High Court Set To Rule on Minor Pot Possession

High Court Set To Rule on Minor Pot Possession
Posted by CN Staff on December 22, 2003 at 15:09:56 PT
By Sue Bailey
Source: Canadian Press 
Ottawa -- Pot heads, anti-drug activists and occasional tokers will be watching as Canada's high court rules Tuesday on whether simple possession of marijuana should be a crime. The much anticipated judgment from the Supreme Court of Canada comes as the federal government plans to reintroduce a hotly debated bill to decriminalize possession of pot in small amounts. 
"I have a lot of concerns," says Ontario Liberal MP Dan McTeague, who has vocally opposed his own government's plans. "And I'm hoping the Supreme Court will be looking before it leaps." McTeague says he and several other Liberal MPs fear decriminalizing simple possession would send the wrong message about drug use, especially to young people. The Canadian Alliance and police agencies have also raised red flags, while the NDP and pot proponents say it's time to legalize simple possession and flex legal muscle elsewhere. Canadians should have a say, McTeague said. "This is something that should be tested in the next election." A federal vote is widely expected this spring. Prime Minister Paul Martin signalled last week that he'll reintroduce a bill, first proposed under Jean Chretien, to wipe out criminal penalties - including potential jail time and lasting records - for those caught with small amounts of pot. The bill did not legalize pot, and maintained or increased already stiff penalties for large-scale growers and traffickers. The legislation died when Parliament was shut down last month to give Martin a fresh start in January. It made simple possession of less than 15 grams of pot a minor offence punishable by fines of $100 to $400, much like traffic tickets. Critics said 15 grams, the equivalent of roughly 15 to 20 joints, was too much to equate with casual use. They also questioned how police, with no equivalent of an alcohol breath test, would assess those who drive while high. And they warned that increased pot use would play into the hands of biker gangs and other shady suppliers. Martin has said he supports decriminalization in "very, very, very small amounts." He has also invited a parliamentary committee to consider cutting the original 15-gram proposal. The divisive debate will reignite as the top court rules Tuesday on a trio of cases. A key question is whether federal law violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by imposing criminal penalties, including potential jail time, for possession of small amounts of pot. The cases involve two self-described marijuana activists and one man who was caught toking up. David Malmo-Levine, the most colourful of the three, took a hit of hash last May before arguing his case in person at the high court while dressed head-to-toe in hemp clothes. He once ran the Harm Reduction Club, a non-profit co-operative in East Vancouver that offered advice on safe pot use while supplying it to some 1,800 members. Another case centres on Christopher Clay, who ran the Hemp Nation in London, Ont., a store he started with a government loan. He sold marijuana seeds and seedlings in a deliberate challenge to the law. His lawyer, University of Toronto law professor Alan Young, says Parliament has never proven that recreational pot use causes anything more serious than bronchitis. "And most of the justifications for its prohibition have been called into question." The third case involves Victor Caine, who was arrested by a police officer after lighting a joint in a van in a parking lot in White Rock, B.C. He had 0.5 grams of pot in his possession. Federal lawyers argued there is "no free-standing right to get stoned" and said Parliament must be free, within reason, to criminalize behaviour as it sees fit. Defence lawyers said criminal penalties for minor drug offences are disproportionate and violate the guarantee of fundamental justice in the Charter. Source: Canadian Press Author: Sue BaileyPublished: December 22, 2003Copyright: 2003 The Canadian PressRelated Articles & Web Site:Cannabis News Canadian Links Ruling Expected Tuesday Court Will Rule Tuesday Court To Issue Ruling Soon on Pot Law
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

Comment #45 posted by cloud7 on December 23, 2003 at 06:44:24 PT
The link is up
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #44 posted by Breeze on December 23, 2003 at 06:40:15 PT
comment #42 - Virgil
Please tell me what message board are you refering too?
If I can post on a board that gets tons of visitors, that is where i will definitely direct my attention!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #43 posted by mayan on December 23, 2003 at 06:31:58 PT
Free The Weed!
Man, waiting sucks. I am very optimistic about the coming decision, though. No matter what the court rules today, we are winning this fight and will continue to win. Our numbers grow by the day as the prohibitionists watch their allies continue to defect to our side. The chorus is nearly deafening! The cannabis plant is exposing more corporate/government corruption than I had ever imagined. This plant can enhance every facet of every life. It can heal our planet!The masses are coming to realize this...and boy are they getting pissed!The way out is the way in...9/11 Widow Kristen Breitweiser On Hardball(Transcript) and the 9/11 Commission - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice is apparently not keen on going under oath for the Kean 9/11 commission:,8599,565974,00.htmlDaschle Pnackles "Commission Incredible": COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED, 9/11 CHAIR ADMITS: widow wants deposition from Saddam:
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #42 posted by Virgil on December 23, 2003 at 06:24:36 PT
Everyone needs to be in another messageboard besides here. In the Three Stooges, Moe used to say "Spread out." There was not a good presence even at DU and it is rated at about 5000 by Alexa. Of the three messageboards I have been in since Tom and Rollie were executed, nobody had attitude or were informed. There were some that ganged up on me but I have always held my ground. One guy poor guy that had never heard of MLG- medical laughing grass, another morphing of Groundhog Day- got it laid on him. I said that is the most ignorant thing anyone has said yet. He woke up and wanted info.We are winning and when the announcement comes we need to cover the messageboards with the decision. We have to learn to work the Internet.15 minutes
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #41 posted by The GCW on December 23, 2003 at 04:17:34 PT
Selected shorts (before show time). (with photos)Celebrity Stoners by Dana Larsen (22 Dec, 2003) Tabloid tales of toking dogs, spaced-out stars and first-family high jinks.Naomi Watts' pot dog scareWhile some dogs like to hang out and get stoned with their masters, it's never wise to let your pet munch down too much bud.Aussie actress Naomi Watts learned this lesson the hard way; she and her hunky boyfriend Heath Ledger had to rush her spaced-out pooch to Vancouver's Animal Emergency Clinic while she was in the pot-friendly city filming her new flick, Anymore.Watts, best known for her recent starring role in The Ring, is the proud owner of Bob, a seven-month-old Yorkshire Terrier. According to media reports, the vet's records show that the dog was diagnosed for "suspected ingestion of marijuana." In addition to intravenous fluids and medication, Bob was subjected to a pee test.Celeb tabloid The Star even solicited a quote from an animal-rights activist at the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, who said "anyone who exposes an animal to marijuana is mistreating it." However that's a bit of a generalization, as don't we all know some pets that like to get high?Watts' spokesperson predictably denied that the dog had eaten any of the couple's stash, claiming instead that the passed-out pet just had "narcolepsy." Watts' hunky boyfriend Ledger likes to keep his image squeaky-clean. He is even quoted on the anti-pot website as saying that "family and friends" are his "antidrug."James Bong, licensed to chillJames Bond star Pierce Brosnan had his privacy invaded while quietly trying to buy a bong in his hometown of Malibu, California.While Brosnan, 50, picked out an ornate $1000 glass bong at the popular Dementia smoke shop, a customer sneakily photographed the star's purchase, and then promptly sold the photos to celebrity tabloid The Star.The customer said that Brosnan, who lives near the store, "spent ages talking to the guy behind the counter. He went from the smallest pipes to the really expensive ones. He didn't seem bothered to be seen in there."Brosnan has never acknowledged being a toker in interviews or media reports. But maybe now he'd agree to star in a sequel to the 2000 video hit Secret Agent 420: James Bong, Licensed to Chill, which starred Rich Trapp, Tommy Chong and Frank the Angry Dwarf.Ashton Kutcher reveals Bush twins hookah bashAshton Kutcher, star of That 70's Show and current boy-toy of celeb stoner Demi Moore (we outed her in Celebrity Stoners issue #42), outed President Bush's twin daughters in the May issue of Rolling Stone."The Bushes were underage-drinking at my house," said Kutcher, describing a party sometime around December 2001. "When I checked outside, one of the Secret Service guys asked me if they'd be spending the night. I said no. And then I go upstairs to see another friend and I can smell the green wafting out under his door. I open the door, and there he is smoking out the Bush twins on his hookah."According to a "close source" quoted in the National Enquirer, when Daddy Bush had the Rolling Stone article read to him he immediately got on the phone to his toking twins. The President told his toking twins that "first and foremost they needed to be more discreet.""George told his daughters he remembers what it's like to be young and carefree. But he also explained it was more than a little embarrassing to read that his daughters were surrounded by clouds of marijuana smoke in a young Hollywood hunk's bedroom.George W himself is known to have been a heavy user of cocaine during his youth, and was arrested for theft and vandalism in college. In 1976, at the age of 30, Bush was convicted for drunk driving. When these issues were brought up during the 2000 elections, Bush repeatedly lied and denied, then brushed these incidents off by saying, "When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible."Morgan Freeman on God's own herbIn an April interview with UK newspaper The Guardian, actor Morgan Freeman explained that he had stopped using cocaine and other "hard drugs" but that he would "never give up on the ganja."Morgan, 65, has been nominated for three Academy Awards. He called marijuana "God's own weed" and explained how Moses' encounter with the "burning bush" was an early Biblical reference to the spiritual benefits of cannabis use.Sadly the reporter didn't explore Freeman's pot-based beliefs further, but did add that ganja was clearly "a subject close to his heart."Bing Crosby: the toking croonerBob Hope celebrated his 100th birthday in May, with a number of parties and tributes being put on in his honor.It's unknown if Hope is a current toker, but he was certainly never opposed to the wondrous herb. One of Hope's common pot jokes while entertaining the troops in Vietnam was that "instead of taking it away from the soldiers, we ought to give it to the negotiators in Paris."Another cannabis joke which Hope used in Vietnam: "I hear you guys are interested in gardening here. Our security officer said a lot of you guys are growing your own grass."Regardless of whether or not Hope was a toker, his centennial birthday is excuse enough to mention Bing Crosby, Hope's partner in movies and also the most popular entertainer of the first half of the 20th Century.Crosby and Hope first met in 1932, when the two were performing at the Capitol Theater in New York. A few years later they were working together doing vaudeville routines. Their best work together was their seven hit "road movies" released between 1940 and 1962. A new one was scheduled for production in 1978, but Crosby died of a heart attack before filming began.Crosby, who dominated American pop-culture for most of the 20th Century, was already an avid toker by the time he teamed up with Hope. Crosby got his start singing jazz during the 1920's, and in the Crosby biography A Pocketful of Dreams, author Gary Giddins explains that Crosby was introduced to reefer by jazz great Louis Armstrong.The ganja-loving Armstrong eventually appeared in several movies with Crosby, and on many of his radio and TV shows. They shared a hit single in 1951 (Gone Fishin') and teamed up for the classic album Bing and Satchmo in 1960.A Pocketful of Dreams also quotes Bing's eldest son, Gary, describing how his father told him he should just smoke pot instead of over-drinking. Gary even claims that pot had an effect on his father's casual musical and theatrical style. "If you look at the way he sang and the way he walked and talked," says Gary, "you could make a pretty good case for somebody who was loaded."Gary also explains how sometimes, when marijuana was mentioned in Crosby's presence, "he'd get a smile on his face. He'd kind of think about it and there'd be that little smile."In his new book, Good Medicine, Great Sex, author David Ford recounts the time he interviewed Bing Crosby in 1962. After the formal interview was over, Ford asked Crosby if "at home you might put a little grass in your famous pipe?"As Ford tells it: "He looked me right in the eyes and rewarded me with a generous grin and a wink.""Since my interview with Bing," adds Ford, "I've had various musicians tell me that in fact he smoked a lot of pot, and that it did keep him mellow."Although Crosby was reluctant to publicly admit whether he continued to use cannabis, he wasn't shy about telling the media he thought it should be legal. In numerous interviews during the 1960s and 70s, he forthrightly said the herb should be at least decriminalized.Despite the fact that Hope wasn't as avid a toker as his friend Crosby, Bob has been immortalized by the global cannabis culture in another odd way. Because of its rhyme with the word "dope," in parts of England "Bob Hope" is used as a slang expression for the herb itself.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #40 posted by Breeze on December 23, 2003 at 01:26:24 PT
You want to send JUST an email or snail mail...
here is the thing you need to get started with our campaign- use it wisely...
These are the addresses for the candidates- notice that Kucinich's addy isn't here.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #39 posted by rchandar on December 23, 2003 at 00:59:51 PT:
your comment about cali
hmm--the real problem is cultural--americans have been conditioned, from the 30's onward, to accept the logistics of prohibition. our "mainstream" culture still doesn't have the guts--or the wisdom--to see grass as anything but a terrible evil necessitating tough, honest interdiction in the final vindication of good character.very few movies have really broken the ethical lock that they have. one I did like--Traffic. Getting Michael Douglas up there as drug czar to admit "you can't make war on your family" was huge in my opinion. Don't laugh: preaching treatment over jail was a big step; this only made it to the screen three years ago. the rest of the movies portray all of us as barbarian a#$holes who deserve to be punished.most Americans--i think at least a half but more likely 3/4--said that the War on Drugs is "a failure." but when confronted with punitive authority--and the tapestry of half truths and moralizing that the government is savvy enough at showing to its captive audience every day and in every new action film, piece of journalism, any of it--they don't have the time, the logic, or the interest in evaluating the drug problem again. sorry to say, but this country really doesn't make protest culture work the way it has worked elsewhere in the world--many probably believe that the "overthrow the government" venom failed once in 1968, never to be addressed as fully again. into the mix came new media after media, music star after music star, division after division, logic after logic--and my sense is we're simply too divided to pull it off that way. unfortunately there just isn't a sense of outrage about cannabis being illegal--by and large, the bulk of americans acquiesced in this reality years ago. even our music stars--let's face it, WHATEVER you listen to--they, too, lack the courage to speak out against prohibition. It's wrong, I'm famous, I got busted, and I'll spend the rest of my life saying I was stupid to be like that. Film can do a lot, but not liking cops doesn't mean that people will "see the wisdom" of changing current policy. Plenty of "clean" people hate cops, plenty of those same people are lousy, self-involved people who we don't want leading us.another big problem was definitely caused by hippies, though I do admire them. because pot was equated with rebellion, subversion, giving the government the finger, today my sense is that it still is viewed that way. it's a badge of liberal identity, whereas pot isn't liberal or conservative at all;that's just another way of sensationalizing the horror by showing us up as ingrate misfits who have no morals. much of the music culture hasn't helped, always attacking the entire structure of government. not that i don't love them for doing so, but i've met conservatives and even fascists who were stoners. now. what needs to be done--lenin's old question. basically we should try to do what is being slowly assembled in nevada and dc--advertise our issue to the millions. in other words, stop american parents from seeing ridiculous commercials about 10 year old kids getting stoned, playing with guns, dreaming of sex--and shock them into realization the same way our government shocked its entire law-abiding constituency into demonizing
beyond belief a small, green plant. If Michael Stipe can speak for Amnesty International, we should be able to enlist notables who can "speak out." It would be hard for them, many would lose their following--but damn it, nobody ever speaks out. 
our ads--hopefully television, and not just cable (poor people don't always have cable)--should do the exact same thing--shock the viewing public by showing through drama, biography, family situations, the tears, the misery, the impassive brutality of the system, the way good people are shredded by the Drug War and not the drugs themselves--that we were fantastically fooled, steadfastly lied to, and deserving of another theme in the controlling of drugs and drug trade. Make the actors talk back, present a clear-minded and thoughtful person just sitting around trying to figure it all out, figure out why it has to be this way in our country.(i haven't seen the nevada ad. it does sound like a good beginning).for a country where about 130 million people have smoked, we're only matched by the hugely distorted government view that this is "a crime contributing to terrorism". that isn't surprising, drugs were equated with communism and unwanted racial progressivism long, long ago. i do know this; if we legalized, a lot of people would lose--people making good, easy money these days filling out forms, interrogating people, building mansions from their law practices,pharmaceutical engineers and CEOs, and mafia dons who run the trade. that part makes it tough. we'd have to have some really clear hope, something broad enough to survive a defection or (to borrow from JFK)an assassination of one of our people.  as for your comment, california did try a vote on legalization twice--1972 and 1986. It didn't pass, but I'd be damned if I knew of another state where the liberals could really make a good challenge, the way they can there. it's the largest state and probably the most left-leaning, and there are lots of smokers who are generally less ashamed to admit to it.legalization? it's possible. it may happen, it may not. 
but i'll ask you this: are americans actually capable, as a people, of admitting they made a terrible mistake? nobody apologized from the government for slavery, Jim Crow, those kinds of things. Fundamentally, americans have trouble admitting they make mistakes because america is how the world is supposed to be. americans and america can never be wrong. I don't know; I do love this country, but I'll be damned if you're ever going to catch me saying that fluffy BS about this "being the greatest country in the world." How laughable; a country that didn't even exist until the last centuries of civilization.that's my take on it. peace, jah guide.--rchandar
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #38 posted by Breeze on December 23, 2003 at 00:56:03 PT
ONE main idea-
I hate to pound this into your heads. But I have to pound away to hopefully make it known.
I am basically for one thing- ending prohibition.
And I don't care who is in office to do it.
I spend a lot of time, writing to "leaders" who aren't doing a good job leading.
I am trying- I am.
But I need help, your help.
I want this to be a better world for my kid. A safe world. A world where if he ever does try something because of peer pressure, he can do it with a reasonable amount of safety. Safety from getting in trouble with the law, shot by a gang member, dying while driving- or someone else driving drunk. The stats say that drug use is down among teens, but alcohol abuse remains constant. That is what "they" say, but what "they" don't say is how many teens die because of alcohol poisoning, drinking and driving, binge drinking to extremes. Its done by every youth as a right of passage, becoming an adult, pushing limits.
Well, we the people haven't pushed enough limits. I tried to inform a few in chat rooms last night about Kucinich, and it did not work. So, if this tactic doesn't work because of one individual, it will take many. I signed up for a chat program to try this experiment, and i definetly saw the positives. But it is going to take the many, not the few. You don't have to send money, just use your free time to become something that annoys the heck out of the politicians, and the media. Someone come up with a form letter, that is blunt and to the point on the subject of ending prohibition, and send it every where. Yeah, I even copied the names off of the skit load of spam I get and forwarded the message on. That did work apparently, as it got a few- but miniscule groups attention.
Come up with several, with several different arguments for and even against ending prohibition (ex.- by ending prohibition, your children will not be giving funds to terriers. Please help the children by ending prohibition, make them get carded for smoke just like they do cigarettes). Now I know that this stance is off beat, but it seems that this reverse pychology works.
But its gonna take more than just little old me. 
I am a nobody in nowhere land, just ah' doin' what I can- 
Please- do SOMETHING more than just sit by and watch this crap happen to our world. We live here as well as the conservatives, the republicans, the democrats, and the rest of society. We are not a minority, but a majority - but some folks are just to scared or lazy or pessimistic to do anything!
Thank you.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #37 posted by Dan B on December 22, 2003 at 23:48:00 PT
Thanks BGreen
. . . for mentioning the article about government wanting to control Americans' diets. Here is the comment I posted on the same subject: governmental regulation of diet is related to cannabis in the sense that both are examples of prohibition. Can you imagine a government so evil, so disgusting, so vile (an anagram of evil, incidentally) that it would dictate what people can put into their own bodies? Of course you can! That's what the war on drug users does. They want to expand that war to other "unhealthy behaviors." What do they have as their precedent? Drug and cannabis prohibition. That's why I brought it up, and that's why BGreen brought it up. It does matter, and we should all be aware of it. It is no joke; there are people in your government (if you are an American) right now who are plotting ways to force you to eat healthy foods and exercise. Of course, I have no problem with eating healthy and exercising, but the goverment oversteps its boundaries when it gives itself the authority to dictate those choices to its citizens. That goes for food prohibition and cannabis prohibition alike.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #36 posted by FoM on December 22, 2003 at 22:29:21 PT
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you too! I'm glad you liked what I said. I believe it too. When I see our leaders act so above us all I wonder who appointed them to be our conscience. I don't believe that we as individuals should be denied the rights to our choice of life, liberty and ways to find happiness as long as we don't hurt anyone. Human beings have altered their consciousness since the beginning of time. Why don't they see that what has always been, will always be? Some of the judges are understanding and ruling accordingly but some are not. Hopefully the near future will bring positive change for us all and a really Happy New Year.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #35 posted by Patrick on December 22, 2003 at 22:05:46 PT
FoM... on it's called frustration
You said; 
It's time for sense to be the guiding force for our leaders and lawmakers. No one could have said it better!!! Thanks for all your hard work and have a very Merry Christmas & Happy New Year! No matter what they decide tomorrow right is right and wrong is still wrong. We hold the moral high ground no matter what "they" decide. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #34 posted by DeVoHawk on December 22, 2003 at 21:04:37 PT:
System Gone Down
Jesse Jackson, speaking to a crowd, was asked a question by Loretta Nall from POT-TV: What is your stance on marijuana and what do you think MLK's stance would be on the war on drugs.Best I remember: Jesse mentioned victimless crime prosecution is a waste of money, jails waste minds, 3 strikes and your out is BS. Noel Bush, crack 3 times and she got rehabilitation which is what she deserves as she needs help. Rush should not be in Jail, he has a mental problem. Spending too much money on our jails and too little on our schools. As he is talking the Video ends so he must have continued on the education and job for poor isues.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #33 posted by ekim on December 22, 2003 at 21:02:42 PT
yes i did see that Virg
thank you for posting the link tv time. Dennis was on for one hour. people called in form all over he is a leader. i wonder who he will pick to help him, i voted for Ralph last time can he run as a Dem VP I remember when Geoffrey Fieger ran for Gov in MI. he scared everybody but there he was running as a Dem. He would have won if it were not for all the vile bile that was thrown at him cuse he defended Dr. Kevorkian. We must be allowed to call our own shots. I have a good freind now that is 86 and just watched as he was placed in a nursing home. For those that have missed this stop along the way try it on sometime. and Virg I like the countdown. remember Steves was in French:)
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #32 posted by Virgil on December 22, 2003 at 20:38:50 PT
Kucinich gets lifted
Kucinich's position on the drug war has made him the subject of this article that went up today at Cannabis Culture- was the first Democratic candidate interviewed by link-tv. The transcript from last Thursday is up at The interview is front and center on the home page and streaming video is mentioned at this link- minutes
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #31 posted by FoM on December 22, 2003 at 20:03:22 PT
My Hope
I keep looking and am hoping the story slips out tonight. That has happened before and might happen again. If it does I'll post it right away!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #30 posted by Virgil on December 22, 2003 at 19:56:00 PT
Someone put up the DRC announcement saying it was at 9:45 tomorrow morning.The heading is already up at pot-tv and you can be sure that if you are here that the link will be posted as soon as it becomes available.SGD, do you see some big and bold words at the end of the articles. They say Home   Comment   Email   Register   Recent Comments   Help   The way to keep up with new comments is to click on the one that says Recent Comments.645 minutes
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #29 posted by The GCW on December 22, 2003 at 19:51:31 PT
Right now.
"...your leaders are about to commit the supreme folly of all the ages in that they are on the verge of finally rejecting the gift of God to all men and for all ages..."Urantia page 1906. par. 2. seems to be speaking about America's leaders and at the same time be speaking about cannabis, right now.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #28 posted by SystemGoneDown on December 22, 2003 at 19:48:18 PT
What Time?
When is the ruling? I'll be sure to catch it live somwhere.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #27 posted by Sam Adams on December 22, 2003 at 19:31:40 PT
One thing's for sure
Even if we lose tomorrow, It's not going to affect much. We'll still be here! The annual survey just came out, something like 50 percent of high-schoolers admit having tried cannabis - even with 700,000 arrests!No, if there's a setback we'll just redouble our efforts. If we falter, there's a fresh generation of cannabists right behind us, ready to fight to overturn this stupid policy.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #26 posted by yippierevolutionary on December 22, 2003 at 19:30:15 PT
OK OK I didnt read the article or the comments there are mad people at my house partying. But I just gotta say tomorrow morning I am having a freedom party. We will be smoking blunts and crossing our fingers and watching the Canadians.What time should I tune in Eastern Standard time zone yeahVIVA LA REVOLUTION
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #25 posted by Virgil on December 22, 2003 at 19:22:49 PT
I will have a vodka tourist
What happens when Free Cannabis meets alcohol. It seems like we would have heard of alcoholic drinks that either used the ethanol to bring cannabinoids into an extract or have hash oil added.Surely there would be such a thing as cannabis in an alcoholic drink. Drinks have colorful names and I was just thinking what names might develop if the traditional nightspots add some enhancement. I just imagine the advertisement in the local paper advertising a special for a "vodka tourist." 675 minutes
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #24 posted by BGreen on December 22, 2003 at 18:44:44 PT
First They Came After The Cannabis User
Who's next?States Look to Combat Obesity With LawsBy ROBERT TANNER, AP National WriterFighting to shed a few pounds and control that waistline? For the soaring number of Americans who are becoming dangerously overweight, states and cities across the country want to help.SNIPA good prison diet will shape all of those fatty's up.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #23 posted by WolfgangWylde on December 22, 2003 at 18:27:57 PT
If the law is upheld by the Supreme Court...
...and "decriminalization" a la Martin is passed, it will indeed be a huge setback. In fact, if Martin's version passes, Canada will be more like the U.S. than ever before. Think about it: Right now simple possession is flat out ignored in many metropolitan areas of Canada, and cultivation brings a slap on the wrist. Martin's bill just brings draconian U.S.-style penalties for growing and trafficking, while instituting possesion laws that are stricter than many States in the U.S. Once U.S.-style culitvation/trafficking laws go into place, and the Canadian law enforcement agencies start reaping the bounty of inflated budgets and asset forfeiture, it will be very hard to turn the tide.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #22 posted by CorvallisEric on December 22, 2003 at 18:14:10 PT
Useless ganja laws - Sunday Jamaica Gleaner
Maybe one for the archive?Today the local ganja trade has all but disappeared, and in its place is a violent cocaine trade where ganja is sold on the side. Ganja is bulky but cocaine is not. Who wouldn't rather fill a trailer with cocaine, especially when a Colombian gun is pointed at your head?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #21 posted by erikghint on December 22, 2003 at 18:11:02 PT
Federal Lawyers argument
'Federal lawyers argued there is "no free-standing right to get stoned"'Citizens of Canada need not defend for their rights and freedoms, it is the government which must defend why they take these rights and freedom away.“The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #20 posted by CorvallisEric on December 22, 2003 at 18:03:09 PT
JR Bob Dobbs - comment 16
Just read the first line of this article and it shows its biasPot heads, anti-drug activists and occasional tokers will be watchingWow, my mind did one of those gestalt tricks and read "anti-drug activists" as "anti-drug-war activists." I was going to credit the author with acknowledging that not all tokers are pot heads and not all activists are either.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #19 posted by Virgil on December 22, 2003 at 17:55:02 PT
The thing to think
The fact that Canada is next to the most rabid of prohibitionist countries by a factor of 700 trillion million and such a big trading partner is a factor because it pits the welfare of the country against the freedom of the individual. Seriously, that is a factor that can be considered.If all the laws fall, this really will be a stab in the gut for prohibition in this country. We will keep on keeping on, but we will have a place to experience the freedom that we demand with the only Logical Conclusion. It would not just embarass the US definition of freedom, it will mean billions going into Canadian tourism while the US drives off the tourist that once came here. Prohibition will die in this country. The majority might not make a critical mass, but it is coming. We absolutely have to vote the prohibitionist out of office. Here is the bumpersticker- I litmus testOf course the fact that people do not have War Against Prohibition Bumperstickers is indicative of the problem of prohibition. People might could talk, but they are feared into silence and restraint of expression. It really hurts the bumpersticker business.765 minutes
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #18 posted by SystemGoneDown on December 22, 2003 at 17:54:30 PT
Jesse Jackson
I was curious to hear his stance on marijuana prohibition, but my Real Player is down. Can someone inform me?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #17 posted by FoM on December 22, 2003 at 17:43:39 PT
Just a Note
I just read that Todd McCormick is out of jail and in a half way house and I thought some of you might like to hear the good news!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #16 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on December 22, 2003 at 17:38:17 PT
Not-so-subtle slant
Just read the first line of this article and it shows its bias - if you're not indifferent about the issue, you're either an anti-drug crusader or a drug user.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #15 posted by SystemGoneDown on December 22, 2003 at 17:37:36 PT
Police officer on pot...
I was talking to a buddy of mine back in Cali, and he's good friends with this cop... He told me that the cop said he thinks that marijuana will never be legal in America because there's too much money involved with keeping it illegal. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #14 posted by FoM on December 22, 2003 at 17:30:14 PT
Thanks puff_tuff
I archived the article instead of posting it on the front page but here it is. Happy Holidays to you and I am hoping for the very best news tomorrow. I pray your courts use the wisdom that is needed to see clearly and end the insanity.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #13 posted by The GCW on December 22, 2003 at 17:27:41 PT
yeah, I don't see getting set back at all...
...if Cannada remains Canada.We can only win.We are not going backwards, only the discredited cannabis prohibitionists is. How far backwards they go before this thing snaps is the question. The further backwards they go the more it is going to knock them off thier eternalness, when the whip comes down.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #12 posted by puff_tuff on December 22, 2003 at 17:24:05 PT
Canadian Study 
Study to pin down marijuana doses for chronic painCBC
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #11 posted by FoM on December 22, 2003 at 17:19:36 PT
It's Called Frustration
Many of us are weary of all of this because we know that we are right. That's not being self righteous but we've seen the results from about every angle. We've seen the harm and we know the only solution is for them to stop. Just stop! Enough is enough. It's time for sense to be the guiding force for our leaders and lawmakers.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #10 posted by SystemGoneDown on December 22, 2003 at 17:10:32 PT
Max Flow
I sometimes spit over-the-top. But this is only a result of the extreme frustration I have. It's troubling making sense out of these issues. It started off as a basic curiosity of mine. I questioned "Why the heck is beer legal when I know from expirience that marijuana is safer, less violent, and much more daily therapuetic"... As I started researching on my own, the more FRUSTRATED I get.... So my sometimes over the top statements cannot match the over the top hypocrisy of marijuana prohibition.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #9 posted by Max Flowers on December 22, 2003 at 16:54:47 PT
I should note...
I am guilty of going over the top sometimes myself! 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by Max Flowers on December 22, 2003 at 16:48:01 PT
SystemGoneDown, you're over the top again
"It's a little nerve recking though.... because this major ruling is single-handedly going to determine mariuana's legality in the U.S. It will go one way or the other. The policy will succeed or fail. If it suceeds, Mother Cannabis wins and the U.S. people will be liberated....if it fails, we advocates will be thrown back 20 years in our long hard-fought battle."I disagree strongly with this. Canada's and the USA's marijuana policies do affect each other to varying degrees on a few different aspects, but your statement above is not true. If the Canadian decision turns out negative for cannabis freedom, it will be a setback, but will certainly not be a 20-year setback as you say. The progress we have made in this country (the US) is tangible and is growing daily, and would not be automatically negated by the wrong decision being made in Canada. You inflate their influence quite a bit there. You want to explain how any of Canada's court decisions could "single-handedly determine marijuana's legality in the U.S."? We pro-cannabists are winning, independent of Canada's events although good things happening there do help us here.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by Virgil on December 22, 2003 at 16:16:53 PT
The bigest of deals
Of course it really is all about rights and freedom. I just cannot see how arresting someone and depriving them of all freedom except air, bread, and water is demonstrably justifiable as required by the Charter of Rights.If the Supreme Court does the right thing it will immediately affect tourist. We know the goons will do terrorism on tourist to stop the flow of money and the experience of a more true freedom. A bus ticket to Niagara Falls from here is maybe $100. People really will not care about the price of tea in China as the price of LG in Canada is the main concern.Why worry about the police when we can punish the prohibitionist by taking our money and our hearts to a more free Canada? The price difference will pay for gas and people will camp on the banks the Niagara River looking south to the land of pee.It is an event that affects the future of the unfree world. Tomorrow Canada should be free. If not someone has some splaining to do. 865 minutes to go. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by delariand on December 22, 2003 at 16:10:54 PT
Critics said 15 grams, the equivalent of roughly 15 to 20 joints, was too much to equate with casual use. Hello? 15 to 20 joints isn't casual use? How many in a pack of cigarettes? For that matter, how many in a carton? That's 8 ounces of tobacco. That's right, you can buy tobacco in HALF POUND chunks at your local supermarket or corner store, and fear no law enforcement official. Where's the outcry? Where's the crying mothers demanding someone THINK OF THE CHILDREN and ban this widely available, deadly drug? Meanwhile, these critics complain about 15 to 20 grams of pot, and argue for stiffer penalties for those horrible pot smokers.It's time to wake up, people. Drugs may hurt people, but drug prohibition hurts so much more. It was true for alcohol, and it's true for the rest of them. When will the people realize that you can't reduce harm by causing harm?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by The GCW on December 22, 2003 at 16:09:09 PT
The High Court is not The Most High.
The Most High is Christ God Our Father.420I’m sorry but I think I have blood in Me that has culture that includes kaneh bosm. “The nature of its 
effect depends much on the nationality and temperament of the individual”. 4200000Today's "Thought to Ponder" from The Urantia Book:
Children are permanently impressed only by the loyalties of their adult associates; precept or even example is not lastingly influential. Loyal persons are growing persons, and growth is an impressive and inspiring reality. Live loyally today -- grow -- and tomorrow will attend to itself. The quickest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live loyally each moment as a tadpole. [1094:6]
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by sukoi on December 22, 2003 at 16:05:15 PT
Check this out,
this guy is great! I believe that he served time for possession and was then released on probation. As soon as his probation was over, he went to the Liberty Bell to smoke cannabis on federal land as a religious sacrament. I love it!Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 08:29:40 -0800
From: "D. Paul Stanford" Subject: 008 PA: Liberty Bell protest a hugh success! From: ED FORCHION - U.S. DISSIDENT Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 7:26 AM To: usmjparty Subject: USMJP: Liberty Bell protest a hugh success! 
Everything went as planned! The only problem was not enough people showed,
we only had about 50 people. But we did have two lawyers come and volunteer
to represent anyone charged. On Micheal Cord has a lawyer radio show on WHAT
1340 am in Philly. He use's his radio show to highlight important local
case's and to obviously pump up his own show. Our case will be a feature of
his show for a while. At exactly 420pm, we held a moment of silence
(religious) for the 700,000 citizens arrested every-year for marijuana and
the 1 million citizens in prison for non-violent drug offenses. At that
point Pat Duff and I consumed our sacrament. We were charged and will be
fighting the charges using the RELIGIOUS DEFENSE. A funny thing happened
though, I was required to strip off my coat in a search for weapons, while
Pat wasn't. (WHY was that?) I'll leave the RACE issue for others to debate.
But I expected to be searched so under my clothes I had my F**K you shirt ( ) on. Everyone laughed as I stood in
the middle of 6 Federal Police with a F**K SHIRT on. Pat really did a good
job. Two major papers did show up and we expect in a day or so to have it
reported. Three video cameras were present so you should all be able to
watch the event on POT-TV soon. 
(profanity edited by sukoi)Be sure to check out his shirt!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by FoM on December 22, 2003 at 15:47:52 PT
It will be a Merry Christmas or one of the most depressing in reforms history as far as Canada goes.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by SystemGoneDown on December 22, 2003 at 15:41:28 PT
BIG DAY tommorow...
It's a little nerve recking though.... because this major ruling is single-handedly going to determine mariuana's legality in the U.S. It will go one way or the other. The policy will succeed or fail. If it suceeds, Mother Cannabis wins and the U.S. people will be liberated....if it fails, we advocates will be thrown back 20 years in our long hard-fought battle.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by The GCW on December 22, 2003 at 15:35:24 PT
Cannablis in Cannada. And for anyone who is just dropping by,& haven't heard: Democratic Presidential nominee, Dennis Kucinich, put in writing that as PRESIDENT He WILL: 
"DECRIMINALIZE MARIJUANA" -"in favor of a drug policy that sets reasonable boundaries for marijuana use by establishing guidelines similar to those already in place for alcohol." (POSTED ON His website!) 
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment