WILL JUDGES CLEAR AIR ON POT USE?

OTTAWA -- Potheads, anti-drug activists and occasional tokers will be
watching as Canada's high court rules today on whether simple possession of
marijuana should be a crime.

The much-anticipated judgment from the Supreme Court of Canada comes as the
federal government plans to reintroduce a hotly debated bill to
decriminalize possession of pot in small amounts.

"I have a lot of concerns," says Ontario Liberal MP Dan McTeague, who has
vocally opposed his own government's plans. "And I'm hoping the Supreme
Court will be looking before it leaps." McTeague says he and several other
Liberal MPs fear decriminalizing simple possession would send the wrong
message about drug use, especially to young people.

The Canadian Alliance and police agencies have also raised red flags, while
the NDP and pot proponents say it's time to legalize simple possession and
flex legal muscle elsewhere.

Canadians should have a say, McTeague said. "This is something that should
be tested in the next election." A federal vote is widely expected this
spring.

Prime Minister Paul Martin signalled last week that he'll reintroduce a
bill, first proposed under Jean Chretien, to wipe out criminal penalties --
including potential jail time and lasting records -- for those caught with
small amounts of pot.

The bill did not legalize pot, and maintained or increased already stiff
penalties for large-scale growers and traffickers.

The legislation died when Parliament was shut down last month to give Martin
a fresh start in January. It made possession of less than 15 grams of pot a
minor offence punishable by fines of $100 to $400, much like traffic
tickets.

Critics said 15 grams, the equivalent of roughly 15 to 20 joints, was too
much to equate with casual use.

They also questioned how police, with no equivalent of an alcohol breath
test, would assess those who drive while high. And they warned that
increased pot use would play into the hands of biker gangs and other shady
suppliers.

Martin has said he supports decriminalization in "very, very, very small
amounts." He has also invited a parliamentary committee to consider cutting
the original 15-gram proposal.

The divisive debate will reignite as the top court rules Tuesday on a trio
of cases.

A key question is whether federal law violates the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms by imposing criminal penalties, including potential jail time, for
possession of small amounts of pot.

The cases involve two self-described marijuana activists and one man who was
caught toking up. All three failed to convince lower courts that the pot law
is unconstitutional.

David Malmo-Levine, the most colourful of the three, took a hit of hash last
May before arguing his case in person at the high court while dressed
head-to-toe in hemp clothes.

He once ran the Harm Reduction Club, a non-profit co-operative in East
Vancouver that offered advice on safe pot use while supplying it to some
1,800 members.

Another case centres on Christopher Clay, who ran the Hemp Nation in London,
Ont., a store he started with a government loan. He sold marijuana seeds and
seedlings in a deliberate challenge to the law.

His lawyer, University of Toronto law professor Alan Young, says Parliament
has never proven that recreational pot use causes anything more serious than
bronchitis.

"And most of the justifications for its prohibition have been called into
question."

The third case involves Victor Caine, who was arrested by a police officer
after lighting a joint in a van in a parking lot in White Rock, B.C. He had
0.5 grams of pot in his possession.

Federal lawyers argued there is "no free-standing right to get stoned" and
said Parliament must be free, within reason, to criminalize behaviour as it
sees fit.

Defence lawyers said criminal penalties for minor drug offences are
disproportionate and violate the guarantee of fundamental justice in the
Charter.