cannabisnews.com: Ontario Court Says Law Against MJ Unconstitutional Ontario Court Says Law Against MJ Unconstitutional Posted by FoM on July 31, 2000 at 12:00:58 PT By Jennifer O'Brien Source: Montreal Gazette Ontario's highest court has declared the law prohibiting the possession of marijuana unconstitutional, and has given Ottawa a year to amend it. The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled Monday that Canadian law fails to recognize that pot can be used for medicinal purposes by those suffering from chronic illnesses. As a result, the court said that if Ottawa does not change the law within 12 months there will no longer be any law prohibiting marijuana possession in Ontario. In the meantime, possession of marijuana in Canada is still illegal, and the law remains in full force and effect. The ruling was part of a decision which upheld a lower court judge's decision that has allowed an epileptic Toronto man to smoke marijuana for the past three years. Terry Parker, 44, said pot has virtually alleviated the 15 to 80 weekly seizures he suffered for about 40 years as a symptom of his illness. "The decision will open doors across the country for sick Canadians who need pot to help alleviate symptoms such as nausea and vomiting," said Parker's lawyer, Aaron Harnett. Although the demands placed on the federal government refer only to medicinal use of marijuana, all Canadians could be allowed to smoke pot in 12 months if nothing is done, said Alan Young, an Osgoode Hall law professor. "The whole (marijuana) law is tainted by the failure of Parliament to have meaningful process whereby people can use the illicit substance as medicine." Toronto (CP) Published: July 31, 2000© The Canadian Press, 2000Ontario Court of Appeal Upholds Decision http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6571.shtmlCannabisNews Search - Canadahttp://cannabisnews.com/thcgi/search.pl?K=CanadaCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archives:http://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml END SNIP --> Snipped Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #36 posted by Gengis on August 30, 2002 at 19:31:58 PT: Pot legalization Personally I believe that if pot is legalized that it would reduce our taxes, criminal activities and jail population. Pot does have an adverse affect on people, yet it isnt addictive. However alcohol and cigarettes (Sp.) are addictive, there are detox centres for people who have an alcohol problem, cigarettes are addictive also in such a way that many people depend on them. The only reason that cigarettes and alcohol are legal is because of the amount of money the goverment makes off it.I have been to Holland and Amsterdam before, the little cafes you can order a joint, whats wrong with that, it is still a controlled area persay, since you go there know what your getting into. Cocaine isnt legal along with other extremely harsh drugs, and they should never be legal. If a person has a dozen beers or other kind of alcoholic drink, the result isnt any different from smoking a joint.If pot helps relieve chronic illness, could it also slow the onset of those illnesses and other diseases and such. I would also like to point out that police would actually have to find some real work to do. I know of more cops busting people for pot then cocaine, and where I live there are about equal users of both. If they were to have left the pot users alone, and actually focused on the cocaine, crack and opium people it would be overall better for the population.Some people believe that smoking a joint means you are discarding your morales, however why is it different from having a shot of tequila or smoking a cigarette. I believe there is no difference.One more point in my rant is that when I was in Holland, crime was lower, such that you dont see as much in newspapers about murders and other such activities. I believe it is due to the fact that police dont bust people for smoking a refeer. If I were to set the laws for the pot using. I would try and restrict it to the cafe type businesses and at home/. That way it isnt flat out in the street. I do not think that the majority would have a problem with that.Also restrict growing of pot to 1 plant per household or person. I dont know if this stuff makes any sense to the people here reading this. But feel free to email me about it if you wish to talk some more. [ Post Comment ] Comment #35 posted by Corey Simeson on January 10, 2001 at 11:36:59 PT: should marijuana become legal in Canada Hello i would just like to say a couple words on this matter, should marijuana become legal in Canada. Well the answer for most Canadians is yes. Marijuana has been proven to help chronic illnesses, as a result it can't hurt anybody if it helps them.Another issue is if you legalize the "Soft Drugs," the law enforcement can enforce the "Hard Drugs," more effectivly. In Amsterdam Marijuana is legal and they say it had helped them because they have legalized the "Soft Drugs,", and they say that they can spend more time trying to get the "Hard Drugs,' off the street. I think that marijuana should become legal in Canada [ Post Comment ] Comment #34 posted by A Canadian on October 01, 2000 at 16:36:24 PT: Int'l treaties and whatnot Just one addition to the comments re: international treaties... the law was declared unconstitutional. Treaties do not override the constitution, as it is, even in Canada, the 'highest law of the land'. The States would just have to grin and bear it, or impose sanctions. [ Post Comment ] Comment #33 posted by dddd on August 02, 2000 at 05:26:59 PT Good aside Kap If you think about it,the government is heavily infested with people,who could realisticly,and easily considered traitors. And if you think about it some more,it's absolutley shocking,that the misinformed,and numbed public doesnt recognize this. I visited the USSR in 1976,and I was amazed by the propaganda from the state.At that time,any and all printed material that was not printed by the state,was contraband. I keep thinking of how our government has made them look like simplistic rookies,when in comes to swaying public opinion on a massive scale,and yet have it so people think they are formulating opinions because they think they are well informed...Yes,they are well informed,they are well informed by a national media,that is obviously informing them in certain ways.............dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #32 posted by kaptinemo on August 02, 2000 at 04:45:22 PT: An Interesting Aside Zion makes an interesting point: the attempt to use international treaties as a last resort to stem the growing domestic move towards a rational drug policy.Think back: remember the big stink Conservatives made when the US was backing the UN in places like Bosnia? The Conservatives see the UN as the embodiment of internationalist, New World Order perfidy. They fear any move towards giving it any power at all, because they perceive this a as zero-sum game: the UN gets power, the US loses sovereignty. Period.And yet you have Conservatives like MISTER McCaffrey climbing in bed with Pino Arlacchi, the head of the (not by accident named) UNDCP. Which, true to Conservative warnings, seeks to undermine the traditional rights of Americans to Free Speech, self-defense, etc. *Exactly* what Conservatives fear the most.Do you see the irony in this? McCaffrey is sworn, just as all civil servants are, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Yet he rubs shoulders with someone who wants to pee all over those rights. And even lends him his support in doing so. (Of course, McC has had plenty of practice in doing that, anyway.)It just goes to show to what depths the DrugWarriors will go to prostitute themselves to promote their agenda. They lie, they cheat, they steal, they kill, and now as a last resort to circumvent the political will of their own people, they will scheme with international organizations to surrender our sovereignty.And they say that casual drug users are a threat to 'national security'? How about goons like McC? [ Post Comment ] Comment #31 posted by Dan B on August 01, 2000 at 22:03:32 PT: You're Right, FoM. ...and I've been one of those with thin skin more than once here. When I really think about it, I (we) should invite the kinds of criticism that have been showing up in this forum from time to time. We can look at it two ways: (1) Oh my! The anti's are invading our space! or (2) Hmmm, an opportunity to show one more anti why what we support here is right. I, for one, have grown far too sensitive to the provocations; maybe it's time to reevaluate my approach to those who express different opinions. After all, open-mindedness is what led me to understand and accept the pro-drug-policy-reform movement in the first place. And if I (we) keep a level head, some of the antis who visit here may actually be convinced.So, that's what I, for one, will do from now on--take a moment to calm down from my initial emotional response to criticism, then calmly express the truth. That's all any of us can do. And that's what will work. Peace,Dan B [ Post Comment ] Comment #30 posted by zion on August 01, 2000 at 19:48:29 PT Schizos and Treaties Sometimes people will "play devil's advocate" and adopt an opposing viewpoint for the sake of argumentation and debate. This could result in arguing for the sake of arguing, and other times could provide a spirited discussion exploring all points of view on an issue. Maybe that's what "Fred" and "I know I'm right" are doing. I don't know, maybe they are bonafide opposing viewpoints. Regardless, it's good to have balance one in a while, even if it's a obvious troll.Regarding international treaties - I think that's the trump card that the U.S. feds are holding if the will of its citizens deviates too much from the party line. They've been doing it at the state/fed level, suggesting that states do not have the authority to supercede federal law (in direct contradiction to the 10th amendment). If things start to change on a truly national scale, expect the prohibitionists to spread fear, uncertainty and doom about how we must comply with international treaties.Also, I think the international equivalent of the US office of drug control policy (http://www.undcp.org) is far scarier than McCaffrey's group. The director, Pino Arlacchi, recently told The New York Times that he sees "a lot of extremely dangerous information" about illegal drugs on the Internet. "And unfortunately," he added, "these views are spreading, and we are now thinking about some instrument to at least stop the expansion of this flow of information." He's talking about pro-legalization views.-z [ Post Comment ] Comment #29 posted by FoM on August 01, 2000 at 17:56:38 PT Thick tougher skin Hi Everyone,This really is an interesting thread. I wanted to say that I think we need to get a little tougher too. It seems that there are angry people that just thrive on picking a fight. We don't appear to have that problem here or I wouldn't be posting this for fear of being hassled. I don't understand why people fight but they sure do. All I ask is that if a person doesn't agree with me just leave it alone and I would do the same and move on to a topic that is agreeable. If we learn that we don't have all the answers just ideas and not be so jumpy we will be more credible. I want to be credible. I don't want to bring shame actually on this fine herb if that makes sense? I believe each day we are letting the world see there is another way instead of just saying the drug war failed. We must have answers that will help us to bring change. That's what many including me learn from this forum. Thanks Everyone!Peace, FoM! [ Post Comment ] Comment #28 posted by romper on August 01, 2000 at 17:55:48 PT apology Kaptainemo you are right. I KNOW I'M WRITE I hope you will accept my apology and in the future I will be more careful about the way I interpet peoples comments. [ Post Comment ] Comment #27 posted by kaptinemo on August 01, 2000 at 17:16:42 PT: Sorry, you misunderstood me I wasn't saying that this guy (?) "I Know I'm Right" was an anti. The fact he shows up here leads me to believe he is a reformer. He was probably lampooning what a died-in-the-wool anti would say when they are awake enough from their booze-induced comas to realize what has happened in Canada.But this serves to illustrate something that worries me: our sensitivity to criticism. Granted, we've been lied to, intimidated, informed in best Schutze Staffelen fashion that we have no rights, beaten up, and in some cases, shot and killed by the more rabid antis. We've every...damn...*right* to be angry. But we shouldn't let it blind us to jumping to conclusions. In that respect, our tendency to be somewhat reactionary can play into our enemies' hands. Let's not hand these idiots with empty guns any ammunition. Give them what they so richly *deserve*, but not what they *want*. Make them lose their cool by keeping yours, no matter how they provoke you. For the times, they are a-changing, friends. As I mentioned several times before: Breyer decision, Abrams Report, Apprendi ruling, and now all of Canada may go decrim. More and more, faster and faster, the changes are coming. The momentum of the antis is running out. The Tide of Truth that they have held at bay with scorn and force is slowly making its' way back to shore. Scientifically, they are being clobbered. Legally and juridically, they are being challenged. The only sway they have left is the court of public opinion.But now, they will soon be in a position where to keep their heads above that tide, they will be forced to do something that many of them would prefer total root canals rather than do. THEY WILL BE FORCED TO DEBATE US. In public. And on that day, it will be plain to all that they are as morally bankrupt as they are intellectually.So much progress in such a short time. Who knows what this month will bring? [ Post Comment ] Comment #26 posted by freedom fighter on August 01, 2000 at 15:47:07 PT Gee, I wonder if Fred ( http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread6561.shtml ) and I know Im right are the same writer?Kapt. is probably so very correct that they are antis.. They are probably here to inflame or make us look irrational or dangerous. All they did was to make us look good!I learned something interesting today. I was talking to my friend, Jack, and I was asking him if he knew that he could vote someone who will legalize the marj. He said he does not know anyone who would do that! I asked him if he knew who Harry Browne is. He said,"Who?". Now Jack is a person who does not get his news from internet. It seemed an interesting challenge of letting people who do smoke know that there is such a person you can vote for based on what you and I believe in.I firmly believe that just 10% of the 70% who did not vote last time will change this country. It is probable if the 10% of the 70% vote for the third party, there would be a landslide and will change the face of our current government.One only need to check on % of voters on the last election to see that 3rd party can and will kick arses this year!PS)MIKEEE, thanks for the reply, yea, this is the reason why UN could not send soldiers to Netherland! :) http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread6561.shtml [ Post Comment ] Comment #25 posted by kaptinemo on August 01, 2000 at 13:01:22 PT: Hold on a minute, folks I doubt very seriously if "I Know I'm Right" meant anything other than showing what the possible knee-jerk reaction of the worst of the DrugWarriors might be thinking. Antis are by the simplest definition, cowards. They've only shown their poorly articulated ramblings here only once in my recollection, and despite numerous invitations to go verbal man-a-mano, they have so far refused to grace us again with their presence. With regards to the importance of Canada, keep something in mind: the Canadians involved in the beer and distillery industries made enormous sums of money from the profoundly stupid exercise in futility called alcohol prohibition. Did the uS invade? Nope? Did the US slap sanctions on our biggest trading partner for her part in undermining this idiotic social engineering project? Uh-uh. They aren't dumb. If Canada does indeed go decrim, as well she might, then we will once again see a flow of wealth heading north. Wealth that the US government so foolishly allows to slip through its' money grubbing hands. And ultimately, the US will be able to do *nothing*.As Richard Cowan once wrote, "Canada is too white to invade and too close to ignore." [ Post Comment ] Comment #24 posted by ROMPER on August 01, 2000 at 09:29:45 PT once again one of the sheep open up their mouth to grace us with what appears to be a declaration of war on fellow human beings. Well 'i know im right" I hope that one day you realize YOU ARE WRONG. Its people like you that make it so hard for people to live in harmony. Maybe one day some body out there will declare war on you for being the real monster in todays society. [ Post Comment ] Comment #23 posted by FoM on August 01, 2000 at 08:57:06 PT My 2 Cents What I think is in no time we will try to bribe Canada with money. That's the only way people do what we say. Money! what a drug. I hope I'm wrong but I bet our political leaders sure give it a try. [ Post Comment ] Comment #22 posted by romper on August 01, 2000 at 08:45:59 PT Yahooooooo errrrrrrrrch!!!!!!!! At first glance this article made my heart skip a beat with excitement but then the harse reality you have already discussed brought me back to earth. As it has already been noted I to figure that one way or another THE LONG ARM OF INJUSTICE with reach out and snatch away what appears to be a ray of hope for the people on this planet who want to live the one and only life they have the way they want to not how someone else see's fit. Canada has realized just how much money it has to gain and how much crime it will cut by allowing some thing no worse than tobacco and alcohol to be acceptable. Canada from what I understand already recieve taxes from some of the seed companies and if this is true they must realize that making money to make the country a better place to live is alot better than declaring war on your own people. Of course the U.S. will realize immediately the potental money that Canada could and would make if cannabis ever became legal in their country. So I am sure that within the week ours truely will be doing all they can to prevent anyadditional damage by what I am sure they see as a danger to their insane war on drugs. I hate to be so negative but it will make it that much easier to swallow when we read CLINTON GOES TO CANADA TO KEEP DRUG LAWS IN CHECK. Hey dddd , Dan B and kaptainemo thanks for the replies on my last posting. You guys are to cool. [ Post Comment ] Comment #21 posted by Kanabys on August 01, 2000 at 07:51:12 PT Packing HeHe, I'm fixing up my camper and headin' for Canada at first light!! No seriously, I do think this is going to be BIG. After all, the first part of a 1000 mile journey begins with a single step. This may be it.Yeah, what the frell is 'I know Im right' talking about????? [ Post Comment ] Comment #20 posted by dddd on August 01, 2000 at 07:16:39 PT ??????? Thanks FoM,I'm glad I'm not the only one who is puzzled by "I know I'm right"................lol.............dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #19 posted by FoM on August 01, 2000 at 07:10:10 PT Wrong Place Maybe Hi Everyone! This is an interesting thread I agree but I know I'm right must have the wrong news board. Thought I'd mention that. I sure haven't met anyone that meets that criteria.Peace, FoM! [ Post Comment ] Comment #18 posted by dddd on August 01, 2000 at 06:45:14 PT strange This "thread" is a facinating and informative exchange. I 'm not sure I'm hep to what "I know I'm right" is saying.Perhaps he would care to articulate...? [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by I know I'm right. on August 01, 2000 at 05:35:43 PT A Last Warning to Drug Addicts Who Control Canada I'll be blunt, northern kingpins: Your puny economy will not stand for long against daily American bombing of your civilians. So wise up and tow the line. [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by Dan B on July 31, 2000 at 23:00:03 PT: Response to Tim, MD, Kap, Squid, Natrous, Rainbow First, thanks for the clarification on the treaty issue, Tim Stone. I have to say that Kaptinemo once again has a very valid point. That is, so far those countries that have "flipped the bird" at the treaty have suffered no serious repurcussions. I agree with you, Tim, and I agree with Ethan Russo, M.D. But I think that when countries begin to push the treaties aside and create policies that really work inside their borders, the effects of those policies will register outside their borders, and prohibition-oriented countries like the U.S. will have to acknowledge defeat. Then again, maybe that was what you were saying in the first place, when you said "But, when enough countries flip the bird and show cause, then you can chill the champagne." Please pardon me if I'm just being redundant. I thank you for bringing us back to reality, nonetheless, as most of us hadn't considered the potential impact of those treaties. I just think that Canada is of a mind now to thumb its nose at the treaties, come what may. They've had enough of the American drug war up North.Second, and I hate to do this, but did nobody read what I wrote?"However, at issue in this case is the federal law itself, and the highest court in the biggest state in Canada has ruled that law to be unconstitutional. In effect, this places the burden to prove constitutionality on the feds. If the feds cannot come up with a constitutionally sound argument as to why marijuana should remain illegal, the Ontario court's decision will remain in effect and marijuana will become, in essence, legal throughout Canada."In other words, as Squidmunch later said, "The decision today is not comparable to California proposition 215 because Canada only has federal marijuana laws. This means that any change in the law will affect all of Canada not just Ontario."Thank you, Squidmunch, for offering your information, but I wanted to at least give myself credit for saying it first. Sorry, but I'm a stickler for giving proper credit. Comes from being an English teacher.Third, you're right, Rainbow. This has to look very good for Renee Boje. [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by Rainbow on July 31, 2000 at 19:38:14 PT Remember Renne This has got to help Renee's position in her fight against extradition. The antis are fuming.Oh canada we love you.Rainbow [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by observer on July 31, 2000 at 18:08:32 PT Heretics, Then; Drug Users, Now As an aside, the word "heresy" means simply, a choice, and a "heretic," one who dares to exercise a choice of a personal creed, contrary to dominant religious law and control. Sorry for wandering a bit. :)You're not wandering at all. In Manufacture of Madness, and elsewhere, Thomas Sansz speaks at length comparing the burning of "heretics" of yesterday with the treatment of involuntary mental patients and others today, including, illegal drug users.See:The Manufacture of Madness : A Comparative Study of the Inquisition and the Mental Health Movement(1969, Thomas Szasz)http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0815604610/Cannabisnews/also recommended is:Our Right to Drugs: The Case for a Free Market (1992, Thomas Szasz)http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0815603339/Cannabisnews/ [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by MikeEEEEE on July 31, 2000 at 17:40:34 PT Troops Freedom Fighter, if they send troops up there you'll them come home very happy, ha ha.Watch out for the olde US economic package or something to influence any upcoming decision, I think it's too late for the US to try that. [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by freedom fighter on July 31, 2000 at 17:29:49 PT Watch out Canada We, the people from United States are gonna come and visit your friendly country in droves. Your country will be richer! International treaties can go where it belong, the Trash Can! Think the world gonna send UN soliders to enforce International Marj. law? I think not!But indeed, it is a scary thought that US starting a world war over marj. The paradox box has opened! [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by Natrous on July 31, 2000 at 17:27:04 PT Thanks, Squidmunch That's exactly what I wanted to know - and in fact, that's the answer I wanted to ear, too! While essentially the ruling is to make marijuana available as medicine within a year, it's a great help for us Americans fighting for the same thing (and more!) down here. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by kaptinemo on July 31, 2000 at 17:03:30 PT: Treaties are only honored when convenient As has been pointed out, the US was THE engine behind illicit drug treaties in the last century. But other nations have gone decrim in defiance of the 1961 treaty that internationalized our sick little war. Italy, Spain, and now Portugal have 'flipped the bird' to the US and gone their own way. Staten in Germany have done likewise. The Netherlands has practically been decrim for decades, and only has received verbal brickbats, but no serious economic or political sanctions. All in the face of the same 1961 treaty. And the US has sullenly ignored their actions and made as if nothing has happened. No sanctions. No invasions. Nothing. If Canada goes decrim, then the game is truly over.There was talk before by the US State Department to put Canada on the 'enemies list' for the involvement of her citizens in the production of the herb wondrous. That didn't go over too well. Then birdbrain McCaffrey decided that birdseed was a mortal enemy of American youth, and tried to destroy the hemp industry in Canada as well as in the United States. I'm quite sure the Canadians didn't like that, either...particularly when they were starting to enjoy having the drop on the US by pioneering the return of a hemp industry. That cost them more than money up there; people were hurt economically. In short, Canada will almost certainly face the predicted political onslaught. But very little of it will be public, and you can bet the Canadian media will be watching for the covert moves. After what has already happened in relations between Ottawa and Washington, I doubt the Canadians would be willing to listen to McCaffrey's verbal vomit any more. They, like we, have herad enough BS.Like I said, this was going to be a long, hot summer. And the temperature has just jumped about 50 degrees. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by Squidmunch on July 31, 2000 at 16:37:03 PT Ontario's Decision As an Ontario citizen, I would like to clarify our appeal courts decision regarding the marijuana law being declared unconstitutional. The decision today is not comparable to California proposition 215 because Canada only has federal marijuana laws. This means that any change in the law will affect all of Canada not just Ontario. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by Tim Stone on July 31, 2000 at 14:57:20 PT Response to Dan B "But you make a good point when yousay that the international treaties have been initiated by the United States. Wouldn't Canada's decisionbe, in effect, a declaration of independence from these treaties? *******As I understand the international drug treaties, as an untutored layman, no. At least not legally. I know nothing about Canadian law, but would venture the hunch that they are as legally constrained by the international treaty trump card as is the U.S., as are all other signatories to the treaties. That was the _point_ of the damned treaties: to lock in Prohibition as an international policy in perpetuity, _no matter what any individual country might want to do individually_. And this, before most people now alive were even born.All Canada can do, short of international reform, is to flip a metaphoric bird at the treaty by itself, and try to minimize drug war damage in Canada, thereby showing cause to reform the treaty, while still being bound by the darned thing.But, when enough countries flip the bird and show cause, then you can chill the champagne. And the U.S. will do all it can to kill any substantive drug policy reform in _all other countries_, including leaning heavily on Canada, rather than be dragged, kicking and screaming...Tremendous political pressure will continue to be put on Canada, behind the scenes, by the U.S., to cease and desist in drug war heresy.As an aside, the word "heresy" means simply, a choice, and a "heretic," one who dares to exercise a choice of a personal creed, contrary to dominant religious law and control. Sorry for wandering a bit. :) [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on July 31, 2000 at 13:58:58 PT: International Treaty Obligations What Tim has said is very important. I have no idea what must transpire to change the treaty language, but it is clear that what the world needs now is a rational drug policy that ends the war, allows reasonable medical usage, and provides harm reduction for truly addictive drugs. It is time to reconvene, and do it properly this time. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by Dan B on July 31, 2000 at 13:57:25 PT: Of Course, You're Right, Tim Stone . . . . . . and I agree that it will be difficult to get beyond the treaties. But you make a good point when you say that the internatoinal treaties have been initiated by the United States. Wouldn't Canada's decision be, in effect, a declaration of independence from these treaties? And if so, wouldn't America have to either admit fault; allow Canada to conduct its internal affairs the way it sees fit, in spite of the treaties; or wage war on, of all countries, Canada? It seems to me like such a war would be a difficult one to gain support for, internationally speaking. What I would hope is that allies of Canada that are toying with legalization, like the UK and Australia, would join Canada in adopting policies of legalized marijuana. Surely the countries that have already legalized would join in an effort to reverse these damaging and limiting treaties. What I am asking is this: would America force another world war just to keep marijuana illegal?I realize that I am being perhaps simultaneously over-optimistic and over-pessimistic. I don't know--it seems like this one can go any number of ways. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by Dan B on July 31, 2000 at 13:45:04 PT: I'm no legal expert, Natrous, but... ...because Ontario is a province of Canada, the ruling seems like it would be similar to Prop. 215 in California in that it is essentially a state finding that goes against federal law. However, at issue in this case is the federal law itself, and the highest court in the biggest state in Canada has ruled that law to be unconstitutional. In effect, this places the burden to prove constitutionality on the feds. If the feds cannot come up with a constitutionally sound argument as to why marijuana should remain illegal, the Ontario court's decision will remain in effect and marijuana will become, in essence, legal throughout Canada. This is a huge boost to those fighting against the war on marijuana in America, as well. Once Canada begins to reap the effects of legalized marijuana, the foundations of the American war against marijuana will become even more tenuous, and our government may finally have to concede defeat. Of course, this decision can have huge ramifications in America with regard to the way the feds will handle the appealed Breyer decision allowing distribution of medical marijuana in the 9th Circuit. Canada may very well set the stage for the end of America's war on marijuana, as well. But we have a much less open-minded government here, and we should continue to be vigilant in our pursuit of freedom. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by Tim Stone on July 31, 2000 at 13:43:23 PT Kudoes for Dr. Ethan. ...for what you said. However, there is of course still the presently insurmountable barrier of the international drug treaties - thank you, Harry Anslinger, damn your eyes. In the U.S., the international prohibitionist drug treaties are the law of the land that trumps all other law. It doesn't matter if the Canada or the U.S. get suddenly sane about cannabis policy. The way the "System" works at this point is that before you can change U.S. law, before you can do more than just nibble around the borders of national drug policy reform, the international treaties need to get amended or annulled. Until the treaties are amended or annulled, prohibition will remain the law of the land, not only at the state level, but at the federal level too. International treaties trump _even_ federal law. Until the treaties are changed, Clinton and McCaffery with the full force of their powers cannot constitutionally change the drug laws substantially. Drug prohibition is an _international_ phenomenon, and the treaties forbid _any_ country from straying too far away from the treaty stipulations.There is wiggle-room in the international treaties for individual countries to experiment a bit. Good on Canada, and the Netherlands, Italy, Portugal, etc. for pushing the international treaty envelope of acceptable behavior. But please take my point: The U.S. produced the international drug treaties, and no matter what individual countries like Canada may do, the treaties, and international drug prohibition, will remain until the rest of the world finally drags, the U.S., kicking and screaming, to the international reform table. Good for Canada, but hold off on popping the champagne. :) [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by Natrous on July 31, 2000 at 13:23:31 PT Question.. Does the "highest court in Ontario" mean the "highest court in Canada?" By that, I mean does this affect all of Canada, or is it like the California initiative that still makes it illegal at the federal level? [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on July 31, 2000 at 12:50:14 PT: Ruling in Ontario This development is of critical importance. The basis of the Canadian drug laws is the same as those of the USA. If Canada requires a distinction be made between recreational and medical use of cannabis, then the USA should as well. Would that some other judicial jurisdiction beside the 9th Circuit will recognize the difference. Perhaps the trend could extend to the drug warriors in legislative bodies as well. Let us hope. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Jerad on July 31, 2000 at 12:34:13 PT Uhm question to FoM Is this the parliament one with that Chris guy that was suppose to be announced at 10am this morning or is this naother one? [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: