POT CASE IN SUPREME COURT

OTTAWA - The Supreme Court of Canada agreed yesterday to hear a convicted
pot smoker's claims that federal marijuana laws are unconstitutional
because the drug is harmless. Chris Clay, 31, was convicted in 1997 of drug
possession and trafficking for selling cannabis to an undercover police
officer. At his original trial, an Ontario Superior Court judge said he was
convinced marijuana was harmless and carried no serious mental or physical
damage, but ruled it was up to Parliament to determine what is legal.

_____________________________________________________________________

A SHORT HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF CHRIS CLAY

by Richard Lake, Sr. Editor, DrugNews

May, 1997

In a major story on the trial the London Free Press wrote:

Store owner Admits He Pushed His Luck In Efforts To Test Canadian Drug Laws

Chris Clay said he openly sold small packages of marijuana and placed
advertisements in his store window listing types of seeds as police looked
on.

Chris Clay agreed with Crown prosecutor Kevin Wilson that he "pushed the
envelope" leading up to the drug squad raid on his hemp store in London two
years ago.

Clay, proprietor of Hemp Nation store at 343 Richmond St., testified in his
own defence on several charges of possessing and trafficking in marijuana
that he was on a single minded campaign to change marijuana drug laws when
he was arrested.

He and employee Jordan Prentice have pleaded not guilty to all charges.

Clay, 26, told Ontario court Justice John McCart he "decided to take a
risk" by opening his hemp products store, hoping it would help finance his
lobbying for drug law changes.

[snip] The rest of the story is at
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v97/n117/a06.html

See also: Drug 'Bonds' Fund Court Fight

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v97/n124/a01.html

The Trial of the Century

http://www.cannabisculture.com/backissues/cc09/hemphunt/oppresion/claytrial/index.html

_____________________________________________________________________

Perhaps the largest group of experts on marijuana ever to testify were
gathered together for this trial. Following are links to many of the superb
affidavits filed in this case, part of the record to be reviewed by the
Supreme Court.

Hans-Jorg Albrecht http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v97/n000/a001.html

Bruce Alexander http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v97/n000/a002.html

Marie Andree Bertrand http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v97/n000/a003.html

Neil Boyd http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v97/n000/a004.html

Patricia G. Erickson http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v97/n000/a008.html

Dr Lester Grinspoon http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v97/n000/a005.html

John P. Morgan M.D. http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v97/n000/a006.html

Eugene Oscapella http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v97/n000/a007.html

Robert Randall http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v97/n000/a009.html

Diane Riley http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v97/n000/a010.html

Neev Tapiero http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v97/n000/a011.html

_____________________________________________________________________

August, 1997

Justice J.F. McCart gave his ruling, and the Ottawa Citizen wrote:

Marijuana 'Harmless But Still Illegal'

While agreeing that marijuana is relatively harmless, an Ontario Court
judge has rejected a constitutional challenge to Canada's prohibition of
the drug.

Justice John McCart said elected politicians not the courts must lead the
way in establishing public policy on such issues.

The judge yesterday convicted Chris Clay, the former owner of a London hemp
shop, of trafficking and possession charges.

Mr. Clay, 26, mounted an ambitious challenge under the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms during his threeweek trial this spring, enlisting the aid of
an Osgoode Hall law professor and raising $25,000 through an Internet web
page after being charged in May 1995 with selling cloned marijuana plants
from his London store.

In his 27page ruling, Judge McCart accepted as fact the evidence of many of
Mr. Clay's nine expert witnesses.

[snip]

His lawyer, Osgoode Hall law professor Alan Young, said the case will be
appealed, likely to the Supreme Court, but that another $50,000 to $100,000
would have to be raised to finance the appeal.

"The judge's position was, 'This was not for me to review, this was for a
legislature to review.'

"My question to the judge of course is, 'We've been trying to do that for
30 years, why would the judge think we're going to have any better luck
now?'" Mr. Young said.

[snip] The entire article is at
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v97/n317/a06.html

See also: Bid To Make Marijuana Legal Gets Rejected
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v97/n000/a011.html

Justice Denied http://www.cannabisculture.com/backissues/cc10/Justice.html

_____________________________________________________________________

Judge McCart's ruling is archived at
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v97/n000/a012.html

And the Judge included an Addendum To The Judgment authored by Chris Clay
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v97/n000/a013.html

_____________________________________________________________________

October, 1999

Ontario's Court of Appeal hears appeal:

Pot Too Mild To Be Criminal, London Case Lawyer Argues
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99/n1091/a05.html

_____________________________________________________________________

July, 2000

Ontario's Court of Appeal rules and a Globe and Mail columnst writes:

The three judges of the Ontario Court of Appeal showed the wisdom of Daniel
on Monday when they unanimously struck down as unconstitutional the law
making the possession of marijuana a crime. They declared it unjust and
unacceptable in a free and democratic society. It continues to be
operative for 12 months so as to avoid a legislative vacuum, but the
judgment will have far-reaching consequences beyond the issue of
marijuana-as-medicine, on which the decision was based.

The judges have invited the government to rewrite the law. They've given
our society an opportunity to rethink a blanket prohibition against
marijuana that was first imposed in 1923 from ignorance and superstition.

[snip]

Moreover, the court recognized that the prohibition of marijuana in our
legal system was based, from the start, on false perceptions. "That
history shows that, unlike the regulation of assisted suicide, for example,
regulation of marijuana has a very short history and lacks a significant
foundation in our legal tradition. It is, in fact, an embarrassing history
based on misinformation and racism."

The court cited the origins of the law governing marijuana as established
by Mr. Justice J. F. McCart in his 1997 judgment in the case of
R. v. Clay.

"Although there was no evidence of a problem of marijuana use in Canada in
1923, its inclusion in the Opium and Drug Act may have been influenced by
the writings of Emily Murphy, a crusading Edmonton, Alberta,
magistrate. In 1920, she published a series of sensational and racist
articles in Maclean's magazine on the horrible effects of drug use and the
deliberate debauching of the young by evil, often alien, traffickers. The
articles were later expanded into a book, The Black Candle,published in 1922."

Judge McCart gave a sample of her prose that led, a year after the
publication of her book, to the inclusion of marijuana under the same
strictures as opium:

"Persons using this narcotic [marijuana] smoke the dried leaves of the
plant, which has the effect of driving them completely insane. The addict
loses all sense of moral responsibility. Addicts to this drug, while under
its influence, are immune to pain, and could be injured without having any
realization of their condition. While in this condition they become raving
maniacs and are liable to kill or indulge in any form of violence to other
persons, using the most savage methods of cruelty without, as said before,
any sense of moral responsibility. . . . If this drug is indulged in to
any great extent, it ends in the untimely death of its addict."

Judge McCart then added: "There was absolutely no truth to any of those
wild and outlandish claims. It was in this climate of irrational fear that
the criminal sanctions against marijuana were enacted."

Recent judgments have established the absurdity of all those superstitious
fears about marijuana. Judge McCart concluded, for example: "Consumption
of marijuana is relatively harmless compared to the so-called hard drugs
and including tobacco and alcohol. . . . Cannabis is not an addictive
substance. . . . Less than 1 per cent of marijuana consumers are daily
users."

He also noted that consumption of marijuana is no greater in countries that
have ceased to enforce criminal laws against marijuana, such as the
Netherlands, than it is in countries that prohibit it.

[snip] The entire column is at
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1098/a11.html

See also: Anti-Marijuana Law Violates Rights Of The Sick, Judge Rules
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1087/a06.html

The Clay appeal ruling is on line at
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2000/july/clay.htm

_____________________________________________________________________

March, 2001

The Supreme Court agrees to hear the appeal:

Wire: Highest Court To Hear Pot Law Challenge
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n456/a02.html

Supreme Court To Rule If Pot Law Constitutional
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n463/a04.html