cannabisnews.com: Relaxed Dope Activist Hits High Court Relaxed Dope Activist Hits High Court Posted by CN Staff on May 06, 2003 at 14:21:40 PT By Randall Palmer Source: Reuters Ottawa - There is now another reason to call it Canada's high court -- An activist seeking the overturn of Canada's marijuana law smoked hashish and cannabis on Tuesday before arguing his own case in the Supreme Court, dressed completely in hemp products."I took a couple hits off some bubble hash and a little bit of cannabis," David Malmo-Levine told reporters after delivering a 40-minute monologue to the nine justices. "I was happy, hungry and relaxed, but I was not impaired."But his arguments seem to have fallen a little flat with the justices, who will not rule for a number of months.After having mercilessly grilled a lawyer arguing a companion case, they declined to question Malmo-Levine despite his pleas to "hammer away" at him.His arguments were nothing if not innovative, however.He argued that just as the court had created a prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, he should receive similar constitutional protection on the basis of "substance orientation" and "vocation orientation.""A natural preference or taste for herbs is a substance orientation," said the 31-year-old university dropout, sporting a black shirt, jacket, pants and boots, white tie, and multicoloured "hankie," all made from hemp."Why should not cannabis cafe operators receive vocation orientation protection?"He was charged in 1996 with possession of marijuana for the purposes of trafficking, when police raided a "Harm Reduction Club" in Vancouver which provided pot to its 1,800 members and which he helped run.Appealing to the court to strike down the law, he said: "For the vast section of people all over the world who have an innate feeling deep down inside they should have a right to self-medicate and control their own minds, you'll be heroes."Ironically, the federal government defended the law before the Supreme Court even though it plans to decriminalise the possession of small amounts of marijuana.The chief federal lawyer arguing the case, David Frankel, told Reuters that even under the proposed changes to the law, the government would keep criminal penalties for possession of larger amounts of pot and for trafficking in the substance.Ottawa's plans have drawn warnings from the Bush administration of a possible crackdown at the U.S. border.In the Supreme Court chamber, Malmo-Levine's supporters, with a mixture of pony-tails and bushy beards, flannel shirts and T-shirts emblazoned with the marijuana plant, stood out from the well-heeled legal crowd.Lawyer Paul Burstein, appearing ahead of Malmo-Levine, argued that the drug is harmless to 19 out of 20 users, but Justice Ian Binnie said 30,000 to 50,000 heavy users in Canada were still at risk of mental deterioration and other problems.Justice Charles Gonthier asked if the balancing of how harmful marijuana is was not a political question. Source: Reuters Author: Randall PalmerPublished: May 06, 2003 Copyright: 2003 Reuters News ServiceWebsite: http://www.reuters.comContact: http://about.reuters.com/custhelp/Related Articles & Web Site:Cannabis News Canadian Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/can.htmActivist Brings Pot Argument To Supreme Court http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16201.shtmlSmoking Pot No Serious Risk, Activist To Argue http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16198.shtmlActivist Wants Pot Legalized, Not Decriminalized http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16188.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #18 posted by FoM on May 14, 2003 at 07:17:20 PT Dark Star I watched that particular video from Pot TV and two other videos last night and I too was impressed. [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by Dark Star on May 14, 2003 at 07:08:09 PT I'd Say I was Wrong I would urge you to see this video of David Malmo-Levine at the Canadian Supreme Court:http://www.pot-tv.net/archive/shows/pottvshowse-1956.htmlSure, maybe is outfit is a little over the top, but what about those judicial togs? Relics of a prior age, I'd say.Forget about how he looks. He was eloquent, and focused. It was a fine performance, and I believe he communicated very well. [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by FoM on May 07, 2003 at 15:45:33 PT afterburner I saw the interview David did for one of the Canadian News Channels. He did a good job. That is about all I know about him other then recognizing his name. I wish him well. He is young and idealistic. I am not young and believe that I am becoming a realist. Somewhere in between those two ways of thinking are the years that we make our place in society, with family and friends. We search for our dreams. We want so many good things for ourselves and that is the time that we seem to achieve them. One time I said to Ron Bennett that he was smart for being young. My husband said I shouldn't have said that to him. I then told Ron that I only meant I had more years on this earth so I have seen more then him. He understood. I admit young folks are hard for me to understand but I too was an idealistic young person but time changes thinking. Whether it's good or not I don't know. I'm still finding out day after day.PS: I don't follow activists closely. I do that on purpose. I don't like forming opinions about people and if I don't pay a lot of attention and keep my eyes looking for news I just love everybody! It's peaceful for me that way. [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by afterburner on May 07, 2003 at 15:17:58 PT: Lehder David Malmo-Levine does not have a beard or a ponytail and neither do some of his friends: Marc Emery, Steve and Michelle Kubby, and Steve Tuck. This beard and ponytail thing is part of the original racist propaganda against pyschoactive plants: the Chinese had ponytails; the Chinese smoked opium; therefore, ponytails, bad. Native people in both Canada and USA were forcibly stripped of their culture in federal government-run boarding schools where their traditional long hair, often braided, was shorn, and they were punished for speaking their native languages. Mexican migrant workers frequently wore beards; Mexican migrant workers also smoked cannabis, hence, the slang term "marijuana"; and therefore, beards, bad. Cheech and Chong lampooned this with their comedy, which should not be interpreted as a portrait of typical cannabis smokers, anymore than Freddy the Freeloader (Red Skelton character) should be interpreted as a portrait of typical social drinkers. David Malmo-Levine is pushing the envelope, as a young buck. His goal is too render anti-cannabis laws unconstitutional for trafficking (for which he was charged) and growing, as well as for possession. This is merely an extension of what judges in three provinces have already ruled about possession. As far as "speaking in a spaced-out manner" I have heard David Malmo-Levine interviewed and he presented himself in a cogent and logical manner. Interview with activist and Pot-TV host David Malmo-Levine and Pot-TV Producer Marc Emery. http://www.pot-tv.net/ram/pottvshowse1939.ram"A man's reach should exceed his grasp or what's a heaven for?" -Robert Browning [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by ekim on May 07, 2003 at 12:34:00 PT only the beliver can deliver the message "For the vast section of people all over the world who have an innate feeling deep down inside they should have a right to self-medicate and control their own minds, you'll be heroes."After having mercilessly grilled a lawyer arguing a companion case, they declined to question Malmo-Levine despite his pleas to "hammer away" at him. [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by Lehder on May 07, 2003 at 11:47:39 PT Thank you, Dark Star It would be too restrictive to expect people to modify their attitudes or appearances for a public protest (I certainly made no compromise last Saturday) - but before the supreme court with the rights of all Canadians in the balance, absolutely.But I should have dispersed the blame more too, to the entire Canadian movement. Levine simply should not have been allowed to appear this way or to speak. If necessary, his friends and supporters should have cut off his weed supply or used whatever friendly coercion was needed. For the supreme court appearance, the movement should have seen that money and lawyers and managers and people to polish his shoes and powder his nose and keep his mouth buttoned were there 24/7. In this kind of case he cannot represent only himself. I hope that people of influence in the Canadian movement will read and heed my suggestions here and implement them in any forthcoming hearings of real import. [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by Dark Star on May 07, 2003 at 09:22:35 PT Lehder I agree with you. David has gotten his day in court, and his comportment is up to him. Unfortunately, the public makes judgment on appearances. It was his decision to go without counsel. It was his decision to wax prosaic. For better or worse, the fate of thousands will depend on the decision rendered in this case. So, if you are on the fence about smoking dope at a protest, whether to cut your hair for court, etc., it is best to make the decision to do whatever is going to make fewer waves and positively affect popular opinion. You don't have to like it, just do it. Others will thank you for it. [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by FoM on May 07, 2003 at 07:44:05 PT Lehder I guess because I am conservative I'm not use to being very outspoken. I don't even know who David is. I recognize the name but that's as much as I know about him. I recognize Chris Clay's name much more. These cases have gone on for a while now and it seems when they get to the medical marijuana issues in Canada the results seem more positive. That is just my opinion because I really don't know. Next week the medical marijuana issues will come up in court and I'm looking forward to seeing how that goes. I believe that we share our world with those who disagree with our beliefs and I respect their right to not think like me. I don't want to change the world. I just want a little corner of the world. Not much. Just a little corner. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by Lehder on May 07, 2003 at 07:33:20 PT Boo Malmo-Levine has done the legalization movement a disservice by adopting an in-your-face attitude before the Canadian justices. He could have dressed as he pleases, but sat silently while allowing his lawyer to do the talking - indicating Levine's good and functional citizenship by referring to his partial education and good works on behalf of the very ill. Levine's chosen demeanor would be appropriate before a local magistrate to whom he wishes to make a personalized cultural statement, but not before the supreme court where he seeks consideration not of his own rights alone but the rights of all Canadians to possess marijuana. Instead, by appearing in a Cheech and Chong outfit and insisting on speaking at length in a spaced out manner, Levine weakens and complicates his legal case with the implicit demand that judges buy into his personal lifestyle as a prerequisite to considering his legal case. It's an attitude that could easily have been calculated to fall flat, and there should be no surprise at all that the judges demurred in questioning him.I'm pointing at Levine, but I should probably be distributing the blame. Doesn't he have a lawyer who knows better? What about all his pony-tailed and bearded friends? Is there not one among them with a brain that can see the bigger question and the tiny compromisies that could be made to bring an acceptable resolution?The legalization movement seeks tolerance - the right to unobtrusively posses marijuana - not the unconditional surrender of one culture to another. Levine has vitiated an important public legal battle with a personal ego trip, and so, from the gallery, I am checking my natural instincts in deference to circumstance and merely bellowing BOOOOO. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by FoM on May 06, 2003 at 19:44:04 PT BGreen You're welcome and I'm glad you are ok. The storm is headed for us and it should be here tomorrow. It's getting bad out now with lightning but it's high in the sky so I'm ok with leaving the computer on. We are not in flat land and we tried to think when we built the house years ago where it would be best built to not get hit by a tornado. Last year a tornado jumped a cluster of trees and landed right on top of a house. So even trying to avoid them by locating where you feel it's right it's all up to Mother Nature and she can be mean and shows no partiality. That's one war that only she wins it seems sometimes. Everything a person owns can be lost in a few seconds and most important you can lose your life. Stay Safe! [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by BGreen on May 06, 2003 at 19:28:39 PT We're OK They say we're in for the same thing on Thursday and again on Saturday.Thanks for the prayers, FoM. There are thousands of people who've had their property damaged or worse who've lost family members.The Rev. Bud Green [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by FoM on May 06, 2003 at 17:25:44 PT BGreen I sure will. Be safe. I'll keep my eyes on the weather channel. Let us know how you are doing when the storms are over. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by BGreen on May 06, 2003 at 17:20:27 PT Tornadoes I know it's off topic, but these tornadoes are following the same paths as they did on Sunday. Places that were destroyed on Sunday are being hit with hail and heavy rain, and we've got tornadoes all over the place.Say a prayer for us.The Rev. Bud Green [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by afterburner on May 06, 2003 at 15:33:28 PT: Throw Out the Law Now... and then let the Parliament create their decriminalization, or other liberalization strategy, afresh!ego transcendence follows ego destruction, and suddenly there is no question. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by puff_tuff on May 06, 2003 at 15:16:32 PT From CBC Pot laws challenged at Supreme Court Webpage: http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/05/06/pot_case030506Audio Link: http://www.cbc.ca/clips/ram-audio/hall_w6030506.ramChris Hall reports for CBC Radio (Runs 2:08)Video Link: http://www.cbc.ca/clips/ram-lo/ditchburn_potlaw030506.ramJennifer Ditchburn reports for CBC TV (Runs 2:00) [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by afterburner on May 06, 2003 at 14:52:29 PT: Better link. Pot users have 'right to relaxation', top court told http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1051643390348&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968705899037ego transcendence follows ego destruction, and suddenly there is no problem. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by BGreen on May 06, 2003 at 14:52:21 PT Did this "Justice" read the Senate report? "Justice Ian Binnie said 30,000 to 50,000 heavy users in Canada were still at risk of mental deterioration and other problems."How does this compare to the millions of innocent lives prohibition has ruined?Speaking of threats, we're getting tornados again today here in Missouri. My sister was a mile away from one of the tornadoes on Sunday that damaged a WalMart (the same tornado had just killed a woman,) my brother 200 miles away in Kansas City saw a tornado take the roofs off of houses the street right behind his house (this tornado had killed somebody in Kansas City, Kansas,) and I drove right through the path of a tornado 15 minutes before it hit as I was racing home to beat the storm. It was a scary afternoon.More people died from tornadoes in Missouri on Sunday than have EVER died in 6,000 years from cannabis.And you guys thought that john walters was the only unwelcome destructive big wind blowing into the amerikan cities. LOLThe Rev. Bud Green [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by afterburner on May 06, 2003 at 14:43:34 PT: Basically the Same Story. Pot users have 'right to relaxation', top court told http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Render&inifile=futuretense.ini&c=Page&cid=968332188492&pubid=968163964505 Too bad court decisions don't work like elections, more stalling.ego transcendence follows ego destruction, and suddenly there is no problem. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment