PROSECUTOR ARGUES AGAINST POT LAW CHALLENGE

Any argument that a landmark marijuana case in 2000 deleted cannabis
from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is wrong, a federal
prosecutor argued Monday.

Kevin Wilson, with the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, argued
that two men challenging the country's marijuana possession laws had
no standing in Peterborough's Superior Court of Justice but could make
their arguments at trial in Ontario Court of Justice, which is a lower
court.

Mark MacDonald and Benny Almud have been charged separately with
possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking. Almud is also
charged with marijuana production.

Their cases are currently before the Ontario Court of
Justice.

Their application to superior court is that marijuana possession laws
were invalid for six years starting in 2003.

Both men have since been approved by Health Canada to use marijuana
for medical purposes.

Their central argument is the 2000 case when long-time
medicinal-marijuana advocate Terry Parker won the right to smoke pot
for medicinal purposes.

Parker was one of seven supporters in court Monday.

His legal victory gave medicinal-marijuana users the right to possess
less than 30 grams of pot but the presiding judge delayed the ruling's
effect for one year in hope the federal government would introduce a
medicinal marijuana law. The government didn't.

Instead, cabinet issued regulations for access to medicinal marijuana
one day before the year-long grace period ended in 2001.

In early 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled those medical access
regulations were unconstitutional because they were failing to provide
a legal supply of the drug. As a result of the ruling, marijuana
possession charges were stayed for about 4,000 people.

The government changed the medicinal marijuana regulation again in
2003, which marijuana activists argue made the laws invalid once more
until new changes in 2009.

The Parker decision did not have the effect of deleting marijuana from
the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and Parliament had no
obligation to reenact it because it was never removed, Wilson said.

"A declaration does not delete a provision from a statute," he
said.

MacDonald and Almud have put a "slightly new spin" by their reading of
the act that governs the interpretation of government statutes and
regulations," Wilson said.

"I grant them that that's inventive but completely misses the point
(of the act)."

Both sides had previously submitted case law to Madam Justice Cory A.
Gilmore, who presided Monday.

MacDonald was charged in December 2008 at his Otonabee- South Monaghan
home. OPP say they found 1,441 grams of marijuana bud worth $21,660
and 43 marijuana plants worth $21,400. Police also say they found
marijuana shake.

When police raided Almud's Smith-Ennismore-Lakefield home in July 2009
they found $144,554 worth of marijuana plants, bud and shake.

Outside court MacDonald said things went as expected, maybe
better.

He was the only one to address the court and said little, instead
directing the judge to cases they filed with their motion.

Gilmore denied activist John Turmel the right to speak on MacDonald's
behalf.

"I'm so new at this. I've never had a speeding ticket.... I'm kind of
shy and reserved as it is," MacDonald told The Examiner.

Turmel said Wilson's line of reasoning and case law supports their
argument. It's a matter of different interpretations of legal cases,
Turmel said.

Almud's 21-year-old granddaughter, Sabrina, is also charged with
possession for the purpose of trafficking and production. Almud has
said she had nothing to do with the drugs and was in the wrong place
at the wrong time.

The Almuds will be in Ontario Court of Justice on Tuesday and
MacDonald on Wednesday.

Gilmore said she would issue her decision in writing but did not set a
date.