cannabisnews.com: Pot Law Goes To High Court





Pot Law Goes To High Court
Posted by CN Staff on May 07, 2003 at 07:01:41 PT
By Tonda MacCharles, Ottawa Bureau
Source: Toronto Star 
Ottawa —This is as high as it gets for David Malmo-Levine.The 31-year-old Vancouver marijuana activist fortified himself with "a couple of hits" of hash from a water pipe and a marijuana joint, dressed head-to-toe in hemp clothing, and urged the Supreme Court of Canada yesterday to strike down the country's pot law. "The new test should be you don't go to jail unless your activities are inherently harmful to others," Malmo-Levine told the country's top court.
The Supreme Court heard three challenges to the constitutionality of the country's 80-year-old marijuana possession and trafficking law — the first time the court has undertaken such a review of the law.The nine justices listened impassively for 40 minutes as Malmo-Levine, acting as his own lawyer, argued his case in a courtroom filled with silk-robed lawyers, law students, and pot users, many dressed in hemp T-shirts and wreathed in the faint odour of pot. It's far from clear what the Supreme Court will now do in its review of a marijuana law that the federal government admits it is on the verge of liberalizing.A bill to reduce possession of small amounts of pot for personal use to a ticketing offence is to be tabled in June. The federal government says it would still be a criminal offence to possess large amounts of pot, or to traffic in the drug.The high court reserved its decision yesterday after a full day of arguments, and a ruling is not expected for several months.Malmo-Levine, and four other lawyers, argued the criminal law is unconstitutional because its potential penalties — jail and a criminal record — outweigh the harm caused, and violate Charter guarantees of liberty, security of the person, and principles of fundamental justice. It was clear by the laughter and applause that greeted Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's promise last week to decriminalize pot that "to that crowd and to many other Canadians, the law is a bit of a joke," said lawyer John Conroy, acting for a Vancouver man convicted of possessing a half-smoked joint in his van at a local beach."You have to assess what's the harm you're trying to prevent. Do you really need criminal prohibition?" said lawyer Paul Burstein, defending former London, Ont., hemp shop owner Chris Clay. Burstein noted every royal commission, inquiry and parliamentary committee in the past 30 years that has studied the law has urged reform, and said it is up to the courts now to determine whether the "heavy hammer of law" is warranted."Is it up to the court to deal with that or is it best left to Parliament?" interrupted Justice Charles Gonthier.Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin suggested Parliament had the right to enact criminal law prohibitions even if they protect only a small group of vulnerable people from harm.Malmo-Levine argued marijuana is no more harmful than alcohol, tobacco, or even caffeine, and said there should be a constitutionally protected "right to intoxication, relaxation and well-being" through one's own drug of choice under controlled or regulated conditions. Federal lawyer David Frankel dismissed Malmo-Levine's arguments, and said the Charter should not be used to elevate a recreational pursuit to the level of a constitutional right."There is no free-standing right to get stoned," he said.It is not up to the courts to decide whether a law is justified on the basis of whether it addresses a "serious or substantial harm," he said. Rather, the only question is whether Parliament had a rational basis to enact a given criminal law. Note: Supreme Court of Canada hears three challenges. Current penalties violate Charter, says pot activist.Source: Toronto Star (CN ON)Author: Tonda MacCharles, Ottawa BureauPublished: May 7, 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.htmSupreme Court Hears Arguments in Pot Law Case http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16207.shtmlPot Laws Challenged at Supreme Court http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16206.shtmlRelaxed Dope Activist Hits High Courthttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16202.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #4 posted by delariand on May 07, 2003 at 12:34:44 PT
Wish I was in that courtroom
"There is no free-standing right to get stoned," he said.However, there are free standing rights to life and liberty. Tell me, Mr. Lawyer, when I smoke marijuana, whose rights am I violating? Sitting at home smoking a joint doesn't violate anyone's rights, so what power does the government have to legislate the activity? Isn't the purpose of the government to protect the rights of the people?Think about it. A man smokes some pot, violating nobody's rights. Then, the man is arrested and charged. Nobody was harmed but the user, who wasn't harming anyone in the first place. Now, do you see?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Lehder on May 07, 2003 at 12:19:16 PT
it's not an 'intoxicant'
>>Federal lawyer David Frankel dismissed Malmo-Levine's arguments, and said the
   Charter should not be used to elevate a recreational pursuit to the level of a constitutional
   right.This attitude almost always goes unchallenged by reformers, though it ought to be most vigorously uprooted. Unfortunately, only Malmo-Levine was present, unrepresented, to demand a right to "intoxication." This worthless argument only makes marijuana seem - especially to the judges who are no doubt completely innocent of it true effects - like a cheap beer or rotgut.We all know that marijuana is not about "intoxication." Yes, it helps one relax and relieve stress. But it is also of general benefit to one's health; it cures insomnia and provides sound sleep without hangover; it prevents lung cancer in cigarette smokers; it was once prescribed by doctors for treatment of over a hundred ailements; and it's been used by millions of creative people throughout history as an enhancement to their productivity. All this, and without any notable undesirable side effects. Frankel's attitude is exactly what we call Bigotry. It's arises from Ignorance. It's our job to enlighten him, and we failed.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by afterburner on May 07, 2003 at 09:54:07 PT:
Rational Basis?
the only question is whether Parliament had a rational basis to enact a given criminal law. 
I hope someone in this triumvirate addresses this issue. Historically, the cannabis prohibition law was enacted on the basis of bigotry and propaganda, NOT "a rational basis"!ego transcendence follows ego destruction, and suddenly there is no problem.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by afterburner on May 07, 2003 at 09:45:53 PT:
Absurd!
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin suggested Parliament had the right to enact criminal law prohibitions even if they protect only a small group of vulnerable people from harm.Let's outlaw peanuts then since some "vunerable people" have a life-threatening reaction.ego transcendence follows ego destruction, and suddenly there is no problem.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment