HOLY SMOKE TRIAL ON HOLD

Defence wraps up witness testimony for defence of necessity, judge
expects decision in September

Don't hold your breath for a decision on the Holy Smoke trial, it will
be September (before) for the judge hands down a decision.

All the witnesses have been heard in the Holy Smoke trial and now
counsel will make their written arguments about whether the local shop
was providing a necessary service to the community or just trafficking
drugs. The defendants expect a decision in their B.C. Provincial
Court case this September.

Alan Middlemiss, Kelsey Stratas, Paul DeFelice and Akka Annis faced
charges of drug trafficking in a three-day trial that wrapped up on
Friday, May 2. The men did not deny marijuana and other drugs were
sold to undercover police officers from their business (in) the summer
of 2006, but argued they provided a necessary service to the public.

Speaking after the week's testimony, DeFelice said it was a gradual
process that led the owners to have designated dealers selling
marijuana in the store.

"It's what we would like society to do; provide a legalized, regulated
market a lot like alcohol and tobacco."

The trial included expert testimony from Dr. Robert Melamede, a
university professor from the U.S. who testified that
endocannabinoids, related to cannabis, are a building block of life
and help fight aging.

Important to defence lawyer Don Skogstad's case was the testimony of
four Kootenay residents who told the court how marijuana helped them
with medical conditions or drug and alcohol addictions. The witnesses
all said Holy Smoke offered a safe environment to buy marijuana that
wasn't mixed with other drugs.

One witness, a woman who suffered from Crohn's disease, had a license
to grow marijuana to deal with her medical condition. She testified
that the licensing process was a long and difficult one, adding if her
crops failed, Holy Smoke offered a safe place to get marijuana.

Two other witnesses testified they didn't consider getting a federal
license for marijuana because the process was too intrusive and
complicated. Both also said they didn't like having their consumption
monitored either.

Skogstad was pleased with the testimony. He said everything he wanted
the judge to consider came out.

There is a need for Holy Smoke, Skogstad said. The Cannabis
Compassion Club isn't open 24 hours a day, he noted referring to an
organization that provides medical marijuana in Nelson.

"The Crown will say that you don't need the Holy Smokes of the world
because you can get licensing. Maybe someday that will be true but
today, it's just not true."

Skogstad and the Crown prosecutor will make their written submissions
this summer and Judge Don Sperry expects to make a ruling by Friday,
Sept. 26.

[sidebar]

WHAT IS A DEFENCE OF NECESSITY?

Holy Smoke's lawyer, Don Skogstad, presented a defence of necessity.
The defence is a common-law defence and Skogstad said it was the first
time in Canada it has been used in a drug trafficking case.

In explaining the defence, Skogstad described an analogy of a father
and his 15-year-old son cutting firewood in the wilderness. Suppose
the father cuts his body in such a way that he can't drive the truck
but he needs medical care. So, the 15-year-old drives the father's
truck to get help.

"That's illegal too. But that's justified and that's what we're
arguing."

Skogstad said he and his clients know they've broken the law and
aren't disputing that fact.

"But you know sometimes the law is better off broken than not broken."