Marijuana Possession Remains Illegal, Canada's ...

**Ariel_001** · 12-24-2003, 02:47 AM

source: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/html/2...COURT_RULES.asp

Marijuana possession remains illegal, Canada's highest court rules

Observer Reporter
Wednesday, December 24, 2003

TORONTO, Canada (AP) - Marijuana possession in Canada will remain illegal, the country's Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision yesterday, after three plaintiffs failed to convince the courts that laws banning the drug are unconstitutional.

The court's decision throws the issue back to Canada's federal government, which had been planning to change its marijuana laws.

Prime Minister Paul Martin is expected to reintroduce a bill, first proposed under former Prime Minister Jean Chretien, that would eliminate potential jail time and criminal records for those convicted of pot possession.

The bill would not legalise the drug, and would maintain or increase already stiff penalties for large-scale growers and traffickers. It would make possession of less than 15 grams (about half an ounce) of pot a minor offense punishable by fines of 100 Canadian dollars (US$75) to C$400 (US$300), much like traffic tickets.

The Supreme Court considered three cases involving two self-described marijuana activists and one man who was caught smoking marijuana. All three had failed to persuade lower courts that Canada's pot law is unconstitutional.

The judgment ignited reaction from all fronts of the country's ongoing marijuana debate.

''It's nice to see at least three of the Supreme Court justices have half a brain,'' said Dominic Kramer, a marijuana activist who runs a store selling hemp products and paraphernalia in Toronto. ''My huge patriotism may slowly be dissipating. I have a lot of faith in my country, in freedom and justice, but it doesn't seem like we have a whole lot of that left.''

Tony Cannavino, president of the Canadian Police Association, welcomed the decision cautiously but expressed concern over Martin's proposed bill.

**balamm** · 12-24-2003, 04:46 AM

I take it you think this is a bad decision?

Have you smoked so much that you're incapable of personally forming a printable thought ?

I'm just a bit relieved that our supreme court has refused to pander to one more subculture.
Someone may lose a vote or 2 over this but, it lessens, to a very small degree, the ridicule Canada has been attracting lately.

When fags and stoners are in the majority, then maybe some of this whining shit will make sense. In the meanwhile, back to the closet with you all!!

**chalice** · 12-24-2003, 04:55 AM

Balaam, if I wasn't so stoned I'd be insulted.

**mrlessk** · 12-24-2003, 04:59 AM

bummer!!

+

=

**vidcc** · 12-25-2003, 11:38 PM

i don't see the difference between soft drugs and alcohol (apart from one is legal) both affect the mind and don't try to tell me that alcohol isn't addictive because there are alcoholics.
i don't believe that soft drugs lead to hard drugs either..apart from the fact that in purchasing your pot you will come into contact with someone that wants to sell you hard drugs...perhaps if pot was controlled and sold by lisence as alcohol is then the duggies wouldn't come into contact with the hard drug peddler and the amount of addicts would decrease..perhaps not..who knows?

just playing devil's advocate...i don't drink as i can't stand the taste of alcohol (and boy have i tried to find a dink i like) and i have never wished to try drugs, but i do believe that AS LONG AS WE DON'T ADVERSLY AFFECT OTHERS we have the right to do what we want to ourselves (i can imagine the comments on that) and it's just a little bit hypocritical for someone that drinks to condem someone that does the weed. (not pointing to any individual)

**J'Pol** · 12-26-2003, 02:14 AM

vidcc

I am enjoying the cut of your jib - well though out a presented posts ( even if I don't agree with everything you say).

There is currently a wee problem in that people see the whole drug culture as fitting into leagues (or divisions). As you probably know it doesn't really work that way.

Let me use a true example, from the North of Scotland. The kids were going to raves and taking speed, ecstacy etc - well known "uppers". When they were finished with the rave thing they wanted a "downer" to get back to normality. They looked for a bit of "blaw" to achieve that for them.

Unfortunately because of seizures there was nothing about. They had to take something so they took heroin instead. Not injecting or anything, just inhaling the fumes. This worked, however I am sure you will agree it is the start of a slippery slope.

The dealers loved it. Sorry I can't get you a wee bit of weed, but take this instead. It will do the same thing. Oh you are high just now and not thinking straight - so much the better.

There are huge differences between me buying a bottle of apple in ASDA and a 17 year old looking for some blaw at 04:00 hours on Saturday morning.

Turkeyboy · 12-26-2003, 04:41 AM

Originally posted by J'Pol@26 December 2003 - 11:14
There are huge differences between me buying a bottle of apple in ASDA and a 17 year old looking for some blaw at 04:00 hours on Saturday morning.

yes, but there wouldnt be if it was controled as it is in holland. cider is a drug you take for the same reason people smoke grass. you also talk about it all the time like your clever for the amount you drink. your atitude seems to be that its ok for kids to drink alcohol and smoke cigs cause there legal. i dont think you should take any drugs there all bad for you and you dont need them.

**junkyardking** · 12-26-2003, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by vidcc@25 December 2003 - 23:38

just playing devil's advocate...i don't drink as i can't stand the taste of alcohol (and boy have i tried to find a dink i like)

Try a Barcadi(Rum) and Coke, very easy to drink :beerchug: :guinesssmile: