cannabisnews.com: Potheads Doubt Drug Law Reform Potheads Doubt Drug Law Reform Posted by CN Staff on January 13, 2003 at 15:50:20 PT By Dennis Bueckert Source: Canadian Press Ottawa - Marijuana advocates don't expect the drug to be decriminalized any time soon, despite promises from Justice Minister Martin Cauchon. Skeptics predict Cauchon's promised legislation will die on the order paper, and suggest it is being introduced as a time-buying sop without backing from the prime minister. "There won't be enough time to pass it," said Alan Young, a professor at Osgoode Hall law school, in an interview Monday. "He (Cauchon) knows it's going to die on the order paper." Last month a Commons committee recommended that people be allowed to possess up to 30 grams of marijuana without risking criminal penalties. Cauchon welcomed the recommendation and promised to introduce a bill within months, but Prime Minister Jean Chretien has not taken a clear position on the issue. Young said the biggest obstacle to decriminalization in Canada is U.S. opposition -- a view shared by many marijuana crusaders. "That is the only obstacle," says Mark Emery of the B.C. Marijuana Party. "There is no real internal opposition in Canada any more." U.S. drug czar John Walters has warned that United States might have to tighten security along its border to prevent a surge in contraband cannabis if Canadian laws are eased. That could affect the movement of legitimate goods across the border, a huge concern for export industries. It could also bring a flood of marijuana-seeking tourists to Canada. "In my opinion legalizing marijuana would force the U.S. to do virtually the same thing within a year or two," says Emery. "Millions of Americans would come up here and buy pot and find its a wonderful environment. That's what the American government really fears." There appears to be widespread acceptance in Canada on the need for drug reform. Even the right-leaning Fraser Institute advocates decriminalization of marijuana. Canadian Alliance MP Randy White says his party is willing to consider decriminalization of up to five grams, although he has a number of concerns. For example, White says there's a need for roadside equipment to assess whether pot-smoking drivers are impaired. White wants assurances that fines will be efficiently collected for people with small amounts and that criminal penalties will continue to be applied for larger amounts. Since any bill must go through three readings and committee study in the Commons, and then be debated in the Senate, there are many opportunities for delay. "There's not enough time to do it in the time frame Martin Cauchon suggested," says Marc-Boris St-Maurice, president Canadian Marijuana Party. "The Prime Minister's been wishy washy about his intentions and they'd need him on board if they were going to fast-track something through. There's absolutely no guarantees." Mike Murphy, a spokesman for Cauchon, declined to speculate on prospects of the bill becoming law during the life of the current government. "We wouldn't want to speculate on that at this time," he said. Many pot enthusiasts are hoping the marijuana law will be struck down or fatally undermined by the courts. But most court cases to date have dealt with the issue of access to medical marijuana, and judges have so far been reluctant to tackle the prohibition of recreational use. Source: Canadian PressAuthor: Dennis BueckertPublished: Monday, January 13, 2003Copyright: 2003 The Canadian PressRelated Articles & Web Sites:Canadian Marijuana Partyhttp://www.marijuanaparty.org/B.C. Marijuana Partyhttp://www.bcmarijuanaparty.ca/American Thinking Fuzzy on Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15183.shtmlCourt Nixes Fed's Medical-Pot Regulations http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15153.shtmlU.S. Fears Cda. Becoming a Major Pot Supplierhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14988.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #16 posted by TroutMask on January 14, 2003 at 08:15:21 PT Another thing... As I said: the laws against marijuana possession are either already gone or will be gone in 6 months if the government doesn't provide easier access to sick people.Now, one of the problems that was brought up in a recent case was that many sick people's doctors aren't willing to sign the forms required for a medical exemption. What does this mean? To me this means that the government must remove or greatly reduce the requirement for a doctor's signature. This means that perhaps the only proof needed for medical exemption will be a diagnosis of an illness (and not a doctor's signature). This would greatly reduce the proof required for a medical exemption and opens a huge door for the recreational user to get a legal exemption to grow and use marijuana. "Uh, doc, I got a headache..."Another thing the government has to change is the fact that sick people must go to the black market to buy their marijuana. That means the government has to either provide marijuana to the sick people or allow people to produce it and sell it to sick people legally. So the Canadian government could be in the interesting position of supplying a controlled substance to it's people that is illegal in most of the rest of the world.IMHO, this is a lose-lose situation for the Canadian government. Considering the fact that 1. they have to allow more people to use medical marijuana with few restrictions and 2. they have to provide a legal means for these thousands (millions?) of sick people to get marijuana, they are really in a bind.Do they want to tackle the huge beaurocratic pain and cost of verifying medical exemptions for millions of people and then growing and distributing many tons of marijuana? I really doubt it! So it seems to me the best way out to make the Senate, the House of Commons, the medical users and the recreational users happy is to....legalize it and control it like alcohol or tobacco.I wouldn't be surprised if they continue to do nothing, let the laws die and then create new laws regulating the age and production of marijuana. If they decide to change the laws to help the sick but it turns out they didn't go far enough, the laws will die anyway but they will have spent lots of time and money for nothing.Very interesting times....-TM [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by The GCW on January 14, 2003 at 05:51:25 PT & Have to turn off the lights on Sunday??? Crying Like a Church On Monday. [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by WolfgangWylde on January 14, 2003 at 04:41:51 PT Let me quote the author... "...and judges have so far been reluctant to tackle the prohibition of recreational use." Holy Crow! Has this idiot paid ANY attention to the news in the last week. Two judges have said the law on possession is null and void. This author should buy a clue. [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by AlvinCool on January 13, 2003 at 20:01:43 PT conditions They will pass a law that will allow for only certain conditions in your grow GCW. Things like nothing over 150watts with only one plant etc... to keep plants at nominal growth.They will say that to allow more might cripple the electric system, and they may be right. What happens when 3/4 of the homes are growing a plant under lights? If every home had a 1000w light 12 - 18 hours a day your electrical grid would pop. [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by The GCW on January 13, 2003 at 19:33:48 PT As they pass laws for any amount... How can they pass a cultivation law calling for a 30 gram limit for a plant that is going to usually be much more than that? And if You have 3 plants, and they can not get to more than 30 grams total, You will be kinda bewildered...I can see Bushler embracing the Austrailian example of decrim. if Cannada promises to fine people to new levels.One kook (cager)called for fines of $5,000 - $10,000, I think... Oh Cannada [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by FoM on January 13, 2003 at 19:19:06 PT Sam Adams How far is it to Amsterdam from say California? I know that Canada is about 250 miles from where we live. Maybe they could pass another Medical Marijuana Law but don't they need to have access to patients within the 6 month time frame? I don't know. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by Sam Adams on January 13, 2003 at 19:12:04 PT Wait.... I don't want to rain on the parade, but couldn't the Canadian govt. just pass a new MEDICAL marijuana law and that would satisfy the courts?BTW, I think Emery is way off. Lots of Americans go to Holland where it's legal and it doesn't affect US policy one iota. There are lots of strip clubs in Montreal and Canada, but most US cities don't allow them. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by BGreen on January 13, 2003 at 18:11:35 PT The Abortion Issue Might Answer Our Questions The law against abortion was ruled invalid exactly the way it's heading for cannabis.I found a web page explaining this ruling. I found this to be very enlightening:The issue came to a judicial head in 1988, when the Supreme Court ruled that section 287 of the Code offended section 7 of the Charter, and that the former was therefore of no force or effect.A legislative vacuum of sorts was created.Nova Scotia tried to write a law which prevented abortions except at certified hospitals. The provincial act was ruled invalid as an encroachment on criminal law powers that is reserved to the federal government.When she was prime minister, Kim Campbell tabled a bill to bring back a form of criminal law control over abortions. The bill survived a close vote in the House of Commons on May 29, 1990, (140 to 131) but was defeated in the Senate by a rare tie vote (43 to 43) on January 31, 1991.Therefore, since the Mortgentaler decision, there is no Canadian criminal law which addresses abortion.The Liberal government in Ottawa has made it clear that it will not introduce amendments to the Criminal Code with respect to abortion.This seems to say once the law is declared unconstitutional, it's LEGAL! ABORTION LAW IN CANADA [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by FoM on January 13, 2003 at 17:36:06 PT Another Question I took this out of the article I'm posting for you all to see. Does it mean that having a garden would be legal too?Unless Ottawa appeals the ruling or comes up with a new medical-marijuana regime within six months, that law will fall, said Young, who's convinced the federal government's reluctance to relax marijuana prohibition in Canada is based on U.S. disapproval. "It reaches a point where the government will realize it can't salvage the law, even if it realizes the Americans will be unhappy," he said. "Their hands will become tied." Six Months To Fix Medical-Marijuana Regulations : http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread15154.shtml [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by BGreen on January 13, 2003 at 17:14:41 PT Legal But Controlled Is An Option My comment about the Dutch could be misconstrued. You have to know how the Dutch think to understand their wacky way of interpreting the law.They're likely to have the opinion that it's not legal, but it's really not hurting anything, so they just let it slide. It's such a radical departure from the "Barney Fife meets Rambo" approach here in the police states of amerika. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by BGreen on January 13, 2003 at 17:06:15 PT How Could They Put A Limit On Amount when there's no law on the books? My understanding is that legal means legal. The Dutch just tolerate the coffeeshops and possession of small amounts. It's not legal so they are able to put controls on it.The 30 gram limit is some arbitrary amount applied to so-called "decriminalization," but the Canadian power elite failed to push that crazy plan forward. It's too late and full legalization is all that can happen now. The courts can't say "there's no laws, but we're going to make up a bunch of rules." It ain't amerika. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by FoM on January 13, 2003 at 16:55:08 PT AlvinCool I'm wondering if it would mean there could be no laws against marijuana if they don't do what they say within 6 months. Would the 30 grams amount matter then? That's what I would like to know. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by TroutMask on January 13, 2003 at 16:54:37 PT You are right. As it stands now: Either the law against possession is already dead (as two judges decided recently); or it will be dead in 6 months if they don't provide easier access to medical marijuana plus a legal way for sick people to get it.-TM [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by AlvinCool on January 13, 2003 at 16:39:07 PT Nothing? I'm thinking that if they don't pass something within the 6 months time frame there just will be no law for 30 grams or under and marijuana will effectivly be legalized in Canada?Someone correct me, I'm getting dizzy [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by BGreen on January 13, 2003 at 16:31:23 PT Somebody Has To Stand Up To US Oppression I can't think of a better country than Canada to be the first.The leaders of the police states of amerika have NO RESPECT for the Canadian people. Here's your chance to tell them to go to hell. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by FoM on January 13, 2003 at 16:22:45 PT Is This Good News? It sure sounds like it to me. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment