CANNABIS AND COMMUNISTS ON SUPREME COURT DOCKET

Ottawa - Canada's highest court agreed Thursday to hear a convicted pot
smoker's claims that federal marijuana laws are unconstitutional because
the drug is harmless.

The Supreme Court of Canada also agreed to hear a challenge of federal
election rules forcing political parties to field 50 candidates to qualify
for the perks of registered status.

In the marijuana case, Chris Clay, 30, the former operator of a hemp
boutique in London, Ont., was convicted in 1997 of drug possession and
trafficking charges for selling cannabis to an undercover police officer.
In Mr. Clay's original trial, Ontario Superior Court Justice John McCart
admitted he was convinced marijuana was harmless and caused no serious
mental or physical damage.

But the judge ruled it would be up to Parliament to determine what's
illegal and said the drug charges didn't infringe on Mr. Clay's
constitutional rights. That prompted Mr. Clay and lawyer Alan Young to seek
leave to appeal their case to the highest court in the land. As is
customary, the Supreme Court gave no reasons for its decision to hear the case.

The case has become a flagship for marijuana users - many of whom sing the
praises of the drug's medicinal qualities - who want to see pot legalized.
Throughout their case, which was rejected by the Ontario Court of Appeal in
October 1999, Mr. Young has argued that marijuana has no more ill health
effects than many of the foods people eat.

Crown lawyers have countered that the absence of scientific proof of
marijuana's harmful effects does not mean the drug can be considered
completely safe. Nonetheless, since Mr. Clay first launched his challenge,
Ottawa has implemented extensive testing on the medicinal effects of
marijuana, including allowing a host of Canadians with serious illnesses to
use the drug for medicinal purposes.

The federal government first gave permission for the cultivation and use of
marijuana for medical purposes in June, granting special exemptions to Jim
Wakeford of Toronto and Jean-Charles Pariseau of Vanier, Ont., both of whom
have AIDS.

Supporters of Mr. Clay's case hope Canada will eventually adopt the same
policies that exist in some parts of Australia, where people caught with
small quantities of marijuana pay a fine, but get no criminal record.

The Communist Party of Canada first launched its court battle in 1993,
arguing that the current election rules favour larger, more established
parties and leave smaller parties at a disadvantage. Last year, the party
tried to sway the Ontario Court of Appeal, but the three-judge panel
unanimously upheld the rules as fair.

On Thursday the Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of that decision.

In August of last year, the Ontario court upheld the 50-candidate threshold
as an appropriate and fair way to gauge a party's commitment to the
political process.

"Political parties...enhance the goal of effective representation if their
participation is at a level which can effectively serve the functions
performed by political parties in that process," Judge David Doherty wrote
in the decision.

"The requirement...is a reasonable method of distinguishing between parties
whose involvement reaches the appropriate level of participation and
parties whose involvement does not."

Among other things, registered parties can issue tax receipts for political
contributions at any time, recoup part of their election expenses and
access broadcasting time on national networks. The 650-member Communist
Party of Canada first embarked on its battle against Canada's election
rules after losing its registered status in the 1993 federal vote.

The appeal court ruling all but erased a victory the Communists won in 1999
when an Ontario court struck down parts of Canada's Elections Act on the
basis they put candidates for smaller parties at a disadvantage.

In a March 1999 ruling, Judge Anne Molloy overturned the 50-candidate
provision and lowered it instead to two candidates.

Peter Rosenthal, the party's lawyer, has long argued that it's unfair that
a party with fewer candidates cannot offer tax benefits to its benefactors,
while a more established party can.

Mr. Rosenthal cited the example of the Natural Law party, which fielded 136
candidates in the last federal election on a holistic platform of
meditation, spiritual harmony and yogic flying.

Last year's ruling wasn't a total loss for the Communists. The court
decided that the 50-candidate rule could not be used to prevent candidates
from identifying their party affiliations on the ballot.

The Communist party was forced to deregister and sell off assets in 1993
because it fielded just eight candidates. It's a fate that has since been
shared by seven other fringe parties. The party fielded just 13 candidates
in 1997.

Canada's attorney general did not appeal Judge Molloy's decision to strike
down a provision requiring candidates to receive 15 per cent of the vote in
order to recoup half of their $1,000 deposit.