News (Media Awareness Project) - Canada: Top Court Ends Federal Marijuana Monopoly |
Title: | Canada: Top Court Ends Federal Marijuana Monopoly |
Published On: | 2009-04-24 |
Source: | Ottawa Citizen (CN ON) |
Fetched On: | 2009-04-25 14:19:43 |
TOP COURT ENDS FEDERAL MARIJUANA MONOPOLY
Judges Refuse To Hear Appeal; Medical Users Can Seek Other Suppliers
(CNS) Canadians who are legally permitted to smoke marijuana to treat
illness won a victory in the Supreme Court of Canada on Thursday when
it refused to hear an appeal of a ruling that put an end to the
federal monopoly.
A three-judge panel, without giving reasons, rejected the Justice
Department's application to challenge a Federal Court of Appeal
decision that gave licensed producers the right to grow marijuana for
more than one patient.
The Supreme Court's decision to stay out of the matter effectively
upholds the 2008 ruling, which dismissed the government's argument
that the industry would be thrust into deregulation if the court
loosened federal restrictions.
The decision was a victory for a group of patients who argued that
the government-issued marijuana, supplied by Prairie Plant Systems in
Manitoba, is too weak and that they should have the option to find
their own supply.
The appeal court decision struck down regulations that allowed users
who can't grow their own marijuana to designate a grower, or to
obtain the drug from government.
The patients sought the right to buy marijuana from Carasel Harvest
Supply Corp., which, under the current regime, was not allowed to
supply more than one patient with medical marijuana.
There are about 2,000 people legally allowed to use marijuana for
medical purposes, but the lower court found that only 20 per cent buy
it from the government supplier.
Justice Department lawyer Sean Gaudet argued in the appeal court that
statistics weren't enough to conclude the government-supplied
marijuana was inadequate or that people were forced to seek drugs on
the illegal market.
Moreover, he argued, sanctioning growers to supply more than one
patient would allow the industry to develop "without safeguards" and
exacerbate the risk that marijuana will be diverted to improper use.
Judges Refuse To Hear Appeal; Medical Users Can Seek Other Suppliers
(CNS) Canadians who are legally permitted to smoke marijuana to treat
illness won a victory in the Supreme Court of Canada on Thursday when
it refused to hear an appeal of a ruling that put an end to the
federal monopoly.
A three-judge panel, without giving reasons, rejected the Justice
Department's application to challenge a Federal Court of Appeal
decision that gave licensed producers the right to grow marijuana for
more than one patient.
The Supreme Court's decision to stay out of the matter effectively
upholds the 2008 ruling, which dismissed the government's argument
that the industry would be thrust into deregulation if the court
loosened federal restrictions.
The decision was a victory for a group of patients who argued that
the government-issued marijuana, supplied by Prairie Plant Systems in
Manitoba, is too weak and that they should have the option to find
their own supply.
The appeal court decision struck down regulations that allowed users
who can't grow their own marijuana to designate a grower, or to
obtain the drug from government.
The patients sought the right to buy marijuana from Carasel Harvest
Supply Corp., which, under the current regime, was not allowed to
supply more than one patient with medical marijuana.
There are about 2,000 people legally allowed to use marijuana for
medical purposes, but the lower court found that only 20 per cent buy
it from the government supplier.
Justice Department lawyer Sean Gaudet argued in the appeal court that
statistics weren't enough to conclude the government-supplied
marijuana was inadequate or that people were forced to seek drugs on
the illegal market.
Moreover, he argued, sanctioning growers to supply more than one
patient would allow the industry to develop "without safeguards" and
exacerbate the risk that marijuana will be diverted to improper use.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...