Marijuana possession charges dropped for 4,000 Canadians

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER ^ | December 10, 2003 | KIM LUNMAN

[cryptical]

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http:// seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/151741_canada10.html

Marijuana possession charges dropped for 4,000 Canadians

Wednesday, December 10, 2003</fo nt>

By KIM LUNMAN
THE (TORONTO) G LOBE AND MAIL

OTTAWA -- The Canadian government is making it a green Christmas for 4,000 pe ople -- it plans to stay thousands of charges of pot possession as a result of l egal battles over medicinal marijuana.

The decision will apply to every pe rson in Canada charged with possession of marijuana between July 31, 2001, and O ct. 7, 2003, Justice Department spokeswoman Pascale Boulay said.

The Justi ce Department intends to cease prosecutions on the cases because of a court ruli ng in 2000 that found medicinal-marijuana users had the right to possess less th an 30 grams of pot.

The judge delayed that ruling's effect for one year in the hope the federal government would introduce a medicinal-marijuana law.< p>But the government did not. Instead, the Cabinet issued regulations for access to medicinal marijuana one day before the yearlong grace period ended in 2001.T he Ontario ruling created a legal loophole, effectively invalidating Canada's ma rijuana possession law as unconstitutional because it failed to provide an exemp tion for medical use.

"We estimate there are about 4,000 pending files," B oulay said. However, she said that criminal charges of marijuana possession will still be prosecuted today as a result of the government's announcement yesterda y that it will not appeal the medicinal-marijuana case to the Supreme Court.

"It still constitutes an offense and (anyone caught with marijuana) would fac e charges." The federal government recently introduced legislation to decriminal ize the possession of small amounts of marijuana.

Possession of marijuana now carries a maximum penalty of six months in jail and a fine of up to $1,000.< /p>

© 1998-2003 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

[cryptical]

Seems pretty reasonable to me, if the government can't make a law, it shouldn't be illegal.

[WOSG]

What's not reasonable is the judge's usurping the powers of legislators to make such decisions. Another example of judicial tyranny throwing a spanner in the works of law-making.
pro-druggies may like the outcome, but the end doesnt justify the means.

[Moleman]

Makes sense to me. Why overcrowd the prisons with people who smoke a joint, eat a Twinke and go to sleep

[Wolfie]

The Ontario Court of Appeals ruled that failure to exempt medical marijuana users from the law violated the Canadian Charter of Rights. The Government had more than 2 years to change the laws to accomdate medical use, but it refused. The Court just put the hammer down when the legislature refused to act. Checks and balances (unless, of course, the court does something you don't like, then its judicial tyranny).

[TKDietz]

I'm going from sketchy memory of articles I've read in the past, but didn't the elected Canadian legislature approve medical marijuana a couple of years back but neglect to establish guidelines for it? I think that what happened is that the Court came in and said that the law was so vague with respect to medical marijuana that it wouldn't be fair to convict anyone who had a personal amount of marijuana until the law was clear on what was medical use or otherwise.

I am likely to be wrong about this so anyone who knows what actually happened feel free to chime in.

[Wolfie]

You're sort of correct. The Ontario Court of Appeals ruled that not allowing medical marijuana users a legal supply violated their Consititution. It gave the Gov't a year to change the law, but the Gov't just came up with new regulations, not a change in the law. So possession cases started getting tossed. Eventually, the Supreme Court reinstated the law, changing those parts of the new regulations that restricted access for medical users. (This will likey be challenged again, on the basis that the original ruling still demands the actual law be changed). Here's another story that covers the new changes: Feds Relax Pot Rules

[WOSG]

This sounds oh so similar to the arrogant game the Mass Supreme Court is playing. They invent a right that suits their policy aims, demand that the laws follow it, then realize that since they are in effect demanding a new law, they have to hijack the legislators to do their bidding. Hence a court ordering the lege what to do. Whatever happened to separation of powers?

This bogus and arrogant judicial power play is judicial tyranny whether inventing right to weed or inventing right to kill the preborn. It would still be judicial tyranny if for example they did something I liked and called funding of PBS unconstitutional (on second thoughts, isnt Bill Moyers a 'soft money' donation for the DNC? :-0 ).

[Wolfie]

The Court ruled that a legal supply for patients must be provided under section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

I guess its a bit like arguing over the meaning of "well-regulated militia".

[WOSG]

Why dont we just own up to the Rule by Judges and make it explicit:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and whatever else the all-knowing all-seeing Judges feel is important

Last time I checked, "life" and "liberty" aint fairing well at all up North, so scratch that part.

[jmc813]

WOD Ping

[Wolfie]

At least their not locking up cancer patients.