cannabisnews.com: Clarify Marijuana Law





Clarify Marijuana Law
Posted by CN Staff on January 04, 2003 at 07:47:10 PT
By Sault Star Staff 
Source: Sault Star
Justice James Greco is doing the right thing in Sault Ste. Marie by declining to accept guilty pleas or to conduct trials on charges of minor marijuana possession. Greco took his stance Dec. 20 and said on Thursday he would maintain it if a Windsor judge accepted a defence argument that possession of a small amount of marijuana is not an offence in Ontario. At about the same time Greco was making the comment in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario Court Justice Douglas Phillips did indeed throw out a possession charge in Windsor. 
Phillips agreed with defenders of a 16-year-old that the government needs to pass a new law prohibiting marijuana after the current one was struck down by the Ontario Court of Appeal two years ago. The appeal court gave the federal government a year to revamp the law before the existing law would become invalid in Ontario. Although Justice Minister Martin Cauchon has said he intends to decriminalize possession of less than 30 grams, the law is still in limbo. Phillips’s decision is not binding on other judges, but as Greco noted in the Sault, it’s not unusual for trial courts to adjourn matters, sometimes for months, awaiting decisions from appellate courts on important issues of law. Federal prosecutor Wayne Chorney is awaiting instructions from the federal department of justice, but expects he will be told to stay charges in the interim or adjourn them for the next month or so. He doesn’t disagree with Greco, saying Phillips’s decision has “created a real flux, a real element of uncertainty in the province.” In fact, it is the federal government that is responsible for the uncertainty. Legislators were given reasonable time to get their act in order, and have failed to do so. The longer they delay, the longer we will see turmoil. Not only are the courts hamstrung, but individuals who have been charged will keep squirming until we decide whether or not they should be branded criminals. As Greco put it, “The most chilling effect of (simple possession being declared not an offence) would be that already hundreds or thousands of people in Ontario, including residents of this city as well, have been convicted of having committed non-existent criminal offences.” Chorney estimates 75 to 100 such cases are awaiting disposition in the Sault. If that’s so, the number convicted locally in the past could be huge. Criminal records have profound effects on individuals’ personal lives and careers. Courts have little choice but to wait until the situation is clarified. Calling for decriminalization isn’t the same as supporting legalization. Most Canadians likely would want firm controls to continue, but penalties for simple possession were grossly disproportionate with the harm caused to society. The government has to put this question on the front burner. Legislators ought to remove the criminal label to end the unfair suffering, but whatever they decide they should decide soon. Source: Sault Star, The (CN ON)Published: Saturday, January 04, 2003 Copyright: 2003 The Sault StarContact: Ssmstar ssm.southam.caWebsite: http://www.saultstar.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Cannabis News Canadian Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/can.htmOttawa Appealing Pot Possession Verdicthttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15106.shtmlPot Possession Not Illegal, Judge Ruleshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15099.shtmlLocal Judge Won’t Conduct Pot Possession Trials http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15047.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Post Comment