SUPREMELY RIGHT

Wow. Colour us surprised. We thought if there was anything as certain
as death and taxes in this world, it would be the Supreme Court of
Canada issuing a ruling earlier this week that would surely legalize
pot.

Instead, the highest court in the land ruled 6-3 on Tuesday that
Canada's laws making marijuana possession illegal are
constitutional.

We're really happy about that because this is an issue that, like
every other major public policy issue in the country, should be
handled by our elected representatives and not our unelected judges.

And while we've been duly skeptical of the Liberal government's most
recent attempt to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of
marijuana, at least our elected officials are grappling with the very
divisive issue.

Writing for the majority, Supreme Court justices Charles Gonthier and
Ian Binnie were concerned only with whether Canada's pot laws were
constitutional and not whether they were necessarily good laws.

It's a fine legal line to walk, but it must be done. Unfortunatley,
too often it seems that courts give in to the impulse to create social
policy rather than simply rule on the legal questions.

In their decision, Gonthier and Binnie absolutely destroyed the legal
arguments that were put forward as to why the pot law is
unconstitutional. They wrote that "the so-called 'ineffectiveness' of
the prohibition of marijuana is simply another way of characterizing a
refusal to comply with the law."

And the judges concluded that the "desire to build a lifestyle around
the recreational use of marijuana doesn't attract charter
protection."

Canada's longstanding ban on pot possession has become controversial
in recent years, thanks to a strong lobby from pro-pot activists who
have used the willingness of activist lower courts in some provinces
to get their way. Public opinion, however, is still split on the
legalization of small amounts of marijuana.

The Liberals have tried to split the difference with a bill that would
make minor pot possession a ticketing offence instead of a criminal
one, but would clamp down on grow operations.

The Supreme Court's correct decision to leave this up to Parliament
also extends to the future.

Criminalization of marijuana possession is "a policy choice that falls
within the broad legislative scope of Parliament," the judges wrote.
"Equally, it is open to Parliament to decriminalize or otherwise
modify any aspect of the marijuana laws that it no longer considers to
be good public policy."

It's about time that advocates of the supremacy of Parliament won a
major public policy case being fought before the courts. This is the
way that Canada is supposed to operate.