Clearing the haze on pot laws
Posted at 06:56PM on Apr 21, 2008 by NSmith
Our Coordinating News Editor Kelly Ebbels posted (both on the Editors' Blog and Facebook) about students getting arrested for smoking pot on 4/20 on lower campus. And in the comments to the latter posting, there was -- as has been the case so often the past few years -- lots of confusion about marijuana possession laws. Let me clear some things up.
Possession of marijuana, no matter how small the amount, is illegal. Period (unless you have a doctor or similar authority approve it). The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is very clear (well, not really, because it's a law):
4. (1) Except as authorized under the regulations, no person shall possess a substance included in Schedule I, II or III.
(Schedule II is "Cannabis, its preparations, derivatives and similar synthetic preparations, including [and then a specific list].")
Subsection 2 of Section 4 prohibits "seek[ing] or [obtain]ing", so that's out too. There is an exception in subsection 5, where if you possess less than 30 g of "cannabis (marihuana)" or 1 g of "cannabis resin" (hashish), then your maximum penalty is only $1,000 and six months in jail; everything else has a maximum penalty of at least five years less a day. (There's a cool chart here.)
There are two types of events in recent years that caused people to think the law has changed. (The CBC has a good backgrounder on this.) First, some trial judges, particularly in Ontario and BC, have ruled simple possession laws unconstitutional. These have all been overturned on appeal. The Supreme Court even ruled in 2003 (6-3) that laws against possession of pot are not unconstitutional under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the life, liberty and security of the person one).
The other is when the Liberals proposed to make possession of up to 15 g be "decriminalized", so that you could only get a ticket and not a criminal record, like jaywalking (well, a higher fine). Chrétien introduced the bill as C-38, and it was sent to a special committee designed specifically for this bill, where they had a bunch of hearings. Then, when Martin took over the bill continued as C-10, and there was an interesting free vote on it which split all parties, but it eventually died before even getting to the Senate when Martin called an election. Martin was reduced to a minority, but reintroduced a new decriminalization bill that this time also heavily increased penalties for growing and trafficking, C-17. The bill was introduced, a day later it was shuffled off to the Justice Committee, where not a single meeting was held on it. After the bill languished for just over a year at committee with no movement at all, Martin's government fell, and the Conservatives won, which likely puts a halt to any further action on this file.
It could be that politicians don't want to touch this because so many people think possession of small amounts of pot is not illegal, and since so many people get away with it, it's easier to let the status quo continue than bring up a controversial issue again. Or maybe I'm too cynical. (Or both.) But either way, if the police catch you with even a tiny bit of a joint, they can send you to one.
About this blog:
Looking Upstream
Looking Upstream irreverently examines federal politics, with diversions elsewhere, as an inside outsider.
Comments
Kelly wrote:
Nicholas, the 'Canada' subsection of Wikipedia's "legality of cannabis" article could use your attention.
Apr 21 at 10:35 PM
Flag as inappropriate
Nicholas wrote:
Wow. Just...wow. I'm going to deal with this tomorrow, but, briefly, district court decisions do not strike down laws nationally.
The main holding in Long is that the regime in which people can get medicinal marijuana is broken, and so unconstitutional, so laws against possession are unconstitutional. Even if that were true, Parliament would just have to fix the system. Courts don't just strike down entire laws immediately and leave the system in limbo when the implementation of one part of the law doesn't work; just look at same-sex marriage and security certificates, in which courts ruled the whole law unconstitutional, but stayed their decision until Parliament could address the issue themselves. And most importantly, while the original problem was the arbitrary nature of who could apply for a medical exemption, the new system (MMAR) doesn't have that problem (the problem is how the people can obtain marijuana legally). Therefore, the only people who should be able to get off on a possession charge are those who need it for a medicinal purpose, and, in particular, those who applied for a permit allowing that.
No, I'm not a lawyer, but Wikipedia's articles read like pot is essentially legal. Not even close.
Apr 22 at 03:23 AM
Flag as inappropriate
Russell Barth wrote:
“and since so many people get away with it”
The notion that cops turn a blind eye to pot use is balderdash. Actually, tens of thousands of Canadians get criminal records for pot each year, each year - thousands more than the year before. About 700,000 Canadians have criminal records for pot charges, which screws up their chances at good jobs or international travel. This hurts everyone in the country, not just the individual.
As for the current legality of cannabis, because the Medical Marijuana Access Regulations were never enacted as an actual law, the CDSA is falling apart in the courts. Technically, pot is legal (it is explained on the website www.thepotlawhasfallen.ca), but police and judges and crown lawyers refuse to admit it because, well, Canada's judiciary is systematically corrupt. They change rules as they go along, running roughshod over rights and ignoring laws and protocol. The very notion of criminalizing a plant makes the entire CDSA absurd and irrelevant.
No party – not even the Greens (if they ever get a seat) – will legalize pot. The pot laws will fall the same way our abortion and same-sex marriage prohibitions ended; in the courts. If only we had more people with the testicular fortitude to fight their charges.
And finally, if you accept that the government has the right to tell you what you can and cannot put into your own body, then you must accept their ownership. That means that they own you – like a pet, or cattle – and that you have only the rights that they grant. If you accept that, then you deserve to have no rights at all.
Russell Barth Federal Medical Marijuana License Holder Patients Against Ignorance and Discrimination on Cannabis (PAIDOC) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCdNX_k71iw www.rata.ca/paidoc.html
Apr 22 at 06:41 AM
Flag as inappropriate
Post a Comment