.htmlSupreme Court Halts Pot Appeals http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14980.shtmlSupreme Court Delays Pot Appealhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14978.shtmlHigh Court Marijuana Case in Limbohttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14971.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #6 posted by p4me on December 19, 2002 at 13:05:57 PT Richard Cowan on Canadian Charter of Rights Last Friday's commentary by RC was about the postponing of the Supreme Court trials. It was an excellent display of real journalism and it contained the following three paragraphs: http://www.marijuananews.com/news.php3?sid=607There is a unique reason that such a debate is almost a constitutional requirement in Canada. The Canadian Charter of Rights is a 20th century document that is different from the late 18th century US Bill of Rights in a number of ways. One of the most striking differences is that it begins with the statement, "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." That last phrase: "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" clearly means that the burden of proof is on those who would restrict freedom. That is as it should be, and makes the government’s position all the more absurd.1 [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by Ethan Russo MD on December 19, 2002 at 12:23:40 PT: Back to the Issue at Hand I am quite pleased for Marc-Boris and all of Canada. Marc-Boris has been a very public, in your face activist, the kind the American powers that be love to slap down. It is noteworthy that Canada has not taken the path of vindictive justice, and what's more, has a judge with the bravery to challenge the constitutionality of the statutes. There is simply that last crucial step---- [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by byrd on December 19, 2002 at 11:57:39 PT TroutMask "...said the absence of a legal source of marijuana takes away the right to life and liberty."A very interesting point you made. The key word, of course, is LEGAL. It sounds like the judge dismissed the case because it violates the Canadian Charter. Would that mean that a place would have to be provided? Of course, it's subject to appeal, but it may come into play in January when the legislature opens. It's definately something to ponder, isn't it?Peace [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by Ethan Russo MD on December 19, 2002 at 11:47:08 PT: Strange I need to see the article itself. It does not appear on the JAMA WWW site. From what I can see, no one seems to be advancing a theory as to why this might be. No reasonable mechanism is even offered. In this type of epidemiological study, researchers ask a million questions, and go fishing for associations. I never had anybody get better. Why would treating a bacterial bug in the stomach help your head? Sometimes interesting correlations seem to appear, but on closer examination, they do not pan out. Let me provide an example. Some years ago, it was reported that people with ulcers who got antibiotics to treat H. pylori infections had their migraines get better. This led to empirical treatment, and the results were a total wash. Now, it is not even considered appropriate that often to treat ulcer patients with antibiotics. Chances are that this was a spurious association. The same might be true here so far as paternal cannabis smoking and SIDS goes.The incidence of SIDS has plummeted since the advice became widespread to place sleeping tykes on their backs. One could examine the incidence of SIDS in kids born to Rastafarian dads, and it might make some sense of this, or frankly disprove it.Remember the ending of the BBC release. Any purported effect of cannabis is negligible to the effect of cigarette smoke.The problem is that this just increases the stack of questionable negative data about cannabis. I guarantee it will receive more press than it deserves. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by TroutMask on December 19, 2002 at 11:45:40 PT um.... "A Quebec judge ended a drug trafficking trial Thursday, dropping all charges against two activists who dispensed the drug for medical use...Quebec Court Judge Gilles Cadieux...said the absence of a legal source of marijuana takes away the right to life and liberty."Is this a huge victory or am I reading too much into it?-TM [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Darwin on December 19, 2002 at 11:03:02 PT BBC report I just notices an article in the BBC which says "Fathers who smoke marijuana may be increasing the chance that their baby dies from cot death, claim researchers. " http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1515818.stm The article goes on to say that the father's smoking after the birth can triple the risk of COT death. How can paternal pot smoking, assuming it is done away from an infant, cause any effect on the child? This seems absurd to me. Any comment or insight Dr. Russo? [ Post Comment ] Post Comment