Back to Map

MAPTalk-Digest Thursday, December 18 2003 Volume 03 : Number 280

001 Reuters Wire: U.S. Appeals Court Sets Aside Federal Marijuana Law
    From: Richard Lake <>
002 'Spill-Over: Plan Colombia and U.S. Interests in the Andean Region'
    From: "kim hanna" <>
003 Canada: Clay/Caine/Malmo to Be Decided on Dec 23
    From: Richard Lake <>
004 Marijuana-grow operations rising: Ont. police
    From: Herb <>


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

Subj: 001 Reuters Wire: U.S. Appeals Court Sets Aside Federal Marijuana Law
From: Richard Lake <>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:01:00 -0500

Newshawk: http://www.ohiopatient.net
Pubdate: Tue, 16 Dec 2003
Source: Reuters (Wire)
Copyright: 2003 Reuters Limited
Author: Adam Tanner
Webpage: 
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F847B86BCD2AB49488256D
Note: The actual decision is a .pdf document available at the webpage 
above, or by going to http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov and click on "opinions" 
at the upper left.  Then select Raich vs. Ashcroft
Also: To download the major pleadings from the litigation go to 
http://raich-v-ashcroft.com and 
http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/documents/index.html#drugs
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Angel+Raich

U.S. APPEALS COURT SETS ASIDE FEDERAL MARIJUANA LAW

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A federal appeals court allowed two very
sick California women on Tuesday to use marijuana, setting aside
longstanding federal drug laws that bar such cultivation even for
medical purposes.

Growing marijuana for medical purposes is legal in California under a
1996 voter-approved state law, but the measure clashes with federal
law.

Angel Raich, who has an inoperable brain tumor, and Diane Monson, who
suffers from severe back pain, last year sued U.S. Attorney General
John Ashcroft. They sought an injunction against the act, saying the
1970 federal Controlled Substances Act was unconstitutional.

A district court ruled against the women in March, but in a rare
afternoon ruling, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco
reversed the decision.

"We find that the appellants' class of activities -- the intrastate
noncommercial cultivation, possession and use of marijuana for
personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician -- is, in fact,
different in kind from drug trafficking," the three-judge panel ruled.

"Further, the limited medical use of marijuana as recommended by a
physician arguably does not raise the same policy concerns regarding
the spread of drug abuse."

The liberal court, with one judge dissenting, said the Controlled
Substances Act was likely unconstitutional as applied to the women.

"We find that the appellants have made a strong showing of the
likelihood of success on the merits of their case," the decision read.
"We find that the hardship and public interest factors tip sharply in
the appellants' favor."

In his dissent, Judge C. Arlen Beam wrote: "Plaintiffs do not show
there is a threat of future prosecution or a history of past
prosecutions, at least as applied to their unique factual situations.
I would doubt whether anyone can or will seriously argue that the DEA
intends to prosecute these two seriously ill individuals."

The Supreme Court has often overturned the 9th Circuit on cases it has
chosen to review, and lower court decisions on marijuana have
sometimes provoked anger from the Bush administration.

One such instance that irked White House officials involved a federal
judge sentencing "ganja guru" Ed Rosenthal in June to a single day in
jail -- the minimum possible punishment -- for growing marijuana in
violation of federal law. 

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

Subj: 002 'Spill-Over: Plan Colombia and U.S. Interests in the Andean Region'
From: "kim hanna" <>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:01:28 -0800

It’s our best dial-up Internet access offer: 6 months @$9.95/month. Get it 
now!  http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------Making Contact
a weekly international radio program
http://www.radioproject.org/

"Spill-Over: Plan Colombia and U.S. Interests in the Andean Region"

In 1999 when the mammoth military aid and training package known as Plan
Colombia first came into being, many critics cautioned that more troops,
more helicopters, and more advisers were certain to mean greater U.S.
military involvement in Colombia's decades-old civil conflict.  Those
opposed to Plan Colombia made the case that the so-called war on drugs in
that South American country was just a cover for eliminating leftist
guerilla groups.  Four years and several billion dollars later, war
continues and the cocaine trade still flourishes.  The Bush Administration
and top brass at the Pentagon maintain that Colombia is a top priority not
only to fight drugs but to enhance "national security" in the United States.
Is there more to U.S. policy on Colombia than meets the eye?  On this
edition of Making Contact we hear from leaders in Colombian civil society
about what they view as Plan Colombia's broader strategy: regional dominance
by U.S. military and  economic interests.

FEATURING: Mennonite pastor Ricardo Esquivia, a peace negotiator; Nancy
Sanchez, a health educator who has worked extensively in the southern
Colombian province of Putumayo; Ricardo Vargas, a drug policy expert with
the non-governmental organization Acción Andina; economist and sociologist
Hector Mondragon, a leading dissident in Colombia.

Listen Real Audio (29:00)
 http://www.radioproject.org/sound/031217.ram

Download 128k mp3 (broadcast quality)
 http://www.radioproject.org/sound/031217_Ax.mp3

Download 64k mp3 (faster download)
 http://www.radioproject.org/sound/031217.mp3

Order CD/Cassette of this show [#51-03]
 http://www.radioproject.org/

- ---

Help support the National Radio Project! Your tax-deductible donation helps
us to continue producing quality public affair programs like Making
Contact and training independent journalists and organizers in radio
skills.

***Working Assets Customers can support our work TODAY simply by voting for
the National Radio Project on the Donations Ballot:
http://www.workingassets.com/voting/

Making Contact, a 29-minute public affairs program fed on the public radio
satellite each Wednesday at 12 noon ET, is available free of charge.

Making Contact can be heard around the country on public, community,
internet, and university radio stations. For a list of stations and air
times or for information on how to contact our guests, please visit our
website:
http://www.radioproject.org/

- ---
To unsubscribe from this list, reply to this email
with "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the SUBJECT line.
- ---

- ----------------------------------------------
National Radio Project/Making Contact
1714 Franklin St. #100-251
Oakland, CA 94612
510-251-1332

http://www.radioproject.org/

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

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

Subj: 003 Canada: Clay/Caine/Malmo to Be Decided on Dec 23
From: Richard Lake <>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:17:52 -0500

I hope and pray that the decision will be good.

Probably no other yank has spent more time following this. I made many 
trips, more than I can count, from Toledo, Ohio to London, Ontario to meet 
with Chris Clay and others to assist first in the fund raising for his 
constitutional challenge, and then to the trial, and even after that. I 
have spent more time in Canadian court rooms than I ever have in those of 
the U.S.

The Affidavits for the Chris Clay trial, which I still consider very 
important documents which must weigh heavily on the minds of the judges, 
you can see thru this link

http://www.cannabislink.ca/legal/index.htm#affidavits

As I understand it, Supreme Court of Canada decisions are based largely on 
the written record of the lower court trials. In my opinion, the effort 
that Chris Clay went thru to gather together the superb affidavits the 
testamony in court for his trial probably is the most complete analysis by 
top recognized authorities of the cannabis issue ever presented in any 
court anywhere.

If there are any errors in the text, you can blame me. I OCRed them for 
Chris from zeroxed copies and then checked and spell checked them as best 
as I could over well over a hundred hours of work - a labor of love. The 
affidavits were double spaced typewriter text, not easy for the OCR 
software of the time.

The below is from the email list of the Supreme Court of Canada. Note that 
the sections of the message in French have been removed, as they did not 
process to me in a readable format anyway.

Richard Lake

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

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA -- JUDGMENTS TO BE RENDERED IN APPEALS

OTTAWA, 17/12/03. THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA ANNOUNCED TODAY THAT JUDGMENT 
IN THE FOLLOWING APPEALS WILL BE DELIVERED AT 9:45 A.M. ON TUESDAY, 
DECEMBER 23, 2003.

FROM: SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (613) 995-4330

COUR SUPR E DU CANADA -- PROCHAINS JUGEMENTS SUR APPELS

OTTAWA, 17/12/03. LA COUR SUPR E DU CANADA A ANNONC AUJOURD'HUI QUE 
JUGEMENT SERA RENDU DANS LES APPELS SUIVANTS LE MARDI 23 D EMBRE 2003, 9 h 45.

SOURCE: COUR SUPR E DU CANADA (613) 995-4330

1.David Malmo-Levine v. Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.) (B.C.) (28026)

2.Victor Eugene Caine v. Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.) (B.C.) (28148)

3.Christopher James Clay v. Her Majesty the Queen (Crim.) (B.C.) (28189)

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

28026David Malmo-Levine v. Her Majesty The Queen

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Section 7 - Narcotic Control Act, 
s. 4 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in characterizing the harms that 
may come with cannabis use as inherent, instead of a product of 
mis-cultivation, mis-distribution and mis-use - Did the Court of Appeal 
fail to address the issue of whether the harm principle applies to growers 
and dealers of cannabis who arguably play an essential role in cannabis 
harm reduction? - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not considering the 
principle of equality found in s. 15 of the Charter as it applies to 
substance orientation and in not applying equality to every producer and 
distributor of stimulants and relaxants, whether bean, grape, herb or 
otherwise.

The Appellant was a self-described marihuana / freedom activist. Beginning 
in October 1996, he helped operate an organization in East Vancouver known 
as the Harm Reduction Club which was a co-operative, non-profit association 
of its members.  The stated object of the Club was to educate its users and 
the general public about marihuana and provide unadulterated marihuana to 
its users at Club cost.  The Club had approximately 1800 members.

The Club purported to educate its members on a wide variety of safe smoking 
habits to minimize any harm from the use of marihuana.  Members were 
required to sign a pledge not to operate motor vehicles or heavy equipment 
while under the influence of the substance.

On December 4, 1996, police entered the premises of the Club and seized 316 
grams of marihuana, much of it in the form of joints.  The Appellant was 
charged with possession of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking 
contrary to s. 4 of the Narcotic Control Act and was convicted. At trial, 
the Appellants application to call evidence in constitutional challenge was 
dismissed. On appeal, the majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the 
appeal. Prowse J.A. dissenting declined to make a finding with respect to 
the constitutional validity of s. 4(2) of the Narcotic Control Act. On 
March 15, 2001, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was also 
granted.

Origin of the case: British Columbia

File No.:28026

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:June 2, 2000

Counsel: David Malmo-Levine/John W. Conroy Q.C. for the Appellant

S.D. Frankel Q.C. for the Respondent

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

28148 Victor Eugene Caine v. Her Majesty The Queen

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Section 7 - Narcotic Control Act, 
s. 3(1) - Whether 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), infringes s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and 
Freedoms - If the answer is in the affirmative, is the infringement 
justified under s. 1 of the Charter? - Whether the prohibition is 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.

During the late afternoon of June 13, 1993, two R.C.M.P. officers were 
patrolling a parking lot at a beach in White Rock, B.C.  They observed the 
Appellant and a male passenger sitting in a van owned by the 
Appellant.  The officers observed the Appellant, who was seated in the 
drivers seat, start the engine and begin to back up.  As one officer 
approached the van, he smelled a strong odour of recently smoked marihuana.

The Appellant produced for the officer a partially smoked cigarette of 
marihuana which weighed 0.5 grams.  He possessed the marihuana cigarette 
for his own use and not for any other purpose.

The Appellants application for a declaration that the provisions the 
Narcotic Control Act prohibiting the possession of marihuana were 
unconstitutional was denied. On appeal, the appeal was dismissed.

Origin of the case: British Columbia

File No.:28148

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:June 2, 2000

Counsel: John W. Conroy Q.C. for the Appellant

S.D. Frankel Q.C. for the Respondent

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

28189 Christopher Clay v. Her Majesty The Queen

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Section 7 - Narcotic Control Act, 
s. 3(1) - Whether 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), infringes s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and 
Freedoms - If the answer is in the affirmative, is the infringement 
justified under s. 1 of the Charter? - Whether the prohibition is 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.

The Appellant was convicted of possession of cannabis sativa, two counts of 
possession of cannabis sativa for the purpose of trafficking and one count 
of trafficking in cannabis sativa, contrary to the Narcotic Control Act. 
The Appellant challenged the constitutionality of the cannabis prohibitions 
in the Narcotic Control Act on the basis that they violated his rights 
under s. 7 of the Charter and that the regulation of marijuana was not 
within federal jurisdiction. He also argued that the Crown had failed to 
prove that the substances seized from him were prohibited narcotics as 
defined by the Act. An analyst called by the Crown testified that a 
substance certified as cannabis (marijuana) must contain two of four target 
cannabinoids and that it is not necessary that one of these be 
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. The 
analyst could not say that the seized substances contained any THC. The 
trial judge dismissed the Appellants constitutional challenge and found 
that the Crown had proven the offences. The Appellants appeal from his 
convictions was dismissed.

Origin of the case: Ontario

File No.: 28189

Judgment of the Court of Appeal:July 31, 2000

Counsel: Paul Burstein for the Appellant

Morris Pistyner for the Respondent

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

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

Subj: 004 Marijuana-grow operations rising: Ont. police
From: Herb <>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 00:03:05 -0800

the usual b.s. ...

Marijuana-grow operations rising: Ont. police

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1071675908417_74/?#

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

End of MAPTalk-Digest V03 #280
******************************

Mark Greer ()         ___ ___     _ _  _ _
Media Awareness Project              /' _ ` _ `\ /'_`)('_`\
P. O. Box 651                        | ( ) ( ) |( (_| || (_) )
Porterville, CA 93258                (_) (_) (_) \__,_)| ,__/
(800) 266-5759                                         | |
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/lists/                      (_)

HomeBulletin BoardChat RoomsDrug LinksDrug NewsFeedback
Guest BookMailing ListsMedia EmailMedia LinksLettersSearch