cannabisnews.com: Supreme Court to Rule on Pot Cases





Supreme Court to Rule on Pot Cases
Posted by CN Staff on December 17, 2003 at 15:08:24 PT
By Jim Brown
Source: Canadian Press 
Ottawa -- Decriminalization of marijuana, an issue pushed to the political back burner by the departure of Jean Chrétien and the arrival of Prime Minister Paul Martin, is about to be catapulted back into the headlines by the Supreme Court of Canada. The court announced today that it will rule next week on a trio of cases in which the key question is whether federal law violates the Charter of Rights by mandating criminal penalties, including potential jail time, for possession of small amounts of pot. 
Whichever way the judgment goes, it seems sure to reignite the debate that heated up this year when the Chrétien government brought in legislation to decriminalize simple possession. The bill died on the House of Commons order paper when Chrétien called an end to the fall parliamentary session last month. Martin Cauchon, then justice minister, expressed hope that Martin will reintroduce the legislation. The new prime minister has said in the past that he favours decriminalization in principle. But he has also been mindful of conflicting opinions among Liberal backbenchers and suggested the matter needed further debate. Martin has not said, since he took power a week ago, whether he will revive the bill when Parliament resumes in the new year. The Supreme Court will deliver its opinion next Tuesday. Source: Canadian Press Author: Jim BrownPublished: December 17, 2003Copyright: 2003 The Canadian PressRelated Articles & Web Site:Cannabis News Canadian Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/can.htmTo Toke or Not To Toke?http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17973.shtmlMarijuana Advocates Get Day in High Courthttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17968.shtmlOntario Court Reinstates Pot Lawhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17491.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #20 posted by aolbites on December 18, 2003 at 23:16:45 PT
-correction to link in comment 5
http://www.kucinich.us/mediawatch.php[the . at the end 404'd it]
Media watch
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by Nuevo Mexican on December 18, 2003 at 08:53:45 PT
The 23rd is the best day possible!!!
as it is a New Moon! And in the sign of Capricorn to boot, the sign that has rulership over guess what? Yes, Cannabis/ hemp, (both). Awesome!What the Stars (the body of God, and their 'light' represents the 'spirit' of God or the All-That-Is) say:Everything in the uni-verse (one song) has a planetary deva (angel) the 'governs' it, and the New Moon is when you plant seeds for the greatest, most successful and most 'effortless' crop! Co-incidence or what! The full moon is when you harvest! Age old wisdom, farmers and fisherman follow these 'rules' to know when the optimum time is for their activities. Remember Benjamin Franklin and the Old Farmers Almanac. Plant by the moon, harvest by the moon, ancient wisdom that man has had to live by for his very survival!This decision is truly being ordained from the 'TOP'. The walls of prohibition have crumbled, and there will be no putting them back, (if the walls were made of hemp bale, like straw bale, but far superior) they would never crumble, but having been made of our worst fears and illusions, these walls will never stand the test of time.The likelyhood of this being a positive decision is high!Only one glitch, Mercury the messenger is Rx, (Retrograde, or appearing to go backwards, even though it is an illusion only). The up side, this decision is a review of previous ones, and should stand up to scrutiny, the down side, something may be re-viewed or revisited again, but thats okay, it usually favors the decisions thoroughness.In other words, I can't wait!!! It seems were on a roll FOM!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by yippierevolutionary on December 18, 2003 at 08:36:04 PT
O'Rielly
First thing I have to say about Bil O'Rielly is that he does not support putting people in jail for minor cannabis possession, he supports decrim.On "The Factor" last night O'Rielly was talking about how these left leaning web sites are a threat to democracy. Him and some rabid conservative women from the Washington Times were ganging up on a moderate who gasp thinks people can read the good and the bad and make up their own minds. That is the profile of politics and news these days the ultra-right vs the moderates. They want on for a long time about how good corporate hierachical media is because "you have editors who don't just let anything in" I just listened to Al Franken's audiobook lies and lying liars and he has a hilarious chapter about how O'Reilly lied about his home town, winning peobody awards and a bunch of other stuff.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by jose melendez on December 18, 2003 at 06:44:41 PT
truth no threat
my comment #16 could have read "Any civilization that poisons or enslaves it's youth . . ."But whatever.caught in a lie? Hint: stop lying!Truth called threat to Democracy by O'Reiily. Really.http://www.drudgereport.com/mattbc1.htm
truth not threats
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by jose melendez on December 18, 2003 at 06:35:37 PT
overturn Wickard
I'm glad the 9th Circuit dissenter brought up the Commerce Clause, as it applies not only to this case but also to the 1942 grain case Wickard v. Filburn, which could be overturned, if it can be shown that the court erred.I argue that in the latter, grain used to benefit the family farm would not substantially effect interstate commerce*, but in any case, such legislative impositions on a particular class of citizens are necessarily and historically applied arbitrarily, and in fact almost never apply to those who make such regulations, or their constituents. Think of it: if you own a grocery store or a restaurant, your family has access to food. No one steps in and says now, "You have to feed your family at Kentucky Fried Chicken once a week, or face penalties, fines and possibly jail." Make your own kid's lunch? Nah. Sorry. We's got to follow rules. Any civilization that sells poison or enslaves it's youth is not long for this world, or so John Ashcroft suggests. Yet We The People are sold poisons upon which we pay taxes, then significant amounts of US die from complications, just before we collect Social Security. Got fraud?I don't see any U.S. Attorneys busting down ONDCP doors yet. If George Soros had run an ad campaign shown to increase youth use rates, what would be the charge? Apply it to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, or resign, you corrupt badge toting, bar hopping crooks! Enforce the law you are sworn to uphold, or we will help you retire, using the pen and the keyboard as our weapons!(Please excuse the outburst. Is that a symptom of Tourette's, or Patriotism?)Finally, in order to show that legal access to cannabis would affect commerce, the government would be forced to admit that, in effect, we were right all along: suppression of cannabis sativa L. has more to do with racketeer influenced, corrupt yet legal organizations and the profitable government agencies that enable their profits and contracts, because they are virtually or by mandate exempted from long standing common laws against restraint of trade and monopoly, as well as existing anti-trust and constitutional law, specifically the First and Fourth through Tenth Amendments.see: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html* since such a windfall would likely be spent in the local economy.
crooks with guns and badges fight pot, but drink, smoke and pop pills.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by NORML_Zach on December 18, 2003 at 05:21:35 PT:
When Will Our Day Come
Hello, I live in the southeastern US, Memphis TN. I think they will legalize weed in all US states and sell them like ciggs. I have to pay anywhere from $5 - 25 for pot. The government makes a big issue out of pot, they call it "The Gateway Drug" The Drug that will lead you into the hard drugs. I say Weed is natural, LSD, Pills, Crack/Coccaine are not natural. They did studies in the southren US, and they revealed that weed is no problem to get a hold of here, it's as if it's on every street corner. But more less it's being sold in our schools, and mostly out on the street. They say children between 8-13 have absoultly no problem in getting the drug. They may not legalize weed anytime soon in America, but mark my words, eventually they will sell
Personal Site
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on December 18, 2003 at 01:12:16 PT
23 skidoo
  The week between Christmas and New Years' is generally devoid of news - a lot of people speculate the only reason the JonBenet story got as much air as it did was that it started in the news vacuum of that week. So if Canada makes a historic announcement, there should be little if any news to bump it off the front page with.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by escapegoat on December 17, 2003 at 23:50:15 PT
Actual bulletin from SCC
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA -- JUDGMENTS TO BE RENDERED IN APPEALSOTTAWA, 17/12/03. THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA ANNOUNCED TODAY THAT JUDGMENT 
IN THE FOLLOWING APPEALS WILL BE DELIVERED AT 9:45 A.M. ON TUESDAY, 
DECEMBER 23, 2003.FROM: SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (613) 995-4330COUR SUPR E DU CANADA -- PROCHAINS JUGEMENTS SUR APPELSOTTAWA, 17/12/03. LA COUR SUPR E DU CANADA A ANNONC AUJOURD'HUI QUE 
JUGEMENT SERA RENDU DANS LES APPELS SUIVANTS LE MARDI 23 D EMBRE 2003, 9 h 45.SOURCE: COUR SUPR E DU CANADA (613) 995-43301.David Malmo-Levine v. Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.) (B.C.) (28026)2.Victor Eugene Caine v. Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.) (B.C.) (28148)3.Christopher James Clay v. Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.) (B.C.) (28189)----------------------------------------------------------------------------28026David Malmo-Levine v. Her Majesty The QueenCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Section 7 - Narcotic Control Act, 
s. 4 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in characterizing the harms that 
may come with cannabis use as inherent, instead of a product of 
mis-cultivation, mis-distribution and mis-use - Did the Court of Appeal 
fail to address the issue of whether the harm principle applies to growers 
and dealers of cannabis who arguably play an essential role in cannabis 
harm reduction? - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not considering the 
principle of equality found in s. 15 of the Charter as it applies to 
substance orientation and in not applying equality to every producer and 
distributor of stimulants and relaxants, whether bean, grape, herb or 
otherwise.The Appellant was a self-described marihuana / freedom activist. Beginning 
in October 1996, he helped operate an organization in East Vancouver known 
as the Harm Reduction Club which was a co-operative, non-profit association 
of its members. The stated object of the Club was to educate its users and 
the general public about marihuana and provide unadulterated marihuana to 
its users at Club cost. The Club had approximately 1800 members.The Club purported to educate its members on a wide variety of safe smoking 
habits to minimize any harm from the use of marihuana. Members were 
required to sign a pledge not to operate motor vehicles or heavy equipment 
while under the influence of the substance.On December 4, 1996, police entered the premises of the Club and seized 316 
grams of marihuana, much of it in the form of joints. The Appellant was 
charged with possession of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking 
contrary to s. 4 of the Narcotic Control Act and was convicted. At trial, 
the Appellants application to call evidence in constitutional challenge was 
dismissed. On appeal, the majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the 
appeal. Prowse J.A. dissenting declined to make a finding with respect to 
the constitutional validity of s. 4(2) of the Narcotic Control Act. On 
March 15, 2001, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was also 
granted.Origin of the case: British ColumbiaFile No.:28026Judgment of the Court of Appeal:June 2, 2000Counsel: David Malmo-Levine/John W. Conroy Q.C. for the AppellantS.D. Frankel Q.C. for the Respondent----------------------------------------------------------------------------28148 Victor Eugene Caine v. Her Majesty The QueenCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Section 7 - Narcotic Control Act, 
s. 3(1) - Whether prohibiting possession of Cannabis (marihuana) for 
personal use under s. 3(1) of the Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 
N-1, by reason of the inclusion of this substance in s. 3 of the Schedule 
to the Act (now s. 1, Schedule II, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, 
S.C. 1996, c. 19), infringes s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and 
Freedoms - If the answer is in the affirmative, is the infringement 
justified under s. 1 of the Charter? - Whether the prohibition is within 
the legislative competence of the Parliament of Canada as being a law 
enacted for the peace, order and good government of Canada pursuant to s. 
91 of the Constitution Act, 1867; as being enacted pursuant to the criminal 
law power in s. 91(27) thereof; or otherwise.During the late afternoon of June 13, 1993, two R.C.M.P. officers were 
patrolling a parking lot at a beach in White Rock, B.C. They observed the 
Appellant and a male passenger sitting in a van owned by the 
Appellant. The officers observed the Appellant, who was seated in the 
drivers seat, start the engine and begin to back up. As one officer 
approached the van, he smelled a strong odour of recently smoked marihuana.The Appellant produced for the officer a partially smoked cigarette of 
marihuana which weighed 0.5 grams. He possessed the marihuana cigarette 
for his own use and not for any other purpose.The Appellants application for a declaration that the provisions the 
Narcotic Control Act prohibiting the possession of marihuana were 
unconstitutional was denied. On appeal, the appeal was dismissed.Origin of the case: British ColumbiaFile No.:28148Judgment of the Court of Appeal:June 2, 2000Counsel: John W. Conroy Q.C. for the AppellantS.D. Frankel Q.C. for the Respondent----------------------------------------------------------------------------28189 Christopher Clay v. Her Majesty The QueenCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Section 7 - Narcotic Control Act, 
s. 3(1) - Whether prohibiting possession of Cannabis (marihuana) for 
personal use under s. 3(1) of the Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 
N-1, by reason of the inclusion of this substance in s. 3 of the Schedule 
to the Act (now s. 1, Schedule II, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, 
S.C. 1996, c. 19), infringes s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and 
Freedoms - If the answer is in the affirmative, is the infringement 
justified under s. 1 of the Charter? - Whether the prohibition is within 
the legislative competence of the Parliament of Canada as being a law 
enacted for the peace, order and good government of Canada pursuant to s. 
91 of the Constitution Act, 1867; as being enacted pursuant to the criminal 
law power in s. 91(27) thereof; or otherwise.The Appellant was convicted of possession of cannabis sativa, two counts of 
possession of cannabis sativa for the purpose of trafficking and one count 
of trafficking in cannabis sativa, contrary to the Narcotic Control Act. 
The Appellant challenged the constitutionality of the cannabis prohibitions 
in the Narcotic Control Act on the basis that they violated his rights 
under s. 7 of the Charter and that the regulation of marijuana was not 
within federal jurisdiction. He also argued that the Crown had failed to 
prove that the substances seized from him were prohibited narcotics as 
defined by the Act. An analyst called by the Crown testified that a 
substance certified as cannabis (marijuana) must contain two of four target 
cannabinoids and that it is not necessary that one of these be 
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. The 
analyst could not say that the seized substances contained any THC. The 
trial judge dismissed the Appellants constitutional challenge and found 
that the Crown had proven the offences. The Appellants appeal from his 
convictions was dismissed.Origin of the case: OntarioFile No.: 28189Judgment of the Court of Appeal:July 31, 2000Counsel: Paul Burstein for the AppellantMorris Pistyner for the Respondent
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by FoM on December 17, 2003 at 22:26:09 PT
What a Day!
I am tired but today has been a good day. Sometimes it seems we go so long without good news. We know this road all to well. The good thing is I think those who fight us know the road fairly well now too. Now we need honesty to come forward. If I could tell those who fight us one thing it would be please look inside yourself and really determine why you fight so hard against reform. Think and think some more. I know that we aren't bad people. We just are a culture of people who don't think cannabis should be against the law.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by Virgil on December 17, 2003 at 22:03:00 PT
Fantacyland not reporting on reality
A 12:30 AM search with the word "marijuana" did not produce a result for the 15th, 15th, or 17th at WashingtonPost.com.I think the Toronto Star is about the equivalant of the NYT in Canada. They did not use the word marijuana or cannabis today and for that matter, they have not done so since December 8th. My feeling is still that the CSC will declare personal possession/consumption and cultivation a legal activity. I would find it hard to believe that all the justices have not all read or discussed the Senate Select Committee Report on Illegal Drugs and realize that there decision has global implications. They will do the right thing and they will say there is no justification for criminal prohibition for cannabis in a free Canada.This article from the Star- http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1071658946749&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154 - means that all policies and expenses and priorities will have to be re-examined. 
Liberals expect $5.6B deficit
Ontario could face years of multibillion-dollar deficits, finance minister warnsFROM CANADIAN PRESSOntario could face years of multibillion-dollar deficits unless the government takes decisive action to rein in spending, Finance Minister Greg Sorbara said today. In his first economic statement since the Liberals defeated the Tories in October, Sorbara said the province is expected to end the fiscal year $5.6-billion in the red and that the shortfalls could persist. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by Virgil on December 17, 2003 at 18:03:48 PT
Here is the chance for Cannabis Culture to shine
Here is where Cannabis Culture could really make a name for themselves. There is no total prohition in the United States and there may soon be no CP in Canada. It is supernova time as the star Prohibition is collapsing. It is understandable how the Nazi press will be on whisper until silence can again be restored. But if Cannabis Culture is to be regarded as any serious source of informantion, they need to be putting some real resources and devoting serious print to these two issues.There are plenty of people that are worthy of interview that are anxious to talk. There is no reason for Cannabis Culture to drop the ball on this. This could be like the Deep Throat coverage to the Washington Post where they all but have an exclusive report.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by FoM on December 17, 2003 at 18:03:26 PT
The GCW 
If they changed the laws in Canada for the good of everyone I would consider it a very good Christmas. Some gifts are priceless and that would be one of them for me.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by The GCW on December 17, 2003 at 17:54:31 PT
Yes, FoM, the 23rd.
Eve - Eve.It’s about the tree of life, not the tree of Christmas.It is about peace on earth.It’s about compassion for Our citizens that have health needs, and should not be caged because of their choice in care.It is about how Jesus Christ risked going to jail in order to heal the sick.It is about time.Caging humans for using a plant Christ God Our Father has given is disrespectful.To continue that farce is like kicking Christ in the balls while He is hangs there.You would think, Cannada is not going to shit on Christ.No country can show such lack of compassion right before the day We know of as Christmas.America, yes. Cannada, NO.But then I ask, is it just another business day, in Canada? It seems they have put it off this long, that if it were bad news, they would have no problem putting it off another couple weeks. Is there any legal need to present the verdict before the last day of the year? I can see the frustration Cannada has had in dealing with the goon in DC, and can see Cannada would just relish making the monkey wiggle His ears. The ball will be in the evil court of the unelected, once Cannada makes its move. Tuesday is cannaday in Cannada.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by CorvallisEric on December 17, 2003 at 16:59:22 PT
How they could have made almost everyone happy
1 - Held a secret, never to be revealed, poll in both House of Commons and Senate.2 - Shown the results, numbers only, to each Supreme Court justice who promised not to say anything about it. Without the expectation of any affect on the Court.3 - Celebrated Christmas. The cowardly could deny voting yes. Randy White and Company could start new careers attacking the courts. Everyone else would just smile.Indeed, why Dec. 23?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by Virgil on December 17, 2003 at 16:46:40 PT
How exciting can it get?
There needs to be urgency in coming to a decision. When half the adults of Canada are criminal before the law over using cannabis at some time in their life, the Court needs to take a stand on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that is now only two decades old.Richard Cowan has said he is optomistic about legal possession. My understanding is that the facts are determined and the most important fact already determined is that cannabis is all but benign. It makes no since to have a prohibition that denies people freedom when there is no serious problem with using cannabis. Crap talking about driving is just an example of stuff prohibitionist cloud the issue with. Cannabis does not cause driving.I do not see how the Court can justify prohibition. It will be their duty to explain why that freedom is denied. It is all but impossible to justify prohibition when it is the opposite of freedom. Now I figure anyone that is a serious reader of Cnews always reads marijuananews.com So, it should not have escaped anyone that is a reader of any length about what I mean when I say it is up to them to explain the denial of freedom. The following is core knowledge for those that do not know already.Here is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms- http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/#garantie The first article is called "Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms." It says  1. 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 #5 posted by sukoi on December 17, 2003 at 16:39:35 PT
Kucinich petition
This was just sent to me and I felt that I should pass it on!SIGN THE PETITION TO ABC NEWSDon't forget to sign the petition asking ABC News to provide fair and substantive coverage of this election. http://www.kucinich.us/petition_abc1.php. And check out the Media Watch page at http://www.kucinich.us/mediawatch.php.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by ron on December 17, 2003 at 16:37:55 PT
Thank Pierre Trudeau if they throw the law out
The Supremes must reconcile this shameful law with the Bill of Rights our prime minister steered through parliament two decades ago. I'm nervous though. Watching the US Supreme Court excuse drug laws from constitutional restraints makes me so. It would be a cruel Christmas present indeed, FoM.  
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by FoM on December 17, 2003 at 16:16:46 PT
Why on the 23rd?
The first thing I thought was it's Christmas time and the courts have been good to cannabis people in Canada. Would they crush people right before Christmas?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by 420eh on December 17, 2003 at 16:06:03 PT
fingers crossed
it looks like the time has finally come for our courts to decide the legal issues of marijuana....i know my fingers are crossed and so are many of my friends that the ruling will be in favor of the herb but we know not to get our hopes to high.....so for now, every finger is crossed that our courts will use common sense in their ruling.420eh
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by The GCW on December 17, 2003 at 15:23:22 PT
Holy Schmoly
A smorgasbord of implications.If cannabis is decriminalized in Cannada, it will make Bushenstien squirm funny and that will further embarrass Him, and will leave the Dems to criticize His Cannadian stance at the border.You think?420And 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!)http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17917.shtml http://www.kucinich.us/issues/marijuana_decrim.php *Kucinich will not screw Our neighbors at the border.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment