Pubdate: Thu, 05 Sep 2002
Source: Daily News, The (CN NS)
Copyright: 2002 The Daily News
Contact:  http://www.canada.com/halifax/dailynews/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/179

SUPREME COURT TO RULE ON POT LAW

OTTAWA (Canadian Press) -- Marijuana users who claim the drug is harmless 
will have their chance to sway Canada's top judges Dec. 13 -- a Friday.

Lawyers for three convicted pot smokers will argue that a federal law 
banning possession of the fiercely debated herb for personal use is 
unconstitutional.

The much-anticipated case was among 36 listed yesterday by the Supreme 
Court of Canada in its busy fall docket, which begins Sept. 30.

The schedule was announced the same day a Senate committee studying the 
issue said pot and hashish possession should be legalized for residents 16 
or older, and regulated much like alcohol.

Ottawa has said it will start clinical trials as early as this fall to 
assess the benefits of medical marijuana.

The high-court ruling on pot laws won't likely come until several months 
after its December hearing.

The appeal covers three cases, involving Chris Clay of London, Ont.; David 
Malmo-Levine of Vancouver; and Victor Eugene Caine of Langley, B.C.

All three men argue that pot, if properly grown and used, is harmless. 
Moreover, they say, laws prohibiting its personal use infringe the right to 
life, liberty and security of the person guaranteed by the Charter of 
Rights and Freedoms.

Clay, the former operator of a hemp boutique in London, Ont., was convicted 
in 1997 of drug possession and trafficking for selling cannabis to an 
undercover police officer.

He failed to convince the trial judge that private, recreational pot 
smoking qualifies as a fundamental value protected under the Charter. The 
judge also noted that cannabis is not completely harmless for all users.

Clay lost on appeal.

In June 2000, the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled 2-1 to uphold marijuana 
possession convictions against Malmo-Levine and Caine.

Dissenting Justice Jo-Ann Prowse said part of the law banning pot 
possession did breach the men's right to life, liberty and security of the 
person. She said she would have adjourned the appeal to allow lawyers to 
make more submissions on whether the breach is justifiable.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Larry Stevens