cannabisnews.com: Court Eases Medical Marijuana Rules





Court Eases Medical Marijuana Rules
Posted by CN Staff on October 08, 2003 at 09:54:47 PT
By Jake Rupert, The Ottawa Citizen 
Source: Ottawa Citizen 
An Ontario Court of Appeal ruling has theoretically made it easier for medical marijuana users to safely get a good supply of the drug. But the court yesterday reinstated the law against everyone else possessing small amounts of cannabis for recreational use.The court dismissed an appeal by the federal Justice Department of a lower court ruling that found Health Canada's Marijuana Medical Access Regulations were unconstitutional.
It said the regulations didn't provide a reliable source of marijuana for sick people with government permits to smoke the drug for medical purposes. The judges also changed the medical marijuana regulations in four fundamental ways.Justices David Doherty, Stephen Goudge and Janet Simmons struck down the regulations against sick people paying designated growers for marijuana, designated growers supplying more than one sick person, and growers banding together to grow the drug.They also struck down a requirement that people suffering from ailments other than cancer, AIDS and multiple sclerosis needed two specialists to prescribe the drug before an exemption would be granted.The court said growers still had to get a licence from Health Canada, and the government could put further restrictions on the growers. In theory, this paves the way for the legalization of "compassion clubs," which grow marijuana for a number of sick people who pay for the drug. Many of these organizations operate illegally in Canada already.The other major part of the court's ruling deals with simple possession of marijuana by people without exemptions.In January, a judge declared the law against simple possession of marijuana didn't exist in Ontario because a previous court of appeal ruling said the possession law would be invalid by July 2001 if the government didn't create a constitutionally sound exemption. The government did not do this. The judge acquitted a person who was charged with possession of marijuana, saying the law didn't exist. The Justice Department appealed this finding.Yesterday, the court agreed with the lower court ruling that there has been no law against possession of marijuana since July 2001. However, it said that because it has now changed the medical marijuana access regulations to make them constitutional, the simple possession law is reinstated.The ruling creates a quandary for justice officials. The court clearly held that the law against possession in Ontario has been void since July 2001. This means hundreds of people have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to breaking a law that didn't exist. The Justice Department will now have to decide what to do with cases put on hold pending this ruling.Complete Title: Court Eases Medical Marijuana Rules, Reinstates Law Against PossessionNote: Those with permits must have access to drug: judges. Source: Ottawa Citizen (CN ON)Author: Jake Rupert, The Ottawa Citizen Published: Wednesday, October 08, 2003Copyright: 2003 The Ottawa CitizenContact: letters thecitizen.canwest.comWebsite: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Cannabis News Canadian Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/can.htmPot Illegal Again - London Free Presshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17502.shtmlMarijuana Ruling a Victory For The Illhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17498.shtmlOntario Court Reinstates Pot Lawhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17491.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #1 posted by Virgil on October 11, 2003 at 19:05:50 PT
John Turmel on this article
John Turmel was a party the appeals cases and he commented on this article line by line at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MedPot/message/982One thing he advances in his writing in message982 is that the preventative qualities of cannabis are a way of attacking prohibition itself. He also says that the rulings are a huge loss and does not know if it is best to attack the spin that praised the day first or the rulings themselves. There was no prohibition and to think that these rulings helped is stupidity. For 26 months we had no prohibition in Canada and how can you improve on that.He says that the ruling disses on the General Practitioner because he alone cannot recommend medicine for the sick. No other medicine requires a second doctor much less a specialist. And even then outside of AIDS and a few other terrible diseases, two specialists are still required after the GP. There are still only 600 patients approved and 10 epileptics a day are still dying because of the failed system. If people are dying, how has anything been fixed. He says the same thing as Emory on the issue of them resurrecting a law that was dead and their legislative corrections.He says the law died on August 1, 2001 or Terry Parker Day as he calls it and I believe he named it. If I were asked I would chose that day as liberation day over July 31st mentioned by the courts. People were arrested and convicted this whole time and the courts did not address that and someone arrested on July 31 would be about the only one in Canada hung up on Liberation day in the heat of the present struggle. But the thing that gets me is what he says about the whole prohibition. He says if CP was unconstitutional on August 1, 2001 then the whole prohibition has always been illegal. Now think about it. If cannabis had medical properties that could give people life (and this is before patented medicine dominated everything)what gave the government the right to remove the life saving herb from the people. But even more importantly since the US had total prohibition with the Marijuana Tax Act starting October 1, 1937 that was later struck down as unconstitutional when Timothy O'Leary took it threw the courts, was it not unconstitutional from its inception. The first 43 years of federal total prohibition would have to be unconstitutional and why would those people not have recourse for being arrested and imprisoned by using an unconstitutional law? Seems to me they should have recourse.I may misinterpret Turmel's words or my memory might be confused. Turmel raises some good points and I hope you read what he says. 
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment