cannabisnews.com: Supreme Court Pot Case Goes Ahead










  Supreme Court Pot Case Goes Ahead

Posted by CN Staff on May 05, 2003 at 17:39:15 PT
By Jim Brown 
Source: Canadian Press  

Ottawa --  The Liberal government is promising to rewrite the law on marijuana use, but the Supreme Court of Canada faces a more pressing question - what to do with the law as it is, not as it may be. In a trio of cases to be heard Tuesday, the high court is being asked to throw out criminal penalties for simple possession of small amounts of pot on the grounds that they violate the Charter of Rights. Government lawyers will be arguing the present law should be upheld, even as Prime Minister Jean Chretien and Justice Minister Martin Cauchon prepare to change it. That's not as bizarre as it may seem at first glance. 
They key issue, stripped of legal niceties, is whether the politicians or the courts have the final say in deciding what substances ought to be outlawed. The federal Justice Department contends the government should have as much leeway as possible in drafting drug policy, without being hemmed in by constitutional fences. "Simply put, there is no free-standing right to get stoned," says the written brief filed by federal lawyer David Frankel. "Whether the courts or the public at large consider Parliament's choices to be good or bad, effective or ineffective, wise or unwise, popular or unpopular, are not yardsticks for measuring constitutionality." On the other side stand an array of defence lawyers who maintain the nine judges of the Supreme Court must set limits on what the country's legislators can do. "You can't simply say Parliament has the right to be wrong," says Paul Burstein, counsel for one of the three people whose pot convictions are under review. Burstein is hoping the court will draw a "constitutional line in the sand" that no future government can cross, no matter what the prevailing political winds of the day. The cases at issue involve two self-described marijuana activists and one man who was simply unlucky enough to get busted smoking a joint: * David Malmo-Levine ran the Harm Reduction Club, a non-profit co-operative in East Vancouver that offered advice on how to use marijuana moderately and safely and supplied pot at cost to some 1,800 members. He got a one-year suspended sentence. * Christopher Clay ran Hemp Nation in London, Ont., a store he started with a government loan. Clay, who has since moved to B.C., used the London business to sell marijuana seeds and seedlings in a deliberate challenge to federal law. He was fined $750 and given three years probation. * Victor Caine was arrested by a police officer who caught him after he lit up a joint in his van in a parking lot in White Rock, B.C. He had 0.5 grams of pot in his possession, was convicted at trial and given an absolute discharge. Trafficking issues were part of the Malmo-Levine and Clay cases, but the central matter before the Supreme Court is whether possession for personal use should be a crime. It is at present, and prison terms of up to seven years are still possible under the law although they are rarely imposed. The three challengers argue that threatening people with jail time and a criminal record for something that amounts to a victimless crime is contrary to the Charter of Rights. They also claim Ottawa is overstepping its constitutional jurisdiction and meddling in matters that should be left to the provinces. The Supreme Court was supposed to hear the case in December but put it off when Cauchon said he was working on legislation to decriminalize simple possession of less than 30 grams of pot. Chretien reiterated that commitment last week, indicating the bill, expected before Parliament breaks in June for the summer, would make possession an offence akin to a traffic violation. A ticket would be issued and a fine imposed, but the offender would not get a criminal record. In spite of the renewed promise, the Supreme Court decided to go ahead with the hearing this time - a move welcomed by Alan Young, a professor at Osgoode Hall law school in Toronto. He thinks the government, even if it brings in a bill, is unlikely to push it through Parliament before the next federal election, likely to come in about a year's time. "I just don't believe they will be able to fast track it through," said Young. "And I believe they know that." Complete Title: Supreme Court Pot Case Goes Ahead, Despite Liberal Promise To Change LawSource: Canadian Press Author: Jim BrownPublished: Monday, May 5, 2003 Copyright: 2003 The Canadian PressRelated Articles & Web Site:Cannabis News Canadian Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/can.htmActivist Wants Pot Legalized, Not Decriminalized http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16188.shtmlCanadian Prime Minister Promises Decrim http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16158.shtmlSupreme Court Will Hear Marijuana-Law Challenge http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16129.shtml 

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #7 posted by Darwin on May 06, 2003 at 06:46:12 PT
Excellent article
Thanks for posting that one Jose. Good reading. I am eager to hear what Washington's reaction will be. "Anthrax and Al-Qaeda are in Brazil now"?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by WolfgangWylde on May 06, 2003 at 06:13:08 PT
If President Silva
...keeps that up, he won't last the summer.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Jose Melendez on May 06, 2003 at 06:04:06 PT
Meanwhile, in Brazil...
from: http://www.narconews.com/Issue30/article773.htmlThe Drug War is a Class WarBrazil's President Opens the "Black Box" of Narco-Corruption By Al Giordano
Special to The Narco News Bulletin
April 29, 2003On a Tuesday Morning, April 22nd, 2003, somewhere in a country called América… Day One: The Black Box OpensThe democratically elected president of Brazil issued a declaration of war last Tuesday… or so his words were received in some powerful quarters. "The real narco-traffickers," President Lula da Silva pointed the finger, are not found in the neighborhoods where poor people are "pressured and induced into crime in order to earn their daily bread." The kingpins of narco-trafficking are to be found, Lula dared to say, "in the large centers of capital." The president is now assembling a posse, he says, to hunt them down. During his first major speech on public safety and crime, Lula spoke previously forbidden words, in public, about a "black box" (a "caixa-preta," in which the word "caixa" enjoys common use both as "box" and "cash register") that exists in the Judicial branch of the Brazilian government… A Judicial branch that, in less than a decade, has almost doubled the nation's prison population (from 126,152 inmates in 1993 to 240,107 in May 2002… overwhelmingly, of course, consisting of poor folks)… and yet organized crime and violence is today considered, according to public opinion surveys, the number one problem in the nation. Something is terribly wrong with the Brazilian Justice system, said the president. And Lula gave orders, he gave very clear instructions, there can be no doubt as to the meaning of his words, in full public view, with the press taking notes, with the tape recorders turned on, with the video cameras rolling, to his Attorney General, Márcio Thomaz Bastos, and to his Public Safety Secretary, Luiz Eduardo Soares: Open that box, the commander-in-chief ordered. Open it wide. Open it now. Kind readers, if Lula is serious, if Bastos is serious, if Soares is serious, they have just placed the drug war in check, and set an historic checkmate in motion. 
more from narconews.com
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by WolfgangWylde on May 06, 2003 at 04:22:51 PT
Anybody...
...know how quickly the Canadian Supreme Court works. Is this going to be one of those "we'll get back to you in 6 months" deals?
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #3 posted by freedom fighter on May 05, 2003 at 19:21:32 PT

"Rarely" Imposed?
It is at present, and prison terms of up to seven years are still possible under the law although they are rarely imposed.If anything, then please pick this book of "law" and throw it in the trashcan! Why have a law that is rarely imposed?I think I know why noone would want to impose this law. It is aMOCKERY OF JUSTICE AND PEACE.Lookin forward to better days!pazff
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #2 posted by afterburner on May 05, 2003 at 18:09:33 PT:

If Supreme Court of Canada Invalidates Current Law
...watch how fast the Parliament and the Prime Minister can put an alternative in place. Cell phone use in cars is already being fast-tracked. These are seasoned politicians in power for many years: they know how to get bills passed, to get laws written. The fireworks would be the joint House of Commons - Senate committee to harmonize differing views on implementation of cannabis liberalization.ego transcendence follows ego destruction, and suddenly there is no problem.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #1 posted by FoM on May 05, 2003 at 17:42:59 PT

Good Luck Tomorrow
I hope everything goes well tomorrow. I know I will be anxiously awaiting the outcome and so will many others!
[ Post Comment ]





  Post Comment