cannabisnews.com: Ottawa Battles To Regain Control of Reefer Madness Ottawa Battles To Regain Control of Reefer Madness Posted by CN Staff on January 20, 2003 at 09:44:30 PT By Tonda Maccharles, Ottawa Bureau Source: Toronto Star Ottawa Recipe for Reefer Madness. Take: One rookie justice minister who wants to decriminalize simple pot possession. Toss in: Several court rulings that Ottawa must allow medical use and possession of pot. Spike with: Two lower-court acquittals (and counting) of recreational pot smokers by judges who say the law is no longer valid. Bake: At low heat on backburner for too long.Serve up: Confusion for millions.We can all be forgiven for not knowing the state of Canada's marijuana law. Even the courts seem confused.On Jan. 10, a second Ontario Court judge in a month found there is currently no law prohibiting the possession of small amounts of marijuana, saying he followed a "common sense" path in the wake of a number of recent court rulings.Justice John Moore quashed marijuana possession charges against Martin Barnes, a 40-year-old Toronto man arrested last summer with the equivalent of one joint, or about $5 worth of marijuana, in his coat pocket. Officially, federal prosecutors carry on as if the criminal law against pot possession is valid even though it is under attack by both judicial and public authorities."Prosecutors are obliged to enforce valid laws as they exist. It's up to the politicians to decide if they wish to amend laws, revoke laws, legislate new laws," said Richard Kramer, senior counsel at the department's Ontario regional office in Toronto.But critics say the law's days are numbered."The law is on its last legs," says lawyer Paul Burstein who has argued several challenges to the marijuana possession law on behalf of chronically ill patients."The combined effect of all the decisions is such that the government or the minister of justice should just declare a moratorium on proceeding with charges that might get laid until they finally come to the right decision, which will inevitably be to decriminalize marijuana possession," said Burstein.Here's where things stand.There is still, on the books at least, a criminal law against simple pot possession usually deemed to be small amounts, up to 30 grams, for personal use even though the justice minister and two parliamentary committees have stated publicly it ought to be reviewed.That's because, so far, the government has not moved despite all the bluster to decriminalize pot, or in other words, make it simply a ticketing offence that carries no threat of criminal record. Justice Minister Martin Cauchon, who toked in his youth, told reporters this month before leaving for Europe he still intends to bring a proposal to federal cabinet within the next few weeks."There's a concern in our Canadian society, which has been there for quite some time now, and I guess it's time to deal with that question," Cauchon said.But here's where it gets confusing.In past weeks, there have been several court rulings on pot some on medical use of marijuana, some on recreational users. All have found the law invalid for differing reasons, but the effect of the rulings is limited because they come from lower courts and are not necessarily binding.The country's top court, the Supreme Court of Canada, was all set to hear three challenges to the law in December, but in the end, delayed hearing the cases until spring because Ottawa's position is unclear. The Supreme Court judges noted Cauchon's media statements that the law is too tough and too unfair in its uneven application across the country and chided the federal lawyer before them who argued it was merely Cauchon's "personal view." Government, Justice Minister Desperately Trying To Retain Control Over Issue "You're putting us in a rather difficult position. The position of the government of Canada we do not know entirely, and you're asking us to, in effect, close our eyes and decide this case on the basis of a record which may be incomplete," said usually mild-mannered Justice Louis Lebel.How did we get to this? Critics say it's all because of government foot-dragging.Since 1997, there have been a series of rulings that the over-all criminal prohibition on marijuana possession is unconstitutional because it is too broad and violates the Charter rights of medicinal users by denying them access to a drug that does little harm, yet eases suffering.Now, lawyers for other pot smokers recreational or casual users are using those victories to successfully attack the law for their clients, too.The most significant decision, perhaps, is the July, 2000, Ontario Court of Appeal ruling against Ottawa in the case of Terry Parker, who has epilepsy.In that case, the province's highest court its decisions are binding in Ontario upheld a 1997 trial court ruling that acquitted Parker. The appeal court declared the marijuana possession law failed to allow patients with a legitimate medical need to get access to pot without fear of prosecution. The judges gave Ottawa 12 months to rewrite the law.But on the same day, the Ontario appeal court also ruled against a London hemp shop owner and found there is no constitutional right to smoke pot for recreational users. In July, 2001, Ottawa responded to the Parker ruling with Medical Marijuana Access Regulations enacted by the federal cabinet, not a whole new law debated in Parliament.Courts are now saying: Not good enough.In the case of a 16-year-old Windsor teenager, an Ontario Court judge decided in December the Parker ruling required the federal government to come up with new legislation, not merely regulations. On that narrow, technical basis, he found the government failed to meet the deadline, and the law is invalid, as the Ontario appeal court originally found. Cauchon has appealed the teen's acquittal, even as he talks about the need to lessen the criminal sanctions on young people who are convicted of smoking pot."What we're saying actually is that regulation was okay to comply with the judgment and that therefore the section is valid," said Cauchon. "In other words, it has really nothing to do with what I have on my table as justice minister," he told reporters.Enter Terry Parker again. This month, he and a group of eight other sick people, and a "compassion club" owner who wants to supply medical marijuana, persuaded Ontario Superior Court Judge Sidney Lederman the new federal regulations still force seriously ill people who use pot as medicine to break the law to obtain the drug.Lederman struck down the regulations and gave Ottawa another six months to comply.The judge suggested the federal government could meet legitimate medical users' needs by: using a federal test crop to provide marijuana seeds, or by adopting a Senate committee recommendation of licensing pot distribution centres.The government is now studying whether to appeal, a justice department spokesperson said.But Burstein says the government and the justice minister, with appeals of negative rulings, are desperately trying to retain control over an issue that has got away from them."It wants complete discretion as to the form and substance of decriminalization of marijuana possession. They don't want to be constrained by a court's interpretation, and in somewhat arrogant fashion are saying, `Butt out judges, it's our problem, we'll figure it out, leave it alone.'"Lawyer Burstein says the government has had 30 years to act since the Le Dain commission urged decriminalization of pot.In the throne speech last fall, Prime Minister Jean Chrιtien promised a new National Drug Strategy.Critics say it can't come soon enough. Note: 'Up to politicians to amend, revoke, create new laws' -- Even courts are confused about pot legislation.Source: Toronto Star (CN ON)Author: Tonda Maccharles, Ottawa BureauPublished: January 20, 2003Copyright: 2003 The Toronto Star Contact: lettertoed thestar.com Website: http://www.thestar.com/ Related Articles & Web Site:Cannabis News Canadian Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/can.htmThe State in the Pot Dens of The Nation http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15222.shtmlThe Coming Canadian Drug Revolutionhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15192.shtmlAmerican Thinking Fuzzy on Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15183.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #5 posted by Dark Star on January 20, 2003 at 14:17:33 PT Amen In the words of my good friend, Jean-Luc Picard, "Make it so!" Go Canada! [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by TroutMask on January 20, 2003 at 14:05:42 PT The End is Near I think Doobinie has it exactly right: Decrim/legalization in Canada spells doom for MJ prohibition in the US.MJ prohibition is already under heavy attack in the US. Polls indicate a growing belief that criminalization of users is stupid. Once Canada legalizes and the sky continues not to fall, the popularity of decrim in the US (and everywhere else in the world) will grow much faster. Other countries will see that the US's closest neighbor and ally has legalized and they will then be much more inclined to follow suit.-TM [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by p4me on January 20, 2003 at 12:27:11 PT Canada should be for the Impeachment of Busch The country is ruled by stuff. 1% of the people have two-thirds of the stuff. And since stuff rules they twist things to confuse, overwork, stress out for maximum pill selling, while the rackets buy their politicians as we see in the P-testing conspiracy. It ain't no librul conspiracy either whatever the F librul means. Now the big racket is drug treatment programs. Rackets and lies only break the silence to speak their own statements of propaganda. They need to break the silence with answers. You can count on more lies and more silence and more propaganda and you can count on all reasonable questions will be ignored.Canada should say Leave your Corruption at the Border The interesting thing about this is in the story of American relations. As the new rundowns of America bring real criticism from the world, Canada will begin to shed new light to Americans. Canada is loaning us a mirror. Their mirror will make us look at ourselves and see that our corruption needs addressing first. The fight against our corrupted government is our first duty. Stop the goddamn war and lets talk about the corruption of government with Cheney/Halliburton fortunes building bases around the world on down.Thanks for the mirror Canada. You make it easy to see we need to work on the corruption of our misadministration and the trashing of the Constitution and the rule of law.Impeach George Busch. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Doobinie on January 20, 2003 at 11:19:40 PT JHarshaw Unfortunately, Freedom isn't free 8^). Essentially, I see all the money being 'wasted' on appeals as the price of assuaging the US Administration. As the US is such a 'law and order' kind of place, when the Bush administration sends in the cavalry saying "What the hell is up with legalizing marijuana?", the Canadian Government needs to show them that they 'tried' to object to court rulings. Essentially, they are show trials necessary as a pre-emptive covering of our asses. When George W. and John Walters come a-bitchin', the Canadian government will be able to say that they tried to stop it, but it was just beyond them. Just as the US Supreme court is being used as a political tool to prevent any kind of liberalization of marijuana laws, so too is the Canadian Judicial system, and eventually its Supreme Court, being used to tear down these idiotic laws. And just as with alcohol prohibition, once the walls start crumbling here, they will quickly fall in the US. In short, I see the government's spending on appeals as a short-term investment for long-term gain for all, and maybe even especially for Americans. There is a grave misconception that Canada depends on the US for military protection (My question being: Who the hell do we need protection from? The only country who could really invade us is the US. Are they saying that we need to pay them (Do what they want us to do) so that they don't kick our asses and steal our lunch money?). Anyway, I say this just to say that if this were true, I guess we repay you in other ways (see crumbling walls of prohibition).Such is my assessment and my hope.Love and Peace,Doobinie in the Dominion of Soviet Canuckistan [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by JHarshaw on January 20, 2003 at 10:42:07 PT Appeals Hi. I would love to know how much these endless appeals of negative rulings are costing the Canadian taxpayers? Also, do you think the court costs of these appeals are included in the governments report just how much it takes to maintain this "war on drugs without corporate sponsers"?Peace and pot [ Post Comment ] Post Comment