cannabisnews.com: Pot Possession Charges On Hold





Pot Possession Charges On Hold
Posted by CN Staff on June 13, 2003 at 13:15:24 PT
By Lance Anderson 
Source: Peterborough This Week 
Cheech and Chong would be happy men in Peterborough now that local police are loosening their hold on pot possession charges -- at least for the time being.Both Peterborough-Lakefield police and Peterborough County OPP refuse to charge people with possession if nailed with less than 30 grams of pot. Anything over that amount and possession for the purpose of trafficking charges will be laid.
City police sergeant Rob Hotston says while it may seem police will look the other way when coming across a person's stash, that's the furthest thing from the truth."We will still seize the drugs and arrest the individual but they could be released unconditionally," explains Sgt. Hotston."We're not turning a blind eye. Somewhere down the line we may be laying charges."He says the names of people found in possession of marijuana will be recorded, adding when future legislation regarding pot possession is passed, police will deal with them accordingly.The OPP are treating pot possession charges the same way, says Senior Constable Robert LaFreniere."Officers are to use their discretion," he adds."Charges may not be laid immediately."Both police services are taking the same position as the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police. They came to a decision recently to put a halt on possession charges.Sgt. Hotston says a number of factors led to the decision, but the main one, he adds, is the current court system.Lately, possession charges have been thrown out of court and that is wasting police resources, he says.One high-profile case took place near Windsor. A young man, says Sgt. Hotston, was arrested for possession and found not guilty by a judge.The judge said the reasoning for his decision surrounded a gap in the Controlled Drugs and Substance Act as well as the federal government's constant talk of decriminalizing marijuana.Decriminalizing doesn't mean marijuana will be legal but police may be directed to issue a fine as opposed to a criminal charge.Regardless, the uncertainty is putting police across the province between a rock and hard place."If the courts are not willing to process charges, it places a burden on our resources. It puts police in the province in the middle because the (possession) law is still in place," says Sgt. Hotston."The law is the law until it's changed by Parliament, so we have to tread a fine line."He adds Peterborough police have not publicly stated an opinion about pot laws in general.He says it's not a police service's job to provide social commentary about government decisions.However, in an article that appeared in This Week last December, Chief Terry McLaren said he was in favour of relaxing Canada's marijuana laws but not in favour of complete legalization.He added decriminalizing marijuana possession for small amounts would allow his officers to focus their attention on more serious crimes. At the time, about 98 per cent of the cases his front-line officers dealt with were for marijuana possession.In the meantime, Sgt. Hotston wants to assure citizens that officers will still attempt to remove drugs from the streets."There's an expectation on the part of the public that we enforce the laws. But in the general scheme of things, we have to deal with the reality of the situation itself." Source: Peterborough This Week (CN ON)Author: Lance Anderson Published: June 13, 2003Copyright: 2003 Peterborough This WeekContact: newsroom peterboroughthisweek.comWebsite: http://www.peterboroughthisweek.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Cannabis News Canadian Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/can.htmJudge Allows Marijuana Ruling To Stand http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16592.shtmlPolice Backing Off on Pothttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16556.shtmlArresting Pot Smokers Not Worth The Effort http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16555.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #3 posted by afterburner on June 16, 2003 at 11:55:01 PT:
Re- Grow-op Owner Forefeits House To Crown 
Illegal grow-ops are a direct response to the federal government's prohibition mindset regarding the traditional medical and spiritual herb, cannabis. If you would let people grow it outside legally, regulated by the government, then, there would be no criminals stealing electricity and damaging the environment with illegal grow-ops, indoor or outdoor. The public is waiting for changes that will remove the criminal stigma. The courts are waiting for a legal supply for medical cannabis patients. The lame decriminalization bill being considered by Parliament is a Jeckl-and-Hyde monstrosity: you can smoke it (Dr. Jeckl, the knowledgeable man of medical science), but you can't buy it (Mr. Hyde, the destroying monster, the unenviable position of law enforcement).The following excerpt traces a partial history of the changes in Canadian cannabis law from the Narcotic Control Act to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act: 
The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, was first introduced in February of 1994 by the Liberal government as Bill C-7. The bill very closely resembled Bill C-85, introduced by the Conservative government in June, 1992 and harshly criticised by the Liberals. Bill C-7 was technically a "health" bill, introduced into the House of Commons by the Minister of Health. The bill officially had its roots in the federal health department but its content came primarily from the department of justice and the office of the solicitor general. The bill was drafted by a senior member of the department of justice. Bill C-7 consolidated much of the existing drug legislation now set out in the Narcotic Control Act and the Food and Drugs Act. The bill repealed the Narcotic Control Act and parts of the Food and Drugs Act. It created a number of new drug offences and extended the range of the law to include any drug with a "stimulant, depressant or hallucinogenic effect". It also added new powers of search and seizure. Numerous deputations to the parliamentary sub-committee in Spring of 1994, including the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy, The Addiction Research Foundation of Ontario, the Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Bar Association, severely criticised the bill for it war on drugs approach and, in particular, for its very harsh stance with regard to cannabis possession. The bill was then revised. These revisions included a lessening of penalties for possession of cannabis for personal use so that simple possession would become a summary offence. Nonetheless, such possession was to remain a criminal offence. After a considerable delay, Bill C-7 went to Third reading in the House of Commons in October of 1995. On October 30th, while the country’s attention was turned to the Quebec referendum and the Bloc was absent from the House, Bill C-7 quietly passed its final reading and moved to the Senate for approval. The Senate Standing Committee on Justice and Constitutional Affairs began hearings on the bill in December of 1995. Deputations included the Law Union of Ontario, the Addiction Research Foundation, and the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy (CFDP called for an independent review of the Bill, consistent with promises made in the House of Commons on October 30th, 1995; this review has yet to occur). On February 2nd, 1996, the government announced the end to the current session of Parliament. Since Bill C-7 had not yet been enacted, it died at this time. During the next session, it was brought back as Bill C-8 and was proclaimed in force in May of 1997. The impression created by a cursory reading of the CDSA is that enforcement efforts are directed toward large scale traffickers of hard drugs. The truth of the matter, however, is that, just as before, the majority of people affected by the legislation will be people caught for possession of small amounts of cannabis. More than 600,000 people have been given criminal records under old and new legislation for possession of cannabis. Since several new offenses have been created under CDSA related to amphetamines, khat and hallucinogens, the bill will ensure that more Canadians than ever, primarily young ones, would be burdened with a criminal record for simple possession (this is already occurring with respect to khat, especially among the Somali community who were not informed of the crimalization of activities related to a previously legal substance; there is now a black market emerging around khat in Toronto and several other cities). A number of critics have also pointed out that drugs are not scheduled rationally in the bill: there is no relationship between the harms posed by drugs and the punishment. For example, what is the rationale for scheduling cocaine in Schedule I and amphetamines in Schedule II when the effects and dangers of the two are almost identical? It is clear that to ensure legislation that is just, the government needs to establish a scheduling process with input from experts in pharmacology, law enforcement, epidemiology and other relevant areas. -CFDP: Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy 
(This study was prepared for Senator Pierre Claude Nolin as a background document for his June 1999 motion to have Canada's Senate conduct a thorough review of Canadian drug law and policy - Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy) 
Drugs and Drug Policy in Canada:
A Brief Review & CommentaryDiane Riley, PhD*November, 1998The prosecution of thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens every year is both hypocritical and an affront to individual, civil and human rights.
(Raymond Kendall, Secretary General of Interpol). [full report] http://www.cfdp.ca/sen1841.htm
 
 
Although the Canadian CSDA (The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act) had its roots in the increased penalties of the US President Reagan's War on Drugs, imported by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney (Conservative) as bill C-85, it was eventually passed into law as bill C-8 by the Liberal Party. Notably, "It also added new powers of search and seizure." This was in line with the amplified US War on Drugs ("Just say, 'No.'") which emphasized property forfeiture. ego transcendence follows ego destruction, 80 years of cannabis prohibition is more than enough, re-legalize, regulate, and tax adults who smoke cannabis responsibly, and make cultivation and sale into re-legalized, regulated and taxed businesses.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by FoM on June 13, 2003 at 21:58:28 PT
News Brief from The CBC
Parliament Quits One Week Early June 13, 2003Ottawa - Astute manipulation of the rules means MPs will be starting their summer break a week earlier than expected. 'To let these folks out early, go off on vacation, play golf; I'm just outraged, you know' – Libby Davies 
It means important legislation such as the First Nations Governance Act, a bill to ban human cloning, cannabis reform and almost two dozen other bills have died on the order paper. They could be resurrected when Parliament returns on Sept. 15. Complete Article: http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/06/13/parliament_030613
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by FoM on June 13, 2003 at 15:44:45 PT
News Brief from The Canadian Press
Grow-op Owner Forefeits House To Crown
 
 Friday, June 13, 2003
  
A $439,000 house in Surrey has been forfeited to the Crown after a woman was convicted of operating a 397-plant marijuana grow operation inside it. 
  
 SURREY -- The RCMP in Surrey says it's a first in B.C. A house worth $440,000 has been forfeited to the Crown after a woman was convicted of operating a marijuana grow operation inside it. RCMP spokesman Tim Shields says the house was raided on March 4 and police found a sophisticated grow-op with almost 400 plants. There was also a hydro bypass, surveillance cameras and a motion detector that triggered a switch that would shut off the hydro bypass if someone approached the electric meter. Shields says it's the first time in B.C. and only the second time in Canada that a house has been forfeited to the Crown in relation to a grow-op. Nine other houses in Surrey may also end up in the Crown's hands for the same reason.Copyright 2003 Canadian Press
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment