T
The420Guy
Guest
For a while it looked like we were poised to become Amsterdam West: cafes with
patrons openly enjoying joints alongside lattes, activists toking up outside
police stations with impunity, and government plans to make marijuana available
to the chronically ill.
But while that pipedream has apparently gone up in smoke, the ongoing debate
over the sweet leaf's place in Canadian society -- whether for medicine or for
pleasure -- promises to grow more heated in the coming year.
With the federal government courting decriminalization -- still a thorny issue
among the ruling Liberals themselves -- Canadians have found reason to voice
their opinions on the contentious topic.
An Ipsos-Reid poll of 1,001 Canadians conducted in May suggested that 55 per
cent of respondents did not believe smoking marijuana should be a criminal
offence.
Those advocating decriminalization say it doesn't make sense to saddle people
with criminal records for being busted for simple possession, such as smoking a
joint.
They also say it will reduce traffic in an already congested court system.
Those against decriminalization say marijuana is a so-called "gateway" drug
that
will cause users to progress to harder drugs such as cocaine and heroin. They
also say it will harm relations with the United States, which remains in War on
Drugs mode.
But things have been complicated by the federal government's cautious steps
toward providing cannabis to the ill. Proponents say marijuana stimulates the
appetite, relieves pain and reduces stress -- although the medical community
remains divided over such claims.
The decriminalization movement burst into the forefront this year when an
Ontario Superior Court judge ruled in May that possessing less than 30 grams of
marijuana was no longer against the law in the province.
A lawyer had successfully argued that since there was no effective program for
sick people to possess medical marijuana without breaking the law, then the law
didn't prohibit possession.
Police organizations in Ontario subsequently said they wouldn't lay charges for
simple possession until the laws were clarified.
The court decision prompted similar rulings around the country and opened the
floodgates for recreational users to enjoy a jubilant summer of toking
freely --
even in certain public cafes.
B.C. cannabis guru Marc Emery, who publishes Cannabis Culture magazine and
sells
marijuana seeds online, went on a coast-to-coast Tour de Pot this summer,
holding rallies and lighting up outside police stations in Vancouver, Edmonton,
Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg, Toronto, Moncton, N.B., Halifax, Charlottetown and
St. John's, Nfld., practically daring the cops to arrest him -- which they
sometimes did.
The Canadawide case of reefer madness was apparently contagious.
Former prime minister Jean Chretien, who tried unsuccessfully to fast-track a
decriminalization bill before leaving office earlier this month, seemed to
amuse
the country when he suggested in an October interview that he might puff on pot
one day.
"Perhaps I will try it when it will no longer be criminal," Chretien mused.
"I will have my money for my fine and a joint in the other hand."
Chretien had argued for fines instead of jail sentences for simple possession,
while adding that growers and traffickers would still face stiff penalties.
Although the bill was expected to pass this fall, Chretien officially ended his
last legislative session in mid-November, leaving it in limbo.
Whether Prime Minister Paul Martin will resurrect the bill is unclear, although
if it happens, many expect there to be amendments to make the legislation
tougher.
Martin has previously said he favours decriminalization in principle (and in
"very, very, very small amounts"), but also indicated he is sensitive to
opposing views from some Liberal backbenchers.
"He'd indicated always that he believes that the legislation in principle
should
be pursued, and I think you can assume that he'll act accordingly," said Martin
spokesman Scott Reid.
Alan Young, a Toronto lawyer, law professor and self-styled cannabis crusader,
said he expects the bill to die.
"If history repeats itself, one could safely conclude that this will not be
resurrected," he said, referring to a similar bill in the late 1970s that went
nowhere.
Young pointed instead to a case currently before the Supreme Court of Canada
that may be more significant.
It questions the government's authority to criminalize a relatively harmless
substance -- in this case, marijuana. An Ontario judge had previously ruled in
1997 that cannabis is relatively harmless -- a finding that was considered a
factual conclusion.
While Young stopped short of saying the case would set a precedent, he did
emphasize its importance. He expects the court to make its ruling by
mid-February.
"It has significance because this court for the first time is going to decide
whether Parliament has a threshold they must meet before they can enact
criminal
law," he said.
"In theory, without this case, Parliament tomorrow can criminalize the
cultivation of roses."
With the issue of medical use inextricably entwined with that of recreational
use, an Ontario court made simple possession illegal again in October while
firming up the rules on how medical users could obtain their cannabis supply.
"In terms of decriminalization, it was a huge setback," Young said.
"In terms of slow movement toward improving the medical program, it was a step
forward. But we lost a lot of momentum at the end of this year on
decriminalization by having the October court case not consider invalidation of
the criminal prohibition as a response."
Despite Ottawa's good intentions, efforts to supply medical users have proved
inept, as the government-sanctioned marijuana first made available in
August has
been widely criticized for its inferior quality.
Some users demanded refunds, calling the weed "disgusting" and "unsuitable for
human consumption."
Others said it was too weak to be effective. One man even said it made him
vomit.
One frustrated user found the quality so poor that he rejected the government
shipments and applied for a growing licence instead.
Philippe Lucas, director of Canadians for Safe Access, a Victoria-based
patients' rights group pressing for a safe, effective supply of marijuana, said
independent lab analyses of the government cannabis showed high concentrations
of toxic lead and arsenic.
"I've tried the government cannabis, and I can attest to its incredibly poor
quality," said Lucas, who is allowed to use marijuana to deal with the
side-effects of hepatitis C.
"Not only is it of poor quality, but it's a potentially dangerous product. When
you're talking about giving something to people with critical or chronic
illnesses, I find that to be really inexcusable."
Health Canada maintains it tested the cannabis extensively before allowing
it to
be distributed to medical users -- but it was never tested on people.
Spokeswoman Catherine Saunders said Health Canada isn't planning to make
changes
to the product despite the complaints of some users.
However, she pointed out that clinical trials are underway at Montreal's McGill
University to determine the medical benefits of marijuana, and the results may
influence future policy.
As the medical community continues to debate the pros and cons of cannabis,
statistics suggest that recreational pot-smoking is on the rise in Canada --
especially among younger people.
In a 2001 study by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, 11.2
per cent of Canadian adults surveyed said they used marijuana in the
previous 12
months, compared with 8.6 per cent in 1998.
Canadians aged 18 to 29 were at the head of the pack, with 26.8 per cent
smoking
pot compared with 18.3 per cent in 1996.
While the trend seems to indicate a growing acceptance of marijuana, Young
believes 2004 will be better for medical users than recreational users.
"I see next year as the year that we truly advance our understanding of
marijuana as medicine," he said.
"In terms of recreational use, I have no confidence the government will return
to their proposal. I'm not very confident the Supreme Court of Canada will do
their dirty work for the government, and I do see a bit of a backlash in the
initial months as public officials reassert their authority in this area."
That means no more smoking up outside police stations.
"One will have to be a bit more discreet and careful in terms of the use of
marijuana as a recreational substance," Young advised.
Source: Canadian Press
Pubdate: December 16, 2003
patrons openly enjoying joints alongside lattes, activists toking up outside
police stations with impunity, and government plans to make marijuana available
to the chronically ill.
But while that pipedream has apparently gone up in smoke, the ongoing debate
over the sweet leaf's place in Canadian society -- whether for medicine or for
pleasure -- promises to grow more heated in the coming year.
With the federal government courting decriminalization -- still a thorny issue
among the ruling Liberals themselves -- Canadians have found reason to voice
their opinions on the contentious topic.
An Ipsos-Reid poll of 1,001 Canadians conducted in May suggested that 55 per
cent of respondents did not believe smoking marijuana should be a criminal
offence.
Those advocating decriminalization say it doesn't make sense to saddle people
with criminal records for being busted for simple possession, such as smoking a
joint.
They also say it will reduce traffic in an already congested court system.
Those against decriminalization say marijuana is a so-called "gateway" drug
that
will cause users to progress to harder drugs such as cocaine and heroin. They
also say it will harm relations with the United States, which remains in War on
Drugs mode.
But things have been complicated by the federal government's cautious steps
toward providing cannabis to the ill. Proponents say marijuana stimulates the
appetite, relieves pain and reduces stress -- although the medical community
remains divided over such claims.
The decriminalization movement burst into the forefront this year when an
Ontario Superior Court judge ruled in May that possessing less than 30 grams of
marijuana was no longer against the law in the province.
A lawyer had successfully argued that since there was no effective program for
sick people to possess medical marijuana without breaking the law, then the law
didn't prohibit possession.
Police organizations in Ontario subsequently said they wouldn't lay charges for
simple possession until the laws were clarified.
The court decision prompted similar rulings around the country and opened the
floodgates for recreational users to enjoy a jubilant summer of toking
freely --
even in certain public cafes.
B.C. cannabis guru Marc Emery, who publishes Cannabis Culture magazine and
sells
marijuana seeds online, went on a coast-to-coast Tour de Pot this summer,
holding rallies and lighting up outside police stations in Vancouver, Edmonton,
Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg, Toronto, Moncton, N.B., Halifax, Charlottetown and
St. John's, Nfld., practically daring the cops to arrest him -- which they
sometimes did.
The Canadawide case of reefer madness was apparently contagious.
Former prime minister Jean Chretien, who tried unsuccessfully to fast-track a
decriminalization bill before leaving office earlier this month, seemed to
amuse
the country when he suggested in an October interview that he might puff on pot
one day.
"Perhaps I will try it when it will no longer be criminal," Chretien mused.
"I will have my money for my fine and a joint in the other hand."
Chretien had argued for fines instead of jail sentences for simple possession,
while adding that growers and traffickers would still face stiff penalties.
Although the bill was expected to pass this fall, Chretien officially ended his
last legislative session in mid-November, leaving it in limbo.
Whether Prime Minister Paul Martin will resurrect the bill is unclear, although
if it happens, many expect there to be amendments to make the legislation
tougher.
Martin has previously said he favours decriminalization in principle (and in
"very, very, very small amounts"), but also indicated he is sensitive to
opposing views from some Liberal backbenchers.
"He'd indicated always that he believes that the legislation in principle
should
be pursued, and I think you can assume that he'll act accordingly," said Martin
spokesman Scott Reid.
Alan Young, a Toronto lawyer, law professor and self-styled cannabis crusader,
said he expects the bill to die.
"If history repeats itself, one could safely conclude that this will not be
resurrected," he said, referring to a similar bill in the late 1970s that went
nowhere.
Young pointed instead to a case currently before the Supreme Court of Canada
that may be more significant.
It questions the government's authority to criminalize a relatively harmless
substance -- in this case, marijuana. An Ontario judge had previously ruled in
1997 that cannabis is relatively harmless -- a finding that was considered a
factual conclusion.
While Young stopped short of saying the case would set a precedent, he did
emphasize its importance. He expects the court to make its ruling by
mid-February.
"It has significance because this court for the first time is going to decide
whether Parliament has a threshold they must meet before they can enact
criminal
law," he said.
"In theory, without this case, Parliament tomorrow can criminalize the
cultivation of roses."
With the issue of medical use inextricably entwined with that of recreational
use, an Ontario court made simple possession illegal again in October while
firming up the rules on how medical users could obtain their cannabis supply.
"In terms of decriminalization, it was a huge setback," Young said.
"In terms of slow movement toward improving the medical program, it was a step
forward. But we lost a lot of momentum at the end of this year on
decriminalization by having the October court case not consider invalidation of
the criminal prohibition as a response."
Despite Ottawa's good intentions, efforts to supply medical users have proved
inept, as the government-sanctioned marijuana first made available in
August has
been widely criticized for its inferior quality.
Some users demanded refunds, calling the weed "disgusting" and "unsuitable for
human consumption."
Others said it was too weak to be effective. One man even said it made him
vomit.
One frustrated user found the quality so poor that he rejected the government
shipments and applied for a growing licence instead.
Philippe Lucas, director of Canadians for Safe Access, a Victoria-based
patients' rights group pressing for a safe, effective supply of marijuana, said
independent lab analyses of the government cannabis showed high concentrations
of toxic lead and arsenic.
"I've tried the government cannabis, and I can attest to its incredibly poor
quality," said Lucas, who is allowed to use marijuana to deal with the
side-effects of hepatitis C.
"Not only is it of poor quality, but it's a potentially dangerous product. When
you're talking about giving something to people with critical or chronic
illnesses, I find that to be really inexcusable."
Health Canada maintains it tested the cannabis extensively before allowing
it to
be distributed to medical users -- but it was never tested on people.
Spokeswoman Catherine Saunders said Health Canada isn't planning to make
changes
to the product despite the complaints of some users.
However, she pointed out that clinical trials are underway at Montreal's McGill
University to determine the medical benefits of marijuana, and the results may
influence future policy.
As the medical community continues to debate the pros and cons of cannabis,
statistics suggest that recreational pot-smoking is on the rise in Canada --
especially among younger people.
In a 2001 study by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, 11.2
per cent of Canadian adults surveyed said they used marijuana in the
previous 12
months, compared with 8.6 per cent in 1998.
Canadians aged 18 to 29 were at the head of the pack, with 26.8 per cent
smoking
pot compared with 18.3 per cent in 1996.
While the trend seems to indicate a growing acceptance of marijuana, Young
believes 2004 will be better for medical users than recreational users.
"I see next year as the year that we truly advance our understanding of
marijuana as medicine," he said.
"In terms of recreational use, I have no confidence the government will return
to their proposal. I'm not very confident the Supreme Court of Canada will do
their dirty work for the government, and I do see a bit of a backlash in the
initial months as public officials reassert their authority in this area."
That means no more smoking up outside police stations.
"One will have to be a bit more discreet and careful in terms of the use of
marijuana as a recreational substance," Young advised.
Source: Canadian Press
Pubdate: December 16, 2003