Pubdate: Fri, 15 Aug 2014
Source: Globe and Mail (Canada)
Copyright: 2014 The Globe and Mail Company
Contact:  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/168
Author: Ian Bailey
Page: S1

COURT RULINGS MARK GROWING TOLERANCE TO POT, UBC PROF SAYS

Court rulings at the provincial and national level on medical 
marijuana, and on bong-shop employees involved in a dispute with 
police, reflect a growing tolerance for pot, says an addictions observer.

Zach Walsh, an associate psychology professor at the University of 
British Columbia, was referring to rulings Thursday in the B.C. Court 
of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada.

"Broadly they reflect increased acceptance of cannabis," Mr. Walsh, 
co-director of the Centre for the Advancement of Psychological 
Science and Law, said in an interview. "What they have in common is 
they reflect a growing tolerance of medical and recreational use of cannabis."

The appeal court - the highest court in B.C. - released a 2-1 
decision stating medical marijuana access regulations infringe on the 
Charter rights of people requiring other forms of cannabis to treat illnesses.

In effect, the highest court in the province is allowing medical 
marijuana in everything from oils and cookies to teas in a ruling 
that finds federal health laws limiting weed consumption to the dried 
variety is unconstitutional.

Also Thursday, lawyers for a B.C. bong-shop owner and one of his 
employees received word they will get a rare opportunity to present 
oral arguments as to why the Supreme Court of Canada should hear 
their appeal. The top court usually rules on leave-to-appeal 
applications based on written documents.

The bong-shop owner, Timothy Felger, and his employee, Natasha Healy, 
expected undercover officers to respect a posted sign ordering police 
to stay away. The two were charged after a sting operation at the 
shop in Abbotsford, B.C., in 2009. Undercover officers bought 
marijuana on five separate occasions and saw other customers making 
similar purchases.

Mr. Felger and Ms. Healy argued at trial that a posted sign 
instructing police to stay out without a warrant meant the sting 
amounted to an unreasonable search. The trial judge ruled the 
evidence could not be used and acquitted the pair in 2012, but the 
B.C. Court of Appeal has ordered a new trial. The court says in a 
written decision that the store was a public place and the police 
were free to investigate marijuana sales there.

The trial would be set aside if the Supreme Court of Canada agrees to 
hear the case, said Dan Henderson, Ms. Healy's lawyer.

Oral hearings can be granted in criminal cases involving an 
indictable offence if the appeal court set aside an acquittal and 
ordered a new trial. "This is a very rare thing at the Supreme 
Court," said Adam Dodek, a University of Ottawa law professor.

Mr. Walsh said he finds the ruling on edibles more significant than 
that in the bong case.

"It reflects the court starting to pay attention to science behind 
cannabis and reflecting this is significant medical use," he said. 
"If people want to use their medicine orally rather than smoking it, 
the idea that one should be legal and the other illegal is absurd."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom