Marijuana Possession Remains Illegal, Canada's ...

[Mr. Peabody]

Originally posted by clocker+27 December 2003 - 19:47--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 27 December 2003 - 19:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mr. Peabody@27 December 2003 - 00:38
Well the sad thing is alot of the people that smoked pot in the states,have chose to smoke crack instead.
It&#39;s out of your system quicker.

What?

Where did this factoid come from? [/b][/quote]
Well I guess you can go by what you read or what you actually see.

[clocker]

Originally posted by Mr. Peabody@27 December 2003 - 22:20

Well I guess you can go by what you read or what you actually see.

Sometimes when it&#39;s sunny I am very happy.

[Billy_Dean]

Originally posted by vidcc+28 December 2003 - 13:49--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 28 December 2003 - 13:49)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@28 December 2003 - 04:36
<!--QuoteBegin-vidcc

@28 December 2003 - 13:20
you have to remember that not all countries are menmbers of the UN...i&#39;m not sure if holland is, but i don&#39;t think so

I can assure you they are.

united nations members [/b][/quote]


Did you miss this bit?

[Mr. Peabody]

Hey Clocker,is your aviator picture from that "Silent Running " Movie? B)

[vidcc]

actually i just pointed a page that listed all the un countries, but i genuinely didn&#39;t think holland was signed up...i stand corrected..well sit corrected

[clocker]

Originally posted by Mr. Peabody@27 December 2003 - 22:46
Hey Clocker,is your aviator picture from that "Silent Running " Movie? B)

No, it is HAL 9000 from "2001: A Space Odyssey".

[Mr. Peabody]

Never seen it,I&#39;&#39;ll have to check it out.

[MagicNakor]

At least it explains why you answered, "I know everything hasn&#39;t been quite right with me, but I can assure you now.....quite confidently.....that it&#39;s going to be alright again," when questioned about my burnt sock drawer.



Edit: Format..

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean+28 December 2003 - 04:51--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Billy_Dean &#064; 28 December 2003 - 04:51)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@28 December 2003 - 02:47
<!--QuoteBegin-Billy_Dean

@27 December 2003 - 08:05

As to your point about not going the whole way and legalising it, I think, but I&#39;m not sure, that it isn&#39;t possible to legalise something that is illegal under international law.

Which "International Law" makes the personal use of cannabis illegal. I genuinely have not got a clue what you are talking about when you post that.

I would imagine that, if the United Kingdom can reclassify the drug from Class B to Class C, therefore reducing any penalty for it&#39;s possession and use, then it can remove it from the list of proscribed drugs entirely.

If you have information to the contrary I would like to see it.

Similarly, if it is openly available in Holland, is it illegal - under this "International Law" you speak of. Any insight would be appreciated.

In 1961 the United Nations made it a violation of international law to legalize marijuana.

OTTAWA -- A Liberal MP says Canada will violate an international treaty if it moves ahead with plans to decriminalize pot.

Ajax-Pickering MP Dan McTeague said representatives of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime met with government officials last week to warn that Canada&#39;s proposed legislative changes would contravene a 1961 UN drug control convention.

Google it JP, lots of info out there.


[/b][/quote]
You mention a Treaty (not law) which prevents signatory countries from legalizing cannabis.

I would make 2 points.

Firstly that does not actually answer the question of which "International Law" makes the personal use of cannabis illegal in the first place.

Secondly a treaty is not really a law (international or otherwise) now is it. It is a negotiated agreement.

Your answer is specious, not entirely unexpected.

[balamm]

Interesting, these acts and treaties. Apparently, under the British North America act, the federal government of Canada would not have the right to interfere in a provincial decision governing the control or legalization of marijuana or similar "problems of a personal or regional nature."

As I understand it, we are no longer using the BNA and have a mish mosh of so called charters governing human rights. Add to that the "not withstanding clause" and Who knows what falls under Provincial or national jurisdiction.

I&#39;d compare this to the gay marriage issue I guess, although legal under Canadian law, It&#39;s still up to each province to adopt or reject these laws.

I&#39;ve seen the opposite as well. There are employment and communications laws enacted in BC which are not recognized by Ottawa although they also have laws on the subject.
It just depends on any associated trade, commerce, or international laws, which the federal government still has (or percieves it has) the authority to police, tax, etc., that might be tied to any part of a Provincially registered business or it&#39;s employees.
An example of this is: Telephone workers in British Columbia are protected under Canadian federal employment laws. You cannot hire replacement workers or impose wage cuts or conditions without union approval and ratification.

Cable television workers are provincially regulated and have no protection under Canadian employment legislation. You can replace them at will.
Odd because the technical training period required for a certified CATV technician is about twice as long as a telephone technician.
No doubt this is a result of telephone/ rail treaties and such from 100 years ago.
It&#39;s just one of the quirks in our system.

If BC decided to legalize anything tomorrow, Ottawa would have a taxation plan in effect by the end of the week. It might be challenged, but in the meantime...

It could happen.