Marijuana Possession Remains Illegal, Canada's ...

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.

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!! :D :lol:

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

bummer!! :smoke: + :nono: = :cry1:

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)

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by junkyardking@26 December 2003 - 09:14


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

---

tried that, tasted like yak urine (i imagine) :ghostface:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by J'Pol@26 December 2003 - 02:14
( even if I don't agree with everything you say).

---

but i'm always right !!!!!!!!!!

can anyone else smell bull :shit: on this reply ? :gunsmile:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by J'Pol@26 December 2003 - 02:14

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.

---

you are totally correct in your true life example of the problems with soft drugs and the dealers pushing hard drugs...which kind of stregthens what i actually wrote about it being the dealers leading to hard drugs and if the dealer contact was removed it might lessen the amount of hard drug users..removal of temptation.
it wouldn't stop it altogether, i think that would be impossible., however there is a problem and making the problem illegal doesn't seem to be solving it.
glad you enjoy my ramblings :D
now on a personel viewpoint...
let me make one thing absolutely clear...I AM ANTI DRUG... however i am a realist and feel that problems can never be solved by banning. If making something illegal stopped crime then we would have empty prisons.
the powers that be should be looking at ways to work with the problem instead of just saying "no you can't and i will punish you if you do".
it is possible that by making the use of these drugs a criminal offence the problem is being made worse..not saying it definatly is, just that it's possible.
drug usage is a fact of life and always will be no matter what we try to do to stop it.

at least in canada they're not as harsh when you get caught with a gram or so. plus they got coffeeshops. plus canada has some of the best bud in the world (bc buuuud) so what the fuck...just go buy some bud from your dealer and smoke out in your house, i wouldnt give a fuck about it becoming legal if i was in canada hahaha :lol:

The police in the UK have absolutely no interest in user quantities of cannabis. This is stated policy, they will not prosecute people for it, simply confiscate the drug. I believe that for herbal and grass it may also have been re-classified as "C".

In effect the possession and use has been de-criminalised, however the Govt hasn't got the bottle to got the whole hog. To politically sensitive.

I agree with those who take the position that it should be treated in the same way as tobacco and alcohol. However I suspect that, since a certain element of taking it is rebelliousness and youth, then people may have to find another outlet for these feelings.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vidcc@26 December 2003 - 11:05
If making something illegal stopped crime then we would have empty prisons.

---

Stupid, overused cliché #1

Quote:

---

the powers that be should be looking at ways to work with the problem instead of just saying "no you can't and i will punish you if you do".

---

Stupid, overused cliché #2

Quote:

---

it is possible that by making the use of these drugs a criminal offence the problem is being made worse..not saying it definatly is, just that it's possible.

---

Stupid, overused cliché #3

Quote:

---

drug usage is a fact of life and always will be no matter what we try to do to stop it.

---

Stupid, overused cliché #4



I think J'Pol's comments might have caused an unfortunate over inflation of your ego followed by a desperate urge for more.

Well, what will you do now? You need it badly don't you?

Having your ego stroked is perfectly legal of course, but can you supply the level of witty banter needed to keep it coming?

I suspect not.

In no time, you'll be ripping off other people and claiming their witty banter as your own.

You will be caught however and exposed for being a banter thief.

The stigma of this will haunt you so badly that you will likely turn to chronic plagiarism in an attempt to escape your own reality.

And so another life is ruined, if only witty banter theft had been de-stigmatized, none of this would have happened and skies would be blue, fields green, rainbows everywhere, blah blah blah.

A bit harsh balamm, the chap seems like a decent spud.

Like I said I may not agree with the position he takes on some things, however he does post logical and coherent arguments. It is to be encouraged, this is the sort of thing we want here. People debating subjects on which they have opposing views. However doing it with logic and debate - not flaming and STFU tactics.

That is not to say it wasn't a very clever and funny post, nicely presented.

As an aside, I always love it when people speak of the low levels of certain crimes in Holland. No shit Sherlock, you stop things being illegal and there is less crime - go figure, how does that work.

That does not mean that the society is more or less moral, just that it is more liberal and as such less criminal. Less illegal things = less crime. I could have worked that out.

:P Just adding a little colorful, "look at your self", "what if", "how does it compare" ,to the debate J'Pol.

I wouldn't be me if I didn't!

I don't support the abuse of alcohol either, but runaway alcohol abuse is no excuse to minimize the effects or consequences of some other substance abuse, as so many here would promote.

Let's just continue to do what we can before marijuana abuse gets to the level of public acceptance that alcohol abuse has.

I believe it's a close race already, promoted as it is by people with little to lose, or by those without the means to understand the butterfly effect.

Balamm do you differentiate between use and abuse of marijuana, or no?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by balamm@27 December 2003 - 01:39
I don't support the abuse of alcohol either, but runaway alcohol abuse is no excuse  to minimize the effects or consequences of some other substance abuse, as so many here would promote.

Let's just continue to do what we can before marijuana abuse gets to the level of public acceptance that alcohol abuse has.

I believe it's a close race already, promoted as it is by people with little to lose, or by those without the means to understand the butterfly effect.

---

I think the point they attempt to make is a comparison of fairness and freedom of choice, rather than one of relative destructiveness.

Basically, if some people are allowed by society to abuse their drug of choice, then why shouldn't I be afforded the same right. If alcohol and tobacco are deemed acceptable (indeed taxed) then what is the difference with cannabis. I can see how this argument would be attractive to those who have the agenda of legalizing the substance.

It would seem to me that your position would be - let's not legalize this bad thing using that argument. Instead lets reduce the use of the other drugs. An equally compelling and persuasive position.

As stated previously, the British Government and Police forces have effectively de-criminalised personal use quantities. While this may not be a particularly impressive stance from the point of view of strong leadership, at least it is a practical solution.

Few people consider the butterfly effect, it makes one-issue politics too complex. So much easier to get what you want and forget the ramifications.

Can someone please define the "butterfly effect"?

Use and abuse I believe are no different in a substance that causes physical or mental impairment.
Only the level of abuse is a factor.


The butterfly effect,

somewhere in china or maybe japan, on a calm sunny day, a butterfly lifts it's wing and gently takes flight.
6 months later, half a world away, the ripple of air caused by the butterfly flapping it's wings has become the biggest hurricane of the century.

Quantum physics suggests this is possible, that something so small could change events on such a global level.

Quote:

---

Use and abuse I believe are no different in a substance that causes physical or mental impairment.
Only the level of abuse is a factor.

---

So JPaul is a alcohol abuser, perhaps even more reprehensible than a streetcorner drunk because he manages to disguise the fact that he "abuses" a drug.

Quote:

---

somewhere in china or maybe japan, on a calm sunny day, a butterfly lifts it's wing and gently takes flight.
6 months later, half a world away, the ripple of air caused by the butterfly flapping it's wings has become the biggest hurricane of the century.

---

Physics being a science and thus not concerned with morality, would dictate that it is equally likely that the outcome of the butterfly's action would be the second coming of Christ.

You seem to believe that the inevitable outcome of "use" is disaster and ruin.
A trifle too Puritan for my taste.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clocker@27 December 2003 - 02:28


Physics being a science and thus not concerned with morality, would dictate that it is equally likely that the outcome of the butterfly's action would be the second coming of Christ.

---

Clocker

What on earth does that even mean.

There is an obvious link between the movement of the wing of a butterfly and a hurricane.

However the movement of the wing of the same butterfly and the second coming of Christ, the Messiah, the Saviour, the One who will fulfill the prophecies. I really don't see your point here.

Have you ever made an appearance at speaker's corner.

Edit - I think you will find that I am an alcohol abuser, if you want to be pedantic. The yeast drowned in their own pish to make it for me. It would be churlish to refuse.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by balamm@26 December 2003 - 23:02

---

Stupid, overused cliché #1

Stupid, overused cliché #2

Stupid, overused cliché #3

Stupid, overused cliché #4





Stupid, overused cliché # 5 :stupid: not too worried about overuse yourself huh ? you should stop that or you will go blind. Which hand do you have free to type with?

i have noticed many of your posts have just been immature attacks on people you don't know, were you bullied as a child ? or perhap your own inferiority complex has you thinking that everyone really is superior to you and you don't like it.
now if you feel that my views are similar or the same as someone elses perhaps you should ask yourself are those views really overused or are they the views of so many people that you yourself might just be in a minority ? in this particular case you seem to attack my post as if i was pro drug, but if you read the whole article you would see i am anti drug. however the point was that obviously being illegal hasn't stopped drug use and i was questioning if the approach was working. at no point have i suggested that making soft drugs legal actually would solve the problem of hard drug abuse, i simple poised the question " would it ?"
the ideas and views i express are designed to encourage debate..you know what debate is don't you?..well here is a challenge..could you put a pro soft drug legalising argument even though your beliefs are anti drug? (obviously you could do it without any "Stupid, overused clichés") just why are they stupid anyway? is it because they are not your own beliefs? if it is then perhaps you should let some air out of your own ego.
now i suspect that you will be trying to start a mud slinging contest with me on this forum for daring to question your damnation of my posts but life is too short to waste it on infantile bickering (other than my reply here) so to end.... NER NER BOO SUCKS TO YOU.
:wacko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by J'Pol@26 December 2003 - 18:47

Clocker

What on earth does that even mean.

There is an obvious link between the movement of the wing of a butterfly and a hurricane.

---

Obvious to whom?
The butterfly effect is a fable, a parable to demonstrate causality, hardly a demonstration of physical reality.
Thus, my postulated outcome is just as likely as his.

I grieve for the yeast.

A very emotional response!
I don't think there was any emotion in my post at all, only an observation that you hadn't taken the time to form an independant thought. Or if you had, you certainly didn't convey it well.

So who is the child now? The one who points out your hastiness to post repetitive drivel? or the one who posts repetitive drivel?

It doesn't matter what position you assumed, the position was weak and poorly presented.
Making me think that the mater isn't worthy enough for you to make an honest effort.

If in fact your views are similar to "everyone elses", then there is nothing more to discuss here. Marijuana has been fully legalised and the matter is closed.

I think we both know that is not the case.

Let's see if you can comment without the childish personal attacks and comments you know to be wrong, J'pol thinks you have it in you, I am not so convinced. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clocker+27 December 2003 - 02:53--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 27 December 2003 - 02:53)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@26 December 2003 - 18:47

Clocker

What on earth does that even mean.

There is an obvious link between the movement of the wing of a butterfly and a hurricane.

---

Obvious to whom?
The butterfly effect is a fable, a parable to demonstrate causality, hardly a demonstration of physical reality.
Thus, my postulated outcome is just as likely as his.

I grieve for the yeast.[/b][/quote]
The yeast have served their purpose, their life is complete. They are a one-issue body politic and they achieve their goal.

Good on them, I serve the simple purpose of justifying their existence and at the same time providing them with a fitting funeral.

This includes my bread as much as it does my apple. I make my own bread, I leave the apple production to others. That only seems fair.

Discuss whether physics is a science (or an art) and what it ultimately means with .... physicists.

I personally believe that this particular field has become more poetic and less prosaic in recent times. However I often read more into things than are really there.

Sadly JP I am not qualified to discuss physics on any but the most basic level.
I don&#39;t have my finger on the pulse of current thinking in that area.

Is it germane to this particular topic?


Edit: My nieces are taking me to see The Lord of the Rings in about 5 minutes anyway...

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM :beerchug:

Hurricaines are not created by additive wind forces, but rather variances in atmospheric pressure. I remember hearing of this "effect", but I forget the particulars.

The flapping of a butterflies wind may cause a transient breeze which causes a womans perfume to reach the nose of a man whom she would have never met.

He turns to locate the source of that smell and they become lovers. The Messiah is born, just as a hurricaine may potentially be born from said wing flap.

I think the legalization of marijuana undermines a hugely profitable criminal market. In the US the #1 cash crop is marijuana, simply because it is illegal and this drives up the price.

Apple/ pot same difference to me. I don&#39;t smoke because don&#39;t want my apartment, clothes and breath to smell like shit.


Abuse- the use of a drug to escape problems
Use- a source of enjoyment, an enhancement of "good times".

It is true that drugs do cause health problems, but I have so many great stories that occurred when drunk, I can&#39;t believe that drugs are simply bad.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vidcc+27 December 2003 - 01:48--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 27 December 2003 - 01:48)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-balamm@26 December 2003 - 23:02

---

now i suspect that you will be trying to start a mud slinging contest with me on this forum for daring to question your damnation of my posts [/b][/quote]
i called it :rolleyes:

Sorry to disappoint you but there really is no contest. Feel free to imagine there is one though if it comforts you.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@27 December 2003 - 09:16
As an aside, I always love it when people speak of the low levels of certain crimes in Holland. No shit Sherlock, you stop things being illegal and there is less crime - go figure, how does that work.

That does not mean that the society is more or less moral, just that it is more liberal and as such less criminal. Less illegal things = less crime. I could have worked that out.

---

I think you missed the point here JP. The crimes being talked about here are the ones associated with the purchase etc., of the drug. When you buy your grass from a cafe you don&#39;t come in contact with dealers; the supply is constant, so there isn&#39;t the temptation to try something else when supply is scarce. This means less people try harder drugs, which cuts down on crimes associated with hard drugs, for example, junkies looking for the sometimes &#036;100&#39;s a day for their next fix are responsible for huge numbers of crimes, especially burglaries.

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.

Balamn you really need to get a chip for the other shoulder too&#33; And then go read some of your posts about what drives people off this board. Or look in a mirror.


:)

Would I see you staring back at me then?

Frightening prospect, but I suspect I wouldn&#39;t. I don&#39;t express my views on a subject only for sport, unlike yourself. You admitted as much several months ago.

You might want to take into consideration that the topic is "Canadian" leagalisation of pot&#33; Got that clearly planted in your head now?

Canadian = me&#33; Not you, not your aussie friends, me&#33;

If you don&#39;t like the "canadian" view on the continued illegality of pot, just hit your back button and paste another load of copied crap into world news and sit back and giggle like you normally do.

:) problem solved :)

i mean wtf? just legalize the use of pot for medical purposes. our health system is going crap anyways so why should ppl be left in pain?

I dont care much about junkies, they got a life to waste not me.

but consider those in pain.....

Prescription use? Why not. I think it&#39;s already done in some areas through very tight controls.

Somewhere in Ontario I think there is a research facility growing for this purpose.

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.

I can deal with a stoner but you better watch your shit around a crackhead.

Also Herion use is up too,reports of people paying &#036;4 for a all day high-Chicago area.

Not sure ,but the war on drugs seems to be making everthing worse.
It&#39;s never gonna end.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by balamm@27 December 2003 - 16:16
You might want to take into consideration that the topic is "Canadian" leagalisation of pot&#33; Got that clearly planted in your head now?

Canadian = me&#33; Not you, not your aussie friends, me&#33;

---

I take it you&#39;ll refrain from your usual vitriol in threads that don&#39;t concern Canadians then? Oh, goody&#33;

At least as an ordinary member you aren&#39;t able to abuse and ridicule posters with any authority. So now you&#39;re just bitter and twisted, much better than when you were a bitter and twisted mod&#33; How you ever became a mod in the first place is beyond me. Your reason for being on this board seems to be to find people to abuse.



:)

Well your reason has so far escaped me other than the lame excuse you posted earlier.

I think it&#39;s probably true though. It&#39;s for opportunities like this that you return. To insult, to stir up shit, to try and shape yet another debate into a source of entertainment for yourself no matter how off topic or off color your remarks have to be.

Bitter? Who&#39;s biiter now BD? You&#39;ve been slapped son. It&#39;s understandable. Try not to act too much like a child though, it&#39;s very disruptive to the topic.

If you do have any knowledge of the workings of canadian society and politics as it relates to this subject though, now would be the time to redeem yourself. I mean real knowledge of course, not the usual google copy and paste routine.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by balamm@27 December 2003 - 17:53
Don&#39;t take any notice of me BD, I&#39;m just acting like a prick, it&#39;s a Canadian thing.

---

I know, people have been PM&#39;ing me the same info.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


:lol:

Yeah, I didn&#39;t think you had anything intelligent to contribute.