cannabisnews.com: MJ Activist Brings Pot Argument To Supreme Court MJ Activist Brings Pot Argument To Supreme Court Posted by CN Staff on May 06, 2003 at 11:47:44 PT By Jim Brown Source: Canadian Press Ottawa - David Malmo-Levine, fortified by a quick toke of hash and dressed from head to toe in clothing woven of hemp, took his crusade against federal marijuana laws to the Supreme Court of Canada on Tuesday.The 31-year-old Vancouver man, one of three men appealing convictions for breaking pot laws, couched his argument simply as he addressed the nine poker-faced judges who patiently heard him out. Nobody should be incarcerated, he said, for exercising a "right to relaxation and well-being" that doesn't harm anybody else. "We should not let anyone in this country point their finger, yell 'criminal,' and then lock up thousands of people . . . . This court must protect human autonomy, which is in essence the right to pick and choose our own tastes, our own pleasures."Malmo-Levine, a self-described justice and freedom activist, made his pitch amid an array of lawyers who offered more learned arguments for striking down the current prohibition on pot use as an infringement of the Charter of Rights.He later acknowledged, during a break in the hearing, that he'd taken some unusual steps to prepare for his day in court."I took a couple of hits off some bubble hash," he said, explaining that the specially filtered marijuana resin helped him wake up and focus his mind."I was happy, hungry and relaxed, but I was not impaired."Malmo-Levine wants the court to strike down all criminal sanctions against marijuana, including penalties for growers and traffickers.Lawyers for the others involved in the case framed the question more narrowly. They concentrated on whether people convicted of simple possession should face jail time and be saddled with a criminal record."I don't mean to stand here and suggest there is a constitutional right to smoke marijuana," said Toronto lawyer Paul Burstein.But he did argue the government has been overstepping its legal authority for the last 80 years by keeping a law on the books that provides for jail terms in simple possession cases - even if such sentences are rarely imposed by judges nowadays.John Conroy, representing a Vancouver-area man busted for smoking a single joint in his van at a seaside parking lot, offered a similar assessment of the law."If somebody lights up a marijuana cigarette in their own home, or even out at the beach, where does the government get an interest in that?" asked Conroy."Normally we don't tell people what they can put in their bodies, under threat of depriving them of their liberty."Justice Minister Martin Cauchon Prime Minister Jean Chretien have both said the Liberal government will introduce legislation soon to decriminalize possession of small amounts of pot for personal use.That wouldn't mean outright legalization, but possession would be treated as a minor offence subject to ticketing and fines, something like a traffic violation.Critics say there is no guarantee the long-promised bill will actually get through Parliament before the next federal election is called likely next year.They want the Supreme Court to set constitutional ground rules that would force the hand of federal politicians and ensure that no future government could backtrack on the issue.Complete Title: Marijuana Activist Brings Pro-Pot Argument To Supreme CourtSource: Canadian Press Author: Jim BrownPublished: Tuesday, May 6, 2003 Copyright: 2003 The Canadian PressRelated Articles & Web Site:Cannabis News Canadian Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/can.htm Smoking Pot No Serious Risk, Activist To Argue http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16198.shtmlSupreme Court Pot Case Goes Aheadhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16192.shtmlActivist Wants Pot Legalized, Not Decriminalized http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16188.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #6 posted by FoM on May 06, 2003 at 13:49:11 PT Just a Note I thought I should mention that I corrected the date. It would seem kinda weird reading our comments and the date is correct now. I don't want to contribute to anyones confusion. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by FoM on May 06, 2003 at 13:01:37 PT puff_tuff Thanks! I looked and looked and went what! I'm really lost now I thought. Thanks for telling me. I get confused and when a date is wrong I really get confused! LOL! [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by Lehder on May 06, 2003 at 12:53:13 PT eugene police go berserk http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/05/264075.shtml [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by afterburner on May 06, 2003 at 12:44:56 PT: Waiting to Inhale, Waiting to Exhale? Just breathe. Take a deep breath.Ooo, have another hit of fresh air -Fresh Air (5:18) Jesse Otis Farrow on Just For Love Lyrics http://www.penncen.com/quicksilver/justfor.htm ego transcendence follows ego destruction, and suddenly there is no question. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by puff_tuff on May 06, 2003 at 12:19:09 PT Mistake It's a mistake.Looks like David isn't the only one enjoying a bit of herb =) [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by FoM on May 06, 2003 at 11:55:16 PT Question Did they mean last Thursday or did they make a mistake and it should be Tuesday? [ Post Comment ] Post Comment