cannabisnews.com: Pot Harmful, Crown Argues Pot Harmful, Crown Argues Posted by FoM on October 07, 1999 at 11:03:58 PT By Hollie Shaw -- Canadian Press Source: CNEWS TORONTO Just because science has not conclusively proven marijuana is harmful, it doesn't mean the weed's negative effects don't exist, a Crown lawyer told the Ontario Court of Appeal today. There is reasonable proof the drug is harmful enough to warrant criminal sanctions of users, Crown attorney Kevin Wilson told the three judges hearing the case. Wilson was arguing against 28-year-old Chris Clay's appeal of a 1997 conviction for selling a marijuana seedling to an undercover police officer. Defence lawyer Alan Young argued Wednesday that Parliament does not have the constitutional authority to criminalize recreational marijuana use because it's a relatively harmless drug and safer than many of the foods people eat. In the original trial, Justice John McCart of Ontario's Superior Court said he believed pot-smoking was harmless and caused no serious physical or psychological damage, and that it didn't lead to the use of other drugs. But he ruled it was up to Parliament to determine what's illegal and said the drug charges didn't infringe on Clay's constitutional rights. Today, Justice Marc Rosenberg pressed Wilson for greater details of the dangers. "Can't you tell me what we now know today about the harmful effects of marijuana," Rosenberg asked. Wilson said Parliament could be "reasonably concerned" about a number of problems raising from the drug's use including chronic bronchitis, immune system impairment, possible long-term cognitive impairment and fetal development However, he admitted save the bronchitis none of the claims have been conclusively proven. Wilson added Parliament could also be concerned about users becoming dependant on the drug. Crown lawyer Morris Pistyner countered a defence argument that a person has a constitutional right to smoke marijuana in their home as a form of recreation, like sexual activity. Pistyner said the charter only applies to fundamental issues of freedom. "Liberty is not freedom to do what one wishes ... and it doesn't include the right to smoke marijuana," Pistyner said. Thursday, October 7, 1999Copyright © 1999, Canoe Limited PartnershipThe Compassion Clubhttp://www.thecompassionclub.org/Lawyers Argue To Legalize Marijuana - 10/07/99http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread3182.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #5 posted by Pot Smoker on September 22, 2001 at 11:29:34 PT: Pot is good What drug can you take to make you feel good and still preform daily activites fine and not harmful in any known way to the user? POT, all other drugs impare your mind in such a way were you can't do much useful things, pot on the other hand makes you feel happy and dosent make you stupid like was said to do by alot of people. Only thing pot does is make you happy, people are getting great GPAs in school and guess what they do every day after school, smoke pot (some smoke pot then go to work) then hang out with friends, smoke pot, go home, smoke pot and do homework. These people will end up haveing great jobs and great education, and they smoke pot ALL the time, even during school or work, why are they doing so good, becuase if anything pot helps you in your dialy life, pot makes for a stress-free life, and if you ask me there is nothing better then a stress-free happy life. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by k.m.wright on July 09, 2001 at 19:57:07 PT: the purposes of making cannabis use illegal If our wise and judicious lawmakers were truly motivated by what is harmful to the public at large, then business would certainly not function in the ways they now do, ie... the legal slavery of the "lowlevel", employee who is paid barely enough to provide the necessities of life, or a city that allows a water company to charge a security deposit or no water for you,(right to life ,liberty, pursuit of happiness,) u need water to live yes. I believe therefore that keeping cannabis illegal has much more to do with controlling the population than protecting them. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by mason on April 26, 2001 at 16:38:30 PT: harmful effects The effects of pot may be harmful to the body, however, it can not be as harmful as alcohol and has less negative social and psychological effects. When was the last time you heard about a man smoking a joint and then slapping his wife and kids around? It happens all the time with alcohol, the only difference is that our law makers are much too ignorant to take the time to look at pot use as compared to alcohol use in an objective way. You can't teach an old dogs new tricks but you can vote them out of office. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by observer on October 07, 1999 at 16:05:08 PT pot is so harmful that ... > Pot Harmful ...Oh yes ... cannabis is so harmful that its users can be detected only via sophisticated body fluid analysis.---Excerpt from Drug Warriors and their Prey: The law identifies drug users through their blood. Also through their excreta... All that matters is a person's blood and excreta. All that matters is the makeup of a person's physical body. Drug law does not care if an illicit user is a beloved schoolteacher who improves a community or a vicious psychopath who tortures victims to death. Criminality is determined solely by the offender's physical body. Drug law mimics Hitler. "Unlike other anti-Semites, Hitler made no distinction between German and foreign, rich and poor, liberal, conservative, socialist, or Zionist, religious or non-religious, baptised or unbaptised Jews. In his eyes there was only 'the Jew.' . . . 'The Jew' represented evil incarnate, performing for Hitler much the same function as the Devil does for many Christians."47 The law does not care if tests used to detect illicit drug users fail to demonstrate that users are impaired. The law does not care if users behave in ordinary ways. A statute creating a status crime targets ordinary people. That is its purpose. If illicit drug users acted in ways that distinguished them from nonusers, a status crime statute would be unnecessary. (Richard L Miller, Drug Warriors and their Prey, 1996, pg.9) book: Drug Warriors and Their Prey [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Thomas on October 07, 1999 at 13:55:59 PT Illogical Nonsense How is it that medical cannabis users are supposed to scientifically prove cannabis is an effective medicine but the "dangers" of cannabis should be assumed without scientific evidence?"Liberty is not freedom to do what one wishes ... and it doesn't include the right to smoke marijuana," Pistyner said. If liberty is not freedom to do as one wishes, then what is it? And why is liberty freedom to smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol but not to smoke cannabis? Are the rights that we have only arbitrarily given by bodies of authority and liberty just a figment of the imagination? [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: