HIGH COURT QUASHES POT PARTY

OTTAWA -- The Supreme Court of Canada refused to elevate marijuana smoking
to a constitutional right Tuesday in a ruling that allows Parliament to
criminalize any behaviour it sees fit to protect people from harm.

"There is no free-standing constitutional right to smoke 'pot' for
recreational purposes," justices Ian Binnie and recently retired Charles
Gonthier wrote in the 6-3 decision.

The majority, in upholding the current law, rejected the arguments advanced
by three B.C. marijuana enthusiasts, who claimed that it breaches the
Charter of Rights to threaten someone with a criminal record for what they
contend is a victimless crime.

It was the Supreme Court's first test of the 80-year-old prohibition on pot
possession and the majority sided with the government on every point, saying
that any change in the law is up to federal politicians.

"It is open to Parliament to decriminalize or otherwise modify any aspect of
the marijuana laws that it no longer considers to be good public policy,"
said the 82-page majority decision.

David-Malmo Levine, who heard the verdict while toking up with "about 20 of
my closest pot activist pals" at the B.C. Marijuana Party headquarters, said
the judges fell down on the job of getting rid of an outdated law.

"It's horrible, it's a dark day for humanity, it's a dark day for Canadians,
it means that harmless people are not protected by our Constitution," said
the 32-year-old Vancouverite, who took his legal fight as far as the Supreme
Court after police shut down his "harm reduction club" seven years ago.

The ruling eases pressure on Prime Minister Paul Martin to follow through on
a promise last week to revive a bill that would make possession of small
amounts of marijuana a ticketable offence rather than a criminal one, said
Alan Young, a lawyer in the case.

"Paul Martin is sitting in a different world going into 2004," said Young, a
professor at York University's Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto.

"There is no pressure coming from the courts to change the law and, in fact,
there's pressure coming from the Americans to preserve the law. You tell me
how strong is Mr. Martin and does he have the political will. I suspect
not."

Young represented Chris Clay, a 32-year-old Victoria Web-page designer who
owned the Great Canadian Hemporium marijuana paraphernalia and seed store in
London, Ont. The other litigant was Victor Caine, who was convicted of
possession for sharing a joint with a friend in his car while parked at a
beach near Vancouver.

The Supreme Court rejected their argument that lawmakers should have to
demonstrate a serious risk of harm to marijuana users to justify criminal
sanctions.

The government passed the test by showing that the health risks are not
"insignificant or trivial," concluded the court's majority.

"Chronic users may suffer serious health problems. Vulnerable groups are at
a particular risk, including adolescents with a history of poor school
performance, pregnant women and persons with pre-existing conditions such as
cardiovascular diseases, respiratory diseases, schizophrenia, or other drug
dependencies," wrote the court, citing studies.

The trio of marijuana users also failed to convince the court that control
over pot possession is outside federal jurisdiction because the provinces
are responsible for health, that it is unfair to target marijuana when
alcohol and cigarettes are legal, and that pot prohibition discriminates
against people because of their "substance orientation."

The Supreme Court said it would be going too far to expand the Charter of
Rights to protect people based on lifestyle choices.

"The Constitution cannot be stretched to afford protection for whatever
activity an individual chooses to define as central to his or her
lifestyle," the court said. "One individual chooses to smoke marijuana;
another has an obsessive interest in golf; a third is addicted to gambling.
A society that extends constitutional protection to any and all such
lifestyles would be ungovernable."

In three separate dissenting opinions, justices Louise Arbour, Louis LeBel
and Marie Deschamps said that criminalization is too harsh a penalty, given
that the government did not prove a serious enough risk of harm.

"The enforcement of the law has tarred hundreds of Canadians with a criminal
record," wrote LeBel.

An estimated 600,000 Canadians have criminal records from pot possession.