T
The420Guy
Guest
Perhaps the most disconcerting aspect of the Supreme Court of Canada's 6-3
decision this week to uphold the laws prohibiting possession of marijuana
is the reaction of John Walters, the United States' drug czar.
Walters was positively abuzz with excitement upon learning that Canada's
top court had decided against ruling that the possession law was
unconstitutional. This is, of course, not new.
When the federal Liberals had drafted a bill to decriminalize simple
possession of pot, Martin Cauchon, then the justice minister, actually flew
to Washington last spring to essentially obtain permission from U.S.
Attorney General John Ashcroft to liberalize marijuana laws here.
That Cauchon presented the pot proposal to a foreign country before
allowing Canada's own House of Commons to view it was astounding. That the
issue didn't generate a wave of outrage among the public is even more
appalling.
In its majority opinion, the Supreme Court of Canada wrote that "chronic
(marijuana) users may suffer serious health problems. Vulnerable groups are
at a particular risk . . ."
If health concerns are reason enough to continue to make criminals out of
people who indulge in a joint or two, can we expect, then, a challenge to
the current law that deems cigarettes, alcohol and sugar legal?
It is true that the courts exists to interpret, not make, law. And simple
possession will probably be decriminalized sometime next year.
But the revamped bill, heavy on grow-ops and "repeat users," appears to be
another example of capitulating to U.S. pressure to continue demonizing a
drug that is no more harmful than many, many legal drugs.
Pubdate: Sat, 27 Dec 2003
Source: Richmond Review, The (CN BC)
Webpage:
https://www.richmondreview.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=45&cat=48&id=&more=
Copyright: 2003 Richmond Public Library
Contact: news@richmondreview.com
Website: Richmond News
decision this week to uphold the laws prohibiting possession of marijuana
is the reaction of John Walters, the United States' drug czar.
Walters was positively abuzz with excitement upon learning that Canada's
top court had decided against ruling that the possession law was
unconstitutional. This is, of course, not new.
When the federal Liberals had drafted a bill to decriminalize simple
possession of pot, Martin Cauchon, then the justice minister, actually flew
to Washington last spring to essentially obtain permission from U.S.
Attorney General John Ashcroft to liberalize marijuana laws here.
That Cauchon presented the pot proposal to a foreign country before
allowing Canada's own House of Commons to view it was astounding. That the
issue didn't generate a wave of outrage among the public is even more
appalling.
In its majority opinion, the Supreme Court of Canada wrote that "chronic
(marijuana) users may suffer serious health problems. Vulnerable groups are
at a particular risk . . ."
If health concerns are reason enough to continue to make criminals out of
people who indulge in a joint or two, can we expect, then, a challenge to
the current law that deems cigarettes, alcohol and sugar legal?
It is true that the courts exists to interpret, not make, law. And simple
possession will probably be decriminalized sometime next year.
But the revamped bill, heavy on grow-ops and "repeat users," appears to be
another example of capitulating to U.S. pressure to continue demonizing a
drug that is no more harmful than many, many legal drugs.
Pubdate: Sat, 27 Dec 2003
Source: Richmond Review, The (CN BC)
Webpage:
https://www.richmondreview.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=45&cat=48&id=&more=
Copyright: 2003 Richmond Public Library
Contact: news@richmondreview.com
Website: Richmond News