cannabisnews.com: Liberal MP Dismisses U.S. Views on Pot





Liberal MP Dismisses U.S. Views on Pot
Posted by CN Staff on October 21, 2003 at 08:29:31 PT
By Kim Lunman
Source: Globe and Mail 
Ottawa -- The head of a special parliamentary committee examining Canada's legislation to decriminalize marijuana said yesterday she has no interest in inviting top U.S. drug official John Walters to testify at hearings into the controversial bill."I'd rather hear from our top executives on drug situations," said Liberal MP Paddy Torsney, in the latest volley of political pot shots over Ottawa's plans to relax marijuana laws.
"Different countries have different laws. There are other places that have moved to some form of decriminalization so his ideas for his country are very interesting," she said. "But we make our own decisions and our laws are for Canadians and others who come to Canada and break the law."The all-party committee -- appointed by Parliament to fast-track a bill that would decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana by issuing tickets and fining offenders -- is divided on whether or not U.S. officials should appear before the hearing. The committee starts selecting witnesses tomorrow.Last week, the White House's drug czar, Mr. Walters, slammed Canada for relaxing drug policies and criticized Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, who has suggested he may try marijuana when he retires."That's too damned bad what she thinks," said Canadian Alliance MP and vice-chair of the committee Randy White, of Ms. Torsney. "Quite frankly, the Americans have a stake in this. They might be narrow-minded enough to think not but they do. "He wants U.S. officials to attend the hearing to testify about the American position on the bill and to detail any possible recriminations regarding trade or security along the world's longest undefended border."They better wise up. This isn't just some kind of legacy the Prime Minister is leaving by here for the rest of us to live by . . . we're going to talk to Americans by hook or by crook."Mr. White said the committee has been stacked with government supporters to get the bill through Parliament this fall. "They've been told to rush this thing through and to hell with everybody else."NDP MP and committee member Libby Davies accused the committee's Alliance members of using the border debate to prevent the bill from passing before the fall session is expected to end next month."Clearly, the Alliance is putting this forward as a stalling tactic," she said. "They don't want this bill to go anywhere."Ms. Davies said it's more important for the committee to hear from Canadian witnesses, including the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs, drug policy officials and experts on issues such as measuring marijuana intoxication. Source: Globe and Mail (Canada)Author: Kim LunmanPublished: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 - Page A2 Copyright: 2003 The Globe and Mail CompanyContact: letters globeandmail.caWebsite: http://www.globeandmail.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Cannabis News Canadian Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/can.htmLiberals To Speed Bill Easing Pot Lawshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17514.shtmlLiberals Move To Fast-Track Passage of MJ Billhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17512.shtmlLiberals Move To Fast-Track Marijuana Billhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17510.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #8 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on October 22, 2003 at 02:53:26 PT
LTE
Sirs,  Several U.S. states have decriminalized marijuana at the state level, putting penalties in those states equivalent with what the new Canadian law would do country-wide. However, I doubt this is what John Walters wants to tell Canadian officials...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by global_warming on October 21, 2003 at 16:45:46 PT
A Filthy Soul
"we're going to talk to Americans by hook or by crook."*If Judas Iscariot ever lived, he is still alive..I thought that the demons of Hell exploded his body into such small peices that they could never be recovered..White or Black, he sounds like a dog that is sucking the prohibitionists penis.May God have mercy on his filthy soul..gw
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by lombar on October 21, 2003 at 13:47:08 PT
ounce of true + pound of false
"..committee examining Canada's legislation to decriminalize marijuana .."Why does the media insist on calling this legislation 'decriminalisation'? It is a renewal of prohibition, easier to punish users with fines and greater punishments for producers. It is downright misleading. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Ethan Russo MD on October 21, 2003 at 13:18:16 PT:
It Gets Worse
Dan McTeague was one of the MP's who met with US officials behind Chretien's back:Treaty forbids pot plan: Grit
By KATHLEEN HARRIS mailto:kathleen.harris tor.sunpub.com>,
Parliamentary Bureau
 
   A Liberal MP says Canada will violate an international treaty if it moves ahead with plans to decriminalize pot. Dan McTeague said representatives of the UN office on drugs and crime met with federal government officials last week to warn that proposed legislative changes would contravene a 1961 UN
drug control convention. "It would represent a serious blow to the government," said McTeague. "It's always been keen to find ways to suggest those who are opposed to this are following U.S. policy. In fact, it's not U.S. policy, it's UN policy." 
   The UN convention prohibits member countries from permitting the possession of drugs, including cannabis, except for scientific or medicinal purposes.
  Canada risks being viewed as the "Colombia of the North" if it withdraws from the treaty, McTeague said. Here is Matt Elrod's excellent response:To the editor,Liberal MP Dan McTeague has not done his homework. ("Treaty forbids pot plan: Grit", Oct 21). While it is true that international treaties require signatory countries to criminalize the possession of illicit drugs, the treaties only mandate criminal penalties for possession for the purpose of trafficking. The International Narcotics Control Board declared in 1992 that none of the conventions force governments to convict or punish people who use illegal drugs.Yes, the 1961 U.N. Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs "prohibits parties from permitting the possession of drugs except for scientific or medicinal purposes," however, the proposed cannabis decriminalization bill would not "permit" anyone to possess anything. It would merely downgrade simple possession from a criminal to a civil offence.If decriminalizing cannabis possession violates U.N. agreements, then a number of signatory countries have already violated those agreements, including Australia, Belgium, Germany, Holland, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and the United States. Britain also intends to decriminalize cannabis later this year.Of course, McTeague would know all of this if he had bothered to read the recent House committee report on drug policy or the Senate committee report on cannabis policy, both of which include chapters on our international treaty obligations. Surely these reports should be
required reading for Members of Parliament.Matthew M. Elrod
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by OverwhelmSam on October 21, 2003 at 13:02:09 PT:
Hey Canadians!
Might as well disband your parliment and let the US government take over your country. Who is this Randy White guy and who voted him into office anyway?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by WolfgangWylde on October 21, 2003 at 10:35:55 PT
The way...
...the new law is shaping up, it looks like it was WRITTEN by Americans.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by goneposthole on October 21, 2003 at 09:52:07 PT
money talks
 "...we're going to talk to Americans by hook or by crook."If cannabis were legal, regulated to the extent where the US gov could legitimately benefit from its commerce, then talks wouldn't be necessary.As it is, the money that is exchanged on a daily basis between Canadian cannabis growers and American buyers doesn't benefit the US gov one teensy weensy bit. The US gov wants to put a stop to the cannabis commerce. Price it out of existence, but the warehouses are full. It can't be done, hence the prying feds are going to stick its nose into the Canadian government's legislative business, by hook or by crook.The way it's always been. Money talks and (I forgot) what walks.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by kaptinemo on October 21, 2003 at 09:07:13 PT:
Mr. White: Canadian...or American?
A legitimate question, considering this:*He wants U.S. officials to attend the hearing to testify about the American position on the bill and to detail any possible recriminations regarding trade or security along the world's longest undefended border."They better wise up. This isn't just some kind of legacy the Prime Minister is leaving by here for the rest of us to live by . . . we're going to talk to Americans by hook or by crook."*Is it necessary to listen to another pack of lies regarding cannabis prohibition, Mr. White? You've heard them every day, all of your adult life, wafting over the border and dinning into Canadian ears. The only reason why anyone would willingly subject themselves to such torture is masochism.Were I in his ridership, I'd think I'd want my neighbors to know that Mr. White appears to be more interested in doing the bidding of Washington than he does in looking after the concerns of his own electorate.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment