BLACK TUESDAY FOR CANADIAN CANNAPHILES

Canadian Courts Unleash a Pack of Anti-Pot Rulings

Today Ontario's highest court, the Court of Appeals blew the drug war
trumpet loud and clear in a series of much-awaited legal decisions
including Rogin, Hitzig, Parker, Turmel and Paquette. The court opened
season on Ontario residents who possess under 30 grams, who for the
last few months have enjoyed relative immunity from the law. On a
lighter note, the ruling also opened the way for compassion clubs to
receive legal licenses.

Cannabis Culture contacted legal-expert and university professor Alan
Young, who shepherded the Hitzig decision through the courts with the
help of Leora Shemesh, a lawyer with Neuberger/Rose.

"I bet as I'm speaking to you right now some kid's being busted on the
streets of Toronto," he said regretfully. "For about a week or two, it
will be very dangerous to smoke pot in Ontario. Reassertion of power
is always very overbearing."

Lumping together appeals to a decision involving an unnamed young
offender, which confirmed pot possession was legal in Ontario; the
Hitzig decision, which declared medical marijuana access regulations
(MMAR) unconstitutional; and a claim by Parker and Turmel that
marijuana laws are genocidal; the Ontario Court of Appeals ruled that
possession in Ontario is illegal, as of today's ruling.

The crux of the complex multi-case decision was Hitzig et al, where
the Ontario Court of Appeals ordered changes to the MMAR that would
allow compassion clubs to get licenses from the government to grow for
medical users, and to receive financial compensation for their
efforts. Previously, licensed growers could only provide to one medpot
user each, could only grow together in groups of three, and couldn't
receive compensation for their efforts.

The Ontario Court of Appeals also struck out MMAR requirements that
forced applicants to get recommendations from more than one doctor,
often making it impossible for sick people to find enough specialists
to fill out their forms. The decision didn't address one of medpot
advocates' most pressing concerns, however: sections of the MMAR that
imperil doctor's licenses, leading colleges of physicians across
Canada to advise against signing the forms.

Alan Young, Terry Parker, John Turmel and Marc Paquette hoped that the
decision would yield more fruit. They had argued that possession laws
should be thrown out altogether. It all goes back to Parker's July,
2000 case, when the courts gave the government one year to change the
drug laws to allow for medical access, or possession laws would be
invalid - wiped out because they were unconstitutional. The government
dragged its feet, but one year later published the MMAR, the medpot
regs. Then, when the Hitzig decision declared the MMAR
unconstitutional, the legal team argued that possession laws should be
unconstitutional by default, since the government hadn't met its one
year deadline in Parker.

The court dismissed the line of reasoning as an "overly broad" remedy
to the issue of sick people getting their medicine. Alan Young, who
worked on the series of cases leading up to Hitzig for several years,
was disappointed.

"I'm unhappy because the parts that they fixed don't solve the
problem," he explained. "I could take the loss if the remedy
pertaining to access to medical marijuana was more practical. All
they've done is create a situation where we could start applying to
run large grow-op compassion clubs. Well we are going to call the
court's bluff and get compassion clubs to apply."

Alan Young is also considering an appeal to the Supreme Court of
Canada.

Other decisions rendered by the Ontario Court of Appeals were equally
unfavourable. The accusation that marijuana laws were genocidal, for
example, brought by John Turmel and Terry Parker, was dispatched like
a fly, smacked to death in one shot by a degradingly short ruling.

The Ontario Court of Appeals today also dispatched the court case that
had everyone in Ontario puffing phatties this summer - the case of a
young person, argued by Brian McAllister. McAllister's argument was
so successful in Ontario provincial and supreme courts that the
province suspended possession charges under 30 grams. Nova Scotia,
PEI and British Columbia followed suit.

Like Alan Young's, Brian McAllister's argument was also based on the
July, 2000 Parker decision - the one that gave the government a year
to change possession laws to allow for medical use. When McAllister's
case was appealed to the Ontario Supreme Court, Justice Rogin ruled
that pot possession laws where utterly wiped out at the one-year
Parker deadline on July 31, 2001, and needed to be reenacted by the
government. The Ontario Court of Appeals crashed the multi-province
pot party, however, ruling that no reenactment of the laws was necessary.

In a strange twist, the Ontario Court of Appeals also ruled that pot
laws were invalid between April 12 and today - April 12 being the date
when the young person in McAllister's case was first charged. Anyone
in Ontario facing charges incurred during this period should apply to
have them dismissed.

Canadians in the provinces of British Columbia, PEI and Nova Scotia
may be still somewhat protected by the immunities afforded in their
provinces, but judges there might also decide to follow this most
recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeals, leading to a series
of skirmishes in courts around the country.

Meanwhile, the Malmo-Levine/Clay/Caine decision is about to be
unleashed by Canada's Supreme Court, trumping whatever the provincial
courts decide. Sources say the mammoth ruling is expected any day.