Drug laws change, trial goes on

As witnesses debated the merits of marijuana, some feared a new law that
came into effect Wednesday does little to help pot gain acceptance.

By Michelle Shephard
Free Press Reporter

On the day that Canada's new Controlled Drugs and Substance Act took
effect, a fight against the criminalization of marijuana use continued
in a London courtroom.

London hemp store proprietor Chris Clay's case could have a profound
impact on existing marijuana laws where a criminal record and maximum
fine of $1,000 or up to six months in jail can result from a
possession conviction.

The 26yearold London man is facing charges of possession and
trafficking cannabis seeds and plant seedlings.

Clay, proprietor of Hemp Nation store at 343 Richmond St., testified
earlier at the trial that he was on a singleminded campaign to change
marijuana drug laws when he was arrested.

Wednesday marked the first day Bill C8, which replaces the 1961
Narcotics Control Act, was implemented across the country, giving more
power to police, among other changes.

DOES LITTLE: Defence lawyer and Osgoode Hall law professor Alan Young
said he thought the new legislation did little to improve the
acceptance of cannabis use in the country.

Although part of the legislation reduces the chance of imprisonment
for those charged with possession of marijuana, it also allows police
more freedom in their pursuit of drug cases.

"It gives the police the ability to do reverse stings. In other words,
they can sucker people in by trying to sell them drugs," Young said
during a break.

London Deputy Police Chief Fred Goebel said Wednesday the legislation
is "moving in the right direction" and allows police greater freedom
in obtaining search warrants.

"It will make our job a little easier and less cumbersome," Goebel
said.

But he rebuked Young's interpretation of the "reverse stings" and said
he couldn't find that in the legislation.

"I read over the legislation last night and there was nothing that
included that," he said. "It's not something we would implement
anyway."

But a judge in an Ontario Court of Appeal case in January involving
RCMP officers who sold drugs in order to make an arrest stated: "(the
new legislation) will provide for further statutory exceptions,
including the sale of narcotics under controlled circumstances, once
it is proclaimed."

At the time of the new legislation's conception, the decriminalization
of marijuana was narrowly defeated by the Senate's legal and
constitutional affairs committee which examined the new narcotics
legislation.

In an affidavit from committee chairperson Sharon Carstairs entered
as exhibit 35 for the Clay trial she stated: "The majority of
senators and I was one of them felt all the evidence indicated
decriminalization for simple possession is the way we should be
going."

The idea, however, did not go forward because senators predicted the
legislation would not pass the House of Commons.

Carstairs also feared the decriminalization of marijuana would violate
several international treaties signed by Canada.

As Clay's defence wrapped up its case Wednesday, further medical
testimony was given supporting the position that marijuana is not
addictive, does not induce any psychiatric disorders, does not cause
aggressive or criminal behavior, is not significant in causing motor
vehicle accidents, does not promote further drug use and does not
promote lasting brain or organ damage.

BETTER ADAPTED: John Paul Morgan, a medical professor at the City of
New York Medical School who was on the stand for the second day
testified that students who experimented with drugs were better
adapted than those who hadn't tried any illegal substances.

This comment sparked a couple of giggles from the 26 high school
students from Montcalm and Banting secondary schools who filled the
courtroom.

His testimony included the following:

* Overthecounter antihistamines impair driving more seriously than
cannabis use.
* Marijuana is useful for its medicinal qualities especially for
AIDS, cancer and glaucoma patients.
* The aggressive behavior of a person after consuming alcohol is far
more dangerous than that of a person who has consumed cannabis.
* Applying the gateway theory, which states cannabis use leads to
harder drugs, is like saying "bikes lead to people riding
motorcycles."
* Caffeine consumption has a higher addictive quality than cannabis.
* Sometimes "state intervention" makes drugs more dangerous since it
pushes drug use underground when it's illegal.

Harold Kalant, a professor at the University of Toronto, began his
testimony as the Crown's last witness Wednesday. He did not dispute
many of Morgan's claims but did testify that there was proof that
bronchial damage is associated with heavy cannabis use. Kalant also
stated longterm heavy use does have a longterm effect on cognitive
behavior much the same effect as longterm alcohol use.

The trial continues today.