POT'S STILL ILLEGAL - JUST

Canada's law against simple possession of marijuana has been upheld by the
B.C. Court of Appeal in two high-profile cases.

But the 2-1 split in the decision handed down Friday means the possession
law will almost surely be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada for the
final word on its constitutionality.

Abbotsford lawyer John Conroy, who argued one of the cases, said he was
encouraged by two facets of the 107-page decision.

His client, Randy Caine, was convicted of possession of marijuana in 1993
after police in White Rock found him at the wheel of his van with 0.5 grams
of the drug and evidence some had just been smoked.

Caine was handed an absolute discharge, which means he will have no
criminal record if he keeps the peace for six months.

David Malmo-Levine, who argued his case without legal counsel, was
convicted of one possession count and one count of possession for the
purpose of trafficking.

A police raid at the Harm Reduction Club in east Vancouver turned up 316
grams of marijuana he had offered for sale to the 1,800 club members hwo
had signed undertakings not to smoke and drive.

He received a one-year conditional sentence - no jail time if he meets a
number of conditions.

All three appeal judges agreed that the proper test of whether conduct
should be a crime is whether the conduct is harmful to another person or to
society - not merely that it's harm someone does themself through a
conscious decsion.

They found a crime can only exist if there is harm caused to society or
others - but differed over the threshold of how much harm has been caused.

But a strong dissenting opinion written by Justice Jo-Ann Prowse - together
with the national importance of the law and its effect on millions of
citizens - has Conroy encouraged that leave to appeal will be granted by
the Supreme Court of Canada.

In their ruling, Justices Tom Braidwood and Anne Rowles found that the harm
caused by a conduct need only be something more than insignificant or
trivial for the act to be a crime.

Justice Prowse, however, found the harm caused must be "serious substantial
or significant" before Parliament deem it a crime carrying sanctions such
as imprisonment.

She added: "In my view, the evidence does not establish that simple
possession of marijuana presents a reasoned risk of serious, substantial or
significant harm to either the individual or society or others."

Justice Braidwood, on the other hand, concluded: "The evidence shows that
the risk posed by marijuana is not large.

"Yet it need not be large in order for Parliament to act. It is for
Parliament to determine what level of risk is acceptable and what level of
risk requires action."

Pot: For and Against

The Supreme Court of Canada will almost certainly have the final word on
the constitutionality of the law that makes it a crime to possess marijuana.

Here are some of the facts, as found by the B.C. Court of Appeal, that the
high court would consider: * Marijuana is not addictive; * Physical
dependence on marijuana is not a major problem. Psychological dependence,
may be a problem for the chronic user. * There is no causal relationship
between marijuana use and other forms of criminal behaviour. * There is no
evidence marijuana is a gateway drug, and the vast majority of users do not
go on to try hard drugs. * Marijuana does not make people aggressive or
violent, but on the contrary tends to make them passive and quiet. * There
have been no deaths from the use of marijuana.

Harms associated with marijuana itemized by the LeDain Commission in 1971
are: * A probably harmful effect on the maturing process in adolescence; *
Implications for safe driving arising from impairment of mental and motor
skills; * The possibility that long-term heavy use may result in a
significant amount of mental deterioration and disorder; and * Lowering of
inhibitions about drug experimentation.