POT USERS HAVE 'RIGHT TO RELAXATION', TOP COURT TOLD

OTTAWA - David Malmo-Levine, fortified by a quick toke of hash and dressed
from head to toe in clothing woven of hemp, took his crusade against
federal marijuana laws to the Supreme Court of Canada today.

The 31-year-old Vancouver man, one of three people appealing convictions
for breaking pot laws, couched his argument simply as he addressed the nine
poker-faced judges who patiently heard him out.

Nobody should be incarcerated, he said, for exercising a "right to
relaxation and well-being" that doesn't harm anybody else.

"We should not let anyone in this country point their finger, yell
'criminal,' and then lock up thousands of people . . . . This court must
protect human autonomy, which is in essence the right to pick and choose
our own tastes, our own pleasures."

Malmo-Levine, a self-described justice and freedom activist, made his pitch
amid an array of lawyers who offered more learned arguments for striking
down the current prohibition on pot use as an infringement of the Charter
of Rights.

He later acknowledged, during a break in the hearing, that he'd taken some
unusual steps to prepare for his day in court.

"I took a couple of hits off some bubble hash," he said, explaining that
the specially filtered cannabis resin helped him wake up and focus his mind.

"I was happy, hungry and relaxed, but I was not impaired."

Malmo-Levine wants the court to strike down all criminal sanctions against
marijuana, including penalties for growers and traffickers.

Lawyers for the others involved in the case framed the question more
narrowly, concentrating on whether people convicted of simple possession
should face jail time and be saddled with a criminal record.

"I don't mean to stand here and suggest there is a constitutional right to
smoke marijuana," said Toronto lawyer Paul Burstein.

But he did argue the government has been overstepping its legal authority
for the last 80 years by keeping a law on the books that provides for jail
terms in simple possession cases - even though judges rarely impose such
sentences nowadays.

John Conroy, representing a Vancouver-area man busted for smoking a single
joint in his van at a seaside parking lot, offered a similar assessment of
the law.

"If somebody lights up a marijuana cigarette in their own home, or even out
at the beach, where does the government get an interest in that?" asked Conroy.

"Normally we don't tell people what they can put in their bodies, under
threat of depriving them of their liberty."

Justice Minister Martin Cauchon and Prime Minister Jean Chretien have both
said the Liberal government will introduce legislation soon to
decriminalize possession of small amounts of pot for personal use.

That wouldn't mean outright legalization, but possession would be treated
as a minor offence subject to ticketing and fines, something like a traffic
violation.

Critics say there is no guarantee the long-promised bill will actually get
through Parliament before the next federal election is called, likely next
year.

They want the Supreme Court to set constitutional ground rules that would
force the hand of federal politicians and ensure that no future government
could backtrack on the issue.

Much of the legal argument centres on the question of whether smoking
marijuana does any harm - to the estimated one million Canadians who toke
up or to anybody else.

The challengers contend the health risks from moderate use are minimal, as
are the repercussions for society as a whole. They say continued criminal
sanctions merely breed disrespect for the law.

David Frankel, representing the federal Justice Department, noted there is
research indicating heavy users can develop bronchial problems,
schizophrenics' conditions can be aggravated by pot use and fetuses can be
harmed when pregnant women smoke.

Frankel's bottom line, however, was that the courts are ill-suited to sort
out such evidence, assess medical or societal harm and make policy choices.

"At the end of the day it is for Parliament to weigh and assess the various
competing interests and make a decision," he said.

"When reasonable people can differ, the appropriate forum for resolving
those differences, in our western democratic society, is the elected
legislators."

The court reserved judgment and will likely take several months to deliver
its ruling.