News (Media Awareness Project) - Canada: Supreme Court To Rule On Pot Law |
| Title: | Canada: Supreme Court To Rule On Pot Law |
| Published On: | 2002-09-05 |
| Source: | Daily News, The (CN NS) |
| Fetched On: | 2008-08-29 18:59:52 |
SUPREME COURT TO RULE ON POT LAW
OTTAWA (Canadian Press) -- Marijuana users who claim the drug is harmless
will have their chance to sway Canada's top judges Dec. 13 -- a Friday.
Lawyers for three convicted pot smokers will argue that a federal law
banning possession of the fiercely debated herb for personal use is
unconstitutional.
The much-anticipated case was among 36 listed yesterday by the Supreme
Court of Canada in its busy fall docket, which begins Sept. 30.
The schedule was announced the same day a Senate committee studying the
issue said pot and hashish possession should be legalized for residents 16
or older, and regulated much like alcohol.
Ottawa has said it will start clinical trials as early as this fall to
assess the benefits of medical marijuana.
The high-court ruling on pot laws won't likely come until several months
after its December hearing.
The appeal covers three cases, involving Chris Clay of London, Ont.; David
Malmo-Levine of Vancouver; and Victor Eugene Caine of Langley, B.C.
All three men argue that pot, if properly grown and used, is harmless.
Moreover, they say, laws prohibiting its personal use infringe the right to
life, liberty and security of the person guaranteed by the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms.
Clay, the former operator of a hemp boutique in London, Ont., was convicted
in 1997 of drug possession and trafficking for selling cannabis to an
undercover police officer.
He failed to convince the trial judge that private, recreational pot
smoking qualifies as a fundamental value protected under the Charter. The
judge also noted that cannabis is not completely harmless for all users.
Clay lost on appeal.
In June 2000, the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled 2-1 to uphold marijuana
possession convictions against Malmo-Levine and Caine.
Dissenting Justice Jo-Ann Prowse said part of the law banning pot
possession did breach the men's right to life, liberty and security of the
person. She said she would have adjourned the appeal to allow lawyers to
make more submissions on whether the breach is justifiable.
OTTAWA (Canadian Press) -- Marijuana users who claim the drug is harmless
will have their chance to sway Canada's top judges Dec. 13 -- a Friday.
Lawyers for three convicted pot smokers will argue that a federal law
banning possession of the fiercely debated herb for personal use is
unconstitutional.
The much-anticipated case was among 36 listed yesterday by the Supreme
Court of Canada in its busy fall docket, which begins Sept. 30.
The schedule was announced the same day a Senate committee studying the
issue said pot and hashish possession should be legalized for residents 16
or older, and regulated much like alcohol.
Ottawa has said it will start clinical trials as early as this fall to
assess the benefits of medical marijuana.
The high-court ruling on pot laws won't likely come until several months
after its December hearing.
The appeal covers three cases, involving Chris Clay of London, Ont.; David
Malmo-Levine of Vancouver; and Victor Eugene Caine of Langley, B.C.
All three men argue that pot, if properly grown and used, is harmless.
Moreover, they say, laws prohibiting its personal use infringe the right to
life, liberty and security of the person guaranteed by the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms.
Clay, the former operator of a hemp boutique in London, Ont., was convicted
in 1997 of drug possession and trafficking for selling cannabis to an
undercover police officer.
He failed to convince the trial judge that private, recreational pot
smoking qualifies as a fundamental value protected under the Charter. The
judge also noted that cannabis is not completely harmless for all users.
Clay lost on appeal.
In June 2000, the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled 2-1 to uphold marijuana
possession convictions against Malmo-Levine and Caine.
Dissenting Justice Jo-Ann Prowse said part of the law banning pot
possession did breach the men's right to life, liberty and security of the
person. She said she would have adjourned the appeal to allow lawyers to
make more submissions on whether the breach is justifiable.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...
