Just so everyone knows, the Supremes (the spineless majority, not the brave minority) did not address my arguments, they ignored them (after I pleaded with them four times not to).

http://www.pot-tv.net/archive/series/pottvseries-109-0.html


They're main two arguements were 1) "Up to Parliament" (after how many years of ignoring Le Dain?) and 2) "Vulnerable Groups".


As you can see from the following, I addressed these arguments throughout my speech and in my closing remarks:



REPLY OF THE APPELLANT, David Malmo-Levine, Appearing in Person



MR. DAVID MALMO-LEVINE: Well, I said, at the onset of today, that my
purpose here was to try to shift the debate from whether the harms are
trivial, insignificant, to whether the harms are mitigatable and reducible.
And, apart from perhaps Mr. Conroy, I feel that I have failed in that task.

Nobody here has asked me any questions about harm reduction, either to
verify their existence or to challenge their existence and -

- (voice over voice - off mike) -

CHIEF JUSTICE McLACHLIN: Perhaps we're all convinced.

MR. DAVID MALMO-LEVINE: Well, I hope so. I really do.

- (laughter) -

Mr. Frankel, though, has a responsibility, and that is that he - he should
not mis-characterize my argument as: there's not enough harm. It's not a
matter of enough or - or amount of harm. It's whether the harms are
inherent or whether they are mitigatable. And that applies to those
vulnerable groups, as well.

I think that Mr. Conroy made an error when he said that I would prohibit
these groups from my club. I wouldn't and I didn't. I suggest that the
vulnerable groups, the chronic users, the mentally ill, the pregnant
mothers, and the immature youth, are the ones that need harm reduction the
most.

They need to be protected by the black market harms more than any other
people. And we can address all the concerns that you might have about these
vulnerable groups through harm reduction strategies, harm reduction methods,
and the evidence that - that you heard today.



For example, I started smoking pot when I was fourteen. The black
market was what threatened me. Getting knifed or - or meeting people
who were selling other things. All that. The separation of the hard and
soft drug -

I'm sorry, do you have a question?

CHIEF JUSTICE McLACHLIN: What is your point?

MR. DAVID MALMO-LEVINE: Oh, I'm sorry.

The separation of the hard and soft drug market is what the Dutch claim as
their glaring success. And that is the kinds of harms I wish to protect
vulnerable groups, especially youths in Canada, from.

And - and I believe that a parental permission policy would address all the
concerns that parents and police might have and - and would encourage
dialogue and discussion between parents and youths and the homework
would get done, the lawns would be mowed if some sort of - and,
again, this could fall into s.1. Or - or, say, the mentally ill.

Now, it is my understanding that the schizophrenics and other people at
the compassion club have discovered that, with proper strain selection,
specifically avoiding setivas and focussing mainly on indicas and hashish,
they can avoid some of the unpleasant experiences that have been
characterized as inherent with schizophrenics using cannabis.

A lot of these studies and a lot of the evidence, that they're basing this
on, is based on marinol, which is just THC and, like I said, the setivas,
which are mostly THC, tend to wing you out, make you a little bit flighty
and - and not good for schizophrenia, but the indicas and the hashish are.
And a lot of schizophrenics and a lot of other people, who are using
cannabis for mental health or mental illness, are dependent upon cannabis
and, if they're using it properly, there's no evidence of any harm to them.



Or the pregnant mothers. Do you know that cannabis has been used, from time
immemorial, for nausea, lack of appetite and sleep, relaxation, and
relaxation of the birth canal muscles so there's no tearing? And perhaps
cannabis is the number one medicine because of its lack of toxicity for
pregnant mothers. So that should be considered.

And I myself am a chronic user. I fall under the definition of chronic
user found in the Senate, over a gram a day. But I think that the
quality of the cannabis, the organics, or whether it's chemically
fertilized or organically fertilized, and the dose levels, the setting,
these are all factors that differentiate chronic abuse from just chronic
use, like, say, a chronic caffeine user might properly use coffee, but use
it every day.

And - and all of these things that they blame cannabis for, point their
fingers at cannabis harms, would be true for coffee if it was made suddenly
illegal. If - if it was dealt by dark-skinned people a hundred years
ago, perhaps it would be illegal today.

Because, really, that's the only thing I can see that the opiates in
cannabis and coca have in common. Not that they were more dangerous than
the pharmaceuticals or tobacco or alcohol a hundred years ago. They were
distributed by dark-skinned people and there is some evidence of racism in
the creation and loss.

Now, Justice Curtis originally said: Show us what you've got. And I -
I - we did, which was all harms are mitigatable, which is, again, found in
the appeal book, at 106 and 186.

But the lower court ignored this evidence by claiming that there was no
harm principle. The British Columbia Court of Appeal ignored this evidence
by claiming: Well, you can't deal with dealing unless you first deal with
using.



So, again, I beg this Court: Don't invent excuses to ignore this huge pile
of evidence on harm reduction. Incorporate the harm reduction evidence into
your decisions on harm and - and - and realize that we're not -

Okay, I guess my time is up, but we're not asking, or at least this
Appellant is not asking, for the right of intoxication or the right to smoke
marijuana. No.

This Appellant is asking for the right to do any harmless activity, any
harm - any activity that the state has been given lots of opportunity to
provide evidence of inherent harm and has failed, year after year, decade
after decade, generation after generation. That's what we're arguing for,
the right to do any harmless activities.

CHIEF JUSTICE McLACHLIN: Thank you.

- (voice over voice - off mike) -

MR. JUSTICE BINNIE: Could you just tell me, in your earlier submission,
you made of number of references to the Loubec decision. I don't find what
you're referring to.

MR. DAVID MALMO-LEVINE: Yes, it's in the Caine's book of miscellaneous
authorities. I do believe that I gave a citation for it. I'll find it
again for you. The Loubec decision is very important because,
really -

MR. JUSTICE BINNIE: No, no -

MR. DAVID MALMO-LEVINE: - both the harm principle and equality -

MR. JUSTICE BINNIE: - I heard the submissions.

MR. DAVID MALMO-LEVINE: Alright.

MR. JUSTICE BINNIE: I just wanted to find it.



MR. DAVID MALMO-LEVINE: I'll find you - I'll find you the citation, sure.

MR. JUSTICE BINNIE: Well, it's in Caine's book of authorities, isn't it?

MR. DAVID MALMO-LEVINE: One moment, please.

CHIEF JUSTICE McLACHLIN: We can find it, if it is -

MR. JUSTICE BINNIE: We will find it if it's in Caine's book.

MR. DAVID MALMO-LEVINE: It is in the Caine miscellaneous reports. I did
mention the exact place that it was found. Loubec, Loubec. John, do you
have it handy?

MR. JUSTICE BINNIE: It's alright. You've told us where it is, so I'll find
it.

MR. DAVID MALMO-LEVINE: It will just take one second. Here we go. Oh,
here. Caine, miscellaneous authorities, tab 1, pages 8 to 10, 15 and 31.

I do again want to stress that it was thrown out at a higher court for the
wrong reasons, a misidentification of state interests.

We're not concerned in Canada with reducing use levels. We're only concerned
with reducing abuse levels and I believe that education could probably -
even if use levels go up, abuse levels might go down, if we educate.

CHIEF JUSTICE McLACHLIN: Thank you, Mr. Malmo-Levine.

REPLY OF THE APPELLANT, Victor Eugene Caine, John W. Conroy, Q.C.



MR. JOHN W. CONROY: No mental deterioration there, in my submission.
Chronic user, living, breathing example.

********************
Part of a transcript of Appeal Hearing in Supreme Court of Canada May 6th, 2003 (Word document)
http://www.johnconroy.com/rvcaine.html





Only three judges seemed like they were listening. Here are some quotes from the astute three:


Justice Louise Arbour:



266 If there remained any doubt as to whether the harms associated with
marihuana use justified the state in using imprisonment as a sanction
against its possession, this doubt disappears when the harms caused by the
prohibition are put in the balance. The record shows and the trial judges
found that the prohibition of simple possession of marihuana attempts to
prevent a low quantum of harm to society at a very high cost. A "negligible"
burden on the health care and welfare systems, coupled with the many
significant negative effects of the prohibition, cannot be said to amount to
more than little or no reasoned risk of harm to society. I thus conclude
that s. 3(1) and (2) of the Narcotic Control Act, as it prohibits the
possession of marihuana for personal use under threat of imprisonment,
violates the right of the appellants to liberty in a manner that is not in
accordance with the harm principle, a principle of fundamental justice,
contrary to s. 7 of the Charter.



276 The constitutional questions in the Caine appeal should be answered
as follows:

(1) Does prohibiting possession of Cannabis (marihuana) 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?

Answer: Yes.

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

Answer: No.

===

Justice Louis LeBel:



280 In my mind, it cannot be denied that marihuana can cause problems of
varying nature and severity to some people or to groups of them.
Nevertheless, the harm its consumption may cause seems rather mild on the
evidence we have. In contrast, the harm and the problems connected with the
form of criminalization chosen by Parliament seem plain and important. Few
people appear to be jailed for simple possession but the law remains on the
books. The reluctance to enforce it to the extent of actually jailing people
for the offence of simple possession seems consistent with the perception
that the law, as it stands, amounts to some sort of legislative overreach to
the apprehended problems associated with marihuana consumption. Moreover,
besides the availability of jail as a punishment, the enforcement of the law
has tarred hundreds of thousands of Canadians with the stigma of a criminal
record. They have had to bear the burden of the consequences of such
criminal records as Arbour J. points out. The fundamental liberty interest
has been infringed by the adoption and implementation of a legislative
response which is disproportionate to the societal problems at issue. It is
thus arbitrary and in breach of s. 7 of the Charter. For these reasons, I
agree with Arbour J. that fundamental rights are at stake, that they were
breached, and that this Court must intervene as part of its duty under the
Constitution to uphold the fundamental principles of our constitutional
order.

===

Justice Marie Deschamps:

284 I agree with the majority of this Court on the arguments relating to
the protection of lifestyle and the shifting purpose of the Act. I will
limit my comments to the arguments concerning the harm principle and the
arbitrary nature of the legislation. The latter argument leads me to
conclude that the inclusion of cannabis in the schedule to the Narcotic
Control Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N--1 (rep. & repl. S.C. 1996, c. 19, s. 94)
infringes the appellants' right to liberty.

289 The criminal law is one of the most aggressive weapons the state has
to enforce its dictates. This weapon must be wielded with great care. The
courts must intervene when an enactment violates constitutional guarantees.
More specifically, and without repeating the detailed comments of my
colleagues, the courts must act when the right to liberty is infringed
without regard for the principles of fundamental justice. In the present
case, I believe Parliament has exercised its power arbitrarily.

290 When the state prohibits socially neutral conduct, that is, conduct
that causes no harm, that is not immoral and upon which there is no societal
consensus as to its blameworthiness, it cannot do so without raising a
problem of legitimacy and, consequently, losing credibility. Citizens become
inclined not to take the criminal justice system seriously and lose
confidence in the administration of justice. Judges become reluctant to
impose the sanctions attached to such laws.

291 There are several basic tenets of criminal law that can be used
to measure the arbitrariness of a prohibition. I shall rely on three of
these principles here: the need for the state to protect society from harm,
the availability of tools other than criminal law that could adequately
control the conduct and the proportionality of the measure to the problem in
question.

293 As mentioned by the majority, the reasons for adding marihuana to
the schedule to the Narcotic Control Act are nebulous, at best. The
historical background outlined by the trial judge in the case of the
appellant Caine clearly shows that Parliament's decision was made at a time
when a climate of irrational fear predominated, owing to a campaign led by
Edmonton magistrate Emily Murphy, who claimed that marihuana caused users to
lose their minds, along with all sense of moral responsibility, becoming
maniacs capable of murder and many other acts of cruelty.

294 Fortunately, the consequences of marihuana use are nothing like
those described at that time. Although I do not accept the harm principle as
an independent principle, I believe that the need for the state to protect
society from harm plays an active role in any assessment of the
arbitrariness of legislation.

295 The inherent risks of marihuana use, apart from those related to
the operation of vehicles and the impact on public health care and social
assistance systems, affect only the users themselves. These risks can be
situated on a spectrum, ranging from no risk for occasional users to more
significant risks for frequent users and vulnerable groups. On the whole,
with a few exceptions, moderate use of marihuana is harmless. Thus, it seems
doubtful that it is appropriate to classify marihuana consumption as conduct
giving rise to a legitimate use of the criminal law in light of the Charter.

297 The minimal harm caused by marihuana does not fit squarely
within the categories of conduct usually kept in check by the criminal law.

298 Only three groups are traditionally identified as requiring state
intervention for their protection: young persons, pregnant women and certain
people with medical conditions. This line of reasoning does not have to be
pushed very far before it becomes obvious that criminal law is not society's
preferred means of controlling the conduct of these groups. The use of
imprisonment and all the other aspects of the criminal justice system,
including the imposition of a criminal record, to suppress conduct that
causes little harm to moderate users or to control high-risk groups for whom
the effectiveness of deterrence or correction is highly dubious and seems to
me out of keeping with Canadian society's standards of justice.

299 This brings me to the third factor, proportionality. The harmful
effects of marihuana use have already been discussed and are highly
debatable. The harm caused by its prohibition, however, is clear and
significant. For the details, I refer back once again to the effects listed
by Arbour J. (para. 200). A balancing of these two factors yields the result
that the harm caused by prohibiting marihuana is fundamentally
disproportionate to the problems created by its use that the state seeks to
suppress.

301 The harm caused by using the criminal law to punish the simple use
of marihuana far outweighs the benefits that its prohibition can bring.
LeBel J. notes that the fact that jail sentences are rarely imposed
illustrates the perception of judges that imprisonment is not a sanction
that befits the inherent dangers of using marihuana. In the case of the
appellant Caine, Howard J. also observed that the prohibition had brought
the law into disrepute in the eyes of over one million people. These are
exactly the kinds of reactions that are indicative of the arbitrariness of
the impugned provisions. As I have already mentioned, and as Howard J.
observed, when the state prohibits socially neutral conduct, it exposes
itself to the risk of eroding its credibility.

302 Canadian society is changing. Its knowledge base is growing, and its
morals are evolving. Even if it was once the case, and in my view it never
was, the prohibition against cannabis is no longer defensible. My analysis
leads me to conclude that the little harm caused by marihuana casts doubt on
the appropriateness of state intervention in this case. When I weigh the
prohibition against, first, other available methods for countering the harm
that marihuana use presents and, second, the problems caused by marihuana
use, I must conclude that the legislation is inconsistent with the
constitutional guarantee in s. 7 of the Charter.

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2003scc074.wpd.html




As for the future.... don't worry.... we are stronger than ever, we have the momentum, we have Jack Layton, we have some plans for future stylish rebellion ...... we have just begun to be dignifried.

I would have liked to see one more justice come out against prohibition, but I think that's the best that could have been hoped for. The judges aren't any different from the rest of the federal government in terms of their abject fear of the United States. They are cowards. Wonder how many calls from US officials they received over the last few months.

Some of the folk in frocks listened and spoke truth, this is a start. We had a similar situation here in South Africa in our HIGH court with the appeal by the 'rasta lawyer' to use cannabis for religious reasons...

I think that there is only one important point.


"As mentioned by the majority, the reasons for adding cannabis to the schedule to the Narcotic Control Act are nebulous, at best."

At the time when these laws were made, there was not the body of evidence available that there is today. to be able to draw from knowledge and thus create such a sweeping policy that has no bearing on the current cannabis situation. (hell despite the laws we all know cannabis grows well & wild and there will always customers

I was not born or lived in the 18somthing's or the early 19hundreds. If I had I would have been growing cannabis for Crown and country.

However, today ... these days in 2003/4, despite the laws, I know for certain I will be stoned by choice till the day I die. And as for incarceration, well I know the cannabis trade is alive and well in the prison system.

So as I said...

However, today ... these days in 2003/4, despite the laws, I know for certain I will be stoned by choice till the day I die.

Quote:

---

did not address my arguments, they ignored them (after I pleaded with them four times not to).

---

It's worse that that: my reading of the decision from the majority looks like a cut-and-paste from the Crown's arguments. (Even the same wording at times.)

So, where do we go from here? Mme Justice Arbour's coments are spectacular. It sounds exactly like David Malmo-Levine at times. Can her comments ever be used in the future. Can she ever be used in lower courts for any reason? I realize she is the mInority, but can this type of minority decision ever be re-cycled?

THE CANADIAN BILL OR RIGHTS IS A USELESS PIECE OF TOILET PAPER SHREDDED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA.

Fascinating! You give them the truth and all they can do is try and think up excuses to subvert.

There's an old saying, "can't see the forest through the trees", like when someone has their nose so close to the details they cannot see the bigger picture.

This bigger picture is the REASONS the Supreme majority fraudulently claim about the constitutionality issue over the prohibition laws. I mean fraud in the sense that the ruling is not really a decision; it's a cop-out.

Their noses at the grindstone, is all the re-hashing of the Fed's abusive position, which is basically a circular argument, in a nutshell, that because we represent the highest judiciary of the government, then we can legislate any criminalisations in law we see fit, as we simply claim is necessary for "public safety" etc.. In other words, their so-called ruling on constitutionality is a RUBBER-STAMPING of TYRANNY. It's the oldest tyranny in existence; that "the end justifies the means". It's exactly the kind of police power justifications all absolutism and authoritarianism systems proclaim about their noble, social experiments and fascist, racist pogroms reveal!

They didn't give any rational argument in support of Prohibition, in a constitutional framework because quite frankly, NONE EXIST: the Bigger Picture of Constitutionality is precisely over the dangers of the ABUSE of POWER that any tyrannical state operates under through ABSOLUTISM.

This is so basic it is unbelievable that this idiotic ruling has gone on so far unchallenged and unequivocally denounced even by the legal community, etc.

It's so simple: the judges have "passed the buck" to Parliament.

They have NOT done what they are supposed to have done.

There does not exist any constitutional reason in support of Absolutism. And Prohibition is exactly a tyrannical, absolutist ideology.

Now if the meaning of Constitutionality is changed, you know, that Doublespeak, Doublethink, Orwellian adulteration manipulation of language, logic and definitions etc., then the sky is the limit: any tyrannical abuse of power can be conveniently twisted into looking and sounding legitimate, necessary and even expedient.

I think you hit the nail on the head that the judges have ignored the main issues and points, but I say it is ALL of THEM! Not just the majority. How come the others didn't object in protest to this majority ruling? Surely these judges know that the issues you raised have been ignored?

There is a valid political argument in the idea that a Parliament is the proper body to formulate laws, which seems to be the nature of the debate now, that the fight to legalize (repeal prohibition?) cannabis has now shifted from a legal battle in the courts to one of a political one in the arena of public opinion.

I don't think anybody was arguing that judges should or should not create laws. The issue was to have the highest court judge the constitutionality of a bad laws that had been on the books for over 80 years. Is it the role of a deadly police force, thus the criminal code in force, as a force of sanction to control the choices that are not truly criminal actions in the first place. Of course not. Any decent, honest person knows this. Imagine parents who punish their children with harsh, disciplinary "tough love" bullshit for essentially minor details of child-training etc. It's a Punishment Culture issue really. Spare the rod, spoil the child thing.

This is where LAW and Religion intersect.

When is it appropriate (lawful?) to punish someone?

Thus this perhaps the "quality control" criteria of LAW, called "constitutionality" as more or less a means to gauge and test the limits of the power that police can and cannot exercise. It's about human rights essentially and how the "rule of law" must be "superior" to the "arm of the law".

Does the ARM rule or the HEAD?

I would think that it is the head where the seat of sentience, intelligence and conscience resides, the mind, the heart, the seat of the soul, in other words, and not the arm itself, the muscles, the flesh, the nerves and bones, are willed into movement by the mind, not the other way around.

In martial law, authority is dictated to the ARM.

And there is the rub.

The idea of using criminal law to control appetites, in other desires and passions and the WILL, is a corruption of the true and just practice of law.

By criminalizing actions that are not truly criminal in nature, it is the ultimate tyranny because it invents a state of law, to rationalize and justify WAR, which is "force of arm", that BRAWN over BRAIN, instead of the other way around.

It's no coincidence that another way to define Prohibition is the WAR on Drugs.

Warfare is the quintessential excuse rationalizing Totalitarianism.

So in order to collectively "pull the wool" over the eyes of the public, only through inventing a context of "war" can Prohibition be legally justified.

Law itself is like a language to encode REASON into Morality. The moral force of the law is supposedly to reflect the common, natural application maybe of what we understand as the "general good".

But the problem is that when it comes to absolutism, in other words the totalitarian ideals of the "supremacy of the law" that "letter of the law" business of tyranny, when expressed in fascistic systems, human rights are a joke, such as in Communistic systems like China and Police States like the United Snakes of America.

Crime is manifest through mostly Lying, Theft and Violence.

Talk about VLT addiction!

That's the real lottery the STATE is drugged-up on!

Violence, Lying and Theft.

The WOD is the chief distraction, it's institutionalized Inquisitional pogrom of official scapegoats it officially sacrifices daily, to keep it's FIX in!

peace is of the pi,
d8>D
Rod is said.

Top Story: Canadian Supreme Court Decision Leaves Cannabis Users With A Minor Victory But A Major Loss of Freedom for All Canadians.

Posted by Richard Cowan on 2004-01-14 14:20:00

Source: http://www.marijuananews.com/news.php3?sid=726

Analysis by Richard Cowan
Posted January 14, 2004

I have delayed writing about the Canadian Supreme Court decision on cannabis prohibition for a number of reasons, but it may have been for the best. It has given me more time to see how it was received, but, on the other hand, it has also made clear that it has quickly been forgotten.

Grinchiness aside, it was unfortunate that the decision came just before the holidays, because most commentators were apparently too distracted to really look at the fine print.

For the full text of the decision, see

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2003scc074.wpd.html

The headlines naturally focused on the disappointment in the cannabis communities, but they failed to see that the Court allowed Parliament to be arbitrary and inconsistent in banning anything that is not “harmless.”

While I would obviously have preferred that the Court throw out all of the cannabis laws, philosophically I am also sympathetic to those who are leery of “judicial activism.” Generally speaking, laws in a democracy should be made by the people’s elected representatives, not by judges.

Paradoxically, the court majority proved that point by demonstrating that we cannot count on them to protect individual freedom, and that is a problem for all Canadians, not just cannabis users.

Oddly, the Vancouver Sun and other anti-prohibitionist papers (most of the best papers in Canada) also called for the Parliament to pass the phony “decrim” bill that died in the last Parliament as a “step in the right direction.”

See
“John Walters’ Testimony To The Canadian Parliament.” The Public Record Or What He Would Have Said, If He Was Not Afraid of Being Asked Embarrassing Questions. The Battle for Canada.

and links

The news reports generally emphasized a quote (in note 87 of the opinion) that echoed the government’s argument: “… There is no free-standing constitutional right to smoke "pot" for recreational purposes.”
(emphasis added)

One of the few columns written on the subject took notice of that point was written for by Stan Persky, who teaches philosophy at Capilano College in North Vancouver. He clearly sees the danger to everyone’s freedom.

January 6, 2004
From Vancouver Sun
http://www.canada.com/vancouver/vancouversun/

Marijuana Smokescreen
by Stan Persky

The message most quoted by the media from last month's Supreme Court of Canada decision upholding the country's marijuana laws is that "there is no free-standing constitutional right to smoke pot' for recreational purposes.

Stoned folks, fumbling with their Zig Zag rolling papers and baggies of dope, can be forgiven, I suppose, for not reading beyond the headlines. Unstoned people who write newspaper editorials, however, are less easily forgiven for not going beyond the obvious.

The Vancouver Sun editorial ("It's up to Parliament to fix Canada's pot laws," Dec. 30, 2003) cited the court's "no free-standing constitutional right to smoke pot" remark and didn't go much further than exhaling. "The court showed admirable judicial restraint," said the editorial with a sigh of relief, and quoted with approval the court's recognition that the outcome of the marijuana debate "is not for the courts to determine."

For those opposed to so-called "judicial activism," the court's decision was the occasion to light up a big celebratory, er, cigar. But for people who read all 91 pages of the court's 6-3 ruling, the big surprise is that the judgment isn't so much about pot as it is about a much deeper question, namely, What is a crime?

What Justices Charles Gonthier and Ian Binnie, who wrote the majority decision, have to say about defining crime, the legal notion of "harm," and our constitutional right to liberty is extremely worrisome. You have to read all the way to Justice Louise Arbour's dissenting opinion to understand why there's a good case for thinking that the majority got it wrong.

Arbour's argument goes something like this: conduct that we define as a crime has to be an act that intentionally causes direct, measurable harm to other persons or their property. In such cases, society, through its government, has the right to punish those acts.

However, the harm caused has to be more than trivial, and it has to be harm to others not to oneself. That is especially the case if the punishment includes the possibility of a jail sentence, one of our severest restrictions of liberty.

The big idea about liberty and harm goes back to 19th century philosopher John Stuart Mill, who wrote in his classic On Liberty, "The sole end for which mankind are warranted in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

That "very simple principle," as Mill calls it, is enshrined in the highest law in the land, Section 7 of the Canadian Constitution's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects "life, liberty and security of person." Constitutional law, remember, trumps statutory law, such as the Criminal Code's prohibition against possession of marijuana.

(Marijuananews note: John Stuart Mill shared the Founding Fathers’ concern about majoritarianism. He said, “There is no worse tyranny than that of a majority. The test of democracy is not that the majority should always get its way but how far minorities are respected."

Also see
Peter McWilliams On Non-Violence:
"Socrates, Jesus, and Martin Luther King
did more for their causes by dying for them than by killing for them."

Section 7 reads, “. 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.”
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/ )

The media focus on whether or not Parliament has the power to make pot laws is misleading. Of course Parliament has the right to make such laws. What Parliament doesn't have the right to do is criminalise conduct that doesn't cause direct harm to others, or to make laws that violate constitutional rights, such as our right to liberty.

The much-cited "no free-standing constitutional right to smoke pot" is also misleading. Of course it doesn't say in the Constitution, "Every Canadian has the right to toke up." But what the Constitution does say, in effect, is: You have the right to do anything you want, as long as you don't cause harm to others.

What makes the court's recent decision more than a matter of what goes up in smoke is that the principle of harm and the protections of the Constitution apply to a wide range of conduct that extends from freedom of speech and belief to intimate sexual activities. For the majority of us, who don't smoke marijuana, it is the dubious thinking of both the law and the court's vindication of that thinking that gets our attention.

So, the relevant question is: Does smoking pot cause harm to others?
Even the Supreme Court majority couldn't find any direct harm to others, even though it examined the evidence with a fine-tooth comb. The truth of the matter is that pot, at worse, only harms the lungs of those who puff it.

Instead, the court's majority relied on a subsidiary, much-harder-to-pin-down notion of harm to society. Even there, the harms to society that the court identified were murky at best. Marijuana harms vulnerable groups, such as pot-smoking adolescents, pregnant women, and schizophrenics. And stoned people who drive cars are a danger.

See
Canadian Study Confirms That Marijuana Impairs Driving Far Less Than Alcohol
and
Classic Reefer Madness At London Times: "Woman who killed father 'driven mad by cannabis.'" Quacks and Hacks and Schizophrenia. Is It Paranoid to Distrust Politicized Science?

But, as Justice Arbour says, "The fact that some vulnerable people may harm themselves by using marijuana is not a sufficient justification to send other members of the population to jail for engaging in that activity. In other words, the state cannot prevent the general population, under threat of imprisonment, from engaging in conduct that is harmless to them, on the basis that other, more vulnerable people may harm themselves if they engage in it."

To do so is like saying that we can't allow people to watch movies about bank robberies and car chases because it may lead some people to rob banks and drive recklessly. And anyway, we already have a law to prevent drunk or stoned people from operating motor vehicles.

Arbour concluded, "The evidence does not support a conclusion that marijuana use causes a reasoned risk of harm to others or society that is not insignificant or trivial." In the end, she decided that the existing marijuana law "violates the right of [individuals] to liberty in a manner that is not in accordance with the harm principle, a principle of fundamental justice, contrary to Section 7 of the Charter."

The dissenting justices, I think, got it right. The rest of the court let the smoke get in their eyes.
-end-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 9th Amendment in the US Bill of Rights is of philosophical (but not legal) significance in this context. It says, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

As Persky notes, neither the authors of the Canadian Charter of Rights nor the US Constitution could enumerate every conceivable use of human freedom in these documents. Thus, the point of the 9th Amendment is that rights do not come from these documents, but rather existed when the documents are written and are “retained by the people.” Unfortunately, even the excellent dissenting opinions (printed below) are somewhat deficient inasmuch as the Charter itself lacks the 9th Amendment’s recognition of pre-existing rights.
Section 1 says, “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.”

I have written that I think that the cannabis laws fail that test.
See
Canadian Supreme Court Punts On Cannabis Cases Until Spring. The Games Governments Play Prove The Need for International Debate on Cannabis Prohibition. Special to MarijuanaNews

However, the Charter lists the “Fundamental Freedoms” in Section 2:
“Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.”

There is a “freedom of conscience” – but no freedom of “consciousness,” hence there is “no free-standing constitutional right to smoke ‘pot’ for recreational purposes.”

(On the other hand, it would appear that the way is still open for a challenge on religious grounds, but it would take years to work its way through the courts. Also, note that this ruling had nothing to do with medical use.)

Nonetheless, while we did not get what we wanted, we did not come out of this process with nothing at all. Politically, we won a few valuable “consolation prizes.”

First, the three dissenting judges were all Francophone, and in the Canadian context that could be very useful in appealing to Quebecois members of Parliament.

Second, the majority seemed to be saying that jailing users, which sometimes still happens, is unacceptable, absent any “aggravating circumstances.”

“If imprisonment is not a fit sentence in a particular case it will not be imposed, and if imposed, it will be reversed on appeal.”

That statement will certainly not go down in history as a great defense of human rights, but in the context of the Canadian courts, it should bring an end to jailing typical users, which would be “subject to a constitutional standard of gross disproportionality.”
(emphasis added)

Third, the majority opinion did nothing for the reefer madness crowd. However, while that is good news for cannabis users, it is bad news for Canadians in general.

The majority ruled:

“Harm need not be shown to the court's satisfaction to be ‘serious and substantial’ before Parliament can impose a prohibition. Once it is demonstrated, as it has been here, that the harm is not de minimis, or not ‘insignificant or trivial’, the precise weighing and calculation of the nature and extent of the harm is Parliament's job.
See
“Marijuana Isn’t Harmless.” Okay, But Why Isn’t It Sold Over the Counter? Or Would You Ban Something That Causes 300,000 ER Visits Every Year, And Kills A Child Every Month? (Trick Question)

First, there is no sufficient consensus that the harm principle is vital or fundamental to our societal notion of criminal justice. While the presence of harm to others may justify legislative action under the criminal law power, the absence of proven harm does not create an unqualified s. 7 barrier to legislative action. Nor is there any consensus that the distinction between harm to others and harm to self is of controlling importance. Finally, the harm principle is not a manageable standard against which to measure deprivation of life, liberty or security of the person.

While "the harm principle" is not a principle of fundamental justice, the state nevertheless has an interest in the avoidance of harm to those subject to its laws which may justify legislative action. Harm need not be shown to the court's satisfaction to be "serious and substantial" before Parliament can impose a prohibition. Once it is demonstrated, as it has been here, that the harm is not de minimis, or not "insignificant or trivial", the precise weighing and calculation of the nature and extent of the harm is Parliament's job…”

The problem for society as a whole is that if one can justify arresting people for using cannabis, one can justify arresting people for almost anything, and it need not be consistent.

And Parliamentary hypocrisy is not unconstitutional:

Moreover, Parliament's decision to move in one area of public health and safety without at the same time moving in other areas (e.g. alcohol or tobacco) is not, on that account alone, arbitrary or irrational...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are the dissenting opinions by

The Honourable Madam Justice Louise Arbour
The Honourable Mr. Justice Louis LeBel
The Honourable Madam Justice Marie Deschamps
Per Arbour J. (dissenting in part on M's appeal; dissenting on C's appeal): The impugned provisions fall under the criminal law head of power. As long as the legislation is directed at a legitimate public health evil and contains a prohibition accompanied by a penal sanction, and provided that it is not otherwise a "colourable" intrusion upon provincial jurisdiction, Parliament has, under s. 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867, discretion to determine the extent of the harm it considers sufficient for legislative action. However, where Parliament relies on the protection of health as its legitimate public purpose, it has to demonstrate the injurious or undesirable effect from which it seeks to safeguard the public. While there is no constitutional threshold level of harm required before Parliament may use its broad criminal law power, conduct with little or no threat of harm is unlikely to qualify as a public health evil.

A law that has the potential to imprison a person whose conduct causes little or no reasoned risk of harm to others offends the principles of fundamental justice. Such a law violates a person's right to liberty under s. 7 of the Charter. Be it as a criminal sanction or as a sanction to any other prohibition, imprisonment must, as a constitutional minimum standard, be reserved for those whose conduct causes a reasoned risk of harm to others. In victimizing conduct, the attribution of fault is relatively straightforward because of the close links between the actor's culpable conduct and the resulting harm to the victim. Harm caused to collective interests, as opposed to harm caused to identifiable individuals, is not easy to quantify and even less easy to impute to a distinguishable activity or actor. In order to determine whether specific conduct, which perhaps only causes direct harm to the actor, or which seems rather benign, causes more than little or no risk of harm to others, courts must assess the interest of society in prohibiting and sanctioning the conduct. "Societal interests" may indeed form part of the s. 7 analysis where the operative principle of fundamental justice necessarily involves issues like the protection of society. Societal interests in prohibiting conduct are evaluated by balancing the harmful effects on society should the conduct in question not be prohibited by law against the effects of prohibiting the conduct. The harm or risk of harm to society caused by the prohibited conduct must outweigh any harm that may result from enforcement.

The harm associated with marihuana use does not justify the state's decision to use imprisonment as a sanction against the prohibition of its possession. Apart from the risks of impairment while driving, flying or operating complex machinery and the impact of marihuana use on the health care and welfare systems, the harms associated with marihuana use are exclusively health risks for the individual user, ranging from almost non-existent for low/occasional/moderate users of marihuana to relatively significant for chronic users. Harm to self does not satisfy the constitutional requirement that whenever the state resorts to imprisonment, there must be a minimum harm to others as an essential part of the offence.

The majority argue that the potential for imprisonment of members of vulnerable groups is not serious, since it is only in the "presence of aggravating circumstances" that imprisonment for possession will be a fit sentence. This does not strengthen their position; it highlights the difficulty. By their reasoning, it is those who are not members of vulnerable groups and who therefore pose no more than negligible harm to themselves or others who face the threat of imprisonment due to "aggravating circumstances". The position that the fitness of sentences for possession should be considered under s. 12, and not under s. 7, runs counter to the notion that ss. 8 to 14 of the Charter are specific illustrations of the principles of fundamental justice. Where a principle of fundamental justice is invoked which is not specifically set out in ss. 8 to 12, the analysis is appropriately conducted pursuant to s. 7.

Sending vulnerable people to jail to protect them from self-inflicted harm does not respect the harm principle as a principle of fundamental justice. Similarly, the fact that some vulnerable people may harm themselves by using marihuana is not a sufficient justification to send other members of the population to jail for engaging in that activity. The state cannot prevent the general population, under threat of imprisonment, from engaging in conduct that is harmless to them, on the basis that other, more vulnerable persons may harm themselves if they engage in it, particularly if one accepts that imprisonment would be inappropriate for the targeted vulnerable groups.

The two spheres of risks to others identified by the trial judges are not sufficient to justify recourse to the most severe penalty imposed by law, a sentence generally viewed as a last resort. First, while the risk that persons experiencing the acute effects of the drug may be less adept at driving, flying and engaging in other activities involving complex machinery is indeed a valid concern, the act of driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs is a separate activity from mere possession and use. Dangerous driving is already dealt with in the Criminal Code, and rightly so, because it is this act which risks victimizing identifiable others as well as society as a whole. The second negative effect on society as a whole that was identified, i.e., general harm to the health care and welfare systems, is just too remote and minor to justify the threat of imprisonment for simple possession of marihuana. Canadians do not expect to face the prospect of imprisonment whenever they embark on some adventure which involves a possibility of injury to themselves. There is no reason to single out those who may jeopardize their health by smoking marihuana. If there remained any doubt as to whether the harms associated with marihuana use justify the state in using imprisonment as a sanction against its possession, this doubt disappears when the harms caused by the prohibition are put in the balance. The record shows, and the trial judges found, that the prohibition of simple possession of marihuana attempts to prevent a low quantum of harm to society at a very high cost. A negligible burden on the health care and welfare systems, coupled with the many significant negative effects of the prohibition, do not amount to more than little or no reasoned risk of harm to society.

As found by the majority, the prohibition of possession for the purpose of trafficking under s. 4(2) of the Narcotic Control Act does not discriminate against M in violation of s. 15 of the Charter since the decision to possess and traffic in marihuana is not an immutable personal characteristic, and treating persons who choose to do so in a differential manner in no way infringes human dignity or reinforces prejudicial stereotypes or historical disadvantage. On the record, M's constitutional challenge to the prohibition of possession for the purpose of trafficking based on s. 7 fails.

The respondent Crown has not made any submissions regarding s. 1 of the Charter, and none of the courts below considered the issue. The burden is on the Crown to establish that the infringement was justified under s. 1. It has not met this burden.

Per LeBel J. (dissenting in part on M's appeal; dissenting on C's appeal): There was agreement with the majority that the harm principle should not be raised to the level of a principle of fundamental justice within the meaning of s. 7 of the Charter. However, fundamental rights are at stake and were breached and this Court must intervene as part of its constitutional duty to uphold the fundamental principles of our constitutional order. On the available evidence, the law, as it stands, is an arbitrary response to social problems. The Crown has failed to properly delineate the societal concerns and individual rights at stake, more particularly the liberty interest involved in this appeal. A breach of fundamental rights is made out if and when the response to a societal problem may overreach in such a way as to taint the particular legislative response with arbitrariness. Such a legislative overreach happened here. While it cannot be denied that marihuana can cause problems of varying nature and severity to some people or to groups of them, the harm its consumption may cause seems rather mild on the evidence available. On the other hand, the harm and the problems connected with the form of criminalization chosen by Parliament seem plain and important. Few people appear to be jailed for simple possession but the law remains on the books. The reluctance to enforce it to the extent of actually jailing people for the offence of simple possession seems consistent with the perception that the law as it stands amounts to some sort of legislative overreach to the apprehended problems associated with marihuana consumption. Moreover, besides the availability of jail as a punishment, the enforcement of the law has tarred hundreds of thousands of Canadians with the stigma of a criminal record. The fundamental liberty interest has thus been infringed by the adoption and implementation of a legislative response which is disproportionate to the societal problems at issue and therefore arbitrary, in breach of s. 7 of the Charter.

Per Deschamps J. (dissenting in part on M's appeal; dissenting on C's appeal): Whether pursuant to its jurisdiction over peace, order and good government or under its criminal law power, the prohibition of the possession of drugs lies within Parliament's jurisdiction

The "harm principle" cannot validly be characterized as a principle of fundamental justice within the meaning of s. 7 of the Charter. The criminal law finds its justification in the protection of society, both as a whole and in its individual components. While there can be no doubt that the state is justified in using its criminal law tools to prevent harm to others, the "harm principle" is too narrow to encompass all the elements that may place limits on the state's exercise of the criminal law.

The inclusion of cannabis in the schedule to the Narcotic Control Act infringes the accused's right to liberty without regard for the principles of fundamental justice. For the state to be able to justify limiting an individual's liberty, the legislation upon which it bases its actions must not be arbitrary. In this case, the legislation is arbitrary. First, it seems doubtful that it is appropriate to classify marihuana consumption as conduct giving rise to a legitimate use of the criminal law in light of the Charter, since, apart from the risks related to the operation of vehicles and the impact on public health care and social assistance systems, the moderate use of marihuana is on the whole harmless. Second, in view of the availability of more tailored methods, the choice of the criminal law for controlling conduct that causes little harm to moderate users or to control high-risk groups for whom the effectiveness of deterrence or correction is highly dubious is out of keeping with Canadian society's standards of justice. Third, the harm caused by prohibiting marihuana is fundamentally disproportionate to the problems that the state seeks to suppress. This harm far outweighs the benefits that the prohibition can bring.

Since the Crown did not attempt to justify the prohibition under s. 1 of the Charter, it has not satisfied its burden.

Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. - Seneca, A.D. 65


We, the unpersuaded...

A message to the Supreme Court of Canada, Canadian reporters and Canadian Citizens from Canada's pot-activist community.

This information was written by David Malmo-Levine, and signed by he and his fellow cannabis activists.



To the Supreme Court of Canada:

We, the unpersuaded cannabis activists of Canada, who have been working part time or full time for over ten years to push Canada towards a more humane and sane cannabis policy, are extremely disappointed in the majority opinion in Caine, Malmo-Levine and Clay. We feel the decision was unpersuasive, unreasonable, and unfair. There are many reasons to feel this way. Here are some major ones in point form:

-It's easy to dismiss the challenge as a "right to get stoned" or a "lifestyle choice"- which the majority of the Supreme Court did - but it's harder to dismiss the right to have harmless "tastes and pursuits". Not once was "tastes and pursuits" mentioned in their decision, despite being the focus of much of the argument.

-Section 7 of the constitution, the section with our "Liberty" or "freedom" rights, was not seen by the Court to protect harmless people. The philosopher most responsible for our constitutional freedoms - John Stuart Mill - was ignored when it came to his suggestion to enshrine "tastes and pursuits" as fundamental to liberty. Mill even argued alcohol "dealers" should be protected by the harm principle, so long as they encourage "legitimate use" and discourage "abuse". If we got our list of political rights - thought, belief, opinion, expression, association, assembly - from Mill, is our freedom not "incomplete' if it does not also include his "tastes and pursuits"?

-The majority failed to differentiate between use and abuse. (para. 73)

-The majority put caffeine, chocolate and sugar at risk of prohibition when it wrote that "the control of a 'psychoactive drug' that 'causes alteration of mental function' clearly raises issues of public health and safety". (para. 77) No effort was made to differentiate between drugs with great risk of harm and those with little risk of harm.

-The majority ruled that a nation with a constitution that protected all harmless "lifestyles" would be "ungovernable" (para.86) - ignoring successful nations such as Holland - which protects all people from discrimination for any reason - in Article 1 of it's own Constitution.

-The majority ruled that the harm principle was not a principle of fundamental justice, (para. 104) despite being found in Article 4 and 5 of the French "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of Citizen" - the world's first national Constitution. The Court argued there was no "consensus that the harm principle was the sole justification for criminal prohibition" and that "the state may sometimes be justified in criminalizing conduct that is either not harmful ... or that causes harm only to the accused" (para. 115) enshrining both scapegoating and paternalism as constitutional principles in one sentence.

-The majority has put at risk of cultural genocide any group that politicians consider harmful - no proof of harmfulness is required. This puts at risk many popular scapegoats, including the homosexual community, who have recently been accused of leading a "harmful" lifestyle by right wing Canadian politicians - with as little evidence as was produced against the cannabis community. In order to prevent scapegoating and genocide from ever contaminating Canadian soil, we need a constitutional amendment specifically protecting groups "recently criminalized" people and people "under threat of criminalization" from having to prove that they are harmless.

-The call for equality for users, growers and dealers was completely ignored by all judges, apparently because being of a certain religion or sexuality is seen as having an "immutable personal characteristic", whereas being a "cannabis user" is not considered "immutable" but rather a "lifestyle choice". (intro. p.7) The call to protect dealers with the harm principle was ignored without comment (intro. p.11) - even by the dissenting judge - even when the judges found that "vulnerable groups" could be protected by dealers who practice harm reduction!

-The most often heard argument in the dissent - the "proportionality" argument (that the benefits of the law are outweighed by it's drawbacks) was unfairly ignored by the majority. Proportionality was the question that silenced the crown council - even after the Court gave him an unprecedented ten minutes to think about it. The majority then "moved the goal-posts" when they changed the test from "disproportionate" to "gross disproportionate". All three dissenting Judges hinted at the unfairness of the majority decision as they all pointed to the "disproportionate" benefits to harms of prohibition. Justice Arbour said as much when she wrote "The record shows, and the trial judges found, that the prohibition of simple possession of marijuana attempts to prevent a low quantum of harm to society at a very high cost." (intro. p.11)

-The majority compared cannabis users to animal abusers and pimps (para. 109) cannibals (para. 117) and those who commit incest (118). Unlike animal abusers, exploiters of vulnerable people and those who desecrate corpses, cannabis users are a large minority of people who produce no identifiable harm. Clearly, the Supreme Court had it out to get us from the beginning. Why else did they ignore comparisons with homosexuals and alcohol dealers in favor of comparisons with those who eat dead people?

There were some small concessions to activists. There were three dissenting opinions:

-In Justice Arbour's dissent, the principle of paternalism was attacked, as "harm to others" was identified as the problem, whereas "harm to self" was not seen to "satisfy the constitutional requirements" allowing the state to "resort to imprisonment". Justice Arbour, in essence, argued that Canadians have the right to risk harm to ourselves for non-medical necessity reasons. (intro. p. 9) She wrote "Canadians do not expect to face the prospect of imprisonment whenever they embark on some adventure which involves a possibility of injury to themselves."(intro. p.10)

-Justice Arbour also recognized "impaired driving" as a separate offense, and the harms from cannabis abuse as "remote and minor". She found that "Sending vulnerable people to jail to protect them from self-inflicted harm does not respect the harm principle" and that "The state cannot prevent the general population ... from engaging in conduct that is harmless to them, on the basis that other, more vulnerable persons may harm themselves if they engage in it, particularly if one accepts that imprisonment would be inappropriate for the targeted vulnerable groups." (intro, p.10)

-Justice LeBel found that the law was "arbitrary" and "a legislative over-reach", calling the "consumption" harms "mild" and the "criminalization" harms "plain and important". (intro, p. 11-12)

-Justice Deschamps found the law arbitrary, over-broad and found "the harm caused by prohibiting marijuana ... fundamentally disproportionate to the problems the state seeks to suppress. This harm far outweighs the benefits that prohibition can bring."

Some good also came out of the majority decision.

-The majority did agree that "careful use can mitigate harmful effects". This is a major admission that we can protect "vulnerable users" with harm-reduction strategies. They then dismissed this wonderful finding with the words "it is open to parliament to proceed on the grounds that psychoactive drugs will to some extent be misused". (para. 100) In other words, we may eliminate 99% of all cannabis misuse with education and reasonable regulations, but because some people might still misuse it, we gotta keep it illegal. Should we do this with caffeine, chocolate and sugar? Anything fun and attractive to people is also, occasionally, misused. There is a slippery slope here. We are in danger of criminalizing all "risk to self". The court ignored the ancient legal principle "No valid conclusion to the use of a thing can be drawn from it's abuse."

-The majority of the Supreme Court did in fact agree with the Senate when they found that the international treaties did not limit our politicians options to a punishment scheme. This makes it easier to argue against those (especially the current Liberal government) who still say the "international obligations" "tie our hands". The majority wrote that "it is open to Parliament to decriminalize or otherwise modify any aspect of the marijuana laws that it no longer considers to be good policy." (intro. p.3) (see also para. 136)

-The majority left open the possibility of a "medical necessity" case winning with the necessity defense. (para. 88)

Canadian activists can now only hope that the information in this decision can somehow be used by anti-prohibitionist politicians, or political activists in other countries. French activists could use 1) it's long history with the harm principle and 2) the findings of fact regarding harm (and harm reduction) in this case (para. 100) and the 1991 German "Lubeck" decision - to gain constitutional protection.

In the mean time, for those who wish to see cannabis cafes and pot menus, the battlefield has shifted away from the courts and over to the political arena - the media, elections, cannabis entrepreneurship, compassionate health institutions and marching in the streets - at least until a few of the more intolerant members of the Supreme Court move on.



To Canadian Reporters:

We thank the many reporters who have got it "right", and we beg the few remaining reporters who are skeptics of drug peace to hear what we have to say.

The drug war is indeed a war. Not with "drugs", but with those who chose certain drugs. When the drug war began about a hundred years ago, it was the drugs that were 1) botanically based, 2) effective and 3) distributed by dark-skinned people that were banned. Later on, it came to include everything "not recommended by a doctor".



Decrim or "descrim"?

Now we are about to decide to have a "real" drug war. Canada may decide - by adopting the new "decriminalization" bill Bill C-10 - to have an all-out war on cannabis users. Essentially the bill is designed to destroy our culture with fines handed out everywhere - including all the new "Bring Your Own Bud" cafes which have recently sprouted up everywhere.

Later on, their STATED plan is to introduce jail for unpaid fines, mandatory treatment for repeat offenses and mandatory minimums for growers and dealers.

The Liberal version of "decrim" was designed to create a "drug free Canada" - not to "ease up" on anyone. In order for C-10 to be of any benefit, one must lie to a customs agent - a criminal offense in itself!



The New Democrats - the only choice for cannabis lovers.

Alternatively, Canada may decide - through supporting admitted "occasional user" and NDP head Jack Layton for Prime Minister in the next election. Mr. Layton has expressed a desire to see "pot cafes" - a place people can distribute cannabis relatively unmolested (as some people have - with few problems - for over 30 years in some European communities).

We face a stark choice: Singapore or Amsterdam? The choice is very real, and it's about to be made.



Canada's leadership history

Canada is at the crossroads - drug war or drug peace forever. And the whole world is watching. Everybody seems to take their cue from us - especially the United States. The U.S.A. learned from Canada's example with ending overt slavery, giving women the vote and ending alcohol prohibition. Why should it be any different with cannabis?

This is the everyday mental reality of the Canadian cannabis community. Our lives are on the edge ... will we all become fully dignified - like the caffeine junkies, chocolate addicts and sugar alcoholics that surround us? Or are we the next scapegoats of the new "drug free" world order?



Cultural Genocide

We, like our fellow puffers around the world, face imminent cultural genocide, directed at us from out-of-control, unelected, corporate drug-pushing, secret-handshaking, psychopathic morons. But rather than "give up and give in" in the face of an unresponsive and money-warped political system and an unreasonable legal system, we choose instead to fight on, putting our faith in ourselves, our community and our herb, rather than our rulers. We fight using the one potent weapon available to the "relaxed" and the "meek" - the truth.



Saner spinning

There's something that you reporters - the fifth estate - can do for us harmless, imaginative and helpful cannabis folk. You can start asking the right questions, and putting a more sane spin on stories. For example, if you always remember to differentiate between drug use and drug abuse, drug problems and drug-prohibition problems, decrim that's "punishment free" versus decrim that's "punishment heavy" - you will have at least represented "both sides".

You're the only estate we have left - please don't fail us.



The following is what we cannabis activists have in store for you to report on this year - aside from the election, of course... To cannabis lovers in particular and the Canadian public in general:



The final battle:

The powers-that-be have forced us to make our final stand. Our hope lies not with the politicians or the law. Our true hope lies with the few good reporters remaining in the mainstream press, the alternative press, and the "age of information" - so that everyone knows that the laws that were written to destroy us were not defensible in real life. Perhaps that means something to those who oppose us. Perhaps it has softened their resolve.

History is full of mutiny - and the drug war is a perfect candidate for mutiny. Cannabis users are most everyone's favorite movie stars, musicians, comedians and artists. Even the soldiers would be sad to see us all go. Look into the eyes of the next police officer you get a chance to meet, and ask if his or her heart is really into the battle against the cannabis community.



New legal arguments

Prohibitionists have backed us into a corner, and even though the Supreme Court is not on the side of the those who would protect harmless-to-others "tastes and pursuits", we still have common law based on the principle known as "necessity", and we still have the dignity and liberty and equality promised us in the international human rights laws - laws which supposedly trump the international "drug-control" treaties.

The "necessity defense" is found in section 8 (3) of the Criminal Code of Canada. It is an old defense, that is: "you have the right to commit a small crime in order to prevent a big crime". Keeping cannabis plants, cannabis genetics, the cannabis economy and culture alive - otherwise known as cannabis crimes - can be said to be the smallest of crimes. Cultural genocide is one of the largest crimes - if not THE largest. It is necessary to fight for and maintain human autonomy in all health choices. It is necessary that all cannabis laws must be challenged in every way possible - including breaking them out in the open.

Keep in mind the international laws: The "dignity" and "liberty" and "equality" found in Articles 1 and 3 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Keep in mind also Article 11 of this document - the "innocent until proved guilty" part - no one has yet proven we cannabis growers and dealers are harming anyone! Creating "institutions similar to slavery" is also prohibited in this document. This historic document was the end result of World War 2 - millions fought and died for these rights. There are other international treaties to pay attention to besides the hypocritical racist monopolistic anti-drug treaties our Liberal "representatives" keep telling us we have no choice but to obey.

Using these arguments to defend our unique methods of protest, this is what we have planned for this year's round of pot activism:

-The Global Marijuana March will be on Saturday, May 1st. There are already over 120 cities signed up - there may be as many as 200 by the time May rolls around. In Vancouver, there will be a 2PM rally at the Art Gallery and then a march over to Hedy Fry's office (106-1030 Denman Street). Hedy suggested "treatment" - piss tests, group therapy, forced labor - for repeat offenders under the new "decrim" bill. We plan to chalk up the sidewalk surrounding her office - to let her know how we feel about "treatment". Then we will have the first "open air marijuana marketplace" protest in the history of pot activism. Bring a few bucks - all your favorite buds will be there.

-In Vancouver, there's a one day seminar ' What would Legal Marijuana Look Like' on May 8th at the Wosk Centre.

-The BC Marijuana Party has endorsed the NDP in the next federal election - slated for this May. The National Marijuana Party has decided to stay in the race and "keep the NDP honest".

-The BC Marijuana Party intends to run 79 candidates in the May 2005 BC provincial election. It is likely that Marc Emery will run in Solicitor General Rich Coleman's riding.

-In Ottawa, the "Fill The Hill" Demonstration of June 5 will draw attention to the cannabis debate as it relates to federal politics.

-Marc Emery is currently on a nationwide speaking tour in March of universities and campuses (including UBC and UVIC) to condemn Bill C-10 and explain cooperating with the NDP. On March 27 Marc will address a conference of BC Probation Officers in Chilliwack, BC.

Individual activists will still continue to write letters, phone into talk-shows, put up posters, conduct rallies and workshops, create art and music - all in the interest of greater cannabis understanding and cannabis freedom.

Activists will continue to open up new "bring your own bud" cafes, compassion clubs and other organizations, explaining themselves and eliminating stigma with every new name, neon sign, sandwich board and business card. The fight for true freedom and dignity is on, and we have just begun.

Sincerely, David Malmo-Levine

Ratified by:




To learn more about the new Liberal plan to "decrim", and about cannabis activism in your area, check out the "political forum" on the Cannabis Culture website - just click on "forums" on the home page of cannabisculture.com

To learn more about the recent Supreme Court pot challenge, check out these links:

www.johnconroy.com

www.pot-tv.net/archive/series/pottvseries-109-0.html

To learn more about international human rights:

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

This ad was brought to you by David Malmo-Levine and the following cannabis businesses:

"We're the shit" organic soil amendments

Bumping ... because it was such a frickin rip-off.

If it is any consolation, the lawyer I work for has cited some of the comments of the judges when defending people who are being prosecuted for grow ops, trafficking or possesion. The case touches on a wide variety of issues pertaining to marijuana, and is an important one, regardless of the final outcome.