S.c.c To Rule On Minor Pot Possession

[SirRiff]

LINK

Pot heads, anti-drug activists and occasional tokers will be watching as Canada's high court rules Tuesday on whether simple possession of marijuana should be a crime.

The much anticipated judgment from the Supreme Court of Canada comes as the federal government plans to reintroduce a hotly debated bill to decriminalize possession of pot in small amounts.

what is really interesting is the argument being made, namely;

A key question is whether federal law violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by imposing criminal penalties, including potential jail time, for possession of small amounts of pot.

The cases involve two self-described marijuana activists and one man who was caught toking up. All three failed to convince lower courts that the pot law is unconstitutional.

.....[one] case centres on Christopher Clay, .... His lawyer, University of Toronto law professor Alan Young, says Parliament has never proven that recreational pot use causes anything more serious than bronchitis.

"And most of the justifications for its prohibition have been called into question."

The third case involves Victor Caine, who was arrested by a police officer after lighting a joint in a van in a parking lot in White Rock, B.C. He had 0.5 grams of pot in his possession.

Federal lawyers argued there is "no free-standing right to get stoned" and said Parliament must be free, within reason, to criminalize behaviour as it sees fit.

Defence lawyers said criminal penalties for minor drug offences are disproportionate and violate the guarantee of fundamental justice in the Charter.

this gets into the intent of the charter, which once again, states both;

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

AND

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 think its reasonable to point out that while alcohol, tobacco, and firearms are permitted in Canada (under regulation) even when they contribute to the deaths of thousands each year, pot is completely prohibited even though it is nowhere nearly as dangerous. doesnt make sense, either they are all too dangerous, or they are all able to be regulated in a free society.

i can understand why we dont want more pot in society, but is there any sound argument against pot that also would sutain our treatment of guns, smokes, and booze?

incidently, from the SCC's own words, a description of the questions being asked;

Decision on the motion to state a constitutional question, CJ,

1. Does prohibiting possession of Cannabis sativa for personal use under s. 3(1) of the Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-1, by reason of the inclusion of this substance in s. 3 of the Schedule to the Act (now s. 1, Schedule II, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19), infringe s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is the infringement justified under s. 1 of the Charter?

3. Is the prohibition on the possession of Cannabis sativa for personal use under s. 3(1) of the Narcotic Control Act, by reason of the inclusion of this substance in s. 3 of the Schedule to the Act (now s. 1, Schedule II, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19), within the legislative competence of the Parliament of Canada as being a law enacted for the peace, order and good government of Canada pursuant to s. 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867; as being enacted pursuant to the criminal law power in s. 91(27) thereof; or otherwise?

[maplesyrup]

It's in now in our unelected prime minister Paul Martin's ballpark now, as the Supreme Court of Canada decides, in a 6-3 ruling, to uphold Canada's drug law.

Whatever side one is one, it's absurd that Martin, who has no mandate whatsoever from Canadians, will decide this issue.

Great system we have!

[Hugo]

i can understand why we dont want more pot in society, but is there any sound argument against pot that also would sutain our treatment of guns, smokes, and booze?

While I don't want to enter into legal wrangling, I believe I can offer some insight into this reasoning.

Guns: first off, guns don't necessarily have to kill people. Studies and FBI statistics in the USA show that where registered firearm ownership is higher, crime is lower. They also show that civilian interventions with firearms are responsible for preventing hundreds of thousands of crimes (usually burglary and theft-related crimes) every year. Thus, the guns can be shown as a trade-off. Sometimes innocents are injured or killed (but how often with a registered firearm anyway), but on the whole, legal firearms give us a safer society.

Alcohol: while it has the potential to be socially devastating and mood-altering, it can also be used in moderation and without negative effects. One can enjoy a nice glass of wine with a meal without getting sloshed, in fact, when you drink a small amount with a meal you wouldn't even notice the effects. We tolerate alcohol not because we don't care about alcoholism, but because most people drink without any negative side-effects.

Tobacco: while destructive to health, tobacco is not mood-altering and thus can truly be a personal choice. When under the influence of mood-altering drugs, you are not really responsible for your actions, so you are putting others at potential risk. But after someone has smoked a cigarette, they do not act any differently. Of course, passive smoking can be a problem, so we ban it in public now, however, that's not a justification for banning it altogether. You can't masturbate in public, but I don't think any serious thinker would propose outlawing it in private as well.

Pot, on the other hand, has all the negative health consequences of tobacco, but is also mood-altering. Unlike alcohol, though, it's also impossible to use it in moderation: either you are stoned, or you're not. You can't have just a small joint with a meal and not feel the effects, and if you could toke without noticing anything, nobody would bother doing that anyway. Nobody does pot because they like the taste (unlike wine, beer, or even cigars), they do it to get high.