cannabisnews.com: Momentum Growing for Pot Law Reform





Momentum Growing for Pot Law Reform
Posted by CN Staff on January 06, 2003 at 16:18:33 PT
Editorial
Source: Vancouver Sun 
It's tough for governments to show moral leadership on an issue when the public is divided about it. On contentious matters such as gay rights, abortion and free speech, they have often simply let the courts lead the way.Then they can argue that they're only protecting civil liberties because they have to -- the judge made them do it.
As such, federal Justice Minister Martin Cauchon is likely celebrating an Ontario court ruling Thursday that Canada's law against marijuana possession is invalid, even though the federal government is appealing it.Windsor Judge Douglas Phillips ruled that the federal government had failed to comply with the terms of a 2000 Ontario Court of Appeal ruling, which gave the federal government a year to change the marijuana possession law to allow for the medical use of marijuana.The day before the year was up, the feds dealt with the matter only through new regulations rather than pass a new law, which would have involved parliamentary debate.Not enough, said Judge Phillips, in throwing out a possession charge against a 16-year-old caught with five grams of pot.The federal stalling does make one wonder if it was simply ineptness that led to this week's development, or if the government actually hoped to create a circumstance where possession laws would again be struck down.Unfortunately, the federal government's record on marijuana suggests the chaos theory as the likely explanation. For years, the feds have been hopelessly confused about the matter. It's as if all those cabinet ministers who tried marijuana once in their youth -- just the one time, you understand -- have been sneaking down into the basement to do up-to-the-minute research on the drug's stupefying effects.Not that we can deprive Mr. Cauchon of all credit on the decriminalization front. He has already said he hopes to decriminalize possession of less than 30 grams for personal use through new legislation this spring.However, at one point he justified the decriminalization argument by saying it would allow more people to be punished for possession -- with misdemeanor fines, because police are so reluctant to inflict criminal records on pot smokers.If that's what he feels he must do to justify progress on marijuana decriminalization, first recommended to the federal government 34 years ago by the Le Dain commission, we understand. Progress is an incremental thing.  Snipped:Complete Article: http://freedomtoexhale.com/plr.htm Source: Vancouver Sun (CN BC)Published: Monday, January 06, 2003Copyright: 2003 Vancouver Sun Contact: sunletters pacpress.southam.caWebsite: http://www.canada.com/vancouver/vancouversun/Related Articles & Web Site:Cannabis News Canadian Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/can.htmAdvocate Sees Judge's Ruling as Step Forwardhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15115.shtmlLegalized Pot Seems Likely Up Northhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15102.shtmlWhy Cannabis Should Be Legal http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14045.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #7 posted by BIgDawg on January 07, 2003 at 05:49:30 PT
Druid
Some cities have passed ordinances attempting to curb the influx of people going to known "drug zones" and purchasing drugs. Alot of these ordinances focused on taking the vehicle of the person making the purchase. The idea being that it would make people think twice before buying "on the streets". 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by The GCW on January 06, 2003 at 20:13:56 PT
From Cannabis Culture
Prosecution appeals landmark case
 
by Reverend Damuzi (05 Jan, 2003) Canadian pot laws still uncertain 
http://www.hempbc.com/articles/2796.htmlLess than 24 hours after an Ontario Provincial Court judge declared Canada's marijuana laws invalid, the prosecution filed an appeal. On January 2, Justice Phillips sided with attorney Brian McAllister, who argued that Canada's marijuana laws were invalid because the government didn't properly amend the law in 2001 (see CC Online, Judge tosses Canadian pot law). On January 3, the prosecution appealed the decision, and if it loses, McCallister's case will become precedent setting, and marijuana cases throughout Ontario may be dismissed.McAllister is looking for "interveners" to help win the case. Interveners are interested organizations - like the Marijuana Party or the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws - who can provide comment on the case's legal and moral repercussions. Interested interveners can contact McAllister at his office.- Lawyer Brian McAllister's office, toll free: 1 (888) 841 9235
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by FoM on January 06, 2003 at 19:10:49 PT
Just Another Note
We had another really nice chat. I had to leave but it sure was good. Hope to see some of you there soon!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by FoM on January 06, 2003 at 17:17:11 PT
Just a Note
I think I have time to chat tonight if anyone else wants too. At least for a little while I can. Here's the link. We don't have the link on CNews' front page yet but we will soon!
CannabisNews Chat
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by FoM on January 06, 2003 at 17:03:25 PT
druid & Everyone
I saw a program on tv a while ago where they took a man's cash because he had too much they said and they said it had to be from dealing drugs but he had saved his money to start a gardening business.I took this part below from the article with the link.If the authorities suspect the money had something to do with drugs, they can take it. What kind of evidence do they need? Why, none at all. A suspicion by an officer of the state is plenty good enough. Too much cash on hand? You must be a drug dealer. The cash is now the property of the police. These laws are now re tooled and added to for the terror war.How The Terror War Took Your Rights: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread11499.shtml
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by BGreen on January 06, 2003 at 16:59:19 PT
I Saw That, Too
I was so mad I was screaming at the TV. They were STEALING property without due process. They not only smashed their SUV into the person's car damaging the front end, they stole the car they had just damaged.Notice how many times the pigs on COP's announce they're stopping a car leaving a "known drug house." They don't bust the house because they can steal cars from the buyers. They're the lowest of the low. Cops are WAR CRIMINALS!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by druid on January 06, 2003 at 16:50:47 PT
question about forfeiture
The other night I was watching COPS on TV. They were setting people up by having 4 big black guys descend upon a car and sell(push) 3 or 4 grams of cannabis to the person in the car. Of course it was all a set up and as soon as the deal was made the big bad cops would come in and bust the person in the car. bull****When they arrested the person they also informed them that their vehicle was being seized under forfeiture laws and they could buy the vehicle back at auction if they were lucky. Now I always thought that forfeiture laws only took effect if you were caught DEALING or DISTRIBUTING and then they could say that you used illegal money to buy your stuff with and then they could seize it.Why and how could the cops seize a persons vehicle for a 3 or 4 gram misdeamenor purchase of Cannabis? I mean why do they stop at the car? Can they seize other things the person owns or what? I can't believe they could do that. These people basically had the cannabis pushed on them by undercover cops.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment