T
The420Guy
Guest
OTTAWA - As the Martin government moves to relax marijuana laws, the
Supreme Court of Canada will decide tomorrow whether to legalize pot.
The long-awaited rulings in three cases will be the Supreme Court's first
test of the constitutionality of the country's 80-year ban on marijuana
possession.
"This is very significant," said Chris Clay, a B.C. Web-page designer who
owned the Great Canadian Hemporium marijuana paraphernalia and seed store
in London, Ont., before police shut it down. "It sounds like the Liberals
are going to decriminalize, and that's a step in the right direction, but
ultimately legalization is the solution we're looking for."
Mr. Clay, 32, is one of three litigants who argue that threatening people
with a criminal record and jail time for what they contend is a victimless
crime breaches Charter of Rights' guarantees of life, liberty and security
of the person.
The federal Justice Department counters that the Supreme Court should give
Parliament as much leeway as possible in crafting drug policy.
"All three appellants seek to elevate a recreational pursuit to a
constitutional right," federal lawyer David Frankel says in a written
submission to the Supreme Court. "There is no free-standing right to get
stoned."
A key question in the appeal is whether the government must demonstrate a
serious health risk if it wants to continue to ban marijuana possession.
The state has "no right to tell people what they can put in their bodies,"
lawyer John Conroy argued at the Supreme Court hearing last spring. "Where
do you draw the line?" Mr. Conroy said. "Are fatty foods going to be next?
The obesity problem is a lot worse that the drug problem."
Mr. Conroy is the lawyer for Victor Caine, who was convicted of possession
for sharing a joint with a friend in his car while parked at a beach near
Vancouver.
The third litigant is David Malmo-Levine, who formed the Vancouver-based
Harm Reduction Club for marijuana smokers.
The federal government plans to impose fines rather than criminal records
on people caught with small amounts of marijuana. Irwin Cotler, the Justice
Minister, stressed that lawmakers oppose giving pot smokers free rein.
"This is how Parliament has spoken on this question and we will wait to see
what the court will say," he said in an interview.
Despite its plans, the government has filed a report with the Supreme Court
that connects marijuana use to driving accidents, upper-airway cancer,
psychiatric problems and drug addiction, among other things.
"Marijuana is not a benign substance and potentially is more harmful than
presently known," says the Justice Department's submission.
However, several judges during the spring hearing challenged the
government's assertion that it can criminalize any behaviour it sees fit,
as long as the decision is a rational one.
Pubdate: Mon, 22 Dec 2003
Source: National Post (Canada)
Webpage:
Canada.Com
Copyright: 2003 Southam Inc.
Contact: letters@nationalpost.com
Website: National Post
Supreme Court of Canada will decide tomorrow whether to legalize pot.
The long-awaited rulings in three cases will be the Supreme Court's first
test of the constitutionality of the country's 80-year ban on marijuana
possession.
"This is very significant," said Chris Clay, a B.C. Web-page designer who
owned the Great Canadian Hemporium marijuana paraphernalia and seed store
in London, Ont., before police shut it down. "It sounds like the Liberals
are going to decriminalize, and that's a step in the right direction, but
ultimately legalization is the solution we're looking for."
Mr. Clay, 32, is one of three litigants who argue that threatening people
with a criminal record and jail time for what they contend is a victimless
crime breaches Charter of Rights' guarantees of life, liberty and security
of the person.
The federal Justice Department counters that the Supreme Court should give
Parliament as much leeway as possible in crafting drug policy.
"All three appellants seek to elevate a recreational pursuit to a
constitutional right," federal lawyer David Frankel says in a written
submission to the Supreme Court. "There is no free-standing right to get
stoned."
A key question in the appeal is whether the government must demonstrate a
serious health risk if it wants to continue to ban marijuana possession.
The state has "no right to tell people what they can put in their bodies,"
lawyer John Conroy argued at the Supreme Court hearing last spring. "Where
do you draw the line?" Mr. Conroy said. "Are fatty foods going to be next?
The obesity problem is a lot worse that the drug problem."
Mr. Conroy is the lawyer for Victor Caine, who was convicted of possession
for sharing a joint with a friend in his car while parked at a beach near
Vancouver.
The third litigant is David Malmo-Levine, who formed the Vancouver-based
Harm Reduction Club for marijuana smokers.
The federal government plans to impose fines rather than criminal records
on people caught with small amounts of marijuana. Irwin Cotler, the Justice
Minister, stressed that lawmakers oppose giving pot smokers free rein.
"This is how Parliament has spoken on this question and we will wait to see
what the court will say," he said in an interview.
Despite its plans, the government has filed a report with the Supreme Court
that connects marijuana use to driving accidents, upper-airway cancer,
psychiatric problems and drug addiction, among other things.
"Marijuana is not a benign substance and potentially is more harmful than
presently known," says the Justice Department's submission.
However, several judges during the spring hearing challenged the
government's assertion that it can criminalize any behaviour it sees fit,
as long as the decision is a rational one.
Pubdate: Mon, 22 Dec 2003
Source: National Post (Canada)
Webpage:
Canada.Com
Copyright: 2003 Southam Inc.
Contact: letters@nationalpost.com
Website: National Post