cannabisnews.com: Opposition Slams Liberals for Consulting U.S. Opposition Slams Liberals for Consulting U.S. Posted by CN Staff on May 13, 2003 at 15:31:33 PT By Jim Brown Source: Canadian Press Ottawa -- Prime Minister Jean Chretien launched a campaign Tuesday to allay U.S. fears about marijuana decriminalization, but he succeeded only in provoking the wrath of opposition MPs who say he's letting the Bush administration make his policy.The New Democrats, Conservatives and Bloc Quebecois all cried foul when they learned Justice Minister Martin Cauchon was headed for Washington to brief U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft on the government's plans. The problem, they said, was that the Americans were getting the inside dope before legislation reforming the pot law is tabled in Parliament."There goes Canadian sovereignty up in smoke," complained NDP Leader Jack Layton. "Here's the American government advising on what Canadian policy will be before the House of Commons even has a look at it. It's quite astounding."Conservative Leader Joe Clark agreed that Cauchon should have come to Parliament "before he went trotting off to the White House."Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe wondered why it was so important to "obtain the permission of Washington" before taking legislative action.Chretien was unmoved, rejecting claims that Cauchon's consultation with Ashcroft on Tuesday would compromise Canadian sovereignty."Obviously, if the Americans want to know more on the subject of our bill, I have no objection to telling them something that Parliament will ultimately decide on," said the prime minister.Cauchon, meanwhile, wasn't about to tell Canadians what was said in the meeting with Ashcroft.His office said the event was private and the minister would not discuss what the pair spoke about."The minister is presently in Washington, he's meeting Mr. Ashcroft in a private meeting and there's no media availability," said spokeswoman Suzanne Thebarge.The Liberals are expected to bring in legislation by next week that would make possession of 15 grams or less of pot a minor offence, something like a traffic violation.Jails terms and criminal records for such offences would be eliminated and fines - possibly as little as $100 - would be imposed instead.But government strategists say Cauchon will move at the same time to boost penalties for growers and traffickers. The government is also widely expected to announce new spending on drug prevention, education and treatment, all aimed at discouraging use, especially be young people.Some officials in the Bush administration have expressed concern that changing the possession law in Canada could result in more pot crossing the U.S. border.Paul Cellucci, the American ambassador to Ottawa, has warned there may be longer lineups at border points as customs officers check for drugs.Chretien suggested the U.S. fears are largely a matter of perception that he and Cauchon want to counter.Several U.S. states have already decriminalized simple possession, the prime minister noted, and Canada wants to make it clear its own move in that direction won't mean outright legalization."We're modernizing the sentences for marijuana. It's not legal, we will not make it legal. The sentences will be different, they will be tougher for the growers, the traffickers, and less tough for the people who use it in small quantities."Cauchon said his briefing to Ashcroft would be confined to the broad objectives of the bill, with details to be filled in only when the legislation is made public in the Commons.The message to Washington, he said, would be that "the two countries are working exactly in the same direction . . . maintaining the illegality of drug use in our countries."There is some evidence, however, that Liberal policy has already been affected by criticism from south of the border.The proposed 15-gram limit for non-criminal possession is half the 30 grams recommended by a Commons committee and a far cry from the outright legalization urged by a Senate committee.The lower limit is believed to have been adopted in part because new strains of more potent pot make it easier to get higher on smaller doses.American officials have been particularly worried about so-called B.C. bud, a Canadian-grown product that has been finding its way into the United States.Complete Title: Opposition Slams Liberals for Consulting U.S. on Pot Law Before ParliamentSource: Canadian Press Author: Jim BrownPublished: Tuesday, May 13, 2003Copyright: 2003 The Canadian PressRelated Articles & Web Site:Cannabis News Canadian Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/can.htmChretien Tries To Soothe U.S. Fears Over Pothttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16280.shtmlCauchon To Brief U.S. on Pot Law Changes http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16278.shtmlCauchon Brushes Off Pot Concerns http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16277.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #26 posted by afterburner on May 14, 2003 at 16:13:53 PT: Canada Supreme Court Challenge: Other Side & Close The Canadian Supreme Court Cannabis Law Challenge Part 4: S.David Frankel - The Canadian Supreme Court Cannabis Law Challenge with Pot-TV Running Time: 48 min Date Entered: 14 May 2003 Representing the Canadian Department of Justice, S. David Frankel argues against the unconstitutionality of the current Marijuana Laws, and pleas to the Judges to acknowledge the current laws on the books as they stand. http://www.pot-tv.net/ram/pottvshowse1960.ram***********************The Canadian Supreme Court Cannabis Law Challenge Part 5: Closing Arguments - The Canadian Supreme Court Cannabis Law Challenge with Pot-TV Running Time: 44 min Date Entered: 14 May 2003 S. David Frankel continues with his assault on Liberty and Freedom, and John Conroy, David Malmo-Levine and Paul Burstein present their closing arguements. http://www.pot-tv.net/ram/pottvshowse1961.ramego transcendence follows ego destruction, heart by heart, mind by mind, until eventually there is no problem. [ Post Comment ] Comment #25 posted by goneposthole on May 14, 2003 at 14:58:30 PT storm clouds deep, dark storm clouds. Very grim picture, indeed. Run and hide. [ Post Comment ] Comment #24 posted by malleus2 on May 14, 2003 at 11:58:02 PT Sorry, Sam, my mistake in misunderstanding But for those interested in this and other examples of what may actually be going on:I would like to take the opportunity to acquaint many of the readers here with the work of Dr. Ravi Batra, who has been scarily close in predicting what we are presently going through (middle class vanishing, enormous amounts of wealth and political power being concentrated in the hands of a few, social fabric unravelling as a result, etc.) for the last 20 years or so. His premise is that the more wealth concentrated in the hands of the super-rich means less left for everyone else...and leads to economic depression...with all the social woes that go along with that. Social woes that can get so bad that revolutions in places like Venezuela have led to the rise of politicians like Hugo Chavez, which the global money men who run this machine are desperately trying to destroy...before other countries get the same idea and show these financial vampires the door.Most of what we have been experiencing, especially these last 10 years, has been almost a mirror of Dr. Batra's writings.The people at the very top of the economic pyramid know that they can, in the end when the final results of their greed bear ugly fruit, expect violence against them. That these people are also often the heads of governments or their tools make it possible for them to use the apparatus of the State to quell the inevitable backlash by using the police to keep the 'rabble' (you and me, people) in check.But in America, the rabble are not unarmed...hence the 'upping the ante' of giving police forces military equipment and training. It would never have gone over well had there not been one neat little avenue the powerful could use to camouflage their plans: the War on Drugs. Under the false justification that the druglords would willingly go toe-to-toe with police using their much greater firepower, the flawed reasoning went that the police had to have parity in making mayhem. That was the justification for the massive arming of police around the country with military weapons.(When was the last time a drug group exchanged automatic weapons fire with police in America? I don't know of any such instances...)But the real reason is slowly unfolding in front of our eyes. Namely, the country is being driven into the economic depths by the greed and power hunger of the people running Herr Busch. And when enough people wake up and realize what's happening and take to the streets, the police forces will be waiting to 'restore order'...in the most brutal way possible. [ Post Comment ] Comment #23 posted by Sam Adams on May 14, 2003 at 10:18:11 PT Wait No, I was agreeing w/ your comment on militarization of our society. Take a look at the last 25 years: The disparity between rich and poor has double and tripled. Through globalization, the middle class is slowly being eliminated - the rich elite want their share!You have correctly surmised where that trend goes - revolution. The middle class has always been the buffer between rich and poor, between control and chaos. The rich elite give the middle class enough of a cut of the $$ to buy their demographic support. With no middle class to buffer things, you will need muscle to control the masses.That's why the more terrorism, drug crime and violence there is, the better it is for the government. It's an age-old technique: Use force against us, so we can justify using even greater force against you! Reformers need to understand that the WOD has been a spectacular success for government. More violence = more LEO and more heavily armed LEO. More terrorism = double the size of the army. More drug use = more tax money to fight it. More tax money means more propoganda. More propaganda means the masses will support having their rights and freedoms taken away.There's a reason they hold onto the Drug War with everything they've got - both Dems and Republicans. It's their best idea ever! [ Post Comment ] Comment #22 posted by malleus2 on May 14, 2003 at 09:58:43 PT Sorry, Sam, but I meant the US electorate realizing that not only is Busch and his greedy, oil-slimed coterie unlawfully occupying the White House, but that they are also bleedin' bughouse crazy if they think they can take on the whole planet. This latest bit with cannabis being a sticking point between two long time friends is just plain nutso. Up north, Walter's diatribes are greeted with polite silence in much the same way you do the statements of a Downs Syndrome victims who obviously don't know what they are talking about.And we pay this man's salary to LIE, LIE, and LIE some more? Shameful, just shameful... [ Post Comment ] Comment #21 posted by Sam Adams on May 14, 2003 at 07:57:48 PT malleus You're so right....think about this also: If our military wasn't 20 times the size of the Canadian military, do you think Cauchon would be flying into Washington?Canada is going to have to realize that a fence-sitting position is not viable for them. They're going to have to cast their lot with the EU or the US eventually. [ Post Comment ] Comment #20 posted by FoM on May 14, 2003 at 07:24:42 PT Kegan Thank you for understanding. [ Post Comment ] Comment #19 posted by 2Spooky on May 14, 2003 at 07:16:14 PT Good analogy Kegan, that Zap Brannigan/Kip thing is priceless....too right on :) [ Post Comment ] Comment #18 posted by malleus2 on May 14, 2003 at 06:31:26 PT The 'Fat Lady' hasn't sung yet As I had said last week, I had gone to (deliriously beautiful, and I mean both the city and its' people) Vancouver for the Toker's Bowl and participated in the march. I also had plenty of opportunity to watch Canadian TV...and their news programs.One refreshingly different thing I noticed was the seriousnes that the media up there took the issue. (Perhaps the perceived seriousness was a product of my own mind, or a result of local concerns, but I think not.) From an American's viewpoint, the media was largely without the typically American wink-wink, nudge-nudge, snicker-snicker condescending attitude towards the matter. In fact, some of the luminaries up there such as David Malmo-Levine were being questioned very respectfully by Canadian TV news personnel.But it was also what they said that was of even greater importance: if fines are imposed, they will be fought in court, and the result will clog the overburdened legal system to the point the government would be forced to stop the fine scheme and create de facto legalization. They mean it. They'll do it. It's not an idle threat. A fact which I am sure the Chretien government is quite well aware of.It's so obvious that the only reason at all that the Canucks were even entertaining the thought of fines was the US's grudging demand to have, if not a pound of flesh from cannabists, then maybe a few chunks, to satisfy DrugWarriors inherently sadistic urges. But try to stop the flow of goods across the border, and watch what happens to border states whose economies are already on the ropes. Every border state in the belt below the 49th Parallel has significant ties to our Northern neighbors, and can't do with out the raw material and finished goods that cross every day. No goods? No sales. No sales? No employment. No employment...in a country which recently (and very quietly) gave Israel 15 billion dollars but then turns around and tells it's own workers at Christmastime that sorry, it has no more money for unemployment bennie extensions? Does anyone hear a ticking time bomb? Messing with the Canucks, risking a trade war which we would LOSE big time, over such a trifling thing as cannabis, should finally decide even the most Crazy-Glued-arsed fence-sitter that the present regime is being run by nutcases.(In an aside: This is partly the reason why police have been militarized; times are bad and getting worse, and the people who have benefitted from that want to keep on getting richer at your expense. And know that when it finally sinks in that this is indeed class warfare, will try to do something about it. Desperate people look to an unresponsive, corporately controlled government and get the finger and a smug smirk. And a threat that if they don't sit down and shut up and continue being good little victims, worse things will happen to them. To carry out that threat, you need muscle. Goons. Which is what our police forces have already been trained to be courtesy of the war on Drugs. All this was set up decades ago.) [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by Doobinie on May 14, 2003 at 06:11:15 PT Mayan, relax, it's all good... Hi Mayan,I agree with your sentiment. It was also my first reaction to the news that our Justice Minister was going to consult with Ashcroft about the changes.However, take these statements in context:"Cauchon said his briefing to Ashcroft would be confined to the broad objectives of the bill, with details to be filled in only when the legislation is made public in the Commons."And "The message to Washington, he said, would be that "the two countries are working exactly in the same direction . . . maintaining the illegality of drug use in our countries."I think that he is just messing with Ashcroft. He went to see him just to assure him that we will maintain the illegality of drug use in our countries? That means nothing. Illegality is just a legal term that means nothing to the practice, as we have already seen in the Canadian context. When he talks about "details to be filled in only when the legislation is made public in the Commons", I think he means that the methods to be used to "maintain the illegality of drugs" might not be what Ashcroft had bargained for. Ashcroft may have given his reluctant blessing (if he did) to something very vague. By the time it passes in parliament, it will be too late to comment. The mention of cracking down on growers is also quite vague. I would not be surprised if the proposed legislation permits growing in small amounts, such as 2 or 3 plants at a time, for small time users. other articles have mentioned cracking down on grow ops, which is understood here as being a large-ish, for-profit endeavour. Also, the 15 gram limit is only a rumour. Let's wait for the legislation to be tabled and made public and see.I have not lost hope. I figure that the government is just buying time in hopes that the Supreme Court will take this off their hands by striking down marijuana prohibition on constitutional grounds, which will effectively make the 1961 U.N. Narcotics treaty null and void in this country, and thus result in more freedom for Canadians.Love and Peace from Soviet Canuckistan,Doobinie [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by Kegan on May 14, 2003 at 03:57:20 PT Appologies Yeah..... sorry about that.I just feel like Canada must be the laughingstock by now.The weird little nerd with a suit that is a size to big, who is forced to tag around with this big brash bossy chauvanistic, bigoted, heavily-armed, drug-addled, xenophobic blow-hard.Like the world is going "Well, the big one is a jerk, but his little GIRLfriend is just pathetic."You know, like Zap Branagan on "Futurama"... and his little sadsack buddy Kip.Makes me wanna puke. [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by afterburner on May 13, 2003 at 22:39:55 PT: Background on Canadian Supreme Court Challenge Canada's Supreme Court hears marijuana challenge - On May 6, Canada's Supreme Court heard a comprehensive three-part challenge to the constitutionality of Canada's marijuana laws. F U L L S T O R Y http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/2955.htmlego transcendence follows ego destruction, until eventually there is no question. [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by FoM on May 13, 2003 at 20:52:46 PT afterburner I'm impressed! It might take me another day to watch all the programs but I will. Thank goodness for Pot-TV! [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by FoM on May 13, 2003 at 20:33:27 PT Thanks afterburner I'm now watching the first show. [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by afterburner on May 13, 2003 at 20:27:58 PT: The Canadian Supreme Court Cannabis Law Challenge The following three parts broadcast on CPAC have been edited to fit their 4 hour format:The Canadian Supreme Court Cannabis Law Challenge Part 1: Paul Burstein - The Canadian Supreme Court Cannabis Law Challenge with Pot-TV Running Time: 1 hr 2 min Date Entered: 13 May 2003 Canadian Lawyer Paul Burstein, representing Christopher Clay, is the first up to bat in the Canadian Cannabis Supreme Court Challenge. http://www.pot-tv.net/ram/pottvshowse1955.ram********************The Canadian Supreme Court Cannabis Law Challenge Part 2: David Malmo-Levine - The Canadian Supreme Court Cannabis Law Challenge with Pot-TV Running Time: 34 min Date Entered: 13 May 2003 Canadian activist and Pot TV host David Malmo-Levine represents himself as the second representative in Canadian Supreme Court Challenge. http://www.pot-tv.net/ram/pottvshowse1956.ram********************The Canadian Supreme Court Cannabis Law Challenge: John Conroy - The Canadian Supreme Court Cannabis Law Challenge with Pot-TV Running Time: 40 min Date Entered: 13 May 2003 John Conroy, Lawyer to the Pot-Stars, presents his views on the unconstitutionality of the current Canadian cannabis laws to the Supreme Court. http://www.pot-tv.net/ram/pottvshowse1959.ramego transcendence follows ego destruction, until eventually there is no problem. [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by FoM on May 13, 2003 at 19:59:25 PT The GCW Thanks for posting the press release from MPP. I think that seems right on. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by The GCW on May 13, 2003 at 19:50:41 PT FoM I agree with You: "Decrim will not settle well up there."+ as We slam... I want to post MPP's viewpoint, showing not only how We have states that already incorporated the laws Canada is introducing, but that those states do not have higher cannabis use and in fact it may be lower.U.S. Threats Fail to Block Canadian Marijuana Reform / May 13Introduction of Government Proposal to Modernize Law Expected This WeekWASHINGTON, D.C. -- Several Canadian newspapers have reported that Prime Minister Jean Chretien is ready to move ahead with legislation to remove criminal penalties for personal possession of small quantities of marijuana, despite U.S. government pressure to quash such a move. According to a May 10 story in the Globe and Mail, one of Canada's national newspapers, introduction of the bill could come as early as this Thursday. The Globe and Mail story indicated that under the proposal, individuals with less than 15 grams of marijuana (roughly half an ounce) would receive a ticket and fine but would not face jail or a criminal record. "The Canadian government is proposing a modest reform that will place Canada's marijuana laws squarely in the international mainstream," said Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, D.C. "Drug Czar John Walters has been hypocritically threatening the Canadians not to decriminalize marijuana, attempting to prevent them from doing what Great Britain and a dozen U.S. states have already done." The 12 states where marijuana possession is not punishable by jail are Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Oregon. White House Drug Czar John Walters and other U.S. officials have warned Canadians that reducing penalties for possession would lead to more marijuana being grown and shipped to the U.S. But U.S. government-funded research suggests that harsh criminal penalties have little impact on either use or cultivation. An exhaustive National Research Council review, released in April 2001, concluded, "Existing research seems to indicate that there is little apparent relationship between the severity of sanctions prescribed for drug use and prevalence or frequency of use. ... Most cross-state comparisons ... have found no significant differences in the prevalence of marijuana use in decriminalized and nondecriminalized states." The U.S. Justice Department's 2003 National Drug Threat Assessment reports "widespread, stable availability of marijuana throughout the country," despite variations in state laws. While California is a major site of marijuana production, so are Kentucky and Tennessee, both of which maintain penalties of up to a year in prison for possession of small amounts. Florida, with prison terms of up to a year for possession of just 20 grams, "appears to be the site not only of increasing indoor cultivation but also of increasingly organized growing operations," according to the NDTA, while many states with fine-only policies -- including Mississippi, New York, and Ohio -- rate little or no mention in the NDTA's description of leading cultivation locations.http://www.mpp.org/releases/nr051303.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by FoM on May 13, 2003 at 19:28:06 PT Something I Want To Mention Richard Lake's son needs surgery if you aren't aware of it. He will be operated on this coming Thursday. It might be nice to send Richard an email with good wishes if you want. I'm going to do that. I don't expect him to answer but it might make him feel better. Thought I'd pass this information on to everyone. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by FoM on May 13, 2003 at 19:22:34 PT Thanks Virgil That's Right I Think Some words are hard for me to figure out which ones to use. I always liked words to increase your word power in the Readers Digest but didn't do very well often. We received the RD as a gift and that's about all I would look at.As far as Canada goes it isn't over. Decrim will not settle well up there. The reason I think it could be a good thing to at least start change is because it will show the US in time that it isn't going to cause crazyiness up there or down here. I haven't 4.20 but I don't buy many things to spend any money. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by Virgil on May 13, 2003 at 19:13:26 PT FoM, Is that expletives Is the situation not going to rise to the top of conversations. Remember how we were stuck on shark attacks and Congressman Condit before everything became war, war, war? Cannabis will show Canada what kind of leaders Canada has and who they follow.Now we insist on exporting insanity. What will Canada tell the children and who will furnish the lies? What if the Senate says it is all crap, which it really is? The Senate studied the issue and called for legalization. When legalization is the clear solution for the issue how do you argue for laws that may well be struck down by the Supreme Court?The world is watching Canada because it is bigger than any show going including shark attacks. What will they tell the children? I now have 12 $4.20 oil purchases. And you. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by FoM on May 13, 2003 at 18:57:51 PT Kegan I was really uncomfortable with you post so I removed it. Please don't take it personally. Thanks again. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by ekim on May 13, 2003 at 18:47:55 PT so how much do they figure they will save has anyone said how much the new decrim bill will save Canada. one would think that would be the news, on another note today Tommy Thompson said today that the fast food people should serve more nutrious food. the Hemp industry should flood the HHS office with good food and oil, it should be accompanied with a list of all of its health benifits. seems that the new millionairs will be in Hemp fast foods lets just make sure that the USA will be growing the product as well, especially now with the Gov't pushing GMO food down our throuts. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by FoM on May 13, 2003 at 18:42:23 PT Kegan I understand you're upset. We all are. Let's try to avoid explicits. I hope I'm saying that right. Thank you. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by mayan on May 13, 2003 at 18:09:28 PT Goodbye, Canadian Sovereignty! "There goes Canadian sovereignty up in smoke," complained NDP Leader Jack Layton. "Here's the American government advising on what Canadian policy will be before the House of Commons even has a look at it. It's quite astounding."Kiss your sovereignty goodbye, Canada. You are now the 51st U.S. state. Don't worry, you'll still be free to shop."We're modernizing the sentences for marijuana. It's not legal, we will not make it legal. The sentences will be different, they will be tougher for the growers, the traffickers, and less tough for the people who use it in small quantities."But someone has to grow it & someone has to traffick it in order for the small-time users to obtain it! Does this make any sense? You can possess it(and get fined) but you can't grow it or buy it! There will soon be more DEAth agents in Canada than you can shake a stick at & they will be sending more Canadians to prison than ever before! Canada will also learn what asset forfeiture is all about. Plus, the U.S. prison,drug testing & rehab industries are all expanding north. So, how does it feel to be the 51st U.S. state?The way out is the way in...Green light for Moore's 9/11 film: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/05/13/1052591770121.htmlGOP trying to stop Moore's 9/11 film: http://gopusa.com/cgi-bin/ib3/ikonboard.pl?act=ST;f=9;t=3400Bush May Invoke Executive Privilege to Keep 9/11 Documents Away From Congressional Investigators: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/05/09/2211255&mode=thread&tid=51 9/11 Cover Up by the Bush's Administration: http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/1610361.php9/11 Film Draws Overflow Crowd: http://onlinejournal.com/Media/050703Lynn/050703lynn.html9/11 Prior Knowledge/Government Involvement Archive: http://www.propagandamatrix.com/archiveprior_knowledge9/11 Facts: http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/9_11_facts.html9/11 CitizensWatch: http://www.911citizenswatch.org/ [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by The GCW on May 13, 2003 at 16:05:12 PT Back down from backing down. Interesting developments... "There goes Canadian sovereignty up in smoke," complained NDP Leader Jack Layton. "Here's the American government advising on what Canadian policy will be before the House of Commons even has a look at it. It's quite astounding."...There is some evidence, however, that Liberal policy has already been affected by criticism from south of the border.The proposed 15-gram limit for non-criminal possession is half the 30 grams recommended by a Commons committee and a far cry from the outright legalization urged by a Senate committee.=-=Canada should get back to the business of Re-legalizing cannabis and not listening to those who claim cannabis is poison. "Washington believes that Canada’s drug policy will subvert its own strategy and poison American youth." http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread16276.shtml [ Post Comment ] Post Comment