Pot Laws Up in Smoke? 

††Pot Laws Up in Smoke? 

Posted by CN Staff on September 23, 2003 at 11:45:57 PT
News Story†
Source: Parksville Qualicum News†

A decision made by a provincial court judge Sept. 4 has stirred up debate on whether it is legal - or not - to take a toke or two of pot.In B.C. provincial court, Judge Patrick Chen determined parts of the (federal) Controlled Drugs and Substances Act are invalid, and therefore, "there is no offence known to law at this time for simple possession of marijuana" in the province.
"My opinion is that this is good news - a step in the right direction," said Parksville resident and herbalist David Faren.Faren, who takes correspondence courses at Burnaby's Dominion Herbal College, said the issue needs to go further."Having a legal source of marijuana would be a start - what about an age limit?"Kirk Tousaw, policy director for the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, sees Chen's decision as a "victory for advocates of freedom and personal responsibility.""In Ontario, this decision was upheld - I'd hope the courts here look at that," he said.Representatives from the Federal Justice Department's B.C. region said Thursday Chen's decision will be appealed.And as far as the Oceanside RCMP are concerned, possession of pot continues to be a crime."Our position is, it's still illegal - we're still charging for possession and recommending charges to Crown," said Oceanside RCMP Sgt. Bruce Wright."Our main focus is trafficking and cultivation, but if someone is caught with over 30 grams, they can be charged with possession."Though no definition of simple possession was given in Chen's judgement, Wright, Tousaw and Faren agree that 30 grams or less would likely be for personal use (thirty grams of pot is just over one ounce).Chen's decision was based on a series of court cases in Ontario that led a judge there to strike down marijuana possession laws in January of this year.That ruling goes back to a case known as R. v Parker and a July, 2000 judgement by the Ontario Court of Appeal - Parker refers to Terry Parker, an epileptic who used marijuana to control life-threatening seizures. The court declared the law prohibiting simple possession of marijuana to be constitutionally invalid because it did not have an exemption for medical marijuana use. Chen wrote, in his view, "Section 4 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, as it applies to marijuana, ceased to be valid legislation after July 31, 2001."That date refers to a one-year grace period set by the Ontario court in the R. v Parker case, a year where Parliament was supposed to re-enact the prohibition or create a legislative exemption for marijuana use.The day before the deadline, Parliament enacted the Medical Marijuana Access regulations (MMAR), but those regulations were not law and could be amended without debate.As a result, provincial and superior courts in Ontario (and now, B.C. Provincial Court) have ruled the law prohibiting possession was stricken from the books by the Parker case. Provincial courts in Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia have upheld the Ontario decision as well.Source: Parksville Qualicum Beach News (CN BC)Author: Tricia Leslie, News ReporterPublished: September 23, 2003Copyright: 2003 Parksville Qualicum Beach NewsContact pqbnews island.netWebsite: Related Articles & Web Site:Text of Judge Chen's Decision Differ On What Judge's Pot Ruling Means The Government Going To Pot? Court Loosens The Law On Pot Laws Ban Possession of Marijuana 

Home †† Comment †† Email †† Register †† Recent Comments †† Help


Comment #6 posted by ron on September 23, 2003 at 14:55:10 PT

Bulls eye Sam    70 women gone while they slept
Police spokespeople only talk to the compliant media and prepubescents. They need to explain their continued persecution of people on the flimsiest of pretexts.Corruption in narcotic departments is epidemic. Undercover work, in whatever cause, must be soul destoying. You can't destroy other peoples lives without some kickback. The kind of character who can befriend and betray makes a great agent. The slimy character who can get others to do it for him makes a leader.Even the PR firms that train the police spokespeople are afraid to debate. They only propagandize. If they ever try protecting us from real crime instead of making up work by rigidly enforcing drug laws, they'll get our respect back.   
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Had Enough on September 23, 2003 at 14:29:14 PT

More Stuff
Your welcomed
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by FoM on September 23, 2003 at 14:27:02 PT

Had Enough 
Thank You! That's one of the really good reasons for a comment section. People can post articles that I might not post directly. We need to know.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Had Enough on September 23, 2003 at 14:19:13 PT

More stuff
FoM, If this is inappropriate for this article delete or move it where you see fit. I put it here so people can see it. Thank you, for I have had enough, and Iím sure I do not stand alone.Workers question drug raid By David Tanner The Examiner Independence Power and Light employees said they felt violated by a recent drug raid by police at the Missouri City plant. 
The department director says the raid was justified. 
The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers No. 53 stated this week in a letter to the mayor and City Council that the employees did not understand the motives behind the Aug. 22 raid, conducted by six police officers, two canine units, and a laboratory technician. 
The IBEW says the raid was, in part, retaliation for its members voicing opinions on city financial issues. The union has recently pushed for and is fronting the cost of a state audit of the city books. 
"Are we to assume this over-zealous action will be standard operating procedure at Independence Power and Light," the union stated, "Or if the city manager approved the drug raid, are we to assume this is the standard operating procedure for all city employees, or is this simply retaliation against the (IBEW) ...?" 
Power and Light Director George Morrow said the raid had nothing to do with union members' outspokenness. He said the department and the police acted on a credible tip. 
"If we receive information we believe to be credible and we don't pursue it, that would be wrong," Morrow said, "What if something happened or someone got hurt and we had done nothing?" 
The city has a strict no-drug policy, Morrow said. 
The IBEW said in the letter Morrow and the officers singled out two employees and ordered them to drink large amounts of fluids to produce a urine test sample, which made the employees nauseated. The union said the tests were negative, making the suspicions unfounded. 
Police made no arrests in the raid. 
The union alleges the use of drug dogs in the parking lot left employees' cars with scratches on them. 
The union called for the mayor and council to intercede and end the drug-raid policy "even if it requires the termination of both Mr. Morrow and Mr. Blick (City Manager Larry Blick)." 
Morrow did not address the last statement. 
He did say the city has a responsibility to ensure safety at the power plant. 
"Our facilities are very important to the city," he said. "Especially the industrial facilities. We need to protect our assets and protect the employees. It was not George Morrow leading a raid." 
To reach David Tanner e-mail dtanner or call (816) 350-6324.

[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Sam Adams on September 23, 2003 at 13:51:37 PT

Do we need to spell it out for you BC cops?
Cannabis: LEGAL. Killing prostitutes: ILLEGAL. Put down the donut and get to work pal.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by kaptinemo on September 23, 2003 at 13:42:07 PT:

Porky needs his snout slapped with a lawsuit
*And as far as the Oceanside RCMP are concerned, possession of pot continues to be a crime. "Our position is, it's still illegal - we're still charging for possession and recommending charges to Crown," said Oceanside RCMP Sgt. Bruce Wright.*A-hem. Constable...are you illiterate? I always thought the Canadian school system was a good one, but it seems that some Canadians are plagued with the same reading and comprehension problems as many American children are.No laws means NO LAWS. Period. What is so flippin' HARD to understand about that? Once the laws were struck down, your accosting cannabists and taking their property became THEFT, Constable.As a cop, you should know what the penalties are for that illegal act, don't you, Constable?You may yet find out, soon enough.
[ Post Comment ]

††Post Comment