MAPTalk-Digest Thursday, December 18 2003 Volume 03 : Number 281
001 US: Web: Larry King Live with Bill Maher
From: Tim Meehan <>
002 Supreme Court of Canada: decisions in MJ cases to come down DECEMBER 23
From: Tim Meehan <>
003 Re: US: Web: Larry King Live with Bill Maher
From: Tim Meehan <>
004 Jay Vestal death, CA (SLO Co.)
From: "Allan Erickson" <>
005 Canada: Wire: Martin to revive pot bill
From: Tim Meehan <>
006 Canada: Wire: Canada promises to revive bill to decriminalize pot posse
From: Tim Meehan <>
007 Canada: Wire: Canada to press ahead with pot decriminalization
From: Tim Meehan <>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: 001 US: Web: Larry King Live with Bill Maher
From: Tim Meehan <>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:50:05 -0500
Source: CNN (US Web)
Contact
Website: http://www.cnn.com/
Feedback: http://cnn.com/feedback/
Forum: http://community.cnn.com/
Copyright: 2003 Cable News Network, Inc.
Authors: Larry King, Bill Maher (guest), Marylynne Chamney (caller)
Pubdate: December 18, 2003
See also: http://www.mapinc.org/people/marylynne+chamney
Note: drug related portions of transcript only
KING: Oakville, Ontario, hello.
CHAMNEY: Hi, Mr. Maher, I'm absolutely thrilled to be speaking with you.
MAHER: Well, I'm thrilled to be talking to you, too.
CHAMNEY: My question for you is, do you plan on staying behind the marijuana
mission?
I don't know if you've realized...
MAHER: I do.
CHAMNEY: But you've saved peoples' lives up here in Canada and the United
States. It was because of you discussing it on TV and a Web site called The
Marijuana Mission that made my family understand what marijuana does for people.
And it actually stopped my grandma's seizures. So, I'm no longer considered an
epileptic just because I smoke it every day. And I appreciate you so much. And
we talk about you up here all the time. You should run for Congress, sir.
MAHER: Thank you.
CHAMNEY: You remind me so much of my lawyer Alan Young, and he is the greatest
one up here speaking about marijuana and you keep on talking down there, buddy.
MAHER: You keep puffing as the president said, let's roll. It's a good
opportunity for me to bring up Tommy Chong. Tommy of "Cheech and Chong," you
know he's in jail right now. He was...
KING: I didn't know.
MAHER: On the anniversary of 9/11, that's how brazen this Justice Department is.
On the anniversary of 9/11, they arrested Tommy Chong for selling bongs over the
Internet, Larry. We cannot allow that to happen. Do you feel safer? Do you feel
safer now?
This is what I would like to say to the Bush administration about that. You
can't have it both ways. Either 9/11 was such a transforming event and is such a
dire threat that we need the Patriotic Act, the Patriotic Act II which could
curtail a lot of civil liberties that we need to go to Iraq or you can bust
Tommy Chung. You can't it have both ways. You can't have the Patriotic Act and
curtail the civil liberties because 9/11 was that bad and also have the time to
go after Tommy Chung for selling bongs on the Internet. Can't have it both ways.
KING: You favor the legalization?
MAHER: Of course. Another no-brainer. There's a religion out there, too, having
to do with drug laws. It's also nonsense.
KING: You'd legalize all drugs?
MAHER: I would. Yes. But obviously other drugs, it is a different situation,
because other drugs can be very dangerous. But there's something more dangerous
than OxyContin. It's called the hillbilly heroin, because it's like heroin. No
wonder it's popular.
KING: We'll be back with our remaining moments with Bill Maher. He returns to
"Real Time With Bill Maher" January 16 at a new time, 8:00 p.m. Eastern. We'll
be right back.
------------------------------
Subj: 002 Supreme Court of Canada: decisions in MJ cases to come down DECEMBER 23/03 at 9:45am EST
From: Tim Meehan <>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:28:11 -0500
To: "Supreme Court News Releases" <>
Subject: Judgments to be rendered in appeals / Prochains jugements sur appels
From: rt
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:57:43 -0500
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 SUPRÊME DU CANADA -- PROCHAINS JUGEMENTS SUR APPELS
OTTAWA, 17/12/03. LA COUR SUPRÊME DU CANADA A ANNONCÉ AUJOURD'HUI QUE
JUGEMENT SERA RENDU DANS LES APPELS SUIVANTS LE MARDI 23 DÉCEMBRE 2003, À 9
h 45.
SOURCE: COUR SUPRÊME 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
Appellant's 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:BM_4British Columbia
File No.:BM_228026
Judgment of the Court of Appeal:BM_5June 2, 2000
Counsel:BM_6David Malmo-Levine/John W. Conroy Q.C. for the Appellant
BM_7S.D. Frankel Q.C. for the Respondent
_____
28026David Malmo-Levine c. Sa Majesté la Reine
Charte canadienne des droits et libertés - Article 7 - Loi sur les
stupéfiants, art. 4 - La Cour d'appel a-t-elle commis une erreur en
qualifiant d'inhérents au cannabis les préjudices susceptibles de découler
de la consommation de cette substance, au lieu de les considérer comme des
conséquences d'une culture inappropriée, d'une distribution inappropriée et
d'une utilisation inappropriée? - La Cour d'appel a-t-elle omis de se
demander si le principe du préjudice s'applique aux producteurs et aux
distributeurs de cannabis, lesquels, peut-on soutenir, jouent un rôle
essentiel dans la réduction des préjudices associés à cette substance? - La
Cour d'appel a-t-elle fait erreur en n'appliquant pas le principe de
l'égalité prévu à l'art. 15 de la Charte à « l'orientation sous l'angle de
la substance concernée » et en ne reconnaissant pas l'égalité à tous les
producteurs et distributeurs de stimulants et de relaxants, quelle que soit
la matière première servant à la préparation de ces produits (par ex. grains
de café, raisins, herbes)?
L'appelant s'est lui-même décrit comme un « défenseur de la libre
consommation de marijuana ». En octobre 1996, il a commencé à oeuvrer au
sein d'une association coopérative sans but lucratif connue sous le nom de «
Harm Reduction Club » et sise dans le secteur de Vancouver-Est. L'objectif
avoué de cette association était d'éduquer ses membres consommateurs de
marijuana et le grand public au sujet de cette substance, et de fournir de
la marijuana pure à ses membres au coût de revient pour le club, lequel
comptait environ 1 800 membres.
Le club disait enseigner à ses membres un large éventail d'[traduction] «
habitudes de consommation sécuritaire » de la marijuana, en vue de réduire
au minimum tout préjudice découlant de cette activité. Ses membres devaient
également signer un document dans lequel ils s'engageaient à ne pas conduire
de véhicule automobile ou de machinerie lourde lorsque leurs facultés
étaient affaiblies par cette substance.
Le 4 décembre 1996, des policiers sont entrés dans les locaux du club et ont
saisi 316 grammes de marijuana, la plus grande partie sous forme de « joints
». L'appelant a été accusé, en vertu de l'art. 4 de la Loi sur les
stupéfiants, de possession de marijuana dans le but d'en faire le trafic, et
il a été déclaré coupable de cette infraction. Au procès, l'appelant a
demandé à présenter des éléments de preuve à l'appui de son argument
d'inconstitutionnalité, mais sa demande a été rejetée. La Cour d'appel à la
majorité a rejeté l'appel. Dans des motifs dissidents, la juge Prowse a
refusé de statuer sur la constitutionnalité du par. 4(2) de la Loi sur les
stupéfiants. Le 15 mars 2001, l'appelant a été autorisé à se pourvoir devant
la Cour suprême du Canada.
Origine du pourvoi :Colombie-Britannique
No du greffe :28026
Arrêt de la Cour d'appel :2 juin 2000
Avocats :David Malmo-Levine/John W. Conroy c.r. pour l'appelant
S.D. Frankel c.r. pour l'intimée
_____
28148Victor 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 driver's 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 Appellant's 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
_____
28148Victor Eugene Caine c. Sa Majesté La Reine
Charte canadienne des droits et libertés - Article 7 - Loi sur les
stupéfiants, par. 3(1) - Est-ce que porte atteinte à l'art. 7 de la Charte
canadienne des droits et libertés la prohibition de la possession du
cannabis (marihuana) aux fins de consommation personnelle que fait le par.
3(1) de la Loi sur les stupéfiants, L.R.C. 1985, ch. N-1, en raison de la
mention de cette substance à l'art. 3 de l'annexe de cette loi (maintenant
l'art. 1 de l'annexe II de la Loi réglementant certaines drogues et autres
substances, L.C. 1996, ch. 19) ? - Si oui, cette atteinte est-elle justifiée
au regard de l'article premier de la Charte? - Est-ce que la prohibition en
question relève de la compétence législative du Parlement du Canada en tant
que règle de droit édictée en vertu de l'art. 91 de la Loi constitutionnelle
de 1867 pour assurer la paix, l'ordre et le bon gouvernement du Canada, en
vertu du pouvoir de légiférer sur le droit criminel prévu au par. 91(27) de
la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 ou en vertu d'un autre pouvoir?
Le 13 juin 1993, en fin d'après-midi, deux agents de la G.R.C.
patrouillaient le parc de stationnement d'une plage à White Rock, en
Colombie-Britannique. Ils ont remarqué l'appelant et un autre homme, assis
dans une fourgonnette appartenant au premier. Les agents ont vu l'appelant,
qui était assis sur le siège du conducteur, mettre le moteur en marche et
commencer à reculer. S'approchant de la fourgonnette, un des agents a senti
une forte odeur de marihuana récemment fumée.
L'appelant a produit à l'agent une cigarette de marihuana partiellement
fumée, qui pesait 0,5 gramme. Il possédait la marihuana à des fins de
consommation personnelle, et non à quelque autre fin.
L'appelant a demandé que soient déclarées inconstitutionnelles les
dispositions de la Loi sur les stupéfiants qui interdisent la possession de
marihuana, mais le tribunal n'a pas fait droit à sa demande. L'appel de
cette décision a été rejeté.
Origine du pourvoi :Colombie-Britannique
No du greffe :28148
Arrêt de la Cour d'appel :Le 2 juin 2000
Avocats :John W. Conroy, c.r., pour l'appelant
S.D. Frankel, c.r., pour l'intimée
_____
28189Christopher 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
Appellant's constitutional challenge and found that the Crown had proven the
offences. The Appellant's 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
_____
28189Christopher Clay c. Sa Majesté La Reine
Charte canadienne des droits et libertés - Article 7 - Loi sur les
stupéfiants, par. 3(1) - Est-ce que porte atteinte à l'art. 7 de la Charte
canadienne des droits et libertés la prohibition de la possession du
Cannabis (marihuana) aux fins de consommation personnelle que fait le par.
3(1) de la Loi sur les stupéfiants, L.R.C. 1985, ch. N-1, en raison de la
mention de cette substance à l'art. 3 de l'annexe de cette loi (maintenant
l'art. 1 de l'annexe II de la Loi réglementant certaines drogues et autres
substances, L.C. 1996, ch. 19) ? - Si oui, cette atteinte est-elle justifiée
au regard de l'article premier de la Charte? - Est-ce que la prohibition en
question relève de la compétence législative du Parlement du Canada en tant
que règle de droit édictée en vertu de l'art. 91 de la Loi constitutionnelle
de 1867 pour assurer la paix, l'ordre et le bon gouvernement du Canada, en
vertu du pouvoir de légiférer sur le droit criminel prévu au par. 91(27) de
la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 ou en vertu d'un autre pouvoir?
L'appelant a été déclaré coupable de possession de cannabis sativa, de deux
chefs de possession de cannabis sativa aux fins de trafic et d'un chef de
trafic de cannabis sativa, infractions qui étaient prévues par la Loi sur
les stupéfiants. L'appelant a contesté la constitutionnalité des
prohibitions relatives au cannabis établies par la Loi, au motif qu'elles
violaient les droits que lui garantit l'art. 7 de la Charte et que la
réglementation de la marijuana ne relevait pas de la compétence du
gouvernement fédéral. Il a également prétendu que le ministère public
n'avait pas prouvé que les substances qu'on avait saisies en sa possession
étaient des stupéfiants interdits au sens de la Loi. Un analyste assigné par
le ministère public a témoigné que, pour qu'il soit possible de certifier
qu'une substance est du cannabis (marijuana), cette doit contenir deux des
quatre cannabinoïdes cibles et qu'il n'est pas nécessaire que l'une d'elles
soit du tétrahydrocannabinol (THC), l'ingrédient psychoactif de la
marijuana. L'analyste n'a pas été en mesure d'affirmer que les substances
saisies contenaient du THC. Le juge du procès a rejeté l'argument
d'inconstitutionnalité plaidé par l'appelant et il a conclu que le ministère
public avait fait la preuve des infractions. L'appel interjeté par
l'appelant à l'encontre de ses déclarations de culpabilité a été rejeté.
Origine du pourvoi :Ontario
No du greffe :28189
Arrêt de la Cour d'appel :Le 31 juillet 2000
Avocats :Paul Burstein pour l'appelant
Morris Pistyner pour l'intimée
------------------------------
Subj: 003 Re: US: Web: Larry King Live with Bill Maher
From: Tim Meehan <>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:56:24 -0500
Tim Meehan said:
>Pubdate: December 18, 2003
That should be *December 17, 2003*, of course...
------------------------------
Subj: 004 Jay Vestal death, CA (SLO Co.)
From: "Allan Erickson" <>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:16:16 -0800
Hey folks-
In my cruisings of the wwweb I found this thread at one of the BBs I post on these days:
Death caused by positional asphyxia
http://www.annoyedman.com/xmb/viewthread.php?tid=1093&page=1
This thread was started by the mother of Jay Vestal (deceased), who died at the hands of officers in Templeton, Ca this last August. It is an interesting look at how reg'lar folk respond (including a couple of LEOs) to someone highly pissed about losing a loved one in a struggle with police.
Jay's sister Lisa has built a webpage to honor her brother's memory here:
http://www.jayvestalmemorial.com/JayVestal.html
There are 3 linked stories in the MAP archives and more at the memorial site above.
Thought this might be of some interest for the Cali folks...
allan
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment: http://www.mapinc.org/temp/part7843.html
------------------------------
Subj: 005 Canada: Wire: Martin to revive pot bill
From: Tim Meehan <>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:25:24 -0500
Source: Canadian Press
Pubdate: December 18, 2003
Martin to revive pot bill
OTTAWA (CP) - Prime Minister Paul Martin says his government will reintroduce
legislation to decriminalize simple possession of marijuana when Parliament sits
again in the new year.
Martin indicated Thursday that the bill, first brought in under Jean Chretien,
could be toughened in committee before it passes. "I think that one's got to
take a look at the fines," he said. "I think that you have to take a look the
quantities, and I think that there has to be a larger effort against the
grow-ops and against those who distribute."
But the prime minister said he agrees with the principle that young people
should not be dogged throughout life by a criminal record if they are caught in
possession of small amounts of pot.
The Supreme Court of Canada is set to rule next week on a challenge to the
current marijuana law in which the key issue is whether criminal penalties,
including jail time, for simple possession violate the Charter of Rights.
Martin's comments clearly signalled that, even if the high court upholds the
constitutionality of the present law, his government will still move to change
it.
The prime minister's remarks came as he prepared to meet Newfoundland Premier
Danny Williams, who was in Ottawa to confer on unrelated regional issues.
------------------------------
Subj: 006 Canada: Wire: Canada promises to revive bill to decriminalize pot possession
From: Tim Meehan <>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:19:26 -0500
Source: Associated Press
Pubdate: December 18, 2003
Canada promises to revive bill to decriminalize pot possession
OTTAWA (AP) Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin said Thursday his government
will reintroduce legislation to decriminalize simple possession of marijuana
when Parliament sits again in the new year.
Martin indicated that the bill, first brought in under his predecessor Jean
Chretien, could be toughened in committee before it passes.
''I think that one's got to take a look at the fines,'' Martin said. ''I think
that you have to take a look at the quantities, and I think that there has to be
a larger effort against the grow-ops and against those who distribute.''
But the prime minister said he agrees with the principle that young people
should not be dogged throughout life by a criminal record if they are caught in
possession of small amounts of pot.
The Supreme Court of Canada is set to rule next week on a challenge to the
current marijuana law in which the key issue is whether criminal penalties,
including jail time, for simple possession violate the Charter of Rights.
Martin's comments signaled that even if the high court upholds the
constitutionality of the present law, his government will still move to change
it.
The United States opposes any plan by Ottawa to decriminalize marijuana
possession in Canada, saying it could inflate already burgeoning cross-border
pot smuggling.
The United States Drug Enforcement Agency estimates smuggling from the western
province of British Columbia alone is worth more than $1 billion a year.
------------------------------
Subj: 007 Canada: Wire: Canada to press ahead with pot decriminalization
From: Tim Meehan <>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:20:23 -0500
Source: Reuters
Pubdate: December 18, 2003
Author: David Ljunggren
Canada to press ahead with pot decriminalization
OTTAWA, Dec 18 (Reuters) - Canada's new prime minister said on Thursday he would
press ahead with plans to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of
marijuana, an idea opposed by both the United States and Canadian police.
Paul Martin, who has made improving relations with Washington one of his main
priorities, said he did not think that young people caught with small amounts of
pot should have a criminal record.
Earlier this year Ottawa unveiled a draft law that proposed slapping fines on
those possessing small amounts of the drug. Officials estimate 100,000 of the
country's 31 million people use pot daily and say 20,000 are convicted each year
for using marijuana.
The draft legislation died when Parliament was shut down in November ahead of
the handover from Prime Minister Jean Chretien to Martin.
Asked whether the government would reintroduce the law into Parliament, Martin
told reporters: "Yes, we're going to". Parliament is due to reopen in early
February.
The original draft wanted to eliminate criminal penalties for possession of up
to 15 grams, or about half an ounce, of marijuana. Some legislators want Martin
to cut this to 10 grams.
"I think one has to take a look at the fines ... and the quantities and I think
there has to be a larger effort against the grow-ops and those who distribute,"
Martin said.
Some U.S. officials say a relaxed Canadian marijuana law could force a clampdown
at the border, jeopardizing the Canada-U.S. trade relationship -- the world's
largest.
"Certainly, from a health point of view, doctors will all tell you that it
(using pot) is not the best thing," Martin said. "But it's of no use to anyone
to give a criminal record to a young person who is caught with small
quantities."
Canadian police say they worry about the law, in particular how to deal with
drivers found high on pot. In August, Toronto's police chief accused judges of
handing down "totally and absolutely inadequate" sentences on major pot growers.
Washington says Canadian laws are already too soft on traffickers and insists
marijuana shipments to the United States -- worth billions a year -- are
booming.
But Ottawa says Washington's own data shows that of all the illegal pot seized
by U.S. agents, only 1.5 percent came from Canada. It also points out that at
least 10 U.S. states already have similar laws on pot possession.
------------------------------
End of MAPTalk-Digest V03 #281
******************************
Mark Greer () ___ ___ _ _ _ _
Media Awareness Project /' _ ` _ `\ /'_`)('_`\
P. O. Box 651 | ( ) ( ) |( (_| || (_) )
Porterville, CA 93258 (_) (_) (_) \__,_)| ,__/
(800) 266-5759 | |
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ (_)
|
