cannabisnews.com: Appeal of Pot Acquittal Should Be Rushed 





Appeal of Pot Acquittal Should Be Rushed 
Posted by CN Staff on June 10, 2003 at 12:05:44 PT
By The Canadian Press
Source: Canadian Press 
Toronto -- The appeal of a precedent-setting marijuana acquittal should be rushed through the justice system so the courts can have a clear answer on the drug's legality, a judge said Tuesday.An Ontario teenager's pot possession charges were thrown out of court on Jan. 2 when a judge ruled there was no legal basis to ban simple possession of the drug, since Ottawa failed to comply with a July 2000 order to create a new law dealing with marijuana.
The ruling was appealed but on May 16, Superior Court Justice Steven Rogin upheld the decision. The lawyer who challenged the law on behalf of his 17-year-old client said at the time the ruling "effectively erased the criminal prohibition on marijuana possession from the law books in Ontario."On Tuesday, the federal Justice Department sought to stay the precedent-setting decision until another appeal could be heard but Justice Louise Charron denied the motion. She did, however, order an expedited appeal of the case to ensure that Canada's cluttered marijuana laws can be clarified.Attorneys were aiming for late July to assemble a panel of judges and begin the appeal.Since Rogin's decision, judges and justices of the peace have been dismissing or adjourning cases involving small amounts of marijuana. Police officials in Ontario have said they will not lay any charges for possession under 30 grams until the legal situation can be clarified.Rogin's decision came about two weeks before the Liberal government announced it was moving to eliminate criminal penalties for simple possession of marijuana, hoping to have the legislation passed by the end of the year.Under the new proposed laws introduced by Justice Minister Martin Cauchon, possession of up to 15 grams of pot - enough to roll about 15 or 20 joints - would be a minor offence that carries no criminal record.Violators would be ticketed and ordered to pay fines ranging from $100 to $250 for youths and from $150 to $400 for adults.Complete Title: Appeal of a Teen's Pot Acquittal Should Be Rushed Through Courts, Judge RulesSource: Canadian Press Published: Tuesday, June 10, 2003Copyright: 2003 The Canadian PressRelated Articles & Web Site:Cannabis News Canadian Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/can.htmNo Laws Ban Possession of Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16321.shtmlMarijuana Legal in Ontario http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16326.shtmlMarijuana Possession Law Erasedhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16320.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #10 posted by Richard Paul Zuckerm on June 11, 2003 at 07:37:55 PT:
THE REASONS WHY CANNABIS LAWS SHOULD BE REPEALED
The Marijuana laws should be repealed:I.THE HYPOCRISYThe United States Central Intelligence Agency launders over $200 billion per year of TAX FREE drug money thru Wall Street, www.fromthewilderness.com; www.expertwitnessradio.org, www.sumeria.net/politics/shadv3.html, while otherwise law abiding Americans are villified for responsible Marijuana use. The DEA will never stop the drug war because the CIA, Vice President Dick Cheney, Richard Armitage, are [allegedly] involved in this massive drug money laundering. People may not believe it because the public school curriculum is rigged, www.johntaylorgatto.com, major media is manipulated, and people are generally conditioned to be good sheep, to love their masters, the federal government.II.THE FAILURES OF THE COURTSThe courts of law should step in and strike down the marijuana laws. Unfortunately, the great majority of the courts have upheld the constitutionality of the Marijuana laws. There were a few freedom-loving opinions from a few State courts, though. In State v. Mallan, 950 P.2d 178, 208-209, 218-219 (Hawii 1998)(Dissenting opinion by Justice Levinson), Justice Levinson opined that the Marihuana laws are against the freedoms the American people were guaranteed and in violation of the Hawaii State Constitution Right to privacy. In State v. Holland, N.J.Super. (App. Div. 2001?), the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey reversed the conviction because the police did not have the authority to force their way into the apartment without a search warrant after the smell of marijuana smoke emanated from same apartment. In Ravin v. State, P.2d (Alaska 197 ), the Supreme Court of Alaska declared the Marijuana laws unconstitutional as a violation of the Alaska State Constitutional guarantee Right to privacy. We need to litigate for the State courts to enforce the State Constitutions to give greater protection for the individual citizen than the federal constitution, including through the use of expert witnessness such as Dr. Lester Grinspoon, M.D., to inform the jury of the relative safety of Cannabis, for jury nullification purposes.III.LEGISLATIVE MALPRACTICEWe need to get on our elected officials, to let them know we do want decriminalization of Marijuana. Otherwise, they will act in the best interest of the corporations, assuming the votes are not manipulated, www.votescam.com. I must have communicated too much to New York State Assemblywoman Catherine Nolan because, today, Wednesday, June 11, 2003, at around 9:45, she told me she received my letters & e-mails, "I will not be harassed", and lied to me that her e-mail address, nolanc assembly.state.ny.us, is on the New York State Assembly Web site!! Prior to our telephone conversation, though, I e-mailed her the upcoming Cannabis Pain Management Lecture from the upcoming events section from www.cannabisculture.com, to show her that Cannabis does have medical uses. I do not plan on contacting Assemblywoman Nolan for a while now, based on her comment, lie, and rushing me off of the phone. There are too many people who are slothful, have the attitude that there is nothing an individual can do. I would rather try, even if it is only me.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by FoM on June 10, 2003 at 14:19:37 PT
TroutMask
Thank you. Now that I really am confused they need to throw the laws out against cannabis in my opinion. It wasn't what you said that confuses me but the confusion in general. One way in a battle to win is to confuse the enemy. Maybe that has happened and Cannabis will be legal soon in Canada.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by CorvallisEric on June 10, 2003 at 14:03:09 PT
Re: Lehder
Neat test! I won't say anything about it except to note, as it says, that it's from 1990.I feel much the same way about TV and almost never watch contemporary "entertainment" and "infotainment" for one additional reason important to me, and more than just the time wasted. In a way that I can't easily explain, I find my world constricted rather than expanded after watching. I somehow feel worse about myself and the whole world after watching than before. The opposite 
effect as listening to public radio, for example.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by TroutMask on June 10, 2003 at 14:02:31 PT
As I understand...
"The marijuana (canabis) law in Canada was overturned because the Legislature failed to act on a Supreme Court ruling that mandated the government provide safe access to citizens with a medical necessity to canabis. If that is true, then what is there to appeal?"The current case of whether simple marijuana possession is or is not legal goes like this:The Supreme Court ruled that the law banning simple possession is unconstitutional because it doesn't allow for medical use. The Supreme Court ruled that the law is invalid and therefore will go away, but ruled that the law would remain in effect for one year to allow the government to re-write the law to allow for medical use. Instead, the government wrote up provisions to the law allowing medical use ***but they never replaced the law itself***. As ordained by the Supreme Court, the law went away and was never replaced regardless of any provisions that may or may not have made the law constitutional. The law itself still had to be re-created.So this particular case is based on the "technicality" that the law was never re-created. This case has no direct bearing on the constitutionality of the law itself, but only whether the law exists at all in light of the Supreme Court striking it down and it never having been replaced. "And how will the new legislation decrimializing simple possesion get them over the Supreme Court ruling? Is the new law going to provide access for medical patients so they can address the Supreme Court decision?"That's a big question because there is so much going on in a number of different cases. Maybe it is easiest to describe the government's position: There IS still a law against simple marijuana possession. It IS constitutional because provisions were written allowing medical access. Therefore, decriminalizing marijuana for non-medical users has no bearing whatsoever on medical access.There are a number of cases against this:
1. A case that states the law itself is gone because it was never replaced
2. A case that states that criminalizing use by anyone is unconstitutional
2. A case that states that the provisions made to the law didn't go far enough to provide medical access and therefore the law is goneIMHO, the government is losing all of these.-TM
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by FoM on June 10, 2003 at 13:35:37 PT
Prime
I'm with you. I'm not sure what this means. Isn't it July that they must have access to medical marijuana in place or the law is thrown out? Between, decriminalization, legalization and medical I can't see how the laws against Cannabis can stand at all in Canada. Maybe it's wishful thinking on my part. I hope not.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Prime on June 10, 2003 at 13:28:14 PT
Help me out here...
The marijuana (canabis) law in Canada was overturned because the Legislature failed to act on a Supreme Court ruling that mandated the government provide safe access to citizens with a medical necessity to canabis.If that is true, then what is there to appeal? And how will the new legislation decrimializing simple possesion get them over the Supreme Court ruling? Is the new law going to provide access for medical patients so they can address the Supreme Court decision?Where am I off here?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Lehder on June 10, 2003 at 13:27:14 PT
123
1)International boycott of Coca Cola begins July 22:http://nyc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=62020&group=webcastAmong the reasons,"For using coca to make its products and its support of the criminal policies of the United States against communities whose culture
        and survival depends on coca leaves, especially in Bolivia, Peru and Colombia. "2)Take this drug test: http://www.hoboes.com/html/Politics/Prohibition/drugtest.html3) Television. 
I've been down on television for a long time and was thinking today how the bad effects drug warriors enjoy falsely attributing to reefer can be truthfully ascribed to television. Television is certainly addictive for millions of suffers who have been reduced to ignorance, it's a slippery slope to obesity, and it has a symbiotic relationship with amotivational syndrome. From now on, when I hear mention of television, I'm going to react with shock - as if someone had told me they're addicted to drugs (if they watch television then they probably are). I'll ask if they realize what they're doing to their minds and advise them to use the Internet instead. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by BigDawg on June 10, 2003 at 13:06:47 PT
Wow
Interesting link.After 40 operations I guess she IS alittle less than excited about ANOTHER operation. Let her have some relief.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by FoM on June 10, 2003 at 12:23:18 PT
Thank phil
I like posting a link like this to an article where names are mentioned. That way it won't come up as easily in a search tool incase the person really doesn't want their name out there. If I have any doubts anymore I don't post something. I know how it upset people in the past and I removed the articles. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by phil_debowl on June 10, 2003 at 12:19:05 PT
Judge says drug wasn't a medical necessity 
http://www.dailyherald.com/mchenry/main_story.asp?intID=37782135
Judge says drug wasn't a medical necessity 
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment