cannabisnews.com: Reefer Madness Redux Reefer Madness Redux Posted by FoM on August 02, 2000 at 07:23:04 PT By William Johnson Source: Globe & Mail The three judges of the Ontario Court of Appeal showed the wisdom of Daniel on Monday when they unanimously struck down as unconstitutional the law making the possession of marijuana a crime. They declared it unjust and unacceptable in a free and democratic society. It continues to be operative for 12 months so as to avoid a legislative vacuum, but the judgment will have far-reaching consequences beyond the issue of marijuana-as-medicine, on which the decision was based. The judges have invited the government to rewrite the law. They've given our society an opportunity to rethink a blanket prohibition against marijuana that was first imposed in 1923 from ignorance and superstition.Ottawa would be unwise and unjust to appeal the decision. That would only stall for time, postpone the inevitable reckoning with the law's irrationality. Justice delayed is justice denied.The court struck down the law because it prevented an epileptic from having access to a drug whose medicinal properties have been documented for 2,600 years and have been rediscovered despite the impediments to research created by the law."Based on the evidence adduced at trial, the trial judge found that the defence had established that smoking marijuana has a therapeutic effect in the treatment of nausea and vomiting particularly related to chemotherapy, intraocular pressure from glaucoma, muscle spasticity from spinal cord injuries or multiple sclerosis, migraine headaches, epileptic seizures and chronic pain."Moreover, the court recognized that the prohibition of marijuana in our legal system was based, from the start, on false perceptions. "That history shows that, unlike the regulation of assisted suicide, for example, regulation of marijuana has a very short history and lacks a significant foundation in our legal tradition. It is, in fact, an embarrassing history based on misinformation and racism."The court cited the origins of the law governing marijuana as established by Mr. Justice J. F. McCart in his 1997 judgment in the case of R. v. Clay."Although there was no evidence of a problem of marijuana use in Canada in 1923, its inclusion in the Opium and Drug Act may have been influenced by the writings of Emily Murphy, a crusading Edmonton, Alberta, magistrate. In 1920, she published a series of sensational and racist articles in Maclean's magazine on the horrible effects of drug use and the deliberate debauching of the young by evil, often alien, traffickers. The articles were later expanded into a book, The Black Candle,published in 1922."Judge McCart gave a sample of her prose that led, a year after the publication of her book, to the inclusion of marijuana under the same strictures as opium:"Persons using this narcotic [marijuana] smoke the dried leaves of the plant, which has the effect of driving them completely insane. The addict loses all sense of moral responsibility. Addicts to this drug, while under its influence, are immune to pain, and could be injured without having any realization of their condition. While in this condition they become raving maniacs and are liable to kill or indulge in any form of violence to other persons, using the most savage methods of cruelty without, as said before, any sense of moral responsibility. . . . If this drug is indulged in to any great extent, it ends in the untimely death of its addict."Judge McCart then added: "There was absolutely no truth to any of those wild and outlandish claims. It was in this climate of irrational fear that the criminal sanctions against marijuana were enacted."Recent judgments have established the absurdity of all those superstitious fears about marijuana. Judge McCart concluded, for example: "Consumption of marijuana is relatively harmless compared to the so-called hard drugs and including tobacco and alcohol. . . . Cannabis is not an addictive substance. . . . Less than 1 per cent of marijuana consumers are daily users."He also noted that consumption of marijuana is no greater in countries that have ceased to enforce criminal laws against marijuana, such as the Netherlands, than it is in countries that prohibit it.And yet, like the B.C. Court of Appeal in a June 2 judgment, the Ontario Court of Appeal refused Monday to overturn a conviction against possession of marijuana for recreational purposes. It judged that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should only be invoked to overturn laws when significant issues such as life, liberty and security are threatened. It did not judge recreational marijuana to reach that threshold.And so its up to Parliament to correct a 77-year-old absurdity that has given some 600,000 living Canadians a criminal record. The Senate could lead the way to enlightenment. In the fall, Senator Pierre-Claude Nolin is to hold hearings on our drug laws. He might at last exorcise the demons believed to haunt marijuana.Letters to The Editor: Letters GlobeAndMail.caContact Information:http://www.globeandmail.com/services/site/help.htmlPublished: Wednesday, August 2, 2000 Copyright © 2000 Globe InteractiveRelated Articles:Marijuana as Medicinehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6593.shtml Rewrite Law on Marijuana http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6589.shtmlOntario Court Says Law Against MJ Unconstitutionalhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6576.shtmlOntario 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 Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #4 posted by observer on August 02, 2000 at 13:44:51 PT re: Janie Canuck THE REAL JANEY CANUCK (Apr, 2000)http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n510/a08.htmlThe Black Candle may still be purchased, used:http://www.bookfinder.com/search/?author=Emily+Murphy&title=The+Black+Candle&submit=Begin+Search&new_used=*¤cy=USD&mode=basic&st=sr&ac=qr [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by Dan B on August 02, 2000 at 09:47:04 PT: Perhaps this one should be copied and sent out... ...to each of our elected officials here in America, as Ethan Russo, MD suggested for another letter. This one gets to the heart of the matter, then rips it right out of the drug war's soon-to-be-rotting carcass. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Activist on August 02, 2000 at 08:13:41 PT You won't find reporting like that in the US Try and picture the Washington Post acknowledging the racist history of marijuana laws. It will never happen. Something is not quite right about the media in the U.S. I won't go so far as to say its controlled by the government, but there is something suspicious about it nonetheless. A few weeks ago the Spanish newspaper El Pais reported that a large quantity of cocaine was found buried on a beach in Colombia where it awaite pick up, in the heart of paramilitary territory. Apparently it was greater than all the cocaine seized in the previous year. Yet it failed to garner media attention in the US, just as studies pointing to marijuana's medicinal value fail to make it to print. But any crap junk science that uses miniscule self-selected samples to point to some alleged adverse side-effect of marijuana will make virtually every paper in the U.S. Odd. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on August 02, 2000 at 08:10:04 PT: Janie Canuck This is another excellent article and expose. Judge Murphy was the self-styled "Janie Canuck." I would recommend searching out her book, which is a racist, bigotted diatribe without any foundation in truth, more worthy of Joseph Goebbels than it was of a judge in an advanced Western Democracy. Exposure of the American public to this type of well-documented editorial in the Globe & Mail should positively alter public opinion. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: